I watched the panel-tool demo again and the first useful action is a person lifting one sheet off the stack for it. The UR5e then takes that sheet to the nest. Our quote describes taking panels from the stack, and the vacuum report only covers the seal on the separated panel.
I'm not saying the tool can't do it. I just don't want the hand-separating job to quietly become our operator's problem after we've bought it. What should the supplier demonstrate or explain before we choose this arrangement?
I've been asking the same question about another panel trial: if the samples arrive already separated, the interesting part has happened before the demonstration starts. Take a representative received stack to the review and ask for the whole proposed route to the nest. Include how one panel is established, how it's supported and what happens when the system cannot establish that. The seal result can stay in the pack. It just leaves plenty unanswered.
We have an unopened stack from the intended supply. Supplier knew that was the starting point. I'm asking them to mark the hand separation explicitly on the demo sequence instead of calling the whole thing automatic.
I'd want that answer before treating the person as hidden operating labour. The demonstration may be incomplete without the proposed process actually needing someone there every cycle.
Ask them to include the condition of the panel when it reaches the nest as well, since a successful single-panel pickup would not tell you whether the unsupported portion bends or catches during placement
And don't substitute a row of loose panels for your unopened stack at the review. You can inspect the incoming condition, obviously, but keep the actual preparation work visible if someone starts doing it.
Nothing shown, Henry. The drawing has the tool centre moving to a dot. Luca's point is awkwardly relevant: the panel outline disappears from that part of the sketch.
Does the nest designer know which panel orientation the tool supplier intends, Jack? I would get those two looking at the same view rather than sending separate questions about each end
They've now agreed to review together, using the same received stack and proposed orientation. No revised tool offered yet. Separation and support are both still questions, not findings from another trial.
Who decides whether an uncertain pickup is held for attention, and how will the operator know what needs checking? I'd put that in the joint discussion. A sensor description on its own won't explain the job when it cannot give a reliable answer.
Review hasn't happened yet. They're still preparing the proposal. I've added Nina's uncertain-pickup question, and our unopened stack is staying available for the agreed comparison.
Useful to know it's still a proposal. I'd keep the original demo described as transfer of a hand-separated panel, so nobody reading the quote later mistakes it for the missing stack trial.