JasperChan1073 · 29 Nov 2025, 14:50 UTC
Have tooling compare that rim with the intended contacts using the retained covers. A repeatable image needs a repeatable seat, not a more determined person pushing the edge down.
24 pointsTooling has both accepted and rejected samples. One accepted cover catches the lip most often. We kept it in, rather than choose the convenient one.
16 pointsDoes that cover's rim differ from the others within the intended incoming range? The designer needs to know whether the holder must accommodate it, not simply remove whichever sample causes the repeat images to vary.
18 pointsWithin drawing, confirmed by inspection. Different rim shape within the allowed range. Designer is considering the contact arrangement, no change made yet.
3 pointsCan the loader see when the rim is above the lip?
18 pointsSam's question matters for any proposed checking method. If they can't see it, a note saying ensure fully seated is not much of a solution.
13 pointsNot from the usual loading side. That's in the design request. No instruction asking operators to confirm an invisible contact.
6 pointsWill the eventual comparison include the loader repeating the placement, rather than the designer carefully arranging each cover? That is where the practical seating uncertainty belongs.
16 pointsYes, loader included. Thanks Anil. The old images remain labelled by their known setup; new acceptance images wait for the revised-holder comparison.
22 pointsWho keeps the difficult accepted cover from getting mixed back into production?
6 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .