Author Topic: Philips CSM-84 performance  (Read 2514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2060
  • Country: us
Philips CSM-84 performance
« on: February 24, 2019, 03:46:02 am »
Some months ago there was some discussion about performance of my CSM-84 P&P machine.  I just did a board that was very suited for this machine.  it had 230 parts, mostly in 8 mm tape, but 3 different ICs in tubes, on the vibratory feeder.  The machine recorded a mounting time of 239 seconds, and I'd guess about 10 seconds for conveyor transport and fiducial detection.  So, that is 230 parts /249 seconds, or 0.92 parts/second or 3325 components/hour.

Now, some of the things that slow the machine down are requiring more than one push to advance the feeder and using the mechanical alignment station for the larger parts.  This particular board did not need any of those, and it was able to pick up one passive on nozzle 1 every time it picked up a chip on nozzle 2, saving just a little motion.  This is admittedly about the best this machine can do.

Jon
 

Offline Reckless

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2019, 05:44:50 am »
Thanks for posting this up.  It looks like CSM-84 was rated at 4800cph.  I have a sapphire which is rated for 25k cph but I haven't used it yet (need to get feeders).  I'm running Universal GSMs primarily and getting terrible CPH as I need to get more nozzles.
 

Online jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2060
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2019, 09:40:41 pm »
The CSM can use all three nozzles at once, and save some motion time between the feeders and the board.  I have the chuck jaws off nozzle 3 to accommodate FPGAs and other large parts, so those have to be aligned by the mechanical aligner on the back rail, and that adds about 7 seconds/part.  So, that doesn't actually speed anything up.  If you were just doing all passives, then you could put 3 sets of jaws on it and it could grab 3 parts every time it goes by the feeders.  That is probably needed to hit that 4800 CPH figure.  Also, grouping the components in nearby feeders would help.

The Sapphire can grab a bunch of parts at one time, but I don't have 3-phase power here.  All the Gem series machines need 3-phase power.  I don't know how much hacking it might take to get one of those to run off single-phase power.

I'm pretty happy with the speed of my CSM-84.

Jon
 

Offline Reckless

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2019, 07:46:23 am »
What feeders are you using?
 

Online jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2060
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2019, 10:02:26 pm »
What feeders are you using?
I don't know.  They are Philips, quite possibly made by Yamaha, like the machine is.  The older machines had mechanical advance for the 8 and 12 mm feeders, the air piston that drives the nozzle down also pokes the advance lever on the feeder.  Pressing the advance lever retracts the cover blade, exposing the part.  Releasing the lever advances the tape and cover blade simultaneously.

The 16mm and wider feeders have an air cylinder in them, which is activated by an air valve operated by the same trip lever.  The air is fed through a hose that is inserted into a quick-connect valve fitting under the feeder rail.  It is a MASSIVE pain to disconnect these hoses every time a feeder needs to be pulled off to re-thread or otherwise fiddle with the tape.  So, I see why the later machines CSM /// and Gem series) went to air through the feeder rail alignment pins.

Other than the air activation thing, these feeders look VERY much like the later Yamaha/Philips feeders.  Almost all my feeders came with the machine, I did get a few more 12 and 16mm ones in a swap for spares.

Jon
 

Offline LClarck007

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: ca
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2020, 01:27:03 pm »
I am also looking for vibratory feeders for my machine, can anyone suggest a good place to get them? A friend of mine has been purchasing parts for his machines from https://www.sandfieldengineering.com/automation-products/bowl-feeders/. Is anyone familiar with this manufacturer? He says they have decent prices and good quality but I need a little more feedback before making up my mind. I have read some reviews and those are good but I wanted a direct opinion from someone who had bought from them.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 10:15:47 am by LClarck007 »
 

Offline Reckless

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2020, 03:24:40 pm »
I have some for universal for sale
 

Online jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2060
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2020, 04:31:31 pm »
I am also looking for vibratory feeders for my machine, can anyone suggest a good place to get them?
For a Philips/Yamaha machine, or some other?  There are people selling used vib feeders on eBay for various machines.  As long as the height of the unit is not too high for your machine, most of them could be used on other models.  Note that Quad feeders run off 24 V AC.  Most of the others run off regular AC power.  I have a Contact Systems feeder on my CSM84.  I got a Quad vib feeder for my (new to me) Quad QSA30, and it uses the same top plate as the Contact System.  I had made a bunch of custom feeder lanes for odd-sized parts that bolt to the side of the vib feeder top plate, so i could continue to use these as needed.

