- User Since
- Mar 5 2018, 7:19 AM (76 w, 5 d)
Fri, Aug 23
The units sent back to us had the correct warning graphics.
Thu, Aug 22
Dataset from a random sampling of 30 out of 6 bundles:
0.02, 0.01, 0.02, 0.07, 0.09, 0.06, 0.02, 0.09, 0.08, 0.06, 0.08, 0.02, 0.02, 0.06, 0.24, 0.08, 0.00, 0.06, 0.06, 0.4, 0.01, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.01, 0.00, 0.23, 0.02, 0.08, 0.06
Percent fallout of inspection for bends: 10% (3 of 30)
Percentage exceeding supplier's spec tolerance: 0%
Updated on data to reflect an additional 216 units inspected after that initial 200 units:
Ct 1 unit: Dented end, mushrooms out
Ct 31 units: 0.44, 0.22, 0.4, 0.22, 0.32, 0.58, 1.06, 0.62, 0.56, 0.58, 0.34, 0.38, 0.42, 0.36, 0.44, 0.3, 1.46, 0.11, 0.95, 0.28, 0.14, 1.46, 0.15, 1.38, 0.32, 0.68, 0.34, 0.42, 0.31, 0.3, 0.36
Mode: 0.44, 0.22, 0.32, 0.58, 0.34, 0.42, 0.36, 0.3, 1.46
Percent fallout of inspection for bends: 7.4% (31 of 416)
Percentage exceeding supplier's spec tolerance: 2.4% (10 of 416)
Wed, Aug 21
The passing units were released Monday and Tuesday and are being used in production. QC inspections are generally a Go/No Go process, so we collect specific data on non-conforming units, but not on conforming units. Passing units are categorically passed, not evaluated further than having met passing criteria.
I got with Levi and the Phil and Dave from framing to show them how to do the check. When unchecked parts are stocked out, they will have someone check the whole batch so that the work of individual framers isn't disrupted. I've left two samples of failing units at their granite surface temporarily so they have a reference for training people to identify the issue.
Converting that into metric and applying it to the the length of the EX-HD0086, at 0.3175mm per foot, and the 530mm extrusion being 1.738 feet(20.866 inches), that means that the supplier's tolerance on these is 0.55mm.
Mon, Aug 19
Checked and released 64 to keep production running tomorrow morning.
This part will run out tomorrow. Should I release do a partial release for production personnel to do flatness checks on during production tomorrow?
Tue, Aug 13
I believe the last shipment came from Quattro, which have a less cosmetically appealing appearance than the ones we get from PMM. They should be fine functionally.
Fri, Aug 9
Note, check the Specification reference image on the last page to see features highlighted for clarification on future drawings.
Thu, Aug 8
PP-MP0280, Collar Mount Flange
PP-MP0278, Motor Mount
Wed, Aug 7
PP-MP0278, Lower Bearing Holder
PP-MP0277, Upper Bearing Holder
Noticed an issue with this on the first article, I'll have it on the report.
Tue, Aug 6
Working on them now. It may take until Friday since I'm also training a new employee. If @oliver or someone else in MER has time to assist, it can be done sooner.
Measurements have been taken with some features of the specs having been highlighted for clarification. The data still needs to be entered into the spreadsheets, with highlighted/red lined images added, then formatted to pdf to upload here.
Wed, Jul 31
Received the units with the silkscreen graphics added to the triangle areas. They looked acceptable, so we are clear to move forward on production quantities for this part.
Tue, Jul 30
Here is the report for the reworked PP-FP0147 that Epocs sent to us. The only remaining issue for Epocs to review and take action on is in regard to the silkscreen position and condition(minor pitting). Since these are minor issues, these are being given "deviation granted" status, with the expectation that Epocs will act on the feedback in the attached pdf.
Jul 24 2019
I think I'll use these as an opportunity to train and test the new hire on their mechanical design literacy and measurement capabilities. Josh says the part isn't super hot given holdups with the sheet metal, so we should have time to do this. I'll be reviewing the person's measurements to make sure they are accurate.
