FR10 restart offers a spacer pocket that may already be occupied

DanielBrooks0826 · 2025年10月13日 09:33 UTC

已关闭

主帖中文翻译暂不可用,以下显示英文原文;回复保留原文。 查看英文原文

DA
DanielBrooks0826
Our spacer-transfer helper saves the next pocket after release, so an interrupted run can leave the part placed while the file still points at its occupied destination; I need the recovery design settled before this bench becomes a normal production dependency.

20 条回复

MA
MayaChen1171

What evidence does recovery have besides the saved pocket number? The part may be in the tool, at the destination or elsewhere after someone intervened.

20分
DI
DineshBrown0908

Is the destination tray identified individually? Another tray of the same type could have different occupied pockets.

6分
EL
ElliotBrown0944

Model an uncertain transfer explicitly. Saving before movement records intent; saving afterward records a conclusion only if the completion evidence is reliable. Neither timing choice removes every interruption gap.

11分
MA
MayaChen1171

Elliot, agreed. I would want the actual evidence listed for each state before anybody decides what a restart button is allowed to do.

2分
DA
DanielBrooks0826

Maya, currently only the index and job label; Dinesh, no individual tray identity, and Elliot, our programmer is mapping the uncertain cases instead of simply moving the save earlier.

11分
BE
BethChan1107

What does the operator currently see after reopening the helper?

-2分
DI
DineshBrown0908

Beth, that matters. A normal-looking next-pocket prompt could persuade somebody the software already checked the tray when it hasn't.

13分
MA
MayaChen1171

Keep identifying what is known and unknown. The message should not imply the operator can resolve every case by looking at one pocket.

6分
DA
DanielBrooks0826

Beth, it shows the saved pocket as next; that resume option is withdrawn while we review recovery, and the proposed screen marks unresolved transfer state instead.

7分
BE
BethChan1107

Will that unresolved screen name the source and destination, not only the pocket number?

7分
EL
ElliotBrown0944

Include the tool state and physical reconciliation route too. Run offline interruption tests at each action and persistence boundary, then validate the approved recovery with the cell owners before production use.

11分
DI
DineshBrown0908

Would those tests include somebody changing the tray during the interruption, Elliot? That is where I would expect a stored identity to become misleading.

4分
EL
ElliotBrown0944

Yes, including a mismatch or unreadable identity. It must not silently inherit the old tray's occupancy. Also include a part removed from the tool before recovery begins.

8分
DA
DanielBrooks0826

Beth, both ends are named in the proposed view; Dinesh and Elliot, tray exchange and manual part removal are in the test list, with neither treated as an automatic repeat.

6分
MA
MayaChen1171

Who agrees the physical reconciliation instructions? They need to match the actual cell, not just the programmer's state names.

11分
DA
DanielBrooks0826

Cell owner and controls lead are agreeing them with the operator trainer; the offline model now holds the uncertain cases, but there is no approved operational recovery yet.

13分
BE
BethChan1107

Maya, do you also test whether the reviewer understands why it stopped? A correct state can still leave the operator with no idea whom to call.

21分
MA
MayaChen1171

Yes. We ask someone outside the design meeting to explain the screen back. If they think unknown means empty, the wording has failed even if the state table is correct.

13分
DI
DineshBrown0908

Thanks, Maya. That's a useful check without needing another run on the hardware.

18分
EL
ElliotBrown0944

Daniel, include a crash during the reconciliation save too. Recovery work can itself be interrupted, and reopening must not invent a completed decision from a half-written one.

15分

讨论已关闭

此讨论已连续六个月没有活动,现已关闭新回复。 最后活动: .