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。

FR5 polymer-blank removal reaches a fixture inside an incomplete machine

AnilArcher0375 · 2026年6月26日 23:12 UTC

回复讨论
AN
AnilArcher0375
Our FR5 sketch omits the gripper body and parked door. It reaches the polymer blank, not an established unloading route. What must the combined review contain?

14 条回复

TH
TheoBarnes0584

Start with the complete held assembly and a measured door position. A cheap outline comparison can expose an obvious clash before a detailed model, but don't ask it to establish clearance all along a route it never represents.

8
AN
AnilArcher0375

We have the gripper body dimensions, but fingers and adapter are only catalogue references. Door survey not done. Even the outline comparison needs more inputs.

19
NI
NinaAli0240

Yes, and include the blank at the intended grip position; a rectangular blank hanging farther out can occupy the space you thought the body dimensions had left clear. Who owns combining those inputs into the actual removal sequence?

9
IS
IsaacBennett0781

I'd include the setter in that scope. They can explain how the blank and fixture are accessed when an ordinary unload can't finish, which is easy to omit from a sequence drawn only for a successful cycle.

22
AN
AnilArcher0375

Integrator owns it. Setter is joining the survey. Supplier will provide the assembled tool at the proposed grip depth rather than another list of part numbers.

17
LE
LeahChan1104

Nina and Isaac are asking for different things that need to meet on one layout: occupied tool space and the person's working space. I would keep both visible while comparing base positions, not solve one and hope the other still fits.

2
TH
TheoBarnes0584

Leah, yes, though Anil hasn't proposed a base move yet. The original location might fail or survive once they finally draw the missing objects.

8
LE
LeahChan1104

Fair correction. I meant any base options the integrator might propose, not that Anil already had alternatives. First get the current arrangement represented properly.

12
AN
AnilArcher0375

Survey shows the proposed base overlaps the setter's fixture-removal trolley space. Tool geometry is still being finished, so we have one identified layout conflict, not a complete verdict on unloading.

12
NI
NinaAli0240

Has the setter explained whether that trolley space is fixed by the removal method, or whether an alternative is practical? Neither the base nor the trolley should win simply because it was drawn first.

11
IS
IsaacBennett0781

Nina, that's worth asking with the setter there. I've heard just move the trolley offered by people who had never seen how the fixture gets onto it. There may be options, but they need to describe the actual job.

18
AN
AnilArcher0375

The setter demonstrated why that trolley position is needed for the existing removal method. Integrator is proposing a different base position; it now needs the full tool-route review, which remains incomplete.

6
TH
TheoBarnes0584

So leave arm selection open. Moving the base on paper is a candidate, not proof the FR5 can do the intended unload from there.

23
AN
AnilArcher0375

Selection stays open. The candidate drawing names the changed base and the outstanding route review; the original location is withdrawn because of the identified setter-access conflict.

22

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。