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。

A panel clears the stack but catches the tray lip

RosaChan1075 · 2025年2月22日 06:07 UTC

已关闭
RO
RosaChan1075
I watched our supplier's bench trial for an FR10 panel transfer. The vacuum tool holds the aluminium panel, but the far edge droops and brushes the receiving tray. The second panel in the stack twitches upward on pickup too. They called the trial successful because the top panel stayed attached. I'd like the next trial to answer what actually arrives at the tray and in what shape.

17 条回复

MA
MayaBrooks0823

Split the trial result into retention, single-panel delivery and placement, because the first can pass while the other two fail.

8
RO
RosaChan1075

I've done that in our comments. Supplier says the tray lip is temporary, but it's our production tray in the video. I sent its drawing again.

6
MA
MayaBrooks0823

Get them to identify the receiving fixture in the revised trial plan so that disagreement doesn't reappear after testing.

16
RO
RosaChan1075

They acknowledge the tray now. Suggested approaching at a tilt. I haven't agreed because I don't know what that does to the unsupported edge or release.

17
MA
MayaBrooks0823

Have the tooling and integration people review that proposed movement together; a different angle changes more than the lip clearance.

8
DA
DavidArcher0432

Did the lower panel leave the stack or just flex? Those aren't the same failure. I'd want a side view before anyone starts selling you separation hardware.

1
MA
MayaBrooks0823

Yes, establish what the second sheet did and count what arrived, rather than naming a double pick from one ambiguous frame.

5
EL
ElliotBell0683

Was the delivered panel flat again after release, or did you keep a bent sample?

2
MA
MayaBrooks0823

Keep its identity linked to the video if it's available; otherwise a later photo of a bent panel proves very little.

15
RO
RosaChan1075

They retained that panel. It has a small edge deformation where it met the lip. The side footage shows the lower sheet flexing then settling, so that attempt delivered one panel.

11
CH
ChenBarnes0529

Our first tooling review spent all its time on vacuum and almost none on the receiving fixture. Curious whether they've proposed more edge support, or are still trying to solve everything by changing the approach.

7
RO
RosaChan1075

They've proposed extending the tool's support arrangement as well. No dimensions agreed yet. We've asked them to check the extended tool against the tray instead of assuming more support always means more clearance.

15
MA
MayaBrooks0823

Include open access for release in that geometry check; an extension can support the sheet and then obstruct its final seating.

17
DA
DavidArcher0432

I was too dismissive about the second sheet earlier. Flexing and settling still deserves investigation if it changes unpredictably across the stack. Just don't count it as a confirmed double delivery.

4
RO
RosaChan1075

That's how we've recorded it: lower-sheet movement observed, one delivered in that attempt. The revised plan includes several stack conditions and inspection of the delivered panels, not just the vacuum trace.

14
RO
RosaChan1075

New support mock-up cleared the tray in the supplier's static check. They still owe us the reviewed transfer trial and separation evidence. We're keeping the original damaged panel as a comparison sample.

18
MA
MayaBrooks0823

When that transfer trial arrives, check it used the reviewed support arrangement; a static clearance photo and a different tool in the moving clip won't establish the combined result.

6

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: .