Our UR5e spacer tray behaves until we use the other tray

JonasChan1068 · 17 Dec 2025, 23:11 UTC

Closed
JO
JonasChan1068
New locator helped the first tray. Replacement tray missed. I'm dropping fixed from the trial note.

18 replies

AL
AlexAdams0124
Replying to JonasChan1068

Keep the improvement in it too. Which tray and which observed change?

11 points
LO
LouisBell0659
Replying to JonasChan1068

Who prepared the trays during the successful runs, Jonas?

10 points
JO
JonasChen1155
Replying to JonasChan1068

Our replacement recess was outside its drawing requirement; have you compared yours, rather than assume the new locator itself is wrong?

13 points
JO
JonasChan1068
Replying to AlexAdams0124

Alex, first tray seated without the old sideways shuffle. Louis, I prepared it. JonasChen, not measured yet.

12 points
IM
ImranAllen0305
Replying to JonasChan1068

You can describe that observed improvement now, with the preparation you supplied, while leaving the replacement-tray problem open. It does not have to be either a universal fix or a useless modification.

20 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to JonasChan1068

Our night shift once got a locator instruction that assumed everyone knew where to push the tray. The author had done every trial. Let the eventual loader try the seating check before it becomes routine.

19 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to AishaBell0692

Aisha, exactly; the designer's practiced hands are an unlisted fixture component in a lot of demonstrations

15 points
AA
AaronBrown0871
Replying to JamieAllen0295

That operator comparison is useful, but the replacement tray still needs its physical discrepancy checked; a clearer instruction cannot compensate for a tray that does not meet the intended locating geometry.

9 points
WA
Warren_Blair
Replying to AaronBrown0871

Aaron, agreed. I'd keep both jobs visible in the handover. Otherwise one team will wait for a better instruction and the other will wait for new hardware, and neither will own the next trial.

8 points
JO
JonasChan1068
Replying to Warren_Blair

Tooling has both trays and the missed spacer now. Shift trainer owns the loading check with them.

5 points
LO
LouisCarter1007
Replying to JonasChan1068

Ask tooling to define the acceptable tray interface from the intended assembly drawing. A comparison between two trays may reveal a difference without establishing which geometry the locator is meant to accept.

5 points
JA
JasperBrown0899
Replying to JonasChan1068

Has the replacement been measured yet, Jonas?

8 points
JO
JonasChan1068
Replying to JasperBrown0899

Yes. One locating recess is shallow against the drawing. Supplier reviewing replacement; no trial result.

18 points
JO
JonasChen1155
Replying to JonasChan1068

Keep that result tied to the measured tray; our spare-tray checks remained open after finding the first bad recess.

21 points
AL
AlexAdams0124
Replying to JonasChan1068

And did the ordinary loader try the first tray without your help?

16 points
JO
JonasChan1068
Replying to AlexAdams0124

Not yet. Check is planned, not done. First-tray result still describes my supervised setup.

16 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to JonasChan1068

Thanks for saying that plainly; the next reader can follow what improved without inheriting an independence claim nobody tested

6 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to JonasChan1068

Will you put the eventual replacement and loader results in the same note? That would help the other shift see whether the changeover instruction actually covers the trays they receive.

15 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .