How should our FR5 check an insert after someone takes it out?

BeatriceBailey · 1 Aug 2025, 20:07 UTC

Closed
BE
BeatriceBailey
Our teaching fixture has two connector-housing inserts with the same outer shape. One also sits backwards without looking obviously wrong. We caught that during a bench changeover, before putting the fixture into use. I want the students to learn a sensible setup check, not that the recipe name somehow recognises a lump of tooling. How should removal and refitting affect the confirmation?

8 replies

JO
JoFixtures
Replying to BeatriceBailey

Removal should make the previous setup confirmation useless, and I'd ask the tool designer to make the backwards fit impossible if practical, because a beautifully labelled wrong insert is still wrong.

16 points
BE
BeatriceBailey
Replying to JoFixtures

Our confirmation currently survives closing and reopening the setup screen. There's no link to insert removal. I've flagged that to controls and asked tooling about the backwards fit.

16 points
SA
SamAdams0159
Replying to BeatriceBailey

Try the two inserts against the drawings with the tutor first. A small distinguishing feature may already exist, although it might be too well hidden to help students.

15 points
BE
BeatriceBailey
Replying to SamAdams0159

There is a shallow notch underneath one. Thanks Sam, I'd missed it too. Useful for identifying the loose insert, not much help once it is bolted down.

10 points
JO
JoFixtures
Replying to BeatriceBailey

Put that notch on the designer's list, it could be useful to a revised locating arrangement, but don't ask students to remember which invisible notch they saw five minutes ago.

12 points
BE
BeatriceBailey
Replying to JoFixtures

Tooling has now proposed a keyed carrier for orientation. Controls has a draft re-confirmation step after fixture change, but physical family identification is still undecided. We haven't taught it as a finished changeover method.

13 points
JO
JoFixtures
Replying to BeatriceBailey

Good to leave it unfinished in the lesson, though I'd show them why the carrier alone won't distinguish the two housing families unless that feature is included too.

23 points
OM
OmarBrown0926
Replying to BeatriceBailey

Our trainees found a deliberate wrong-family example easier to understand than the correct example alone. Could your eventual supervised check include both, once the design is settled?

6 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .