简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
HassanArcher0356 · 2024年12月10日 11:31 UTC
That's a fairly large omission, does the drawing at least have the full twin-gripper body or is it only showing a tool centre point?
20分Full body, one workpiece, and no open-door handle.
25分Ask for each occupied state, the spare blank may be the thing that meets the handle even when the active fingers have plenty of room.
24分I have added an exchange sequence with both positions occupied at withdrawal; the reviewer had assumed the finished part went to a tray before the new blank was collected.
13分Ah, thanks for finding the sequence mismatch, that means the clearance discussion and the quoted cycle need to use the same version now.
20分We changed from single to twin tooling and lost the place where we used to put the setting gauge. Nobody noticed in the cycle drawing. Put the setup routine through this review as well.
8分Yes, and include the person who'll change those fingers, two sets of fasteners tucked behind a machine door can make a decent cycle a pain to maintain.
18分Our handover only covered normal production. Can I ask what happens to the part still in the other gripper when a cycle is interrupted?
5分That recovery case is not defined in the proposal; I have added it as an acceptance question, not assumed it can repeat the normal route.
10分The revised layout has arrived. Both occupied positions are now modelled, but the reviewer requests a measured handle position before making a clearance judgement.
6分Please get the handle and actual door stop measured together, our last nominal door drawing left just enough imaginary space to make the tool look brilliant.
10分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .