I was wondering if there is any easier way to Master a Fanuc 165ia or 210ib? Just last week we had some issues that required us to replace the harness on one of our robots causing us to lose position data. We had the robot at Zero position but when the harness was replaced the current positions no longer read 0.0. We also had to establish pulse before remastering the robot. Knowing these positions were zero we established pulse and moved the robot back to the positions that the robot said it was at after replacing the harness knowing this should have been zero position. I Zero Position Mastered the robot but when running through the current programs in the robot everything was off. I am fairly confident what I did should have gotten the programs right on again so my guess is over time someone else in my shop while setting up a new job screwed up the mastering in the robot. Besides this the only other real option there is, is to go off of the witness marks. But everyone knows over time those wear off and are also hard to line up perfectly using your eyes. I have only worked briefly with Kuka but they have an electronic mastering tool that you screw onto every axis assuring you will have the same mastering every time. Is there anything like this that exist for Fanuc Robots?
Mastering
-
mcminn6 -
October 8, 2018 at 6:21 PM -
Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
-
New Fanuc's come standard with iR vision mastering, but you will need to provide a camera and vision grid. Documentation can be found on the CRC website.
-
Actually the way you tried to preserve the zero positions is not correct unfortunately. However there may still be a way to get it back to good. If u know u are going to be removing cables from the motor(s) which causes the pulse coders to lose count, then u should jog the robot into a position that leaves the pulse counts at or just beyond the master counts. Then when u first power on the motors after changing the cable, you have to jog to establish a new pulse, from the position you left the robot in. This should put the pulse counts back to the factory counts and after calibrating, zero marks will align. An apparent misconception is that zero alignment is the same as factory master counts, it is not. The master counts are how many counts to get to zero alignment after powering on the motor from first assembly. This is what quickmaster is for, it does the same thing but u need to set it up before disconnecting cables so in your case u need to re-establish master manually.
-
Actually the way you tried to preserve the zero positions is not correct unfortunately. However there may still be a way to get it back to good. If u know u are going to be removing cables from the motor(s) which causes the pulse coders to lose count, then u should jog the robot into a position that leaves the pulse counts at or just beyond the master counts. Then when u first power on the motors after changing the cable, you have to jog to establish a new pulse, from the position you left the robot in. This should put the pulse counts back to the factory counts and after calibrating, zero marks will align. An apparent misconception is that zero alignment is the same as factory master counts, it is not. The master counts are how many counts to get to zero alignment after powering on the motor from first assembly. This is what quickmaster is for, it does the same thing but u need to set it up before disconnecting cables so in your case u need to re-establish master manually.That wont work and is wrong. That is not at all how quick mastering works. When you successfully quick master, you master counts will have changed, but your mastering will be correct.
-
If you want to debate my solution you should provide some facts and explanation like i have. Why do u think my solution doesnt work? Can u explain what quick mastering does and how it works in comparison? The solution i provided WILL work in the event quick master has not been set up like in the OP scenario. The whole issue is that the pulse coders have lost their count position which can be restored. I have a lengthy description in another post if u search it up.
-
mcminn6 what you did should have worked. I have done the exact same thing multiple times and no touch up. You may have made a mistake re-establishing your pulse.
A word about master counts. They are arbitrary, unless you are restoring mastering after a software load or poor mastering.
Once the pulse coder has lost power, master counts won't help you one bit.sibrdave pdl has more cred than you and the way you called him out is unprofessional.
I have seen your explanation on restoring master counts on another thread and I think it is a waste of time.
I have mastered more robots than I care to remember and I know that master counts are limited in what they can provide.
Also I need to point out that production doesn't care if the "COUNTS" are correct, they want the robot fixed. -
Why was it unprofessional? I was asking him to explain why he shot down my solution without an explanation, i think thats fair. By the way you are wrong about master counts, they are not arbitrary. There is 1 sync pulse per revolution which is what triggers the counter when u first power on the motor, thats why u need to establish the pulse count first. Since there is one specific pulse, it is mechanically linked to the position of the axis its motor controls. I know my other post seems lengthy but it was an attempt to bring clarification to how the motors and master counts work, so once u understand it you can restore a robot inless than an hour. Much faster than remastering and touching up a ton of points. BTW, its a forum, not all solutions are the best for every situation and some people want to have alternate solutions too. Until someone can prove my solution doesnt work, i stand by it because ive used it on 3 robots since i wrote it, and it saved the day.
-
You demanded an explanation. We are here to support each other. It was your tone, that's all.
We come to the forum for support. Some ideas are more usefull than others depending on each specific situations constraints.
Your solution is an advanced solution and may not be appropriate under production due to time and room in the work cell.
Witrh that being said, I am going to test it on a developement unit today. -
Thank you, im looking forward to your feedback so i might be able to improve on the explanation. Its great that u have a development robot you can test with, and will take some time out to test. I will appreciate your input, be sure to let me know if the process is difficult to follow or you cant get it to work.