Our setup uses Fairino FR5 for fixture-to-tray transfer with a machined plastic puck in a supervised tray handling cell, with 173 planned. i wrote a pick, place and advance sequence that completes uninterrupted runs, but stopping between those actions can leave the saved pocket inconsistent with the physical state. i need a recovery design before relying on it for normal production.
The trace shows my index update occurs before placement is confirmed. That means the retained number can identify an intended next pocket without establishing that the preceding transfer completed.
Map the transfer stages offline, with an agreed completion confirmation. Have your integrator define how saved state is reconciled with tool and pocket conditions; unknown conditions need an explicit recovery route.
@DanielBell0652 Updating a stage after an action doesn't eliminate the interval between the physical event and persistence. An interruption there can leave the saved stage inconsistent with reality.
You're right; saving stages alone doesn't guarantee recovery. The saved stage guides reconciliation, and the physical conditions still need confirmation before an approved next action.
On my setup, one index could mean either 'still carrying' or 'already placed'. Giving those states names made the design discussion much less circular.
@WillBennett0748 Our test actually stopped with the workpiece held while the display said to start another pickup. The recovery message was confidently wrong.
@BethAdams0150 The meaning depends on the installed sensing arrangement. You need the integrator to establish what evidence distinguishes a held workpiece from an empty or indeterminate tool, rather than equating closure with possession.
i still can't establish a reliable recovery decision from the saved and physical states. i'm keeping the job out of normal production while that remains open.