@david.hall Projects/mini-hibiscus/production_parts/tooling/fixtures/ should have what you need!
@tutley we can set that up. I will need to know where the file is for the fixture.
@david until the fixture gets updated with the milled one, can we try and reprint the printed fixture to see if that makes an improvement?
@tutley Thanks, I believe that this is the ticket to figure out what is wrong with the alignment. The broaching is simply to make the parts work on the line right now so that we don't throw away all the printed parts. MER should be trying to resolve why we have the issue. Perhaps they could get some help on it.
The reamers are changed regularly and we are reaming slowly. The last information from MER was to do a 3 reaming pass (slowly) to see if it assists at all with the issue. We will be glad to print with a solid fixture when that is ready and we can see if that will help with the issue at all. Just making things work while the issue is figured out.
@david.hall These changes should have gone through an MCO.
With proper reaming we shouldnt need to broach all the parts. Also i suspect the rise in binding may actually be coming from broaching all of the parts, as it is very easy to make the bore not aligned with the axis of motion when broaching by hand. (hence the issue with the orientation of the parts once installed, both bores are not parallel)
@oliver that is because of the amount of drag that has been on all of the parts. To get them to be okay on the printer they have needed less drag than the spec, so we have been broaching all parts. They are all checked for drag before they leave Cluster, and only once inserts are put in does it appear that the drag increases. This has been an issue with the parts since we started printing them, but the issue seemed to get worse some time ago (perhaps 1 1/2 months). We should note that the drag is not due to the bushing that is installed. it is due to the orientation of the 2 parts once they have been assembled and tightened down on the printer.
@tutley As far as MER is concerned we have not heard of any changes, though I was told that they are no longer using the force gauge to check the drag on the parts in cluster.
@oliver have there been any changes to the mfg process?
Thu, Apr 18
With the thermal gap filler kits this isn't an issue and the assembly instructions can be easily followed in reverse for removal and replacement.
Tue, Apr 16
Mon, Apr 15
@adam it was at s/n KT-PR0041NA-31341 when we started.
@bowman do you have the serial number of the printer where we switched from RRD to ultimachine?
We sure do!
We did recently switch to a new supplier for the LCDs, so we should probably start with determining if these were from the new or old supplier. Do we have serial numbers for these machines in order to determine that?
Thu, Apr 11
we may need to look at the x ends as well
I just put one of the ones that production failed out for being too tight on to the mini 2 on my desk and did not have any problems with a large amount of drag.
@tutley One of the issues I found is that when the reamer is hitting the metal plate serve as the bottom, it will 'skip' along the bottom and cause parts to come out crooked. I noticed and informed the cluster techs to make sure that they are not hitting the bottom of the plate when they are putting in a new jig. A worn out reamer will cause those issues as well, so the reamer has been swapped out and they should be dating them from now on.
@oliver it looks as if some of them are getting reamed a little crooked. We may need to make sure the fixture isnt getting worn out.
@tutley Here is the data set that I gathered from the x-carriages that production was failing for being to tight. The last few are a few samples of ones that I had cluster re-reamed.
I will check with the techs to make sure that they are doing them more than once.
i have mentioned this previously when this issue came up before. Often just runnning the reamer through the bore once isnt enough
i found running the reamer through 2x or even 3x gave good results.
@david.hall not sure if the techs are just running through once and calling it good, but figured id bring this up again
Thu, Apr 4
Closing this ticket since nothing has really happen with it.
Tue, Apr 2
Yes, while evaluating printed part non-conforming materials I came across a bag of these parts that had been tagged for this issue. After fit testing them, I found that most of them were usable, but with considerable difficulty. Part of what increased that difficulty was dimensional inaccuracy, which has been found on Mini 2 prints of this part. Other issues with this part included warp/lifting at the corners, difficulty removing the built in support material, and inserts installed in a hole where they are not needed.
I sought to alleviate all of these issues, made and tested model changes, and created a change request to implement these changes into production: T6321
Prior to Change Request creation, slices of the new model were run on Mini and Mini 2 in the cluster and fit tested to ensure identical functionality. The Mini 2 slice utilizes M92 to set X/Y steps/mm to 100.6, which had been found to be the correct adjustment to achieve parts with correct dimensions.
See T6321 for full details
Mon, Apr 1
@logan iirc, there is a fix in progress for this issue. When you have a moment, can you update this ticket with the status of that project?
Mar 15 2019
@kent that is on a MINI 1
Mar 14 2019
Not practical to make this change for mini2 since it requires a sheet metal change and we are so far into production.
documentation received for PP-FP0087, the purchased material used for AS-PR0023
Mar 8 2019
Data shows that these tend to have been on the low-end to a little out of the spec in that direction, which is likely how they have been working so far.