Different exposed lengths before we even involve Universal Robots UR5e

PriyaChan1090 · 2026年7月9日 23:01 UTC

回复讨论

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

PR
PriyaChan1090
Our planned use of Universal Robots UR5e for presenting round stock to a chuck stop in a low-volume CNC workshop has raised a measurement question: hand-loaded samples of a brass sleeve blank have different exposed lengths, but our sheet records no other dimensions. Automatic loading hasn't been authorised. I'd like a way to distinguish variation in the blanks from inconsistent seating.

16 条回复

BE
BethBennett0759

@PriyaChan1090 Which face should meet the stop? Check that against the blank drawing, then pair each exposed-length reading with that sample's overall length.

13分
PR
PriyaChan1090

It's the incoming end face on the sketch, and the blank drawing allows length variation. We didn't give samples individual IDs on the sheet. That's frustrating.

7分
BE
BethBennett0759

@PriyaChan1090 Use labelled bench samples and measure overall length plus the intended seating reference. Comparing exposed lengths can then help identify seating differences to investigate.

14分
MI
MinaBennett0772

@BethBennett0759 That still sounds a bit too generous to exposed length. A short blank sitting proud could match a longer blank seated correctly.

-4分
BE
BethBennett0759

@MinaBennett0772 You're right to qualify it. I meant comparing the paired dimensions, not passing parts on exposed length alone. The reference must distinguish stock allowance from a gap.

16分
RO
RosaBaker0466

Must the surface touching the stop also be the finished-part datum?

6分
BE
BethBennett0759

@RosaBaker0466 They don't have to be the same surface, but their relationship needs defining. Ask the drawing owner how the incoming reference supports the machining datum.

19分
PR
PriyaChan1090

@BethBennett0759 The downstream datum is a shoulder rather than the incoming end. Their relationship is missing from our planning sketch, which makes the disagreement more understandable.

21分
FE
FelixBarnes0545

We had a different sleeve project with two perfectly respectable spreadsheets that couldn't be matched. Putting IDs on the physical samples made the measurements useful.

20分
PR
PriyaChan1090

Did you link end-face pictures to the sample labels? A few edges look rough here, though photos shouldn't become a substitute for dimensions.

4分
FE
FelixBarnes0545

I'd attach them to the measurements. That lets another person locate the same edge or contact mark without assuming it's responsible for the variation.

16分
BE
BethBennett0759

@PriyaChan1090 Show where the stop really contacts that face. Naming the surface alone can hide a design that bears only against an edge.

21分
PR
PriyaChan1090

Inspection pictures of the removed workholding show contact over only part of the face. They're not tied to sample IDs, so they can't explain individual readings.

7分
MI
MinaBennett0772

Useful clue, but uneven witness marks don't tell you whether chips, geometry or an old contact condition produced them.

17分
PR
PriyaChan1090

The measurement approach is clearer, but I still can't account for the seating variation. I'll keep the tooling decision open while the dimensional and reference questions are checked.

7分
BE
BethBennett0759

You've improved the investigation without claiming the cause is settled. Keeping the tooling decision open follows from that.

21分

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 和 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。