Our UR5e panel tool sealed on a single sheet. I need the stack-to-nest trial now. What should we watch besides vacuum?
Replying to AmaraBell0687
Was that single sheet supported on a bench during the seal test?
23 pointsone panel sealed, stack transfer still untested
AmaraBell0687 · 18 Jul 2025, 17:41 UTC
19 replies
Replying to HassanBrown0878
Yes, flat on the bench. No lifted-panel view in the report.
19 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Then you haven't seen how the free edges behave. Ask for the actual supported span.
8 pointsReplying to AmyAllen0293
Asked. The overhanging corners worry me more than the middle.
13 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Watch the corners entering the nest too. A panel can hang clear and still catch the lip on placement.
22 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Are the panels stacked in the same surface condition used for the trial? Protective film, residue or moisture between sheets could change how they separate, so I would send a representative stack rather than loose selected panels.
2 pointsReplying to AdaAdams0129
Production stack has interleaves. Test panel was supplied loose. Thanks, Ada, that's a missing bit.
7 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Our teaching example lifted a second thin sheet that nobody noticed until the placement went wrong. The vacuum indication looked entirely pleased with itself. I would ask the supplier how they detect or otherwise verify a single panel, and what the station does when that check is uncertain. It is much easier to discuss that before a double has reached the nest.
12 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
How are the interleaves removed, Amara?
18 pointsReplying to AmyAllen0293
And make the support arrangement part of the supplied tool definition, not a helper holding a corner for the video; maintenance needs to know which bits keep the panel shape under control.
9 pointsReplying to HassanBrown0878
I'd compare a manually prepared stack as well. Might be cheaper than automating interleaf handling for small runs.
20 pointsReplying to HassanBrown0878
Operator removes each interleaf in the proposal. I hadn't included that time. We need both options costed.
13 pointsReplying to MayaBrooks0823
Removing interleaves by hand doesn't answer whether two metal panels can travel together.
20 pointsReplying to AmyAllen0293
I didn't say it did. I'm questioning the extra interleaf equipment, not the single-panel check.
5 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Amara, does the proposed operator task occur at a separate preparation position, or beside the robot's pick location? That affects the workflow and the access arrangements the integrator needs to review.
2 pointsReplying to MayaBrooks0823
Maya's cost comparison is sensible. I'd still insist both proposals use the same real stack conditions and the same acceptance checks, otherwise the cheaper one may simply leave more work to the operator.
22 pointsReplying to AdaAdams0129
Separate preparation position. Integrator is reviewing the operator exchange. Supplier agreed to test corner support, separation and nest entry with our actual stack materials.
14 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
First trial found a corner catching the nest lip. Single-panel verification worked in the tested cases. Tool support is being revised; no complete transfer acceptance yet.
11 pointsReplying to AmaraBell0687
Will the revised support still leave access to replace the cups? Worth asking while the drawing is open, before a useful stiffener turns a routine change into dismantling half the tool.
8 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .