KRC4 Training safety wiring or programming in T1

most robots out there do not have such system at all. specially medium and large robots would have tooling capable of hurting someone or something even when the clutch breaks.

something of that kind that is used fairly often is meant for arcwelding. and from what i have seen, non-safe I/O was commonly used to implement the logic.

but Kuka training cells use safety I/O and this is done in safety controller. reason here is likely reliability of the training cell (quick and easy recovery, without hurting someone - or the robot). and also since such training cells are used all around the world, with army of trainees using the training cells, it is only matter of time until someone does something stupid like stick their hand in wrong place... perhaps while someone else is moving robot or... even yourself. for example if you forget that you are holding enabling switch and then manage to lean on space mouse while focusing on something else.

Quote from panic mode

you forget that you are holding enabling switch and then manage to lean on space mouse while focusing on something else.

Done that so many times....

There's more than one way to do this. If the intent is to protect operators, you'll need to use a safe input pair (X11 or SafeOperation inputs, if you have SafeOp installed). If you're just trying to prevent fat-fingered trainees from breaking the end effectors, then a non-safe input could serve.

X11 doesn't have any non-safe inputs, so you would have to use a dual-channel breakaway sensor (to avoid single-channel faults), possibly on the Safe Stop channel. And wire a dual-channel "bypass" switch in parallel with the breakaway sensor. Again, since these are all dual-channel safety signals, you'll need dual-channel switches that close both contacts simultaneously -- a timing difference greater than a few milliseconds will generate a single-channel fault.

The "right" way to do this would probably be to add a PLC to kill $MOVE_ENABLE unless either the breakaway sensor or the bypass is active. That wouldn't require all the safety-rated components.

Quote from SkyeFire

Done that so many times....

added "bonus" is that space mouse always is always continuous, incremental jogging is ignored...

If students crash robots in T1 so much you have to worry about this, you should probably question if they can be trusted with anything other than plastic cutlery

Quote from colinb83

If students crash robots in T1 so much you have to worry about this, you should probably question if they can be trusted with anything other than plastic cutlery

Eh... if you're teaching complete newbies, this kind of crashing is to be expected. My first time on an ABB (with the joystick) was after I'd been doing KUKAs and Kawasakis and Nachis (ugh!) for five years, and I managed to crunch the training robot's end effector (a spring-loaded, easily replaced whiteboard marker) a few times during my first few days trying to get a "feel" for the joystick control.

Even professionals need them sometimes: check out Dragonfly Engineering's YouTube channel sometime -- most of their robots use these mag-mounts for their grippers, even though they have a pretty good handle on what they're doing.

Is the lesson then not to turn jog speed to below 10% till you learn what things do?

I think the same applies for cnc machines, when I first experienced that, I ran it slow, when metal chunks started flying I wanted to dive for cover.. Then you get confident in the equipment and push it.

Industrial robots and machinery are diametrically opposed to what feels natural as a bio sack of meat that we are.

Quote from colinb83

Is the lesson then not to turn jog speed to below 10% till you learn what things do?

I think you mean "above"?

Bottom line, when you know there's going (or likely) to be some breakage, why not minimize the cost of fixing it?

Dyslexic semantics, you know what I meant.

I'd actually disagree, the fear of breaking something, killing someone, even in a simulation focuses the mind.