Teach mode Program GO

    FANUC robot, STEP function is only one Line FWD and Stop.

    (All command type not distinction)


    But... KWSK's STEP function is very very different


    CONT is Single and Press GO button..

    Signal Control, Value Calculation... continous run.

    Program progress start and stop until next Motion or DELAY insrtuction.


    Yep. Single GO function distinction in "AS Language"


    It is very Dangerous.


    But, when use BLOCK instruction, this Single GO function working fine. Alike other maker robots.


    Why KAWASAKI robot not support "Command Line" GO mode?


    I.. hope next year controller support Command Line GO function.

    ABB, FANUC, Hyundai, Kawasaki

    The purpose of your post is what?

    - To promote Fanuc.

    - To warn users.

    - To criticise Kawasaki.

    - To release stress.

    - To expect or not expect responses.

    - Other reasons I cannot understand.


    I want to write a response, but this board is not intended for comparison discussions.

    There are plenty of Fanuc and other OEM features I consider dangerous too.....which also leave me :hmmm:


    So I will simply say the following:

    - Do I understand what you mean - Absolutely.

    - Do I think it is dangerous - Definitely not.

    - Could it be improved.....Yes, it could, but as I understand exactly how it works, it does not prevent me from using it in the way it is designed and safely.

    - Should you assume ALL manufacturers methods should be the same - No, to do this would be naïve and dangerous.

    - All manufacturers have different methods and you are dealing with dangerous equipment, so you must be suitably product trained in order to use it.

    - Take training classes and understand what these methods are designed to do, and maybe you learn that it is how you apply it that makes it dangerous.

    - If you don't like it, don't use it...……………..:away:


    :offtopic:

    I have 2 buttons.

    Button No.1 -When I press it, something moves, when I release it, that something stops.

    Button No.2 - When I press it, something moves, when I want to stop it, I then have to look for and press a different button.


    Which button is more dangerous?

    Promote FANUC? stop kidding plz.

    My best tier is ABB.
    Should I have to better example maker name to ABB?


    Warning and Caution. indeed.


    I'm still report KWSK korea office engineer. problem and some improvements.

    but, they are don't care market share.


    Release stress? this problem makes stress. oops.


    I think you are misunderstand AS Language.


    Quote

    I have 2 buttons.

    Button No.1 -When I press it, something moves, when I release it, that something stops.

    Button No.2 - When I press it, something moves, when I want to stop it, I then have to look for and press a different button.


    Which button is more dangerous?

    It is not a problem. Moving is not a problem.

    Just release deadman switch (all maker common)


    FANUC? Release SHIFT

    ABB? Press STOP button

    HHIR? Press STOP button

    YSKW? Release RUN button


    The key point is FUNCTION instruction.

    call program, data transmission, assign TRANS cartesian, Program stack turning point, Condition judgement... etc.

    All this instruction continuosly progress without user's volition.


    I wanna verification my program and condition flow when "Manual mode".


    BLOCK language DO NOT have to consider this problem.

    just teach hard and make many points.


    anyway, I'm still insert DELAY instruction for "break point (as like Visual basic F8 function)" effect.

    ABB, FANUC, Hyundai, Kawasaki

    Quote from kwakisaki

    - All manufacturers have different methods and you are dealing with dangerous equipment, so you must be suitably product trained in order to use it.

    - Take training classes and understand what these methods are designed to do, and maybe you learn that it is how you apply it that makes it dangerous.

    - If you don't like it, don't use it...…………….. :away:

    7years ago, first time KWSK tranning (I'm be used FANUC and ABB before this tranning) ,feel something wrong.

    ask to instructor. "Why this robot's TEACH mode hadn't command line GO function?"

    he said, "We know. that is critical problem when use AS Language. but KWSK HQ didn't improvement. so we recommend carefully watch start line number and contain function instruction reading before next moving instruction"


    yep, I'm not like KWSK.
    Never recommend KWSK. Never.

    ah, Motorcycle is good. ZXR Ninja is best.


    KWSAK robot... South Korea Provider "Hyundai WIA" still insist purchase this robot to coop mechanic vender.

    implicit pressure. oh jesus.


    I can't stop this irrationality. no power.

    ABB, FANUC, Hyundai, Kawasaki

    OK......so it is clear you are having a 'rant' over this CHECK problem.

    You have posted three times now, which shows your frustration and clearly you have 'placed a stake in the ground' regarding Kawasaki.

    So I suggest you stick with ABB and leave Kawasaki projects to those who like them.


    I have a successful client whom I've converted from 'xxx' (3 letters, 2 are the same) to Kawasaki and they much prefer Kawasaki for simplicity and reliability and are purchasing more.

    In fact, send me all your Kawasaki projects, I shall do them no problem.


    Quote

    I think you are misunderstand AS Language.

    Please do not make offending statement like this to me, you do not know my credentials.


    CHECK function is designed to check position and path.........not single step checking as you are referring to.

    CHECK operates exactly the same when program is BLOCK or AS Language written....there is no difference.....IT IS THE SAME....Period.


    What you see as an end result, may differ though and I agree, this can be confusing and I also agree, improvements could be made.

    But this does not in anyway make the system dangerous or impossible to use.


    Personally:

    I can do any of my checking without needing to use CHECK function.

    If I need to check any non motion instruction, like turning on an output, or calculation, then I use a PC TASK.

    The sequencing of it will be confirmed during my commissioning when I will use CHECK.

    If I suspect a problem, then I will add a process delay instruction to ascertain the problem area, then resolve it.

    What I do not need to do is painfully CHECK EVERY STEP...…..I never will because I know Kawasaki, I know BLOCK and I know AS.


    Now, I am not going to participate in a discussion, where I am seen defending Kawasaki saying they are the best etc, this would be naïve and foolish to say.

    Improvements can certainly be made, yes.


    Quote

    anyway, I'm still insert DELAY instruction for "break point (as like Visual basic F8 function)" effect.


    Why?......you are increasing cycle time that way.

    You have CP, ACCURACY, FINE, WAIT, TWAIT, MVWAIT, STABLE, BREAK, BRAKE, OPENI, CLOSEI, REALXI, GUNON, GUNOFF, OX.PREOUT, PREFETCH.SIGINS and many other commands which will assist with synchronizing non motion with motion instructions.


    Can you describe any differences between these sets of commands except the obvious in terms of step number total:


    LMOVE test

    SIGNAL 9

    SIGNAL -10

    or

    LMOVE test

    SIGNAL 9,-10

    or

    LMOVE test

    CLOSEI

    or

    ACCURACY 1 FINE

    LMOVE test,1

    I must have to consider more carefully choose words.

    I'm apologize my English.
    I didn't meaning offensive words.



    Quote from kwakisaki

    So I suggest you stick with ABB and leave Kawasaki projects to those who like them.

    We try always avoid use KWSK robot to new FA process.

    but, trading company already has KWSK robot and request order to us for robot teaching.

    end user(Major company) purchase robot -> supply robot to coop mech vender -> Mech vender request robot teaching to us.

    so... we hadn't robot maker select permissions.




    Quote from kwakisaki

    Why?......you are increasing cycle time that way.

    You have CP, ACCURACY, FINE, WAIT, TWAIT, MWAIT, STABLE, BREAK, BRAKE, OPENI, CLOSEI, REALXI, GUNON, GUNOFF, OX.PREOUT, PREFETCH.SIGINS and many other commands which will assist with synchronizing non motion with motion instructions.

    ah, that "DELAY" instruction when a TEACH mode for self verification.

    make some condition and check program stack sequence? flow? when I intended way.

    after all verification done, remove DELAY instruction.

    Sorry less describe to verification.


    We can't use OPENI, CLOSEI instruction.

    Solenoid valve control for Gripper Clamp and Unclamp.

    this OX, WX Signal direct connect to Controller's (CN2 Connector)

    almost proximity sensor installed each end bracket for detection witch unit operated clamp or unclamp.

    less air pressure, something jam inside cylinder, teaching point not fitting, sensor broken... we don't know until actually look that situation.


    Robot must given error signal to Master PLC when until 5/sec sensor condition not satisfy,



    and, here my recent project program.

    Quote from saberlars

    I must have to consider more carefully choose words.

    I'm apologize my English.
    I didn't meaning offensive words.

    I appreciate the apology......no offense was made, I am also having a small rant to you to....so my apologies too.....:top:


    Ah, ok, I understand why you add 'DELAY' now.....just for testing to get around 'single step' issue......Nice tip....:top:

    Quote

    We can't use OPENI, CLOSEI instruction.

    Solenoid valve control for Gripper Clamp and Unclamp.

    this OX, WX Signal direct connect to Controller's (CN2 Connector)


    Why not, the signals for these can be allocated to 1TW board or Fieldbus board, or Arm IO board.


    I don't quite understand your sequence with your gripper

    Is IF SIG(1003) OR SIG(-1004) GOTO quit command to say gripper has activated and OK?

    Shouldn't it be something like:


    begin:

    TWAIT 0.5

    TIMER 1 = 0 ; Reset timer

    SIGNAL 3,-4 ; Activate gripper

    WAIT (SIG(1003)==TRUE AND SIG(1004)==FALSE) OR (TIMER(1)>5)

    IF TIMER(1)>5 THEN;

    PRINT 2: " _ "

    PRINT 2: " PROGRAM wkgrip_clamp "

    PRINT 2: " Work Gripper Clamp has Failed !"

    BITS 123,6 = 3; Work Grip Clamp Error

    PULSE 121,2; Operation Error

    PAUSE

    GOTO begin

    ELSE

    TWAIT 1

    RETURN

    END

    Quote from kwakisaki

    WAIT (SIG(1003)==TRUE AND SIG(1004)==FALSE) OR (TIMER(1)>5)

    Indeed.

    your reply is correct basic rule.:thumbs_up:

    one sensor on is meaning opposition sensor must to be off status.


    the gripper handling part name is "Cam carrier"

    this part assembly on the Cylinder block's head.


    it isn't fixture part handling process

    part on the mold tray and that tray has tolerance over 10mm

    so, robot use vision align.


    part top surface had hole. this hole for gripper location pin insert.

    approach part top surface, picture trigger, RS232C comm, TDRAW offset, XMOVE descent, clamp. that's all.

    however .. rarely? External Vision align value a little bit (I think below 2mm) not fitting.

    so, gripper guide pin not into part's hole.

    occur clamp problem.


    Vision engineer try many times narrow align value's tolerance or miscalculated value.

    not enough time, too tight schedule, end user's pressure... so unwillingly...


    I'm change idea, focus gripper operate or not operate.

    guess... it possible when pickup from mold tray then naturally part fit clamp by jaw.

    so I use unusual condition.


    everything is working fine.




    return main topic...

    I want... prevent running sequence stop until next MOVE (also alike DELAY) instruction.

    Improve ... CONT mode more separation similar other robots.


    any idea always welcome.


    Thank you for allocating a lot of time to my rude questions.

    and sorry.

    ABB, FANUC, Hyundai, Kawasaki

    Thumbs Up 1

    Ah ok......so you use vision to 'fine tune' gripper placement for pin retention.

    Not seen that before.....interesting.....:applaus:


    XMOVE is no good for Checking with, Kawasaki always have problem with read ahead with this command in Check.

    I do not know if they improve this yet......or if they even will.


    Have you seen this XMOVE post and answer provided by Alexandru this is alternative method in place of XMOVE....and sometimes preferred method.

    XMOVE with OR operator


    From the sounds of your application, I can see how CHECK does not work well, if you are:

    Moving, wait for vision, moving, wait for vision whilst using XMOVE, I would consider alternative like in above post perhaps?


    For checking:

    Turn off CP switch and always use CHECK ONCE mode.

    Your motion will always be accurate 'position to position' irrespective of accuracy value used.


    Also, maybe consider using:

    DISTANCE, DEST, STABLE commands and integrate into vision handshake routine to assist with checking to.

    Again......Post by @ Alexandru above is good alternative.

Advertising from our partners