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。
ChloeBaker0483 · 2025年2月8日 16:07 UTC
The change over repeated handling is useful evidence, are the dull crescents matching the pad contacts and has anyone checked what's building up on those pads?
8分Yes, same arcs as the contacts. There's visible residue on the pads, though we don't know if it's from the coating or the packing process.
13分Keep those used pads for the tooling supplier and compare them with unused ones, a fresh-pad beauty contest won't tell you how often the operator will need to clean or replace them.
10分Inspection conditions. Agree where and how the crescents are judged before comparing pad materials. Keep accepted production samples beside the trial pieces. Otherwise a change of light at the packing bench can look like a change in tooling performance
6分And keep release in the acceptance trial, getting a housing into the tray doesn't count if it comes back up attached to the jaw.
11分Quality picked a viewing light and reference pieces with us. They reject the dull crescents. Thanks for the used-pad suggestion, those are going back with the marked housings.
18分We had a residue problem that only appeared after a packaging change. Did your sample housings all go through the same cleaning and packing route, or did somebody prepare the first few specially?
2分What will happen when a pad is replaced during production? The trial needs a documented pad condition and replacement method. Otherwise repeated use may look acceptable until somebody fits a different thickness and changes the contact geometry.
12分Exactly, ask the toolmaker to specify the consumable and its fitting method with the fingers, otherwise maintenance gets handed a part number and a small improvisation exercise.
21分First samples were wiped especially for the demo. The later ones weren't. We're repeating with our normal incoming condition and adding release and pad replacement to the trial, no material winner yet.
4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： .