Re-initialisation
Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 9:55 am
Hi,
Please notice : I put this in the Feauture Fequests board while I don't even know whether the below is already in there; guess not though ...
First off we must consider the components to be placed to be of some value. I mean like 4-8 euros pp and we don't like to throw away a few just because they can't be utilized. How is that "utilized" ? Well, our LitePlacer must be able to use them down to the very last one or ... very first one.
I think I won't be the only one *not* using reels with an infinite number of components on/in them. It's a piece of (reel)tape here and a piece there. Buy 100, use 90, buy the next 100 so you have sufficient stock, right ?
What we'd logically do now is use the piece of tape with the 10 and next what ? cut some of the next 100. Well, it has to be cut because it won't fit on the table bed otherwise (it may, but I foresee problems with the cover tape and bending and components jumping out).
Of course now someone likes me to count the components hence piece of tape to cut off the 100. But hey, I have better things to do than counting twice to be sure which becomes 5 because I count differently the second time from the first etc. etc. I just want to stick on a piece of tape which "will be sufficient". ... Which again challenges for left overs hence small pieces for a next time.
But look at the title of this topic, which is "Re-initialisation". Looks to be a different subject than my pieces of tape, but I think it is related;
There can be several and many reasons why a batch needs to be aborted before it really is finished according to plan. But let's take a logical reason : other things to do first now. I know, it won't be the most efficient but say the machine has been running for three days and it needs another type of PCB, also requiring three days, then running the first batch for six days (more efficient) will make the end product finished later for three days at least (less $$ income).
Then you can bet that you don't know in advance really how long a batch is going to take. You estimate 3 working days, but in between a couple things did not go as planned and it takes one hour more. What happens ? the batch is cut/aborted one hour in advance of the end.
Do I need to say more ? It now will be one big mess of half-used tape and possibly even half-placed boards. Well, the latter is a no-go anyway, but, or ...
Side note : I do NOT assume that a few components here or there are going to be placed manually, especially not in advance of the P&P.
Ehm ... What I mean is : Just in case somebody tells me that the solution could be to use the small piece of tape with 10 components in it, for manual placement. This will only be MORE troublesome because now the P&P data needs to know about this (two 50K in parallel really isn't 50K ).
So do I need to say more ? I don't think so. All the verious messy examples can be brought up ourselves. And I'm not even challenging for it. It would just be normal way of working. Practical issues ...
Too far out and will not happen ? Ok, then this example :
I have 100 PCBs to make and say 9 will fit the bed. It's 9 components of X and 36 of Y. And a lot more. Point is : amounts needed are not equal and while all for the X component (total of 100) can be stuck on the side, all for the Y component can not (total of 400). Obviously I am not going to bother with sticking strip of 36 only just because this is a first run of 9 boards.
... And I see a mess again. The first most easy to grasp, I think, is the second run of 9 boards. All strips are half-way etc., some need to be replaced or added with more "length" and ...
What's implied as well is that strips run out half-way a run. What to do ? stick on a new one. Yeah, sure ... happy to do that, but ...
And now I think this is not going to work at all. Unless this is all provided for and obviously I don't think it is. This is all about recalibration and (re)initialisations of which I think it could be more complicated than what all has been made for.
Funnily enough the "feeding" mechanism is very very flexible and in my view better indeed than the large ($$$) reels. But I'm afraid that practice depicts that it is a 100 times more difficult instead and that the flexibility inherently there, can not be utilized at all. And worse ...
I hardly dare ask this question : Does the software know where it was with placement (and I really mean after a power down) ? So many things can go wrong just in general, and if the "start through" is not possible, then what ? then NOTHING.
Peter
Please notice : I put this in the Feauture Fequests board while I don't even know whether the below is already in there; guess not though ...
First off we must consider the components to be placed to be of some value. I mean like 4-8 euros pp and we don't like to throw away a few just because they can't be utilized. How is that "utilized" ? Well, our LitePlacer must be able to use them down to the very last one or ... very first one.
I think I won't be the only one *not* using reels with an infinite number of components on/in them. It's a piece of (reel)tape here and a piece there. Buy 100, use 90, buy the next 100 so you have sufficient stock, right ?
What we'd logically do now is use the piece of tape with the 10 and next what ? cut some of the next 100. Well, it has to be cut because it won't fit on the table bed otherwise (it may, but I foresee problems with the cover tape and bending and components jumping out).
Of course now someone likes me to count the components hence piece of tape to cut off the 100. But hey, I have better things to do than counting twice to be sure which becomes 5 because I count differently the second time from the first etc. etc. I just want to stick on a piece of tape which "will be sufficient". ... Which again challenges for left overs hence small pieces for a next time.
But look at the title of this topic, which is "Re-initialisation". Looks to be a different subject than my pieces of tape, but I think it is related;
There can be several and many reasons why a batch needs to be aborted before it really is finished according to plan. But let's take a logical reason : other things to do first now. I know, it won't be the most efficient but say the machine has been running for three days and it needs another type of PCB, also requiring three days, then running the first batch for six days (more efficient) will make the end product finished later for three days at least (less $$ income).
Then you can bet that you don't know in advance really how long a batch is going to take. You estimate 3 working days, but in between a couple things did not go as planned and it takes one hour more. What happens ? the batch is cut/aborted one hour in advance of the end.
Do I need to say more ? It now will be one big mess of half-used tape and possibly even half-placed boards. Well, the latter is a no-go anyway, but, or ...
Side note : I do NOT assume that a few components here or there are going to be placed manually, especially not in advance of the P&P.
Ehm ... What I mean is : Just in case somebody tells me that the solution could be to use the small piece of tape with 10 components in it, for manual placement. This will only be MORE troublesome because now the P&P data needs to know about this (two 50K in parallel really isn't 50K ).
So do I need to say more ? I don't think so. All the verious messy examples can be brought up ourselves. And I'm not even challenging for it. It would just be normal way of working. Practical issues ...
Too far out and will not happen ? Ok, then this example :
I have 100 PCBs to make and say 9 will fit the bed. It's 9 components of X and 36 of Y. And a lot more. Point is : amounts needed are not equal and while all for the X component (total of 100) can be stuck on the side, all for the Y component can not (total of 400). Obviously I am not going to bother with sticking strip of 36 only just because this is a first run of 9 boards.
... And I see a mess again. The first most easy to grasp, I think, is the second run of 9 boards. All strips are half-way etc., some need to be replaced or added with more "length" and ...
What's implied as well is that strips run out half-way a run. What to do ? stick on a new one. Yeah, sure ... happy to do that, but ...
And now I think this is not going to work at all. Unless this is all provided for and obviously I don't think it is. This is all about recalibration and (re)initialisations of which I think it could be more complicated than what all has been made for.
Funnily enough the "feeding" mechanism is very very flexible and in my view better indeed than the large ($$$) reels. But I'm afraid that practice depicts that it is a 100 times more difficult instead and that the flexibility inherently there, can not be utilized at all. And worse ...
I hardly dare ask this question : Does the software know where it was with placement (and I really mean after a power down) ? So many things can go wrong just in general, and if the "start through" is not possible, then what ? then NOTHING.
Peter