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。

Our FR5 steel-blank sketch makes the open door disappear

WillChen1183 · 2026年1月3日 23:06 UTC

已关闭
WI
WillChen1183
I'm not ready to choose the FR5 for our steel-blank exchange. The sketch shows a reachable fixture and a lovely empty opening, which is where the real door and gripper body ought to be. The setter walked me through changing that fixture manually. Their trolley turns across the proposed base position, and the clamping handle needs space that isn't in the top view. I don't want to tell them to work around a robot we haven't even bought. What should the integrator combine first so we can compare a real arrangement rather than keep redrawing the arm?

17 条回复

SA
SamBrooks0855

Do you have the complete proposed tool holding the blank, with the adapter and connections, or is that still another drawing to obtain?

17
LU
LucyBell0654

Give the integrator the setter's route as a design requirement now. Then combine measured machine geometry with the complete tool. A different base may be an option, but it needs its own access check before it becomes the convenient answer.

20
WI
WillChen1183

Sam, fingers are drawn but the body and connections are not. Lucy, setter's route is marked on the current layout. I've asked for the full assembly against a surveyed opening.

16
FA
FarahBennett0765

Is the clamping handle fixed in the position that conflicts, or does the changeover require a range of movement? The model should describe the actual requirement, not whichever position was photographed.

23
WI
WillChen1183

It moves through an arc during fixture changes. Setter has shown that required movement, not just its parked position. We haven't proposed moving the handle.

6
ZA
ZaraBrown0917

Could a different approach from the same base be compared? It may not help the trolley, but I'd like to know which problem actually rules the location out.

22
SA
SamBrooks0855

Zara, the trolley already crosses the base position in Will's account. A different arm approach cannot move the base out of that path.

4
ZA
ZaraBrown0917

You're right, I read that as the arm crossing it. Base itself is in the way. My suggestion doesn't answer that.

4
WI
WillChen1183

Yes, the base footprint. Setter has rejected that position. Integrator is considering a farther position, with no claim yet about the complete tool reaching or clearing the opening.

15
LU
LucyBell0654

Keep that rejection visible in the cost enquiry. Otherwise the original position can remain in an installation allowance after the engineering discussion has moved on.

2
FA
FarahBennett0765

For the farther candidate, has the integrator included the empty return as well as the loaded movement? It is easy to spend all the attention on the blank leaving the fixture.

17
WI
WillChen1183

Full tool model and door survey have arrived. The farther candidate is now being checked through loaded movement and empty return, Farah. Nothing has been fabricated or ordered.

20
SA
SamBrooks0855

Does that model include the connected lines, not only the metal fittings?

5
ZA
ZaraBrown0917

And has purchasing stopped using the original installation allowance? Lucy's point is worth closing before it quietly becomes a commitment.

8
WI
WillChen1183

Sam, the connection routing is defined in the model. Zara, the old position is removed from the enquiry and the farther one is labelled provisional. No fixed installation price yet.

13
WI
WillChen1183

Loaded route has an unresolved clearance at the door linkage. Integrator is assessing a changed tool orientation; the farther base hasn't been accepted. Thanks Sam for catching my base versus arm wording in that exchange.

6
FA
FarahBennett0765

Will the changed orientation retain the intended grip on the blank? Keep that together with its load and access review, rather than rotating only the convenient outline.

20

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: .