From my testing I was able to connect but only when there was an active project running on the robot. Without a project running I was unable to establish a connection or communicate with the robot system registers.
The documentation and Techman Robot forum say there is a way to establish communication without an active project running but I have not been able to do so.
Yes, the Omron does have force sensing but it's relatively insensitive with a minimum detection force of 30 N. For my application, a minimum detection force of 1 N or less is ideal, which is also why I need an EOA-mounted sensor, not a base-mounted sensor.
ATIs' Nano F/T series looks like it would work well!
Hello all,
I've been looking at adding force sensing to a TM5-900 cobot from Omron. From what I can find online there are not that many options for an EOA force sensor, but I came across the FT 300-S from Robotiq and was wondering if this is the best/only option or if there are others like it out there?
Cheers,
D7
Maybe not a true solution but I solved the error by creating a new 2D camera and 2D vision process. I still had the discrepancy between automatic camera calibration and override standoff distance ( 1119 mm vs 416 mm). Orthogonal gave similar results to my 416 mm standoff so I decided to go with Perspective with the standoff distance overridden to 416 mm.
This did give me a mean error of around 1 pix and max of 3 pix but since I am using 2.3 MP camera on a FOV of around 100 mm square, a max calculated error of 0.15 mm is ok.
I also found that changing the center origin point in the vision process removed the slight offset I was seeing on pickup.
Hello All,
I am trying to set up a simple 2D vision process with a fixed camera. I've trained the TCP and User Frame correctly: TCP is just a pointer with a Z offset, User Frame has been calibrated and recalibrated using 3 and 4 point methods and both give the same values. Question: Does it matter what frame you are in while training the User Frame?
My issue is when setting up my camera; I use a fixed (bolted in place) calibration grid that was also used to teach the User Frame but when I get to the calibration step if I use Perspective with an automatic camera distance calculation I get a value of around 1 m, while my measured height is 416 mm. This method gives good mean and max errors, 0.25 and 0.693 pix respectively. When I use Perspective and override my standoff distance to my measure value my mean and max errors are around 1 and 3 pix respectively. Using Orthogonal gives mean and max errors equal to those I get with my standoff distance overridden.
My camera is a Basler acA1920-48gm with a Fujinon 1:1.6/35mm lens.
All three calibration methods (perspective auto, perspective override, and orthogonal), when used in the same vision program give about a 20 mm offset from the part.
Had trouble uploading pictures but they can be found at these links:
I've got the entire system backed up. Should I factory reset and start from a blank slate?
Recently I started working on a Fanuc robot system that was created by someone else and was told that it'd been down for quite a while. When trying to create a simple IRVision P&P program I get wild results with the robot completely changing direction when parts are rotated and moving way away from the pickup location. The part location frame is set correctly (I think) and so is the tool frame. When looking in the 4D viewer I see that my world frame and others are quite far away from the robot itself, and seem to move with the robot EOA. When I set the tool to MY calibrated tool the World frame (and others) move to the TCP. Im unsure but this doesn't seem right, but I have no idea why its doing this or how to reset the world (and other) frames to where they should be. Also, when creating NEW frames the 0,0,0,0,0 point is where the world frame should be somewhere between J1 and J2 (for fanuc LR Mate). Attached are pictures of this issue in the 4D viewer.
So your suggesting skip the banner PLC's and only use a single s1200f? Would it be capable of handling ALL the aforementioned functions?
Yes, I was under the impression that safety signals can not be sent over ethernet but I also want to be able to monitor all systems remotely. So, my thought was that I could use the Banner SC10-2ROE for necessary safety inputs (EStop, Doors, etc) and then send relevant data to a Siemens PLC. The Siemens PLC can then pass data to/from other Banner PLCs and be connected to a Node-Red service for purely monitoring purposes.
The goal I guess would be to pass coords from vision to the robot and signal conveyor movement based on vision as well. Generally, its function is a pick-and-place routine with a couple of extra steps.
Can someone tell me if I am missing anything? This will be my first ground-up system design.
Thanks!!
I have been looking at the best options for programming a robotic automation system, it seems that PLC dominates the industry. Most resources as to why come from websites that are selling PLC controllers, so I feel they may be biased. To my knowledge, a microcontroller gives much more flexibility and functionality compared to PLC, and for applications that require less than 30 IOs they seem to be the better choice. Assuming the programming of the controller is not an issue. My only reasoning as to why PLC still dominate the market is that they offer a tried and tested solution with good dependability. Is there something I am missing? Has anyone had experience with using a microcontroller in an industrial automation setting?
