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。

Steel-blank tool missing from the FR10 exit view

JamieAllen0295 · 2026年3月3日 22:17 UTC

回复讨论
JA
JamieAllen0295
I have a separate FR10 proposal for removing short steel blanks, and the useful question is now withdrawal with the jaws open rather than whether the pickup point is reachable; the supplied sketch still omits the tool body and open door, so I have asked for both before anyone calls the arm selected.

20 条回复

LU
LuisAbbott0086

A fixture review we joined found the closed tool cleared while the open fingers did not. Have they supplied both states for the actual tool, or is its design still provisional?

20
JA
JamieAllen0295

Still provisional, Luis, but the supplier has two candidate outlines and can show both; I would rather compare those than let the tool stay an invisible point until after the arm order.

9
MI
MiaCarter0992

Where is the door in its actual working position? Not the widest it can open for maintenance.

9
FE
FelixChan1067

Mia's distinction is important for the handover too. A drawing based on the maintenance position could leave operators wondering why the normal setup does not match their instructions.

5
JA
JamieAllen0295

The setter has measured the normal opening, Mia, and it is smaller than the machine brochure view; that outline is now with both tool candidates.

10
CA
CallumCarter0969

Do the candidates hold the blank at the same depth?

9
LU
LuisAbbott0086

Callum, good question. Otherwise the same gripper-centre path could carry the end of the steel blank through different space.

8
JA
JamieAllen0295

Different grip depths, which I had not noticed in the side views; we have asked the toolmaker to include the held blank and each proposed grip depth explicitly.

8
MI
MiaCarter0992

Useful. Short blank does not mean no blank.

12
FE
FelixChan1067

Who is combining the toolmaker's views with the machine survey? I would avoid two suppliers checking different revisions and both reporting clear.

8
CA
CallumCarter0969

Felix, I'd put that with the integrator. Unless Jamie has somebody already owning the combined layout.

18
JA
JamieAllen0295

Our integrator owns it, Felix and Callum; their combined view rejects the deeper-grip candidate because its open fingers overlap the door edge, while the other needs a different withdrawal angle.

3
LU
LuisAbbott0086

Does the changed angle keep the blank clear of the fixture lip as well?

8
MI
MiaCarter0992

And if the angle changes the approach to the next tray, include that too. Not saying it does, just don't end the check halfway out of the machine.

6
JA
JamieAllen0295

The revised angle clears the fixture lip in the complete-tool study, Luis; Mia, the receiving tray stays in its proposed position and the route to it is included, but the setter has flagged access to a cleaning point beside the base.

8
CA
CallumCarter0969

What has to get through to that cleaning point?

5
JA
JamieAllen0295

The setter needs space for the cleaning tool and to see the recess, not a trolley; the base outline is close enough that they want a physical layout check before agreeing.

16
FE
FelixChan1067

Let them use their actual cleaning equipment in that check. A reach drawn for a hand can leave the useful tool outside the available space.

8
LU
LuisAbbott0086

That's a worthwhile remaining question. Is the arm choice still provisional?

8
JA
JamieAllen0295

Yes, until the setter's access check; we have eliminated one tool candidate and found a plausible route for the other, not authorised the purchase.

6

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。