Jul 22 2019
A summary of this issue's status has been added to the QC Passdown ticket, https://code.alephobjects.com/T6257
Using this picture has a reference for the issue of vertical notches on the edges of the Z Upper Plates, the Workmanship document says we have the option of rejecting units with a scratch under the powder coat in excess of 2mm in length and in excess of .5mm deep if it is visible from normal viewing angles. The depth is more of an issue than the length, since a long scratch without much depth is barely visible(these are called phantom scratches in the workmanship document). This criteria can be applied to the issues shown in the picture(a top viewing angle is required to actually say which of these could be rejected, this picture is only intended to provide a general example of the issue).
PO# 30497, Precision Metal Mfg.
Did on a 50% inspection on the most recent shipment. It looks like they are primarily having a machining process problem. The fallout rate was about 4% for gouges/large pits in the metal. Some units required minor touchups with the Birchwood Casey Gloss Black pen for small lines of exposed metal on the edges. Training on how to do these touchups to be arranged @david.hall
Jul 18 2019
Some of the ones I would pass would be a hard call without more criteria specific to this part.
For framing and Y assembly, production personnel have some guidelines for deciding whether or not to red tag extrusions for defects. These were created by Mickey back when he was in MER with Josh West and Tutley. I'll attach an example of this. We could probably use similar documentation to this on the production floor to give people criteria for red tagging Z Uppers.
I think the wipe down should occur prior to finals, at the point they are taken out of the box, because as soon as the bearings start moving on the rods, those bearings become contaminated. I'm less concerned about the light dust that is in the building than what already on the rods when they are received.
Knowing that the metal itself is laser cut, it's going to have some texture variation as opposed to being a perfectly smooth surface, I think have to take a "reasonable expectation" approach to this. If the "subjectivity" crosses the line into practically asking for a perfect face on a part, that would be too much. We allow a single minor blemish on front and top faces, and some of these definitely qualify as "minor".
Based on that image, I think the ones I have red lined are rejectable. The others are acceptable.
I would say that some of those are allowable, as the more shallow lines aren't sufficiently deep enough to be seen under normal lighting and viewing conditions.
Except for the darkest accumulations seen in these pictures, the dust isn't readily visible for the most part. Wiping down all sides twice has the effect of lightening ring patterns, cleaning some of the darker spots, as well as giving the rod a brighter general appearance.
Jul 16 2019
I've released the units to Tom. Here are the numbers:
I would advise having production personnel who put smooth rods on assemblies/sub assemblies do a quick wipe down with the blue shop paper towels until we can get the problem is resolved on the supplier's end. A number of people have told me they think that it may be contributing to binding, as a pretty significant amount of dust comes off the smooth rods when they are wiped down. Fine dark brown/black dust is primarily how I would describe what I see on the paper towels after wiping down smooth rods.
Also need to make sure that PMM/Epocs have any 4 mil plastic sleeves that they need, such as the SH-BA0005 for example. Since the plastic sleeves are reused for quite some time, the 4 mil is preferable to what the suppliers often default to using(very thin flimsy plastic). In the case of the chassis, the thin plastic is particularly problematic because it allows the standoffs that protrude from the back of the chassis to damage the traveler boxes. Considerable time has been spent repairing boxes over the last few months as a result of damage to them.
Jul 9 2019
An additional note on changing the specifications for this part is that we need them to come with the M3x3 grub screw preinstalled. We are having issues with shipments not having bags of the grub screws accompanying them, and even when they are shipped with the screws, that bag of screws has to be kept track of without existing in inventory. Just having them be preinstalled would solve the problem.
Jul 8 2019
Just to clarify, of the units with holes closer to the edge, and the units with holes farther from the edge, which are going to be used for which assemblies?
NCMR issued for this part. Pictures of the issues included in the NCMR pdf.
NCMR 190708-20 - PMM (Precision Metal Manufacturing)
Summary of issues:
Ct 15 units: It appears a process issue occurred which caused gouges on the edge of the unit, most of which are in a nearly identical location.
Ct 12 units: Scratches or scuffs on 2 or more sides.
Ct 8 units: Powder overspray burr/edge irregularities
Ct 2 units: Additional(duplicate) 6mm hole and M3 taps(see picture)
Ct 1 unit: Radial grind marks on front edge
38 units being returned
Jul 3 2019
Just got 55 of these from MER, I'll be consolidating these into my NCMR to get PMM more feedback.
Did on a 50% inspection on the most recent shipment. I'll have an NCMR out for PMM soon with pictures. It looks like the are primarily having a machining process problem. The fallout rate was about 4% for gouges/large pits in the metal.
Jun 26 2019
Can you have James get a count on how many PP-FP0172 are in the boxes at Rockies so I can make the NCMR? We will need these brought back to Aleph Mountain Dock Receiving sometime in the next few days.
I'm thinking then that Weiser either didn't really look at these specs or that they didn't communicate them to their powder coat subcontractor in time to prevent the issue.
Jun 24 2019
NCMR's for this part should be uploaded to this ticket so that there are reference pictures for what has been failed and sent back to the supplier.
Has the data that Kent created been communicated to E3D?
Jun 19 2019
Issues corrected on the last inspection from PO# 29472:
Jun 10 2019
Jun 6 2019
The current plan with MER is to release 20 units to have built out and tested for issues.
Notice to accumulate a full set of parts in QC? I don't usually let those parts accumulate, so to get a full set together for a review we'd need to pull them temporarily from backstock, or grab a completed alpha/beta build.
Jun 4 2019
May 31 2019
Which hole was drilled at an angle? The large one for the motor or the hole between the two smooth rod holes?
May 30 2019
May 29 2019
The white paint dots are on the PP-FP0135's.
A recent shipment of the PP-FP0135's had a white paint mark consistently in the same spot( a non-visible area once assembled). It looks like the supplier is adding this mark to differentiate the PP-FP0135 from the PP-FP0162.
Oliver and I have talked to PMM about this. They have suggested that the holes should be centered on the flange rather than offset towards the curved side, because their machines have trouble putting the inserts in so close to a curved edge. I told them to submit a redesign to Josh Perry to be approved by R&D to improve the manufacturability of this part.
Apr 24 2019
Here is an image showing the correct position in regards to our manufacturing process.
In terms of a drawing change, I believe the PC-CN0119 Housing/EL-MS0355 Housing needs to be moved above the EL-MS 0490 Housing/EL-MS0509 Housing.
@west Can you confirm this?
I'll make sure @kim gets feedback for Igus.
Apr 18 2019
Just as a side note, I know that in terms of prioritization, revamping every part's specification sheet in this manner isn't going to be possible to do all at once due to labor resource constraints. That being said, I would suggest that we focus these specification callouts and clarifications on parts that have consistently been a source of AO production bottlenecks across multiple suppliers. This more limited list of parts would include the bed mount plates(Taz/Mini), Mini bottom plate, electronics case(Mini), and electronics chassis/cover(Taz). This would help resolve the most serious production issues that suppliers have communicated to us.
Surface Condition Callouts, ABCD:
My explanation to Epocs Mfg Inc today regarding the surface condition workmanship standards explained that in general, a back facing area is a C face, a downward surface facing(non visible) or interior facing(non visible) surface is a D face, front and top facing areas are A face, and side facing areas are B. On drawings we submit to them, we need to make sure we utilize all of these in this manner so that our workmanship document supports our specification sheets.
Apr 8 2019
Dimension Specification: Pass
Cosmetics: Pass, Very good quality. some units had shipping damage, example show on Picture 1. Picture 2 is provided to show the general appearance of the unit.
Cosmetic Notes: The black silkscreen is appears to be thin, causing it to have a more textured appearance than our current products.
Apr 5 2019
Dimension Specification: Pass
Cosmetics: Pass, but needs improving
Cosmetic notes: Silkscreen is appears to be thin, causing it to have a more textured appearance than our cu Some defects apparent on two parts. One unit had powder coat discontinuity(visible on the right edge in the picture)(Picture 1)
Another unit had discontinuity in the texture of the black silkscreened area, I would suggest increasing the thickness of the silkscreen as a potential solution, as that will reduce the visibility of the powder coat surfaces's variation in texture(Picture 3)
Picture 2 is just intended to show the overall appearance of the unit.
Dimension Specification: Pass
Cosmetics: Pass, no defects apparent, powder coat appears to match our other suppliers.
@kim : We are good to proceed with the supplier on this part.