I already insist on the tool's opening and withdrawal envelope in other reviews, so our own FR10 sketch for 79 aluminium blanks is embarrassing: it shows neither the gripper body nor the open door. Who should bring those together, and what should remain undecided until they do?
The integrator should own the combined arrangement, with the machine and tool suppliers providing identified geometry; an arm choice stays provisional until the complete proposed route has been assessed.
Put machine service space in the layout too. We've had a robot position clear the normal movement and still occupy the place needed to remove a panel. Different problem, same floor space
Do you have a definite tool assembly to assess, Reece, or only a gripper model? A dimensioned assembly outline is a useful inexpensive starting point, but it must describe the proposed fingers and adapter as well.
That is exactly where our earlier FR5 review stalled: brochure present, adapter and fingers absent. I kept the candidate provisional. It was missing evidence about the arrangement, not evidence that the arm could never do the job.
Isabel, did purchasing accept that distinction? People hear provisional as 'please get three prices for something larger', then the new arm inherits the same missing tool drawing
I cannot claim the whole purchasing process was settled. In the discussion I posted, I had decided to keep the comparison provisional; the complete assembly was still what we lacked.
Bruno's service space needs an owner too. Maintenance should mark what must be accessed or removed. Don't expect a tool designer to guess your panel-removal job.
In our teaching bay I also want the routine fixture change shown. Not only repair access. The equipment can be technically reachable while the person changing a fixture has nowhere sensible to put the removed one.
Beatrice, is that storage during the change or the route out of the bay? I would show both if they differ, because the person writing the instruction may otherwise assume one convenient empty space serves every step.
Both in my example. We initially drew a place for the removed fixture but forgot how it got there. Thank you for separating the two; that is clearer than my note saying changeover space.
The integrator has agreed to own the combined review. Machine service and fixture-change areas are being marked by our team while the tool assembly is completed; no alternative base position has been proposed
And keep geometric access separate from application safety approval. A route that fits is necessary evidence, not a complete decision about the supervised cell.
We once compared clearances from two drawings with different reference origins. I'd ask for the combined model's datum and revisions to be explicit before discussing small margins.
Ivan, did the difference change the arrangement or only the reported margin? That seems worth distinguishing before a review spends money on a new model.
I like starting with that reconciliation. Paying for detail on a layout nobody agrees about is frustrating, especially when maintenance is already booking time to review it
We now have an identified assembly and combined layout, but the empty-tool withdrawal passes through a door fitting. The integrator is reviewing that interference; neither a base move nor a different arm is selected
That is a specific interference to resolve, not a general reach verdict; any proposed tool or layout change must return through the combined review, including the access areas your team added.