- User Since
- Jun 7 2019, 8:38 AM (26 w, 5 d)
Sep 26 2019
@DaniAO Sage and diplomatic advice. Thank you.
Sep 24 2019
Aug 30 2019
Production built 5 Taz WE with 2 each vertical and horizontal extrusions out of straight .25mm - .5mm. Frame build is complete and nothing unusual occurred. Squaring was not abnormally difficult. Final build is complete and nothing unusual occurred. Calibration is completed on 2, 2 are in process and the last is just starting calibration. Nothing of note occurred so far in calibration.
Today I was on a teleconference with In-Position and Futura Industries. Per Futura, industry standard straightness tolerance is twice their specification. They cannot extrude reliably better than their current specification and could only achieve improved straightness by screening by 100% inspection. Their current process is extrude 20' lengths, heat treat (artificial age to achieve temper), cut to length, machine (drill and tap only if required), anodize, inspection, package. The 100% inspection would add a lot of lead-time and costs. They cannot do this in process.
I propose we sort more extrusions to find a bigger sample of out of straight, and then use them to build a bigger sample of printers, like another 20 printers (approximately 1 day of production). If we don't experience any unusual challenges building 20 more, then we change our specs to match theirs - straightness of .0125in/ft or .00104mm/mm. We should add all their specs by simply calling out their part number as the raw material.
Aug 27 2019
Today I spoke with Seth Leinbach sales engineer for In-Position and here is what he explained.
All lots of extrusions are fabricated by Futura Industries in Utah. All lots we have received have been made by Futura's standard process. None of the lots have been processed any differently. Futura Industries did not know of our 0.10mm flatness requirement. They are not sure they can hold this requirement. They can screen for it by measuring 100%, but Seth was not sure how they would do this. Seth will set up a conference call Friday at 2pm with Futura Industries, In-Position and us. We will build 5 machines tomorrow with selected out of straight extrusions, and monitor the build for impacts to the build process and printer performance.
@logan this is a high priority to find out how these are getting past control box testing. We will be start receiving Taz W harnesses from CCX this week, and they will be continuity and voltage tested at CCX. Still it would be good to know how the CB's are getting through testing with mis-pinned harnesses.
Aug 21 2019
I spoke with @AOJAS and requested the raw data for the 400 extrusions already measured. This is plenty of data and there is no reason to measure more. I requested the data from @AOJAS. When I get the data, I will do capability analysis for straightness per their specification and per our requirement. Then we can make an informed decision.
@kent and @AOJAS : We need to keep production running. We can have them verify straightness on the line for now. Please keep them supplied and let Levi know that they need to prescreen for straightness until we resolve this issue.
Aug 12 2019
@robert Please clarify. After the circling loading wheel, does it ever perform auto home?
Aug 7 2019
@karrad My apologies. I had a bin of inserted parts sitting on my desk. I delivered them to @franklin and he will work with production to get a Mini2 built with these components over the next couple of days.
Aug 6 2019
@robert thanks for the photos and explanation. When Logan and Zach arrive this morning, I will have them check this out to see if the issue is with the tool head assembly method.
Jul 31 2019
@paulette Excellent suggestion. We don't have any resources at the moment, but we will soon have MER resources to evaluate potential solutions to improve this situation.
Jul 25 2019
To be clear, Kim is working to source all harness assemblies for all machines to CCX asap. Until CCX harnesses can be obtained in production quantities, electro-mechanical continues to manufacture them. I believe Pro cables are all out sourced now.
Jul 16 2019
Excellent work @logan . Thank you, Christian
I will back out of the subassembly issue for now and leave that implementation decision to @logan @david.hall @guadalupe . Everyone is working hard to implement the going forward solution by incorporating the fuses assembly into the chassis. I will however participate in the decision to retrofit stock build before implementation into the chassis. Logan is going to install the fuses assembly into a MER Redgum, identify potential risks of damage, measure time from start to finish, create an outline of steps and report on any potential difficulties. I have been told we are adding this feature for the military who don't follow our instructions and blow fuses by cleaning the nozzle with a wire brush. I believe it is unusual for the typical customer to blow a fuse. I believe the decision to retrofit existing machines is a decision that belongs jointly to product planning, sales, tech support and manufacturing. I will call a meeting with Adam, Dani, Lisa and Galadriel and we will make a decision on retrofitting or not.
Jul 11 2019
After thinking about this issue, I am going to completely reverse myself. Rather than be concerned about print cluster capacity, manufacturing will strive to find creative ways to use our printers to manufacture themselves and to solve problems, so let's implement the plastic parts. When we run out of printer capacity, we will use our printers to make more for ourselves. My apologies for not seeing this initially.
Jun 28 2019
@lisa Further clarification - excellent. This is great to know and I am glad to hear we have soft launched and Contract Mfg is independently staffed. I suggest Greg coordinate a meeting with Franklin, you and me (Grant optional), and we can get Franklin started. By the way, how many printers of which kind will CM require over the next few months?
Jun 27 2019
I talked with Grant this morning and he clarified a few things for me. He is looking for an OHAI procedure to cover the entire process from receipt of order through printing, post processing, QA, shipping, closing and invoice. Most importantly, when we start contract printing service, we will subcontract to Z Verse or 3D Solutions. So they will screen parts, select us when appropriate and slice the file. With the order, we will receive from them sliced .stl files and a drawing with critical parameters defined or some other form of critical parameters definition. The order will go into Odoo and we are off and running. I didn't yet discuss with Grant, but we might want to combine our printing service with our cluster printing to leverage resources, knowledge and methodology. After printing, we will perform post processing. In advance of startup, we need to determine what post processing services we will be willing to perform, process capabilities and prepare to perform these services. QA will be performing a visual inspection for obvious defects (and we will define these in advance) and then check defined critical parameters. When cleared to fly, they will be packaged and shipped out. Orders get closed and invoiced to our contract partner.
Before we launch Franklin on the Ohai, I will schedule a discussion with Grant and Lisa to make sure we are all in agreement.
After watching this with Zach, I believe the source of the noise is a shock load generated by the belt teeth slipping in and out of engagement. I think the shock excites the carriage/belt natural frequency and then the assembly damps it out quickly. It is quite a loud pop. What do you think Samantha? What do you think Zach?
Hey Zach, when the popping noise stopped, was the left z-belt still slipping on the pulley or was the motor stalling when you stopped motion?
Jun 26 2019
How do you propose to handle the change to the common part? Concurrent change? Coordinate change in production with new fasteners and tools? End Pro production one day with old part, fasteners and tools, and roll the changes in on next day?
Adam and Dani,
Please proceed with T8316, so Logan can execute.
Jun 25 2019
I will review this issue with Zach and MER in the morning.
Jun 24 2019
Manufacturing cluster printing is already operating at unsustainable production rates and we definitely need to look for other alternatives to printing yet more custom parts. We request R&D to develop an alternate solution that does not require adding more custom printed parts. If you want MERS participation with brainstorming or other help, please let me know.
Jun 13 2019
It seems to me this is a request to verify and validate firmware. The purpose for our test stand is to verify control boxes are working correctly. The purpose is not to verify and validate firmware. In my experience firmware is not verified and validated in production and is performed else where before release to production.