But, I'm actually moving away from vibratory feeders when I can get the parts on tape.  The vib feeders need a lot of fiddling, parts leapfrog other parts and end up upside down, etc.

Jon
 
The following users thanked this post: LClarck007

Offline LClarck007

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: ca
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2020, 09:41:05 am »
It's a Yamaha
 

Offline Mangozac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: 00
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2020, 10:05:32 pm »
But, I'm actually moving away from vibratory feeders when I can get the parts on tape.  The vib feeders need a lot of fiddling, parts leapfrog other parts and end up upside down, etc.
Vibration feeders are for masochists! When we first bought our PnP I intended to do a few parts in tubes but now we avoid is as much as possible. About the only things we do now are SOIC microcontrollers and eeproms being used in very small quantities.
 

Offline SMTech

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 581
  • Country: gb
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2020, 12:06:31 am »
There are attempts at better ways of feeding tubes but they end up more expensive as you often need a custom machined bit for every package. Mydata shuffles (or did) instead of vibrates, some blow air down the tube, and Europlacer tips the parts down a shute with a belt at the bottom of it.
I hate tubes but very often, with lower volumes or price sensitivity a tube is all you can get readily. Common examples seem to be eeproms, PICs, maxim tranceivers (who also don't mark or colour code their tube ends or use very legible case markings HATE them). I find that SO14/16 seems to be the sweet spot with vibratory feeders, they seem to have just the right weight to feed first to last in a tube without being stubborn. TSSOPs are the pretty horrible, much fonder of flipping (especially if you've made a feeder slot by cutting the top of the feed end of the tube) because they are so thin and light, larger SOICs are just slow to move down tubes.
 

Offline Mangozac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: 00
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2020, 12:05:22 pm »
TSSOPs are the pretty horrible, much fonder of flipping (especially if you've made a feeder slot by cutting the top of the feed end of the tube) because they are so thin and light, larger SOICs are just slow to move down tubes.
Don't tell me that - we're trying some TSSOPs in a tube for the first time on Monday 😬

I have been considering machining a "receiver" for each of the parts we do in tube but haven't had time to make it yet...
 

Online 48X24X48X

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 225
  • Country: my
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2020, 03:59:21 pm »
I think vibration tubes are the easiest to work with among all and with minimal setup. Just tell the machine where to pick and it's height. I usually just cut out the upper half of the tube at one end with the length of slightly more than the IC length. Tried with TSSOP, SOIC and even 3x3mm QFN, they work just fine  The only thing I hate about vibration feeder is the amount of feeder slots it takes which is 6 on my HWGC machine. Other than that, if you can't afford some expensive IC in reels, vibration feeder is the way to go.
 

Offline Kinguru

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2020, 03:57:47 pm »
Hi, you mentioned that there is a mechanical aligner in the CSM 84, can you please explain how to program a part for mechanical alignment? thanks
 

Online jmelson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2060
  • Country: us
Re: Philips CSM-84 performance
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2020, 04:15:35 am »
Hi, you mentioned that there is a mechanical aligner in the CSM 84, can you please explain how to program a part for mechanical alignment? thanks
OK, you have a CSM84 or the equivalent yamaha model?  First, the head must be set to an IC head, I think they call it.  That means it has no alignment chuck on that head (nozzle).  The software will declare an error if not set that way.  So, if you will use the mechanical aligner, then you have to dedicate one whole nozzle to that for the entire board.

Then, in the feeder setup, you have a selection (use mech align) and 1 or 2.  The 1 or 2 selection determines if the mechanical aligner lifts up to align low profile parts or stays down to align thick parts.  The coordinates of the mech. aligner have to be set accurately for it to properly align larger parts.
The offsets for this device are in the MCH setup menu.  It gets quite complicated, as the part will be rotated after alignment, so you need to compensate for that to know which axis to adjust.

The mechanical aligner is a block at the right rear of the machine that has pairs of jaws that close on the component leads to center it on the nozzle.
I don't know how accurate and repeatable it can be, I know that mine is not all that great.  I get repeatability of maybe 0.25mm at best.

Did I actually answer the question you were asking?  This device is really "old school" and various centering cameras have to be a LOT better.

Jon
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf