NinaChan1110 · 27 Sept 2025, 04:30 UTC
We have the same empty-pallet view problem on a UR5e proposal. Ask for a section through an upper box and whatever is directly below its supports. No need for another beautiful overhead picture.
7 pointsDoes packaging have the packed box, or only its outside dimensions?
19 pointsTooling needs that section too. I suggested aligned layers in another discussion, but that was only an option to assess, not a replacement for checking the actual support and finger withdrawal together.
9 pointsLiam, packaging has packed samples. They specified two bearing strips. The layout designer drew the box outline but left those strips out of the layer views.
19 pointsThen the missing information already exists. I'd have it drawn before changing the pattern.
19 pointsYes. We've been discussing pattern changes before drawing what each box actually rests on. Slightly backwards, now I say it aloud.
21 pointsBen, thanks. That's the cheap first step I was trying to get at.
10 pointsAnd retain the packed condition when options are compared. A different internal pack can move the support problem while leaving the outside rectangle unchanged. We have had that confusion on a sample-handling job.
10 pointsThe new section is back. One bearing strip crosses a finger channel on the upper layer. Packaging and tooling disagree on how to change it, so there is no approval yet.
20 pointsWhat are the two suggestions? There's finally something concrete to compare.
1 pointsI'd be interested too. In particular, whether either suggestion adds work at carton preparation or pallet removal; those jobs can disappear when everyone concentrates on the tool between two boxes.
11 pointsNina, did the section change anyone's view of the original pattern, even if they haven't agreed the replacement? Getting them to argue about the same gap feels like progress.
8 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .