4 ms·

I own a factory robot welding cell. It has triple redundant safety systems. To make it operate while human accessible, you have to activate the safety interlock

I own a factory robot welding cell. It has triple redundant safety systems. To make it operate while human accessible, you have to activate the safety interlocks on both doors, pull the triggers halfway (but not all the way) on the teach pendant, and then the machine will only move at 10% speed. Even at 10% speed, if the robot turns and the cabling on it swings around, it can give you a good hit (from the welding cable on top). Would not be fatal, but it does give you a good whack on the head (I have experienced this!! haha). Also, machine operating and machine programming are totally separate jobs. Programming is very high skill level, and operating is fairly low - my 9 year old son and his scout troop spent one night operating it to get their robot badge. Why did the woman enter the work space, and how did she turn off all the safety devices? That would take a fair amount of effort on my machine, to get inside it while it runs. It could be done if you really tried, but it would take some effort. As for training - nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has had the skill or training to operate that robot in the 9 years I have owned it. The operators were all trained by me, the factory owner. And while I have lots of pressure on me for production, an industrial accident will destroy that. Better safe than shut down by OSHA.

a_thro_away 10y ago
I understand the separation of programming and operating, as I am a programmer as well as having studied automated automotive valve welding and grinding at a leading supplier (friction stem and seat welding, among others). The point I was making, though probably not clear I admit, was that a factory operator could be seen as a "machine programmer" simply because they were given that title by the production owners, and trained on the job as such. For example, technicians regularly do electrician functions in large factories, and all safety and liability issues that arise with that. And, not all factory robots are contained in an enclosure, they are in free 3D space; what interlock would you suggest to keep a human out? Visual, ultrasonic? I simply ask who takes responsibility for general machine programming Safety if there is not a simple enclosure interlock situation? BTW, she didn't get by an interlock; apparently there was not one there - which is my point exactly. BTW, a previous fatal incident the proposed fine was <$100k, not a shut down - that doesn't seem much of a disincentive to me.

a_thro_away 10y ago

I understand the separation of programming and operating, as I am a programmer as well as having studied automated automotive valve welding and grinding at a leading supplier (friction stem and seat welding, among others). The point I was making, though probably not clear I admit, was that a factory operator could be seen as a "machine programmer" simply because they were given that title by the production owners, and trained on the job as such. For example, technicians regularly do electrician functions in large factories, and all safety and liability issues that arise with that. And, not all factory robots are contained in an enclosure, they are in free 3D space; what interlock would you suggest to keep a human out? Visual, ultrasonic? I simply ask who takes responsibility for general machine programming Safety if there is not a simple enclosure interlock situation? BTW, she didn't get by an interlock; apparently there was not one there - which is my point exactly. BTW, a previous fatal incident the proposed fine was <$100k, not a shut down - that doesn't seem much of a disincentive to me.