I'm checking unforced contact on the drilled angle-bracket samples before accepting our proposed FR5 nest. They seat differently despite the tidy CAD fit. A stronger clamp has been suggested, but I want to compare the actual nest with its intended location scheme first. Which measurement should lead?
Find the contact that changes between samples, then identify what that feature is meant to do. I've seen a bench nest blamed as a design when its fitted support heights didn't match the drawing. You need the intended scheme and the as-built condition in the same enquiry.
Where is the visible gap before clamping, Carla? Under the base, beside an upright contact, or over a locator? A description of rocking alone doesn't tell us which constraint is suspect.
Under one end of the base. Two other contacts touch. The designer's CAD view shows all three base supports touching, but we haven't measured their fitted heights yet.
Does the loader have to press a particular corner to make it appear seated? I'd retain the ordinary unforced placement as well as the designer's demonstration. A practised little push can make an awkward nest look wonderfully repeatable to visitors.
Beth, the designer held that corner down for the photograph. Our ordinary placements leave it high on some samples. Dinesh, inspection has the identified brackets and their drawing revision now.
Is that high corner supposed to be driven down by the clamp, or should the bracket locate before clamping? Ask the designer to state the intended function.
Bruno, yes. I'm not claiming every manual force means the design is wrong. I want Carla's ordinary placement and the deliberately held photo kept as different observations.
The drawing expects the bracket to settle on the base supports before the clamp retains it. The held photo was not the intended loading method. That answers the ambiguity, not the height difference yet.
Inspection found the bracket sample features within the relevant limits. Toolroom found one fitted support higher than the issued nest drawing: it has the wrong spacer underneath. We have preserved the seating observations and stopped the clamp purchase.
That is an as-built mismatch, not yet proof the intended contact scheme handles every permitted bracket. Correct the assembly under the toolroom's procedure, then repeat the identified sample comparison against the drawing requirements.
And check what the loader sees at ordinary access height. If the specified arrangement is difficult to seat or confirm, a corrected dimension alone might not finish the handover problem.
Bruno, both spacers were in one unlabelled trial-parts box; the issued list is specific. Beth, the usual loader will take part in the repeated bench placements. Toolroom has restored the specified support assembly.
The same samples now settle on the defined supports. Inspection's repeated-placement checks meet the agreed location requirement, and the loader completed the normal bench placements without the corner push. We have not assessed automated loading yet.
That's a useful distinction. The bench loading observation answers my concern about the hidden push. The automatic presentation and release still need their own check.
The trial spacer box is now separated by reference and the wrong stack is retained as the investigation sample. I've recorded a corrected assembly and successful defined bench checks, not a production-ready FR5 fixture.