Our FR10 option needs the same complete access comparison I have asked for elsewhere, but this sketch still shows the aluminium blank without its gripper or open door; can the integrator include normal unloading and maintenance removal in one surveyed layout before we shortlist it?
Can the FR10 unloading comparison use the complete tool-removal envelope?
LuisArcher0434 · 2026年3月17日 02:40 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
9 条回复
Yes, with the activities kept identifiable. Normal handling needs the full tool and blank through withdrawal, receiving release and empty return. Maintenance removal needs its own equipment and working space. One convenient arm pose will answer neither properly.
23分The revised study uses our survey and complete tool, and the normal sequence clears, but maintenance removal is still an arrow pointing through a cabinet.
17分Does that cabinet move as part of the intended maintenance method? If not, the arrow is describing a different workshop.
17分Fixed cabinet, and maintenance has no removal method requiring it to move; I have sent that back rather than letting the arrow become an assumption.
13分What does the maintenance team need to remove, and with what equipment? Ask them to mark the approach and the place the removed assembly will go. The integrator can then compare a real alternative instead of finding a second place for the arrow.
15分Maintenance supplied the lifting arrangement and landing position; the proposed stand blocks its approach, so the integrator is comparing a side position with the same tool and handling sequence.
6分Any result on the side position yet, including the setter's normal work?
8分Normal handling and setter access are checked for that position, but the lifting approach is still with maintenance for review; no stand order yet.
-1分Keep the maintenance question attached to the actual layout revision. Otherwise the next quotation can inherit the normal-handling pass while dropping the unanswered reason you moved the stand.
13分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .