Shirley the robot programs are saved as well eh?
So the next time you shouldn't have much at all?
Think Snow Eh!
Spot on! My system had about a 24 month ROI. Because it was for one part #. Once it was running? Just keep it fed, and cash the checks.At IMTS I had a chat with a vendor who was showing a robot loading pallets that then got swapped into the machine. And one of their staff opined that "yes, this is very powerful, but maybe too complicated for many shops to absorb, we suggest they start with just pallets". Of course they sell pallet pools for their machines so there may be some bias, but the point is well made.
(In other words I agree with dstryr.)
On the other hand, the workflow needs to support the investment - both the cost of the hardware, AND the learning curve. Russ bought something that is supposed to be reasonably well integrated and famaliar (they clearly know haas controls) - so maybe that's the investment that makes the most sense for their work flow.
There will be a prize for shops that can get automation to work for lowest total investment (money, time, floor space, headaches) to make it economic for relatively low value parts. Good luck.
I had very, very specific parameters to cover when I set that system up. Simple A/B part. Part comes out finished. Run, reliably, un-manned for as long as possible.I think if you would have gotten #1 a pallet load solution or #2 a robot load with intuitive easy software you wouldn't have sold that cell. You would have sold something else instead.
A pallet load system is more of an investment but its way more flexible .https://www.erowa.com/en/solutions
Think about it , in the mid 80's a Bridgeport CNC knee mill was 40k then.no operation the size of wheelie or wrustle would have even considered such a scheme in say 1995....
There may be others, but these are the guys that I've seen doing that.I saw a robot cell where the EoAT was actually the softjaws, and they were fitted with some type of quick change receiver and an auto-vise on the table. Swapping between parts didn't require changing out parts on the robot, just change the program and the fixturing and robot handling swaps out by itself (obviously not going to be as simple as it sounds). Kind of like the tricked out pallet pools on 5x cells.
Somehow it was kind of neat and also kind of a hack approach at the same time...
For the most part, you git it. But, we don't need both in/out tray. Since the stock on the bottom is likely un-machined, just set the part back where it came from.So you are saying that you would put an In and an OUT tray (?) on either side of one table side?
So you are machining on P1
When you are done, you would load a gripper of some sort into the spindle (BT30 mount)
Pull out the part - and likely blow the Shiite out of the vise now? (somehow?) (via air or coolant)
Index the pallet shuttle to P2
Set yuhr part down on one end.
Pick up a fresh blank on the other end.
Index the pallet shuttle back to P1
Blow the fixture aggin just fer Schidt's and Giggles (maybe)
Insert fresh blank, and run
Am I following you correctly?
And this gripper is actuated via TSC?
And actually may need two different grippers I spose...
So, that brings you to about the same part change time as Wruss's set-up, but with a faster / more $ machine, with less $ automation?
Am I hearin' you correctly???
Think Snow Eh!
I'm sure most of you guys have seen me bitch on here about the family of parts I do where 4 of the 8 part#s take 7 operations to complete in a VMC (no way around it, trust me, LOL). and the other 4 part#s take 5 operations. If I had the set-up I elude to with a 5th on one side like bryan just suggested, I could tab all these parts off in one OP. The orders come in between 100-200pcs. The stock is all very similar. Instead of 500-700 vise handle cranks per 100pc order of each part#? I could literally put 100pcs on the tray, push the button, and come back when its done. If that ain't game-changer? I don't know what is. I've been doing these parts 8 years. Had I known everything I know now back then? This iron would already be on my floor! Just thinking through the numbers to type this post (and remembering how many of these parts Tommy scrapped!) is making my head hurt.Whether you are hearing Wheelie correctly, that is what I took him to mean, and think it makes sense, especially if the "working" pallet has some kind of 4th or 4th/5th access device on it.
It would also win (over just a big array of parts in a fixture) if the density of rack storage is much higher than the credible density of vises/fixtures - which would seem to be commonly true.
You could go one tier further, and have hand pallets (think Pierson or Erowa), one side for inbound, one side for outbound.
I note here that it seems Russ's system will be more versatile over time, at the cost of human and resource investment, and it *seems* like Russ's system can deal with bigger parts...