EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Other Equipment & Products => Topic started by: maliqua on July 29, 2014, 11:01:30 pm
-
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/07/29/1921200/a-look-at-the-firepick-delta-circuit-board-assembler-video (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/07/29/1921200/a-look-at-the-firepick-delta-circuit-board-assembler-video)
http://hackaday.io/project/963-%24300-Pick-and-Place-%2F-3D-printer (http://hackaday.io/project/963-%24300-Pick-and-Place-%2F-3D-printer)
http://delta.firepick.org/ (http://delta.firepick.org/)
I for one would love to see dave race it :D
*edited for spelling and forgetting the link to the main site*
-
We are developing a really cool robotic machine that is capable of assembling electronic circuit boards (it also 3D prints, and does some other stuff!).
Destined for failure right there. Jack of all trades, master of none.
-
We are developing a really cool robotic machine that is capable of assembling electronic circuit boards (it also 3D prints, and does some other stuff!).
Destined for failure right there. Jack of all trades, master of none.
It doesn't stop there:
http://delta.firepick.org/philosophy/ (http://delta.firepick.org/philosophy/)
AUTO TOOL CHANGER
The delta robot configuration gives us plenty of room to install an auto-tool changer. This makes it a multi-purpose machine. Here are some of the tools that we are envisioning:
- 3D Printing Hotend
- SMT Pick-and-Place vacuum nozzle
- Solder paste dispensing syringe: This allows the machine to place solder paste consistently on the SMT pads, which eliminates the need to buy a stencil if you're only making a few boards.
- Hot air rework: Imagine being able to rework a BGA or SMT part with full camera vision. BGA rework machines sometimes cost upwards of $10000. This hot air tool will also be able to do minor reflow work, if your board only has a few parts.
- End mill / drilling attachment for PCB milling and other light-duty jobs.
- In-Circuit programmer for Atmega processors (fully-automated Arduino-Compatible booloader programming!).
- Pen plotter
- Dial indicator for verifying Z leveling. The built-in auto-Z-leveling routine will be sufficient for most users. This is more of a verification tool for us designing the machine, but will be available to buy/build for those that may need it.
- Laser element for photoplotting photo-sensitive boards. Sorry, no 80-watt CO2 laser cutting :( At least not at this price level.
Our Auto-tool changer gives you the ability to hold any four (4) tools at the same time. The end effector will only hold one tool at a time, but it will be able to switch back and forth between any of the four tools.
That's quite a bit of envisioning, I hope they do focus on the PnP first, just writing the code to be able to handle the Gerbers is going to be a PITA.
-
Destined for failure right there. Jack of all trades, master of none.
I don't see that really as a problem other than the tooling the code the machines are almost identical both benefit from precision equally and the stricter requirements of pick and place machines may end up making a better 3d printer than expected.
but time will tell i'm terrible at placing those small components and don't enjoy it at all so i will be a guinea pig when it becomes generally available :)
-
A video of some testing earlier this month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLA-CpYVtxo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLA-CpYVtxo)
-
Come on Dave! At least allow some room for benefit of doubt. Surely whether it succeeds or fails is partly a function of the standard you want to set. Most multipurpose tools are a compromise.
You are missing the point, you don't have to make it a multi-purpose tool.
From that quote it sounds like they want it 3D print and do other things.
FAIL
If you want a PnP machine, then build a PnP, don't try and make it do anything else.
-
More videos from the YT channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN5wWSFjmIQEShpf8L_wfvw/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN5wWSFjmIQEShpf8L_wfvw/videos)
Looks pretty good to me, other than there is still a lot of work to be done.
As for the PnP software they are using something called OpenPnP with kicad support (still on pre alpha)
http://openpnp.org/ (http://openpnp.org/)
-
(Preface: I haven't watched their videos because bleh.)
So yet another P&P machine where they ignore the biggest elephant in the room: Part handling - that is feeding reels, tubes, etc. I mean, the hard part is picking up a part and plopping it down roughly where the code specified it to go? Nope!
Also, if you're populating typical small boards with a non-ridiculous amount of identical components, it'll be faster to just do it manually as opposed to setting up your machine. And god help you if you have more BOM entries than your machine can fit, because you just doubled (and then some) your assembly time!
Yes, sure, it might end up working. How many boards could you have populated in the time it took to design and build a P&P machine that works reliably every time you start it up? Not worth the effort unless you build stacks and stacks of boards all day long, and if you do, fab it out to someone who does it for a living.
-
Yes, sure, it might end up working. How many boards could you have populated in the time it took to design and build a P&P machine that works reliably every time you start it up? Not worth the effort unless you build stacks and stacks of boards all day long, and if you do, fab it out to someone who does it for a living.
Yes, there is a very narrow window of worthwhile usefulness to these small PnP machine, which is why I don't think they'll ever be successful.
You can't magically make a cheap and simple machine that has decent parts handling usability.
-
Are you people kidding me!?!?
This is a brilliant idea. PnP, 3D printer, add a router tool and enclose it in an oven.
You can then mill a PCB, mount the components, reflow them and then print an enclosure around them
I smell a kickstarter campaign "Totally Freakin Awesome" :-DD
-
Seems to me they have plenty of space for feeders.
I'm more concerned on rotating the part, not clear if they do that yet, but since they are not using the camera for positioning yet, there is no point.
But they are using openCV for that ;)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/o-m-g-cheap-pick-and-place-machines-coming!/?action=dlattach;attach=103855;image)
-
Just as a general statement, work on the software not the platform. If that is where this is going then I'd like to see what they can come up with.
-
I'm with Dave. These home-brew PnP machines are totally useless.
I spent YEARS chasing a low cost and easy to use PnP machine. The closest I got was buying an older machine and retrofitting it with modern servo drivers and a modern controller and running G-Code with M codes for placements. It was a total pain in the ass. It always required constant fiddling to get it to place anything, and it's debatable whether I ever saved any time with it over hand assembling.
I've bought 4 or 5 pick and place machines over the years, and frankly, nothing comes close to a simple, used, good condition commercial PnP machine. The problems of home-brew PnP's are...
-It's a pain in the ass handling components. They are small, hard to reliably pick up, hard to reliably center and hard to reliably place.
-You need something that moves really fast but really accurately, without drifting over time.
Those two problems sound simple - but they aren't... that's why there are no cheap PnP machines on the market, and why "real" PnP machines start in the $150,000 range... because getting it just right is really, really hard.
-
10 years ago a 3D printer would cost you more than $100K, of course better quality than the current under $1K ones. But look at computer vision cost 10 years ago, or xyz table costs, etc.
Actually, look at the whole hobby electronics 10 years ago. Manufacturing cost as well, things have changed a lot on the past decade, why will a PnP be any different than say a CNC machine and it's drop in cost?
I agree it's a tall order, but you just can't dismiss it's feasibility.
-
10 years ago a 3D printer would cost you more than $100K, of course better quality than the current under $1K ones. But look at computer vision cost 10 years ago, or xyz table costs, etc.
Actually, look at the whole hobby electronics 10 years ago. Manufacturing cost as well, things have changed a lot on the past decade, why will a PnP be any different than say a CNC machine and it's drop in cost?
I agree it's a tall order, but you just can't dismiss it's feasibility.
I tend to agree with this sentiment especially as it's open source.
If this doesn't work out, or it does but it takes forever to set up/maintain, the fact that it's open source allows the next attempt by other parties to have a starting point. This gives the next mob the ability to concentrate overcoming deficiencies found on the previous unit.
There's bound to be a tipping point where interest in this idea will reach a level that more and more outfits will put R&D into it
Having said that, more R&D may very well show that its not feasible.
-
I don't see anything special on a small desktop PNP that can't be home brewed. Yes, it's going to have limitations like any tool - but to say it's "worthless" isn't correct. Sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxcYO0nuD8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxcYO0nuD8)
-
I still see merit in it for the hobbyist anything smaller than 0805 imho gets hard to manage by hand its doable but its not just quick easy work at least not for many of us, and doing really compact 0402 size is essentially out of the question for most of us. I for one don't have the dexterity.
To me it opens up a level of miniaturization currently not available to people of my skill level
I'm not saying it will work, but if the goals they set for it are achieved in the final product at the price they mention. I think it will for me at least, be worth the money.
-
Yes, it's going to have limitations like any tool - but to say it's "worthless" isn't correct. Sorry.
I think of any tool that's supposed to save you time and effort, but which fails to do either, as worthless. Sorry.
-
Yes, it's going to have limitations like any tool - but to say it's "worthless" isn't correct. Sorry.
I think of any tool that's supposed to save you time and effort, but which fails to do either, as worthless. Sorry.
I guess it's doomed already because you'all made up your minds, run for the hills! :scared:
-
Just as a general statement, work on the software not the platform. If that is where this is going then I'd like to see what they can come up with.
Yep - there have been plenty of machines that get to the 'ooh, we can place a few components' stage, and then the enormity of the software effort and getting working feeders kicks in.
This one impresses me the most - I wish people would join in, rather than starting yet again from scratch, but hey ho, the early stages of the project always seem to be the most fun and fastest moving.
http://www.vbesmens.de/en/pick-and-place.html (http://www.vbesmens.de/en/pick-and-place.html)
sort of maybe getting supplied by
http://www.placecomponents.com/ (http://www.placecomponents.com/)
-
Those two problems sound simple - but they aren't... that's why there are no cheap PnP machines on the market, and why "real" PnP machines start in the $150,000 range...
Not really. You can get a useful base machine for $10-20K. The ones of the likes that Adafruit and the smaller players like to use are in the order of $50K IIRC.
And of course there is a big 2nd hand market in these things.
Even Mike has a usable PnP machine in his shop, and I think it was about $5K 2nd hand?
-
In this case its exactly what has happened, firepick is a fork and extension of open pnp which has been around for a few years. The firepick fork mainly has added better visioning utilizing open CV.
Give it another couple of years and a few forks and I think the s/w will be in usable shape. There are at least 4 other designs that uses open pnp s/w base that are functional machines with one working in a small production environment.
Time will tell where this will lead, I have followed firepick since inception and I am surprised how far they have gotten. I always thought the two guys were crazy with their goals of a sub $500 machine that can place ~ 1000 cph.
I think open pnp for example could be used to upgrade older systems that doesn't have sophisticated computer visioning.
-
what my thought is... 3 in 1, 3d printer, pnp and cnc machine. i just dont have the time to do it on my own. someone briliant and patient may do it. once was thought impossible now is possible, ignore the naysayers, engineering is about solving problem. but remember to get the fruit, hardwork is needed and patient, real hardwork and real imagination no kidding.... talking about master of none... i just recently bought/upgrade to 1, infact without this model i dont need the rest (the norm) of the androidiotic world, my 7 years old nokia 7610 did the job flawless, now handed down to kiddo for symbian gaming only they love it so much. but with this master of none thing i dont feel like to bring my heavy 40d around again...
(http://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/styles/w300h225crop/public/article_images/2014/04/samsung-galaxy-k-zoom_0.jpg?itok=yS78J4W4)
-
Actually, look at the whole hobby electronics 10 years ago. Manufacturing cost as well, things have changed a lot on the past decade, why will a PnP be any different than say a CNC machine and it's drop in cost?
I agree it's a tall order, but you just can't dismiss it's feasibility.
You can, because you can't compare a PnP machine with a 3D printer.
A 3D printer squirts melted plastic through a nozzle - that' it.
A PnP machine has to place a countless variety of parts from reels, peel back the reel tape, rotate them, optically detect and check them, use vaccum to suck up tiny parts, and do it at a speed that makes it usable.
The reel handling is the show stopper, it's not easy to get this right, which is why commercial reel handlers cost big dollars, and can even cost more then PnP machine itself if you get enough of them.
It's all huge trade-off between being able to handle enough reels to make a reasonable board in a single pass, handle the reels, get the opticals right, learn to program it and be on-hand to massage the machine when it fails (even the best ones do, and need full time attention) etc.
You can't magically do all this for a low cost.
You can calculate and test how much time you save vs either hand placing yourself, or simply giving it to a shop that has a better machine and better people who know how to use it and can man it 24-7.
And when you look at it, it's a very narrow windows, and almost certainly always will be.
-
I guess it's doomed already because you'all made up your minds, run for the hills! :scared:
It ultimately comes down to how you value your time.
If you have endless time that in your view costs you nothing, then fine, use a DIY PnP machine, you can make it work.
It might take 5 passes of your board, tweak it after every 10th part, fiddle with the tape, change the reels, set it up and trial it etc.
But ultimately you will never ever be more efficient than a professional level machine and someone who works cheap who's full time job it is to use and maintain these machines. Or simply placing the parts yourself by hand.
Remember, the only time the PnP machine saves you is hand placing the parts. You still have to manually stencil your board, and then manually reflow it.
So it comes down to a matter of trading off time to set up a hand placing system or set up the PnP machine.
And then trading off hand placing time to watching the PnP machine and fixing the inevitable things that go wrong. Even the pro ones aren't really set and forget.
There are certainly some instances were a home made PnP machine could be very useful. Say for example you had a board with 1 hundred 0805 resistor and caps and one big chip. Well the PnP could be useful for the huge number of parts, and the one awkward chip could be placed by hand.
But if you have a complex board with 30 different parts of all different physical sorts, well, good luck with that, you are probably wasting your time even trying to get it working.
It's just like making your own PCB's, there is a very narrow window of justification when you can get a professional PCB made for $5/sqin
-
I just can't see them getting the required accuracy, especially with 3d printed parts for mechanics.
Although you can do a lot with vision/calibration to correct for mechanical errors, the one thing you can't do is vision the position the part needs to be placed at, as it is covered in solder paste.
I doubt it would be useable for anything below 0805. it is going to get exponentially harder to get sufficient accuracy as precision gets tighter.
The only way something using corrections to cheap mechanics like this can work is if a way can be found to measure the head position precisely, sum of all errors well under 0.1mm in all conditions. It maybe that someone can solve this (e.g. laser interferometer) but this doesn't look like it.
They had an interview with one of these guys on Slashdot - he totally dismissed the issue of setup, which is always going to take a lot of the time for any kind of P&P, from $100 to $1,000,000
However one encouraging thing was they were keen to work on it until they had something useable instead of rushing into a half-arsed kickstarter.
I don't deny it would be a cool hack if they can get it working well, but even if they do, it will never be anywhere near as useful a tool as they and others seem to think.
Automatic pick/place will never ever be useful for 1-off boards unless there are many hundreds of a few types of component.
-
Building machines is its own joyous reward, and I wish them well.
Caveat: I have PnP machines that are probably as good as these guys will manage if all goes well. It's still quicker and easier to hand place components for low volume builds. (Well, I say hand build - not tweezers, more like this
http://amesberger.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/dsc_0668.jpg (http://amesberger.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/dsc_0668.jpg) - you can place about 30 components a minute when rocking along with 0603s. Automating one of those with X-Y encoders and direction LEDs to guide in to the location on the board is something I keep thinking about - but then it's more setup than just printing out a build sheet and propping it up to work from.)
As Dave says, the gap between hand building for prototypes, and subbing out (or being able to afford a real, if used, commercial machine) is quite small. So, with any luck, this is for the joy of building the machine, not because of an unmet need. If the machine can do something super-cool, like get BGA placement right, with enough cameras and calibration and cunning, that makes it more appealing. Depositing solder paste is also handy, and I can't see why a machine that can place parts can't paste - although getting the pump and needle right will be fun.
Also: Feeders. They're hard, and I've not seen evidence that people are doing it wrong, just that it's fundamentally hard. Perhaps vision is now so cheap and easy that we can chuck a bag of components at the machine, and let it sort them out. Pass all passives through an LCR station just to check values before placing, and off it goes. That would be cool.
-
I am happy if it can help to do vision assisted probing.
-
DIY PnP is also a formidable challenge but I'm glad there are people willing to have a go. Nothing is ever accomplished by saying it can't be done.
I agree, and I am not discouraging anybody from doing so.
The only "nay-saying" I'm doing is directed at those who think this will be some sort of revolution, and will be the best thing since sliced bread, it very likely won't be for most people.
-
Also: Feeders. They're hard, and I've not seen evidence that people are doing it wrong, just that it's fundamentally hard. Perhaps vision is now so cheap and easy that we can chuck a bag of components at the machine, and let it sort them out. Pass all passives through an LCR station just to check values before placing, and off it goes. That would be cool.
It's probably not that hard in the scheme of things to use a vibration tray for each part and use vision to pick up parts once they are randomly flipped the right way. In which case you could just unreel passives into a bin and use vision to suck up parts, no need for the feeder any more. Caps are easier because they don't have to be flipped. Even resistors don't have to be flipped, but it's ugly otherwise.
-
You've got the nightmare scenario of a component dropping off the needle into an adjacent tub - especially if you're sometimes picking up by a corner. Hence my wondering about LCR-testing on the fly, since finding that wrong valued part on an assembled board is a foul job that'll easily cost you more time than assembling the board from scratch.
Thinking about it - if people are as excited by this as they seem to be, should someone have a go at kickstarting a decent manual PnP machine? Retail prices on those are absurd. Or is it more an 'ooh, Robots' thing?
-
You've got the nightmare scenario of a component dropping off the needle into an adjacent tub - especially if you're sometimes picking up by a corner. Hence my wondering about LCR-testing on the fly, since finding that wrong valued part on an assembled board is a foul job that'll easily cost you more time than assembling the board from scratch.
Thinking about it - if people are as excited by this as they seem to be, should someone have a go at kickstarting a decent manual PnP machine? Retail prices on those are absurd. Or is it more an 'ooh, Robots' thing?
I've seem machines test R and C, but only from the first one from each tape to make sure it's got the right tape in the right slot, otherwise it just slows things down too much.
-
Bah, my good LCR tester can do 180,000 components per hour. Well, it says it can - I suspect I'd need to build it some elaborate part handling gear to get near that!
Anyway, LCR testing needn't slow things down much if you're building a tweezer based pnp machine. Lowering the part onto a rig each time for a vacuum machine might be tedious (although if you're already committed to holding each part over a camera, maybe not so much extra time)
Anyway, it's a daft idea.
-
Are you people kidding me!?!?
This is a brilliant idea. PnP, 3D printer, add a router tool and enclose it in an oven.
You can then mill a PCB, mount the components, reflow them and then print an enclosure around them
I smell a kickstarter campaign "Totally Freakin Awesome" :-DD
Add one ore thing : a wastebasket so it can drop whatever it produces straight in the trash can.
-
Thinking about it - if people are as excited by this as they seem to be, should someone have a go at kickstarting a decent manual PnP machine? Retail prices on those are absurd. Or is it more an 'ooh, Robots' thing?
Bingo!
Yes, a well designed manual system would probably be quite popular, once word gets around that DIY PnP's generally suck, and a well designed manual system can work very well.
-
In this case its exactly what has happened, firepick is a fork and extension of open pnp which has been around for a few years. The firepick fork mainly has added better visioning utilizing open CV.
Give it another couple of years and a few forks and I think the s/w will be in usable shape..
I wish the entire open community stopped forking around and, for once, finished something before they moved to the next thing. All they produce is forks... Nothing ever gets finished in a workable state. So people who want to use this stuff are basically forked ...
For forks sake ..
-
I've been playing with various low cost P&P machines seriously since 2007.
I don't think it is impossible to do it for $1000, except that the limitations imposed by making it profitably for $1000 endow the unit with limited niche appeal, which reduces the chances of making money which in-turn makes it unlikely to be born.
I think it's possible to do an accurate (i.e. cameras) machine with 32-48 feeders profitably for $3000 - but probably only if it was KS'd, or hit at least 50 orders.
Using a delta might work, but not the path I chose (I did consider it though) - be interesting to see how this one develops. The biggest issue I can see is that drag feeders (the only economical way to do this) require a surprising amount of force, and they *may* have to stiffen the delta up or re-calibrate it after each pick.
-
I just can't see them getting the required accuracy, especially with 3d printed parts for mechanics.
through experience, it can be compensated in model drawing, or doing post processing. i think thats how technicians and engineers deal with limitation in the field (aka hacking). but agreed, if the specification is not fullfilling your requirement or too must hassle to deal for, the device is not for you. sure there are better options (with additional price of course). but for some, cheap 3d printer is alot better than gluing several cardboard blocks together. i think similar argument can be applied to pnp, if it can save time by say >20% then its not entirely useless.
-
Testing manual pick and place machine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_MrG5Ut2s#ws)
-
Here is a link to the build for the above. Really impressive setup, and looks like he uses it as well.
http://www.briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-1.aspx (http://www.briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-1.aspx)
-
Here is a link to the build for the above. Really impressive setup, and looks like he uses it as well.
http://www.briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-1.aspx (http://www.briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-1.aspx)
Very nice!
-
The finished machine, can rotate parts, no programming required. Slick as snot, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMomxqVB2hY#t=79 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMomxqVB2hY#t=79)
-
The finished machine, can rotate parts, no programming required. Slick as snot, really.
Don't know about that, this one he made later on, looks more finished, specially after making it way faster :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgshl-MpeuA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgshl-MpeuA#ws)
Edit: since when the YT embedded has to use http? used to be it was https only now it's http only! :-//
-
That's a different project (not the manual pick and place in my previous post), very nice as well.
-
Hi, I'm the lead developer of FirePick Delta, I saw this post in my referrer logs and figured I'd chime in.
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation about what we are and aren't try to do. I'll try to explain our intentions here for anyone that cares. I'm not as worried about the snarky comments, I expect those here and on other sites like slashdot, they don't bother me at all.
Destined for failure right there. Jack of all trades, master of none.
This is a bit tricky for me to approach. We're entered in the Hackaday Contest, and currently doing quite well, yet you (Dave Jones) are an official judge of that contest. I didn't see anything in the rules about chitchatting between judges and contestants, so I don' think there's any Schrödinger's cat paradoxes to worry about. However, I really don't want to start a debate or anything here, because that's not good for anybody. I'll try to keep this post as matter-of-fact as I can. I really don't want to get an attitude with a judge, or suck up to him/her :) Hope we can all be adults here.
We added 3D printing to our machine for two reasons. #1, we're using existing RepRap motion control (Marlin and RAMPS) as a basis of our design. Therefore, we get the 3D printing for free. We're not doing all sorts of development in 3D printing. That work was pioneered by the RepRap dev team years ago. We just mount a 3d print head on the machine and run existing software. #2, we intend for the component feeders and other pieces to be 3D printed from conductive plastic (from a company called 3DXtech, that uses carbon nanotubes impregnated into the ABS). This makes our feeders and other bits ESD-safe, which I think is REALLY cool. I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I respect that, but it's worked extremely well for us so far. I personally don't agree with your comments Dave, but I'm a bit biased ;)
Here's a quick list of what our machine does and doesn't do, since it's not clearly defined anywhere else:
3D printing: YES
SMT placement: YES, with closed-loop computer vision.
Paste dispense: YES, with closed-loop computer vison.
PCB milling, drilling: Not currently, if ever. It's open source, so if someone else gets it working, that's cool, they can send me a pull request.
Component tape feeders: YES, in all standard sizes. We support 24x drag-pin feed and 2x full-auto feeders at the moment. We've got 8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm, 32mm, 44mm.
Component tube feeders: Will support them in the near future. 3D printed receptacle, so if you've got a weird SMT inductor, you can modify an existing feeder for your part, and optionally send us a pull request
Tray feeders: Yes, although not the big JEDEC sizes.
If you want to place parts yourself, or buy a big machine, that's fine. This machine fills a niche however. I know this, because my inbox is filled with hundreds of emails wanting me to sell them a machine. Overall, the responses that I've gotten for this machine are 98% positive, at least. That's good enough for me. If a few people think it's stupid, I'm cool with that.
I wish the entire open community stopped forking around and, for once, finished something before they moved to the next thing. All they produce is forks... Nothing ever gets finished in a workable state. So people who want to use this stuff are basically forked ...
For forks sake ..
Again, lots of misinformation here. Yes we forked OpenPnP, but we use Git, and can send pull requests back to Jason Von Nieda, who runs OpenPnP. What is the problem here? That's how software gets done these days. I have good communication with Jason, we're not doing a "hard fork", we've not come to philosophical differences on OpenPnP. We'll run it headless with a node.js webserver, instead of a java gui app, but that doesn't require much code to change. Jason's a busy guy, and it doesn't work 100% at this point as it's still in alpha; what are our other options? We could bitch about it, or we could do like we're doing, and get to work. Which we are.
Anyway, I could keep going, but not sure it'll really do much. This machine will work great for many. Some won't like it. Some may like it once I'm able to better communicate to them what it is (the whole PnP this is so nebulous, it means so many different things, to so many different people). We've got some REALLY clever ways of dealing with the problems that you guys mentioned, so PLEASE, just wait until we get something working and documented before you pass judgement. We're in this for the long-haul. This is what I'm personally doing with my life. PnP or die.
Cheers!
Neil Jansen
-
The finished machine, can rotate parts, no programming required. Slick as snot, really.
Crazily well engineered for a manual P&P, gilding the lilly doesn't even come close!
Watching it in use, the thing that strikes me, is how much time is taken "seeking" back and forth to the tapes (this is true also of an auto of course, but they have an easier job of going to a precise location and back again quickly)
Makes me wonder if there could be some way to "take the parts with you" instead of back and forth all the time.
-
Hi, I'm the lead developer of FirePick Delta, I saw this post in my referrer logs and figured I'd chime in.
Thanks for joining.
This is a bit tricky for me to approach. We're entered in the Hackaday Contest, and currently doing quite well, yet you (Dave Jones) are an official judge of that contest. I didn't see anything in the rules about chitchatting between judges and contestants, so I don' think there's any Schrödinger's cat paradoxes to worry about. However, I really don't want to start a debate or anything here, because that's not good for anybody.
I disagree, debates are good!
Hope we can all be adults here.
Of course.
Just to clarify, what I meant by "Destined for failure" does not mean I think the project will actually fail, nor do I want it to fail. Just in my my experience when a project tried to do too many thing it always leads to compromises, or takes away form the core focus, or sucks development time on an non-core feature etc
It's something we talk about a lot on the Amp Hour.
I personally don't agree with your comments Dave, but I'm a bit biased ;)
That's ok.
IMO the 3D printing thing shouldn't have been mentioned at all. It's all about focus, and having that in the back of your mind may subtly restrict your engineering options, as much as you think you "get t for free". That may be the case, but it may not.
If you want to place parts yourself, or buy a big machine, that's fine. This machine fills a niche however. I know this, because my inbox is filled with hundreds of emails wanting me to sell them a machine. Overall, the responses that I've gotten for this machine are 98% positive, at least. That's good enough for me. If a few people think it's stupid, I'm cool with that.
I have no doubt you'll sell machines, but that is separate issue about how viable small cheap DIY PnP machines are actually are when you look at them unbiasedly. Just because people buy them and use them doesn't actually make them viable. Some people just like to work inefficiently and charge zero for their time.
So once again, I'm not against them, I think they are cool, heck, I want one, but I maintain my view that there is a very narrow window of real value useability on these things.
We've got some REALLY clever ways of dealing with the problems that you guys mentioned, so PLEASE, just wait until we get something working and documented before you pass judgement. We're in this for the long-haul. This is what I'm personally doing with my life. PnP or die.
Awesome, more power to you. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
BTW, as regards to the contest entry, I was surprised to see it entered, because it's not really a "connected" device? :-//
Perhaps I'm missing something?
-
Crazily well engineered for a manual P&P, gilding the lilly doesn't even come close!
I thin kthat's what required to be genuinely efficient for long term use though, it's the small things that count.
Watching it in use, the thing that strikes me, is how much time is taken "seeking" back and forth to the tapes (this is true also of an auto of course, but they have an easier job of going to a precise location and back again quickly)
Makes me wonder if there could be some way to "take the parts with you" instead of back and forth all the time.
I had the exact same though. My mind instantly wondered to designs for ways to feed tape directly in the head and then pop parts out like a Pez dispenser.
Either by transferring existing tape parts into some sort of loader, or dreaming about the manufacturers providing parts in such a way.
-
The finished machine, can rotate parts, no programming required. Slick as snot, really.
Crazily well engineered for a manual P&P, gilding the lilly doesn't even come close!
Watching it in use, the thing that strikes me, is how much time is taken "seeking" back and forth to the tapes (this is true also of an auto of course, but they have an easier job of going to a precise location and back again quickly)
Makes me wonder if there could be some way to "take the parts with you" instead of back and forth all the time.
Leveling up the dispensing table and and the pcb table would help. Not to mention more rigid holding of the tape so it would not have to be advanced one at a time. I think the entire reek holder could be a removable assy to make it easier to set up. A camera on the pickup tool would be nice.
-
I've got a camera on my manual machine and it's (almost) great. It's just a PAL board with the lens swapped, and an ebay LCD TV - I think the resolution of the TV is the limiting factor, if anyone's planning to do similar. Problem was, I wanted a small TV so I could position it where I didn't have to move my head much to see it - to get a decent speed (which the chap running that demo didn't seem to be achieving), everything needs to be streamlined.
I've just come off a project using HD cameras over a serial link, though, and I'm very tempted to upgrade my camera to full HD. Trying to stop myself mounting 2 cameras, and combining the outputs into a single 3D panel, to stop me having to sort of squint on tricky parts :)
(anyone know of a small (7"?) LCD panel that's fast enough to do shutter glasses 3D? I'd be driving it from an FPGA, so pretty much any drive scheme is fair game. I thought about 3DS panels off ebay, but I'm just not sure they won't be a monumental pain in the arse...)
-
BTW, as regards to the contest entry, I was surprised to see it entered, because it's not really a "connected" device? :-//
Perhaps I'm missing something?
There has to be a motor controller hardware. So, there is a PC connected to a motor control board connected to stepper motors. And a camera connected to something connected to the software. Would you clarify why this would not be a connected device?
-
Of course.
Just to clarify, what I meant by "Destined for failure" does not mean I think the project will actually fail, nor do I want it to fail. Just in my my experience when a project tried to do too many thing it always leads to compromises, or takes away form the core focus, or sucks development time on an non-core feature etc
It's something we talk about a lot on the Amp Hour.
We're going to stay focused and vigilant towards the project at hand: making it easy to place super tiny SMT parts reliably. I've not even tried the hotend extruder out yet on the first prototype machine, it's just hanging there like a vestigial leftover. I have been focused, and will stay focused, on getting the SMT stuff working before I touch it. But I'm a RepRap veteran, and 3D printing design and operation comes very naturally to me, and I realize how powerful it can be on a machine like this, for printing component feeders and fixturing in ESD-safe plastic, not to mention enclosures and brackets. Some people still think 3D printing is nothing more than a toy, I would disagree with that. I use it to make jigs, pogo pin fixtures, and other awesome stuff, and want to share that sort of workflow with others.
I have no doubt you'll sell machines, but that is separate issue about how viable small cheap DIY PnP machines are actually are when you look at them unbiasedly. Just because people buy them and use them doesn't actually make them viable. Some people just like to work inefficiently and charge zero for their time.
So once again, I'm not against them, I think they are cool, heck, I want one, but I maintain my view that there is a very narrow window of real value useability on these things.
You're a young strapping gent, your eyesight is good, and you have a steady hand, I assume. The retired NASA engineers that I've talked to, that have lost the wherewithal to do the small stuff (or lived before the small stuff existed) believe that this machine is viable. Those with vision problems, which includes my main software developer, Karl Lew, believe this machine is viable (he's slowly going blind, and can't drive any more). The guys down at my local makerspace, wanting to solder about 10,000 WS2812B LEDs into a giant tetris array think that this project is viable. Those without SMT soldering skills, and those with mediocre soldering skills think that this project is viable. I am the kind of guy to check my privilege before deciding what's viable and what isn't. I can solder 0402 chip parts and 1/2mm pitch IC's, even QFN's, DFN's, and BGA's, all by hand, but so what? Can everyone? Does everyone want to? Outside of a very small prideful engineering community, this is a very viable product, that has real usability.
Like I said, we're working on some really clever stuff, including a new feeder design that doesn't require futzing around getting each part inserted correctly. This will be an open standard that hopefully middle-men companies can jump in and provide a useful service to those that'd rather not deal with the time spent loading feeders. Also, not sure if I've covered it, but our system automatically recognizes feeders and boards, which can be placed anywhere. This is possible thanks to our incredibly flexible high-level vision API that we've spent the last year writing. We're also writing an intuitive GUI to replace the one in OpenPnP, which is quite busy and not intuitive. This machine will be quite easy to use, and we've got at least 100 beta testers signed up (most are serious engineers with a proven track record of SMT assembly in one form or another), so assuming a fraction of them actually build/buy one and provide us feedback, we're on our way to making a very useful system.
BTW, as regards to the contest entry, I was surprised to see it entered, because it's not really a "connected" device? :-//
Perhaps I'm missing something?
You control the machine via any HTML5 browser, via node.js/Express webserver. That could be a laptop, tablet, even iphone (we use the Twitter Bootstrap framework, so it's responsive to different devices). That's enough to consider it a connected device, according to my interpretation of the rules. It's not a static machine with its own UI like a NeoDen TM-220A. You have to connect to it via Ethernet or Wi-Fi for it to be useful.
-
Hi, I'm the lead developer of FirePick Delta, I saw this post in my referrer logs and figured I'd chime in.
great. Now we can talk instead of rant-n-rave
About the jack of all trades master of none. I too get that feeling judging from the webpage.
It even mentions its usage as a rework machine placing and replacing BGA parts. Pardon me if i inject a mandatory eyeroll here. And i quote :
Rework: Our robotic machine will also function as a rework station, capable of replacing BGA's, QFN's, TQFP's, and any other common part available. This is a great thing for those for the electronics repair business, the video game modding community, and the smarter-than-average consumer with a broken consumer device that needs fixing.
You are creating great expectations... That aren't possible as it is only the placement step of a rework cycle , even the removal can't be done.
First of all rework implies desoldering and resoldering. Bring heat anywhere near that placement head and you end up with a puddle of goo..
Second. Bga ? With a dispenser needle as pickup and an aquarium pump that kicks in and out and creates a pulsed airflow ? I think not. Time to bring in compressed air and a venturi to create vacuum.
Third bga and tqfp need an upward looking camera to check pin alignment. These packages also require a matrix feeder (these parts come in standardized trays. So do a lot of packages like qfn son and others) i dont see that capability in the machine. The only way for those packages to identify pin 1 is using a bottum-up camera. Any part with occluded pins can not be handled unless you have this kind of camera.
Judging from you pictures you use a downward looking camera but i dont see an illuminator anywhere.
You mention paste dispensing. Are tou familiar with the concept of pullback ? To correctly dispense you need both compressed air and vacuum.
Some random thoughts : the machine is square. Can we have feeders on all sides ?
Tray feeders: Yes, although not the big JEDEC sizes.
Define big. Can you handle a tqfp100 ? What about a 144 ? Or a 208 ? To put it in arduio terms : i want the thing to be able to place the atmega2560. You do need the jedec trays as that is the standard. See my comment above. Lots of parts in qfn , son and other packages come in these trays.
For forks sake ..
Again, lots of misinformation here. Yes we forked OpenPnP, but we use Git, and can send pull requests back to Jason Von Nieda, who runs OpenPnP. What is the problem here? That's how software gets done these days. I have good communication with Jason, we're not doing a "hard fork", we've not come to philosophical differences on OpenPnP.
the. You are one of the few doing it right and i stand corrected. Too much stuff gets forked on philisophical differences and in the end both go nowhere. That seems not to be the case here. Good !
[/quote]Anyway, I could keep going, but not sure it'll really do much. This machine will work great for many. [/quote]
I will buy it if it can handle 0603 upward . Forget the big packages for now. Would be nice but i am good at handsoldering the big tqfps. It's the tedious placing of resistors and caps and small fry that bores me. But, i do want an up looking camera to handle qfn and son and real jedec trays. Too many parts these days use these packages (accelerometers, compass chips , bluetooth modules)
Another very important thing is the teach-in of the machine. Taking centroid data is not enough. Take an led for example. That is a polarised component. Having centroid data and rotational data is not enough. You need to know how the board sits in the machine and you need to know how the part sits in the machine.
What about flipped parts. Once in a while parts flip over as the tape progresses. This leads to a mispick. Mispick detection needs multiple things : vacuum integrity check to verify we did get a part on the nozzle. Sideview to verify the part didn't flip. I would at least expect vacuum check so the machine can do an in position retry , then progress the tape and try again.
I'll be keeping an eye on this ...i would even want to buy one , provided it is reliable and doesn't require constant futzing with the machine.
What i mean with that is : i was at techshop a few weeks ago where there was a gathering of 3d printing enthousiasts. I talked to a whole bunch of different machine owners. I asked them : are these machines turn-key ? The answer was unanimous : no. Everybody that has 3d printing hobby is more tinkering with the machine than actually creating parts with it. Half of them were printing 'calibration jigs' so they could make their life easier when they change materials... They all still struggled with peeling of parts during builds, sagging material, parts being too large or too small due to wrongly comle sated overprint and or material shrinkage.
If i send a file to a 3d systems machine i don't need to futz with anything. Push the button and it comes out perfect. Especially the SLS machines printing nylon.
3d printing in my hobby means : making things, not tinkering with the machine itself.
Likewise with a pick and place : shoot parts on a board. Not constantly futzing with the machine itself.
Pick and place machines can be moody little buggers. I had a juki for years in the lab to run prototypes. It ran great but it needed too much 'caring love' to my liking. ok, it was 10 years old already back in 2000...
But i will expect a machine that is at least on par with a 15 year old pick and place. Shove in reels, assign position and hit 'go' , not 'take out wrench and hammer and apply percussive maintenance to force it to behave'
-
This is what the contest entry says.
It must transmit data to and/or from another device (computer, phone, duplicate/variation of your device, etc). This could be over the Internet, or using any other method of your choosing.
If it is transmitting control sequences from a PC to the device then it would seems to be "connected" assuming a USB cable (or serial) is "any other method of your choosing".
If you want to delve any deeper into the semantics of "connected" then it's lawyers at 10 paces.
Precisely. I believe that we meet that requirement easily, with our html5 browser interface via wifi / Ethernet.
Here's our youtube video that we were required to make for the contest, describing how we're meeting the various requirements of the rules:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7j7Mkyr8Os (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7j7Mkyr8Os)
-
Second. Bga ? With a dispenser needle as pickup and an aquarium pump that kicks in and out and creates a pulsed airflow ? I think not. Time to bring in compressed air and a venturi to create vacuum.
A simple cheap diaphragm vacuum pump and a solenoid valve to get clean release can work just fine. May help to have a reservoir to filter any bumpiness in the pump, though this would need a 2-way valve.
Third bga and tqfp need an upward looking camera to check pin alignment.
All parts need an upward looking camera. Ideally in the head (at least as an option) so it can image on the journey from feeder to board.
These packages also require a matrix feeder (these parts come in standardized trays. So do a lot of packages like qfn son and others)
All you need is the ability to pick parts from trays - you don't need auto tray-change on a machine at this level.
The only way for those packages to identify pin 1 is using a bottum-up camera. Any part with occluded pins can not be handled unless you have this kind of camera.
You don't need to auto-detect orientation - just load it right.
You mention paste dispensing. Are tou familiar with the concept of pullback ? To correctly dispense you need both compressed air and vacuum.
Or even better, an auger - I'm sure an auger dispenser could be made using a woodscrew or other standard part as the auger
-
Hi, I'm the lead developer of FirePick Delta, I saw this post in my referrer logs and figured I'd chime in.
Just wondering, have you ever used, or talked people who use real pick/place machines all day.
If not I'd very highly reccommend it, as there are lots of subtle things you only realise once you start doing this stuff in anger.
A few examples I can think of offhand :
Never ever use any kind of oil near a feeder, as it will soak up dust from paper tape and gum up
Set the pick position of plastic tape slightly high so that the nozzle sucks the part out without bouncing parts out pf the next pocket.
It is extremely useful to be able to stop a job, tweak vision parameters for the part being picked and carry on.
small SO parts can come in tape or tube, and you may not know which at design time, so you need to be able to override different feeder orientations seperate from the part definition. Similarly sometimes the same part (same to the extent of using the same part definition) may come on tape spaced at one to two indexes, so this also needs to be overrideable.
There are many, many more....
-
All parts need an upward looking camera. Ideally in the head (at least as an option) so it can image on the journey from feeder to board.
If you know poition at time of picking and use a feedback mechanism like an encoder in the rotating head then passives can be done reliably. Which leads to another question : does this machine have feedback on its steppers ? Afaik none of the 3d printers have that...
These packages also require a matrix feeder (these parts come in standardized trays. So do a lot of packages like qfn son and others)
All you need is the ability to pick parts from trays - you don't need auto tray-change on a machine at this level.
Agreed, but i do want to be able to use full trays and have room for at least 2 trays. I'll do a manual swap. I also want the software to have a hold-for-operator step for trays so i can swap the tray when the machine prompts me.
You don't need to auto-detect orientation - just load it right.
There is a vision system :use it. I don't agree with the load it right filosophy. What if i put the stick in reverse ? The vision system needs to be able to detect that. That's what the damn thing is for !
On the juki the teach-in camera would go to the part and you clicked where pin 1 sits. For example sod323 packages are very hard for the machine vision. The teach in camera would show the part and you told it pin one sits left, right top or bottom. (The machine had feeders on four sides). And that was it. Very easy. Same for tantalums.
Or even better, an auger - I'm sure an auger dispenser could be made using a woodscrew or other standard part as the auger
Mmm no. I want it to use simple 10cc syringes for dispensing.
-
I think the mirror is used to see the bottom of a part. No need for an extra camera,some commercial system does it the same way, but the mirror is attached to the head and flipped in place instead.
-
A simple cheap diaphragm vacuum pump and a solenoid valve to get clean release can work just fine. May help to have a reservoir to filter any bumpiness in the pump, though this would need a 2-way valve.
Our project is an open-source one, so there's nothing stopping anyone from using a Venturi and solenoid instead of a diaphragm pump. We started with a diaphragm pump because they're cheap and available. Will they be able to do BGAs and crazy small parts? I don't know right now, but we will be evaluating them and making our decisions from there. We don't want to jump right to the super expensive parts, as that is not our philosophy. We want to offer a cheap system (one many here would easily scoff at), but also offer a proper system to anyone that needs it, and can afford it.
All parts need an upward looking camera. Ideally in the head (at least as an option) so it can image on the journey from feeder to board.
For our cheapest version, we use a cheap mirror and some computer vision parallax-fixing code to do cheap up-looking vision. We're currently trying to get the camera closer to the nozzle than we can get with a stock camera module pcb assembly. We will also offer a second up-looking camera for those that have the cash and want the performance. We're using cellphone camera modules, they're high-resolution, easy to multiplex, and allow us to access all of the hardware functions like shutter speed, ISO, and hardware shutter, unlike USB pen cams and some webcams.
All you need is the ability to pick parts from trays - you don't need auto tray-change on a machine at this level.
Agreed.
You mention paste dispensing. Are tou familiar with the concept of pullback ? To correctly dispense you need both compressed air and vacuum.
I'm very familiar with pullback, I own a really nice shot-dispense system that does it correctly. Currently, our FPD paste dispense prototype uses a 10cc syringe with small stepper motor on a screw drive. We actually use modified RepRap filament calculations and GCode to control the extrude and retract. And as mentioned earlier, the paste dispense will be closed-loop via our vision system, so it will do some calibration dots on a little tray that sits on the edge of the machine, and determine correct steps-per-dot-size from there. This whole system is actually completely compatible with your normal air-compressor-powered shot dispense system, most have a foot control, you can wire this up to the mosfet output of the controller, as long as you interface it correctly. Obviously tweaking the air pressure and vacuum must be done manually, but the timing can be done via the controller software.
And of course, if someone still wants to use stencils, that's totally cool too. If you've got 'em, use 'em. But having paste dispense for small quick stuff is still something many will find value in.
-
Hi!
I'm Karl. I work on FirePick software and somewhere in my past is an EE degree, although my entire career has been in software engineering from punched cards all the way through to AngularJS via Java, C# and C++.
Neil pointed out this very amazing thread of massive feedback which took me by surprise. Thank you all for laying it out there. I learned a lot just reading the thread. To all the skeptics, I would say...
"Yes we'll have it done tomorrow"
OK. I was kidding. We won't have it all done tomorrow or the day after. This is a TOUGH problem to solve. It's a problem that takes skills in mechanical, electrical and software engineering. Assembling a team to tackle these problems together is also difficult. Thanks in very large part to Hack-a-Day and the ensuing publicity, we've brought together a global team of engineers who do span those skills. We still won't have it done tomorrow.
What we will have is an iterable design. Several folks have questioned the swiss-army tool lack of focus of the design. I would agree that the fatter the swiss-army knife the more useless it is, and I only use mine for cooking when I backpack. But the reason we're paying attention to the "all-in-one use-less case" is that it aligns the common design problems very nicely so that we can tackle the common elements together and specialize later. Although a 3-in-1 machine (3D, PnP, SolderPaste) would attract notice, we expect that three separate machines evolving from the common base would be more pragmatic. It's early for that specialized divergence, so we're doing 3-in-1 to get things like the delta mechanics and software rock solid before branching out.
Once again, thanks for all your feedback. We're quite happy to chat with you folks and learn from you and work with you.
:) Karl
-
Just wondering, have you ever used, or talked people who use real pick/place machines all day.
If not I'd very highly reccommend it, as there are lots of subtle things you only realise once you start doing this stuff in anger.
Yes, I use to run an SMT line, about six years back. Many of my friends run real pick and place machines, and I talk to many of them at conferences and shows that I bring my machine to, and on the internet.
Thank you for your advice though, I certainty don't know everything, and am very interested in getting feedback from people. EEVblog seems to be a great place to get that level of feedback, lots of people here that know their stuff.
-
All parts need an upward looking camera. Ideally in the head (at least as an option) so it can image on the journey from feeder to board.
If you know poition at time of picking and use a feedback mechanism like an encoder in the rotating head then passives can be done reliably.
Depends on how well taped they are, I've seen SOT-23s with quite a lot of variation, and even some 0603s with a fair amount of wobble space in the tape.
Which leads to another question : does this machine have feedback on its steppers ? Afaik none of the 3d printers have that...
Not really necessary as long as your speed curves are safe - may be useful if you're pushing for max speed. It would be useful to be able to detect a head crash though
Agreed, but i do want to be able to use full trays and have room for at least 2 trays.
Another possible option is to have room for half a tray on the bed and half hanging over the side, and turn round half way (with auto part rotation, obviously)
There is a vision system :use it. I don't agree with the load it right filosophy. What if i put the stick in reverse ? The vision system needs to be able to detect that. That's what the damn thing is for !
But there are so many variants in how parts ID pin 1, it may be too much hassle to program in.
Maybe something as simple as a manual verify when picking the first part would be a good compromise
-
There has to be a motor controller hardware. So, there is a PC connected to a motor control board connected to stepper motors. And a camera connected to something connected to the software. Would you clarify why this would not be a connected device?
IMO "connected" means internet/cloud/whatever connected, not just a PC to control something.
Otherwise you can join any two components together and say the design is "connected".
But technically the entry requirements state:
It must transmit data to and/or from another device (computer, phone, duplicate/variation of your device, etc). This could be over the Internet, or using any other method of your choosing.
So yeah, it meets that. But as a judge a 3D printer/CNC machine/whatever connected to a PC USB port to control it doesn't rank nearly as high on the "connected" scale as say someone who rolls their 10,000 node mesh network. It's a given that such a device is connected to the PC to control it, so there is nothing new or innovative in that aspect of it at all.
Given that the only two main things are "connected" and "open", well, you'd really want to blow our socks of with the open/documentation part.
Although we have not been given official judging guidelines yet, so this is just they way I see it.
As I mentioned in my interview video for the contest, I personally want to see something so clever that I slap my forehead and go "why didn't I think of that?".
And I suspect it's more likely than not that the winner will be such a device/idea.
-
Depends on how well taped they are, I've seen SOT-23s with quite a lot of variation, and even some 0603s with a fair amount of wobble space in the tape.
that is a problem. true. another thing i ran into is tapes not consistently feeding the right amount. so the part sits offset on the nozzle leading to placement errors. for 1206 not a big problem. the moment you reflow it self adjusts. 0402 ? disaster ..
vision needs to compensate for that.
Not really necessary as long as your speed curves are safe - may be useful if you're pushing for max speed. It would be useful to be able to detect a head crash though
that is one problem. which leads me to think about another potential problem. tall components like SMD electrolytics. when that head moves it better be up high as i don't want it to run into already placed components
also component drop during movement. i would strongly suggest there is a vacuum integrity check from pick to place. venturi + pressure sensor. a venturi doesn't cost anything. a venturi + pressure sensor will add max 10$ to the bom. well worth the effort. it can be put in as an optio , but provide an analog channel that is beeing monitored during travel and can have min and max set.
Another possible option is to have room for half a tray on the bed and half hanging over the side, and turn round half way (with auto part rotation, obviously)
good idea. you can actually make a terrace like holder. two sideways , one on top. the bottom ones would need rotating halfway through. another idea would be a 3dprinted custom tray holding 20 pieces per package. the tqfp's can all be lumped in one cavity kinda like an inverted pyramid so the tqfp32 falls deeper than the tqfp100. the center to center pitch qould be identical. you could build a tray holding for example 40 universal tqfp and some other often used packages. ok woul would have ot hand load the tray from the master trays , but ti would allow for many different parts in one build. the software would need to have the capability to be told U1 sits in columns 1 to 4 , u2 in colums 5 to 8 , u3 in columns 9 to 12 and so on. i'm just thinking about a project i am working on now. there are two different QFNs and 3 wsons. these all come in tray.
But there are so many variants in how parts ID pin 1, it may be too much hassle to program in.
no , that's why you need to use the camera as teach-in. here is how the juki did it. you would mark , in a separate column, the parts that have a polarity. (this can be exported from the cadprogram. i simply added a field to the library that said 'polarized with true or false)
when the program wast first ran the machine would roll to the part location and halt. the monitor would show the camera image with four buttons. At this point you looked at the screen how the part sits in the feeder. then you click a button. the machine picks the part and rolls to the placement position. all you had to do now is hot the rotate button (rotated 90 degrees per click so max 3 clicks and you were bang on,until it sat right. the machine would then memorise this rotational offset.
the pick and place software only used centroid data and the rotation angle given from cad. the machine would do that once for every feeder marked as 'polarized'
done. In essence on the first run the machine sorted the parts , polarized first , placed one of each type with your assistance and then shot the rest on. the teach data was saved in the placement file.
after placement of a part the camera woudl show theplaced part. if it was wrong it could pick it back up , rotate 90 degrees and place again. so just in case you messed up you coudl still correct.
the sequence was :
look at feeder. click ok
machine picks part and goes to placement coordinates. camera shows part above placement position. click rotate until it matches, then click ok.
machine places and retracts nozzle. camera stays in position. if correct click ok, if not correct click rotate . repeat until correct.
now, since in this machine the camera psotion is offset you could go straight to place and show placed part. by then clicking 'clockwise 90' , 'counterclockwise 90' or '180' you can adjust. so teach in could be done very simple. you wouldnt care how stuff sat in the tapes or sticks. during first run you set it visually.
subsequent runs can be launched with or withour re-teach ( if you had run a different project or had changed tubes or reels you could click the affected slot and it would re-teach that one only.
-
something so clever that I slap my forehead and go "why didn't I think of that?".
like a gravity detector with requiring a frequency counter. :) a ble module with a accelerometer and position sensor woudl do. hold module , take positional reading , let go , acceleremoter nog gives attracting vector. display on smartphone : your feet are that way ... Great for when you are so drunk (or stoned) and don't remember which way is up.
-
For me, the fun challenge of FirePick Delta has been figuring out how to integrate vision with motion in an open, extensible way. Effective PnP motion ideally requires a model informed by vision (or other sensors) in real time to handle real world discrepancies from plan. This sets it apart from 3D printing, which can be done as a batch job after hellish calibration. From a software engineering perspective, a REST architecture offers a lot of benefits in solving this coordination, since REST can drive GUI as well as machine-to-machine interaction.
With a REST foundation, the question then boils down to what the REST protocols should be for hooking all that up together. FireREST-CV is the first such protocol and it is based on FireSight, which is a JSON pipeline wrapper we developed for OpenCV (i.e., vision recognition as configuration vs. program):
https://github.com/firepick1/FireREST/wiki/FireREST-CV (https://github.com/firepick1/FireREST/wiki/FireREST-CV)
To prove the utility of FireREST-CV as a REST service, we snapped it into OpenPnP, an existing desktop application developed by Jason von Nieda (http://openpnp.org/ (http://openpnp.org/)). It works. Neil took it to OSCON last week. FireREST-CV also allows us to use mobile devices to watch what's going on while OpenPnP does orchestrates the PnP job. But that's still not enough.
Moving beyond FireREST-CV is FireREST-CNC, which is a REST wrapper for GCODE. The REST web server is the RPi, which we choose for its ubiquity, but there is really nothing that ties FireREST to that particular SBC. This REST architecture allows the motion-vision coordination to happen in one of two places: 1) on the desktop, or 2) on the embedded SBC. The former reflects current state and we are using OpenPnP to validate that use case. The latter represents the future of the micro-factory as we see it. Indeed, Jason has kindly offered to make "headless OpenPnP" available under LGPL for further exploration. For now, given the SBC challenges (e.g., 10hrs to compile OpenCV), we'll gradually tackle that complexity use case by use case, starting with calibration, evolving the software with the SBC's.
-
that is one problem. which leads me to think about another potential problem... also component drop during movement. i would strongly suggest there is a vacuum integrity check from pick to place.
that is one problem. which leads me to think about another potential problem...
if the component drops on the pcb, we need the vision comes looking for it, trash or replace it in the feeder... to avoid damaged board due to short circuit of misplaced/dropped component that sticked on it. also to avoid stacked components on dropped one resulting in failure placement and the machine keep placing the failed until they are all piling up, just like failed 3d printer printing in the air stuff plastic piles on the nozzle until it hits something.
there should be also mechanism to detect if the dropped component bounces out of the board to skip searching the every inches/corner of the board which takes/waste time, or either fire the alarm to call the operator to indicate there is problem... ERR108: dropped component cannot be found. but then, calling for manual intervention in an unsolved problem is unprofessional isnt it? hmm ::)
-
Depends on how well taped they are, I've seen SOT-23s with quite a lot of variation, and even some 0603s with a fair amount of wobble space in the tape.
that is a problem. true. another thing i ran into is tapes not consistently feeding the right amount. so the part sits offset on the nozzle leading to placement errors. for 1206 not a big problem. the moment you reflow it self adjusts. 0402 ? disaster ..
vision needs to compensate for that.
My pick/place also auto adjusts its pick position based on offsets seen when visioning previous parts so it homes in on the nominal position
Not really necessary as long as your speed curves are safe - may be useful if you're pushing for max speed. It would be useful to be able to detect a head crash though
[/quote] that is one problem. which leads me to think about another potential problem. tall components like SMD electrolytics. when that head moves it better be up high as i don't want it to run into already placed components
You'd normally travel at max height - if clever you'd auto-set this based on the height of the tallest part in the job to reduce wasted up/down time
also component drop during movement. i would strongly suggest there is a vacuum integrity check from pick to place. venturi + pressure sensor. a venturi doesn't cost anything. a venturi + pressure sensor will add max 10$ to the bom. well worth the effort. it can be put in as an optio , but provide an analog channel that is being monitored during travel and can have min and max set.
mis-picks & picks from empty slots are much more common than drops - you may want different behaviour though - mis-pick=retry, drop during travel = stop & alert user
Vacuum sensing could be useful but not foolproof. it may be doable more cheaply by sensing vacuum pump current draw. I can "hear" when my P&P mis-picks from the change in pump tone.
-
Mike, this surprised me and it wasn't a use case I had thought about:
mis-picks & picks from empty slots are much more common than drops - you may want different behaviour though - mis-pick=retry, drop during travel = stop & alert user
What have you found to be the root causes for mis-picks from empty slots?
-
Mike, this surprised me and it wasn't a use case I had thought about:
mis-picks & picks from empty slots are much more common than drops - you may want different behaviour though - mis-pick=retry, drop during travel = stop & alert user
What have you found to be the root causes for mis-picks from empty slots?
Usually, running out of parts, obviously this gets caught later with vision
Also tape cover not peeling, or splitting
-
Also tape cover not peeling, or splitting
Ah. That's interesting. For FirePick I's semi-automatic feeder, the operator would peel back the tape for say, 15 components, and immediately notice a tear. For FirePick Delta, ripped cover tapes would probably happen most with initial setup conducted by operator, but could also happen during prolonged feed. I've noticed that excessive handling of tape leads to dimples in the tape which might (?) provide a weakness for rips to start. Also, Neil's feeder is 3D printed, which creates a slightly rounded edge that hopefully (?) might not trigger the rip as much as a sharp metal edge. We'll watch out for rips 'n tears, in prolonged use. Thanks!
-
mispicks can happen because a part simply vibrated out of its pocket. it can be clinging to the peeled tape, vibration could have cause it to stand up or pop out altogether.
i just read : operator would peel back tape. WHOA !! you better have a tape winder on those feeders or the machine is useless !
the idea of a pick and place is that you press start and go do something else. having to babysit the feeders is a waste of time.
that is why you do vacuum integrity check. nozzle down, vacuum on , wait for detectable drop to a preset value ( pumpdown of the line. if the pick is half then you will never meet the vacuum threshold : eject part ( head travels to the 'bucket' where it drops the part ) and then does a retry. 3 retries : alert operator.
even if you don't install vacuum sensor by default make sure we have access to a spare analogue input and can set a threshold on that value after pick.
pick part , wait for threshold ( with timeout ) then go do the place. retry 3 times.
-
We will also offer a second up-looking camera for those that have the cash and want the performance. We're using cellphone camera modules, they're high-resolution, easy to multiplex, and allow us to access all of the hardware functions like shutter speed, ISO, and hardware shutter, unlike USB pen cams and some webcams.
Surely these cameras are so cheap now that it would be worth having both as standard instead of messing with mirrors?
And of course, if someone still wants to use stencils, that's totally cool too. If you've got 'em, use 'em. But having paste dispense for small quick stuff is still something many will find value in.
Absolutely.
-
i just read : operator would peel back tape. WHOA !! you better have a tape winder on those feeders or the machine is useless !
the idea of a pick and place is that you press start and go do something else. having to babysit the feeders is a waste of time.
That's true only for FirePick 1, which was Karl's original design. My design, FirePick Delta, has full-auto cover tape winders. So far, I'm extremely happy with them.
that is why you do vacuum integrity check. nozzle down, vacuum on , wait for detectable drop to a preset value ( pumpdown of the line. if the pick is half then you will never meet the vacuum threshold : eject part ( head travels to the 'bucket' where it drops the part ) and then does a retry. 3 retries : alert operator.
even if you don't install vacuum sensor by default make sure we have access to a spare analogue input and can set a threshold on that value after pick.
pick part , wait for threshold ( with timeout ) then go do the place. retry 3 times.
FirePick Delta SMT nozzles are interchangeable, and do include a spare analog input pin for pressure sensing (or vacuum pump current monitoring via ina139 current amplifier). I have a few pressure/vacuum sensors laying around that I bought for such a purpose, but it'll be a month or two before I have a chance to play around with this.
-
the idea of a pick and place is that you press start and go do something else. having to babysit the feeders is a waste of time.
3 retries : alert operator.
3 retries - give up on that part and get on with the next one, until it has nothing more it can do, then alert operator!
-
With all the 3D printers and CNC mills people seem to have around these days, you'd think someone would invest some time in making an OSHW feeder mechanism. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is...
-
Those two problems sound simple - but they aren't... that's why there are no cheap PnP machines on the market, and why "real" PnP machines start in the $150,000 range...
Not really. You can get a useful base machine for $10-20K. The ones of the likes that Adafruit and the smaller players like to use are in the order of $50K IIRC.
And of course there is a big 2nd hand market in these things.
Even Mike has a usable PnP machine in his shop, and I think it was about $5K 2nd hand?
Used is another matter - actually I've never bought a PnP new, and I think that if you choose carefully, you can get something usable in the $10-20k range, even less if you have the ability to fiddle with it yourself (like Mike).
But I don't think there are any usable base machines for $10k (new price)... there were a few companies, like APS Gold who had machines in the $25-30k range, but the cheapest I've seen is that Chinese hunk of shit that sells for $5k and uses lead fishing weights to advance the tape feeders :-DD
I think that, by far, the best way forward for a hobbyist into pick and placing is to buy an entry level used machine. And I'd wager that most people looking for a $1k pick and place would think $5-10k is way outside their budget... but IMO there will never be a cheap PnP machine that you can buy new and is usable for any sort of "real" work (real meaning - good enough ROI for commercial work).
-
cheapest I've seen is that Chinese hunk of shit that sells for $5k and uses lead fishing weights to advance the tape feeders :-DD
What machine are you talking about?
The TM220A and TM240A use the pickup head to advance the tape, they have take up rollers, and they are less than $5k (well, until you include shipping), what they lack however is a vision system, and vibration feeders if that's necessary for you. They do however have a dual pickup head.
NeoDen TM-240A Automatic Pick and Place Machine Demo - Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gqYt2qRDVA#ws)
-
This is a much better demo, I like how the presenter refers to the machine as a "PCB Bot".
Step 5: Working procedure introduction for TM220A or TM240A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRzi7sRtgCo#ws)
-
The TM220A and TM240A use the pickup head to advance the tape, they have take up rollers, and they are less than $5k (well, until you include shipping), what they lack however is a vision system, and vibration feeders if that's necessary for you. They do however have a dual pickup head.
These actually look pretty fast and viable, and I've heard that people use using them pretty effectively.
This is pretty much the base level benchmark in terms of speed, precision, reel support and simplicity I'd expect of a really usable desktop PnP machine.
Not much way to get this cost of precision down, it's pretty much already bare bones, unless someone comes up with something really clever.
-
The TM220A and TM240A use the pickup head to advance the tape, they have take up rollers, and they are less than $5k (well, until you include shipping), what they lack however is a vision system, and vibration feeders if that's necessary for you. They do however have a dual pickup head.
These actually look pretty fast and viable, and I've heard that people use using them pretty effectively.
This is pretty much the base level benchmark in terms of speed, precision, reel support and simplicity I'd expect of a really usable desktop PnP machine.
Not much way to get this cost of precision down, it's pretty much already bare bones, unless someone comes up with something really clever.
Once they add vision to these machines ( I've heard this is happenning) then they will get a LOT more useful - at the moment they're probably OK for gunning down all the passives, but won't be much good for fine pitch stuff.
A vib feeder wouldn't take much to add.
Another minor problem is that the mix of feeder widths is fixed - it wouldn't take much to make this more flexible.
However a big reservation would be firmware quality - we all know rare it is to see a Chinese company producing decent software.
-
cheapest I've seen is that Chinese hunk of shit that sells for $5k and uses lead fishing weights to advance the tape feeders :-DD
What machine are you talking about?
That's an old one sold by Madell - this one I think
http://www.ntscope.com/SX1000.html (http://www.ntscope.com/SX1000.html)
-
I have a few pressure/vacuum sensors laying around that I bought for such a purpose, but it'll be a month or two before I have a chance to play around with this.
I wonder if you could make a fast enough vacuum sensor using a really small self-heating thermistor?
If so, it would be so cheap as to be a no-brainer to include.
-
I have a few pressure/vacuum sensors laying around that I bought for such a purpose, but it'll be a month or two before I have a chance to play around with this.
I wonder if you could make a fast enough vacuum sensor using a really small self-heating thermistor?
If so, it would be so cheap as to be a no-brainer to include.
..although sensors like these are cheap enough that it's probably not worth the trouble, unless the thermistor works really well...
http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Silicon-Microstructures-Inc/SM5420C-015-A-H-S/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvhQj7WZhFIALm3YtJ7iptV30%2fecC0aJXE%3d (http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Silicon-Microstructures-Inc/SM5420C-015-A-H-S/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvhQj7WZhFIALm3YtJ7iptV30%2fecC0aJXE%3d)
-
However a big reservation would be firmware quality - we all know rare it is to see a Chinese company producing decent software.
Perhaps an opportunity for someone to come to the party there?
-
...
Yes, a well designed manual system would probably be quite popular, once word gets around that DIY PnP's generally suck, and a well designed manual system can work very well.
I can confirm this supposition. We have a "real" PnP at my business, but setting it up is a PITA so it is only worth firing up for a production run. So to bodge together prototypes or just a few production boards I decided to buy a manual PnP ("eZpick") that is basically just a stabilized vacuum pickup pen: http://www.abacom-tech.com/%2FManual-SMT-Pick-and-Place-Machine-ezPick-P93496.aspx (http://www.abacom-tech.com/%2FManual-SMT-Pick-and-Place-Machine-ezPick-P93496.aspx)
It's hard to believe so simple a machine could be of any benefit, but it is - I timed the assembly of a couple different board designs alternating doing them by hand (ie - with tweezers) and with the eZpick (so that familiarity with what parts go where wouldn't unduly affect just one method) and using the eZpick was twice as fast and much less prone to smearing the solder paste from inaccurate initial placement.
I did make some modifications to it almost straightaway. It comes with a lazy susan carousel which you are supposed to place the board on - I really don't see how it it benefits anything as you can rotate the pickup nozzle with your thumb and forefinger freely so I ditched that. I also didn't want to have the boards sitting directly on a plastic surface both because of static charge buildup and there being no good way to fix the board in place, so I attached a piece of galvanized steel sheet (coiled flashing for roofing) on top of another piece of acrylic that fits precisely in between the slide bearing supports. That way I could use strips of flexible "fridge magnet" tape to hold the board and ground the working surface (via a 1M resistor and a wire to earth ground), while the extra sheet of acrylic lets me slide the entire work surface left or right, giving me a much larger working envelope. Attached is a picture showing my setup (sort of) in action (ie - this is a staged picture; no solder paste on the board, etc.).
NB - no affiliation with company or product, just a happy customer.
-
MagicSmoker,
there is no camera on that machine so you still have to rely on your sharp eyes which is a pain in the arse. :( Speaking of which, here is a guy with an interesting project and he made a video showing this pick'n'place machine in action.
http://vpapanik.blogspot.com/2012/11/low-budget-manual-pick-place.html (http://vpapanik.blogspot.com/2012/11/low-budget-manual-pick-place.html)
-
MagicSmoker,
there is no camera on that machine so you still have to rely on your sharp eyes which is a pain in the arse.
It wouldn't exactly be hard to add one though.
I don't understand why they bothered with the wireless button though - a wired foot pedal would be a much better solution
-
It comes with a lazy susan carousel which you are supposed to place the board on - I really don't see how it it benefits anything as you can rotate the pickup nozzle with your thumb and forefinger freely
That seems a silly idea - as well as being unnecessary, rotating the board will lose your orientation of where you are. I suppose it could be useful on a large board so you're working near you, but can;t see it being worth the cost.
-
MagicSmoker,
there is no camera on that machine so you still have to rely on your sharp eyes which is a pain in the arse. :( ...
True, but my "sharp" eyes are legally blind without corrective lenses and I am over 40, so, perhaps not as big an obstacle as you think...
That said, the boards I design generally go into a very large, very expensive motor drives so I don't worry too much about minimizing component size or PCB area. Rarely do I use components under 0805/2012 or with lead pitch under 0.65mm.
At any rate, the main point of my contribution to this thread is that a simple manual PnP like the eZpick is actually useful relative to its cost whereas any fully-automatic PnP that is worth a crap will be a lot more expensive.
...
I don't understand why they bothered with the wireless button though - a wired foot pedal would be a much better solution
They do offer a wired foot pedal, but not knowing any better I got the wireless button version and it works well enough. The button is starting to get a little flaky after 5k+ presses, however.
-
i just read : operator would peel back tape. WHOA !! you better have a tape winder on those feeders or the machine is useless !
the idea of a pick and place is that you press start and go do something else. having to babysit the feeders is a waste of time.
That's true only for FirePick 1, which was Karl's original design. My design, FirePick Delta, has full-auto cover tape winders. So far, I'm extremely happy with them.
that is why you do vacuum integrity check. nozzle down, vacuum on , wait for detectable drop to a preset value ( pumpdown of the line. if the pick is half then you will never meet the vacuum threshold : eject part ( head travels to the 'bucket' where it drops the part ) and then does a retry. 3 retries : alert operator.
even if you don't install vacuum sensor by default make sure we have access to a spare analogue input and can set a threshold on that value after pick.
pick part , wait for threshold ( with timeout ) then go do the place. retry 3 times.
FirePick Delta SMT nozzles are interchangeable, and do include a spare analog input pin for pressure sensing (or vacuum pump current monitoring via ina139 current amplifier). I have a few pressure/vacuum sensors laying around that I bought for such a purpose, but it'll be a month or two before I have a chance to play around with this.
Good. Also , go take a look at a real nozzle. The concept of using a dispensing needle is a bit whack.
The real nozzles are spring loaded so the pick height is not important. The head moves in position, comes down and the nozzle is pushed into the head. This is a very simp,e mechanism. A flexible tubing is connected to the nozzle so there are no moving gaskets or anything. It may be worth making an adapter for some of the standard heads.
-
i just read : operator would peel back tape. WHOA !! you better have a tape winder on those feeders or the machine is useless !
the idea of a pick and place is that you press start and go do something else. having to babysit the feeders is a waste of time.
That's true only for FirePick 1, which was Karl's original design. My design, FirePick Delta, has full-auto cover tape winders. So far, I'm extremely happy with them.
that is why you do vacuum integrity check. nozzle down, vacuum on , wait for detectable drop to a preset value ( pumpdown of the line. if the pick is half then you will never meet the vacuum threshold : eject part ( head travels to the 'bucket' where it drops the part ) and then does a retry. 3 retries : alert operator.
even if you don't install vacuum sensor by default make sure we have access to a spare analogue input and can set a threshold on that value after pick.
pick part , wait for threshold ( with timeout ) then go do the place. retry 3 times.
FirePick Delta SMT nozzles are interchangeable, and do include a spare analog input pin for pressure sensing (or vacuum pump current monitoring via ina139 current amplifier). I have a few pressure/vacuum sensors laying around that I bought for such a purpose, but it'll be a month or two before I have a chance to play around with this.
Good. Also , go take a look at a real nozzle. The concept of using a dispensing needle is a bit whack.
The real nozzles are spring loaded so the pick height is not important. The head moves in position, comes down and the nozzle is pushed into the head. This is a very simp,e mechanism. A flexible tubing is connected to the nozzle so there are no moving gaskets or anything. It may be worth making an adapter for some of the standard heads.
Also, dispensing nozzles are not designed to have accurate registration between tip and mount. Metal needles are probably not a great idea due to risk of scratching parts.
For larger parts, you need either rubber suction cups or an o-ring on the end of a cylindrical nozzle.
There are also oddballs like MELFs and silicone-covered LEDs that need custom tips.
-
These actually look pretty fast and viable, and I've heard that people use using them pretty effectively.
I often recommend the TM220 series to folks interested in cutting to the chase and slamming out boards. Warts and all, it gets the job done. Dangerous Prototypes reviewed it in depth some time back. It's also a closed system. In the OpenPnP group we wanted to incorporate their PnP heads into our own machines but they weren't so readily available then and we were leery about committing to a single supplier. And that sums up our concern with the TM220 series. Other teams such as TempoAutomation are also going the proprietary route for cheap turnkey PnP. TempoAutomation has vision.
The goal of FirePick Delta is different. Our goal is to create an open, hackable PnP+ machine to engage the broader creativity and innovation bubbling throughout the world. An odd fact about the FirePick Delta Hack-a-Day team is that we are not co-located. We are scattered throughout the world and most of us have never met in person. We are therefore required to build our individual FPDs according to shared knowledge and cooperation. With three FPD machines under active construction (Florida, Netherlands, California), we're already seeing healthy discussions about design and implementation. For example, Christian notes that in the Netherlands, aluminum waterjet fabrication of the FPD base plates is cheaper than 2D laser cut plastic in the US (and I'm using bamboo for my base plates, just because). All three of us share the same design DXF. We even have differences about the frame footpads. I like modelling clay for its sticky anchoring, self-leveling and vibration damping properties. Others are opting for rubber feet. In a few months we'll no doubt get out our stop watches and have time trials. I'm betting on modelling clay.
This commitment to communal design evolution touches all aspects of FirePick Delta design and documentation: mechanical, electrical and software. For example, Simon and I have friendly arguments about the best way to estimate the pixels/mm resolution of the camera from a picture of 8mm component tape. He advocates Hough, I advocate direct use of DFT with a bandpass filter and peak detection for angle detection. Both are incorporated into FireSight software, and we will get out our stopwatches eventually to find what works best. Since we're all contributing to the same design, the benefits accrue to the team immediately.
This emphasis on collaboration and open design also make FPD ideal for schools. We foresee that a high-school team or student could put together an FPD and hack it to do interesting things. For example, an FPD is also, effectively, a robot microscope with computer vision. Cell counting, anybody?
-
Wow, I can't believe he actually said 0201. They are a whole other level of difficult, even with a 250K setup those little buggers are incredibly difficult. Your Z-axis accuracy needs to be within about 30 microns accurate to do anything close to reliable placement. Not to mention applying paste at those levels. You pretty much need to go for electroformed stencils which run at least $400-600 each.
I'm all for people working on these projects because I do think there is some useful stuff that comes out of it. But they seriously need to be more realistic. I think they should be very happy if they can get 0805 parts placed.
-
The goal of FirePick Delta is different. Our goal is to create an open, hackable PnP+ machine to engage the broader creativity and innovation bubbling throughout the world.
sigh.. You guys make machines for the sake of making machines and tinkering with the machines. i (and anyone interested in a pick and place machine) want to USE them. Sure, i'll build one that is fun , but i have ZERO interest in ripping em apart every 5 minutes and futzing with the code. i don't care what algorithm you use. just get the damn thing working.
This emphasis on collaboration and open design also make FPD ideal for schools. We foresee that a high-school team or student could put together an FPD and hack it to do interesting things. For example, an FPD is also, effectively, a robot microscope with computer vision. Cell counting, anybody?
again : you're not in run to build and deliver a cheap pick and place machine for hobby usage. you're in the run to have fun tinkering with vision recognition code and you happen to use a P&P as development platform.
Now, if you want to optimise this thing as a pick and place i am very interested . This project peaked my interest because of the low claimed price ( 300$ ? take my money ! heck , i'll buy two ! ) , now it has the typical smell of another product that will never be finished in a usable , stable state. Just like all the 3d printers that need way to much futzing with alignment and calibrating. All the hobbyists building these printers spend more time working ON the machine that WITH the machine.
sorry guys ..
-
These actually look pretty fast and viable, and I've heard that people use using them pretty effectively.
I often recommend the TM220 series to folks interested in cutting to the chase and slamming out boards. Warts and all, it gets the job done. Dangerous Prototypes reviewed it in depth some time back. It's also a closed system. In the OpenPnP group we wanted to incorporate their PnP heads into our own machines but they weren't so readily available then and we were leery about committing to a single supplier. And that sums up our concern with the TM220 series. Other teams such as TempoAutomation are also going the proprietary route for cheap turnkey PnP. TempoAutomation has vision.
The goal of FirePick Delta is different. Our goal is to create an open, hackable PnP+ machine to engage the broader creativity and innovation bubbling throughout the world. An odd fact about the FirePick Delta Hack-a-Day team is that we are not co-located. We are scattered throughout the world and most of us have never met in person. We are therefore required to build our individual FPDs according to shared knowledge and cooperation. With three FPD machines under active construction (Florida, Netherlands, California), we're already seeing healthy discussions about design and implementation. For example, Christian notes that in the Netherlands, aluminum waterjet fabrication of the FPD base plates is cheaper than 2D laser cut plastic in the US (and I'm using bamboo for my base plates, just because). All three of us share the same design DXF. We even have differences about the frame footpads. I like modelling clay for its sticky anchoring, self-leveling and vibration damping properties. Others are opting for rubber feet. In a few months we'll no doubt get out our stop watches and have time trials. I'm betting on modelling clay.
This commitment to communal design evolution touches all aspects of FirePick Delta design and documentation: mechanical, electrical and software. For example, Simon and I have friendly arguments about the best way to estimate the pixels/mm resolution of the camera from a picture of 8mm component tape. He advocates Hough, I advocate direct use of DFT with a bandpass filter and peak detection for angle detection. Both are incorporated into FireSight software, and we will get out our stopwatches eventually to find what works best. Since we're all contributing to the same design, the benefits accrue to the team immediately.
This emphasis on collaboration and open design also make FPD ideal for schools. We foresee that a high-school team or student could put together an FPD and hack it to do interesting things. For example, an FPD is also, effectively, a robot microscope with computer vision. Cell counting, anybody?
That's all good as a development process, but at some point you need to have a pretty standardised basic design which is proven to work - the line between a useable P&P and a complete waste of time (and parts) is down to the last fraction of a mm of repeatability.
Unless there is, eventually, a standard version people can buy with confidence that it will actually be useful, it will never be more than a niche toy for tinkerers.
Ditto the software - all the talk of various different libraries, licenses etc. already gives me premonitions of it ending up a big mess held together with sticky tape that takes a week's learning to do anything useful.
At the basic level both the software and hardware it needs to be packaged up into a form that just works out of the box. By all means allow people to fiddle, but don't force them to fiddle just to use it at all.
-
MagicSmoker,
there is no camera on that machine so you still have to rely on your sharp eyes which is a pain in the arse.
It wouldn't exactly be hard to add one though.
Yep. Well, like MagicSmoker mentioned, when you step into your 40's, small letters become more and more blurry. :-DD
-
Wow, I can't believe he actually said 0201. They are a whole other level of difficult, even with a 250K setup those little buggers are incredibly difficult. Your Z-axis accuracy needs to be within about 30 microns accurate to do anything close to reliable placement. Not to mention applying paste at those levels. You pretty much need to go for electroformed stencils which run at least $400-600 each.
I'm all for people working on these projects because I do think there is some useful stuff that comes out of it. But they seriously need to be more realistic. I think they should be very happy if they can get 0805 parts placed.
I'd say 0603 (with very high reliability) and 0.5mm QFP is an absolute bare minimum to be useful.
0402 and 0.3mm pitch is probably the smallest that would be generally useful to most people - certainly not worth spending more money on achieving.
-
cheapest I've seen is that Chinese hunk of shit that sells for $5k and uses lead fishing weights to advance the tape feeders :-DD
What machine are you talking about?
That's an old one sold by Madell - this one I think
http://www.ntscope.com/SX1000.html (http://www.ntscope.com/SX1000.html)
Probably is that one - I remember they were sold on eBay. I don't think Madell is the manufacturer, but maybe they source them from an outfit in China.
I've built two PnP's.. one from the ground up and one by retrofitting an older machine with a new motion/drive system. I've learned a couple of things. One is that fast and accurate placement isn't easy... it seems like it should be easy in theory, but it's pretty difficult to reliably and repeatably pick up very small and very light parts from imperfect tapes and perfectly place them. My DynaPert chip shooter has monsterously large ballscrews, linear rails and frame... even the Quad's I use now are very solidly built, and they only do a few thousand parts/hour.
The other thing that is difficult is feeding. Another thing that sounds easy in concept but is really difficult to get perfect. For many boards, I'll burn through a reel of 3,000 components in a half hour... so you can't just get a 99% success rate, you need a lot higher - and maybe more importantly is the ability to overcome errors (including an empty feeder). So whenever I see crap like lead weights or some contraption on the pick head to advance the tape.. it always seems like a hokey solution to one of the most fundamental problems of PnP'ing.
I know you realize all the above - just not sure if the home brew guys realize how difficult these problems are to overcome. A PnP that you have to constantly fiddle with to keep running isn't worth having, IMO... better to hand-place or outsource or save up $5-10k and buy a Quad 4C or such.
-
Also, dispensing nozzles are not designed to have accurate registration between tip and mount. Metal needles are probably not a great idea due to risk of scratching parts.
For larger parts, you need either rubber suction cups or an o-ring on the end of a cylindrical nozzle.
There are also oddballs like MELFs and silicone-covered LEDs that need custom tips.
+eleventy.
I've said before that I think the best solution for any sort of home-brew PnP is to use off the shelf feeders and nozzles (and maybe vision as well). The big guys have that stuff figured out 100%, and there's no cheap solutions that will ever come close to what Samsung/Philips/MyData have already figured out years ago.
With feeders, alot of them are electrically actuated with a simple voltage, and you can even buy (or make) the simple slot system they mount to. Quad feeders are a good example... widely available, cheap, easy, reliable, and 100% electrical.
-
With feeders, alot of them are electrically actuated with a simple voltage, and you can even buy (or make) the simple slot system they mount to. Quad feeders are a good example... widely available, cheap, easy, reliable, and 100% electrical.
Interesting - I just bought some Quad feeders to feed big tapes to my Versatronics RV1S. Anyone got any idea of the pinout?
-
I've said before that I think the best solution for any sort of home-brew PnP is to use off the shelf feeders
Yes but availability is pretty random
and nozzles
if there is something readily available and cheap, maybe, but a nozzle isn't a particularly complicated thing, so designing something custom that is cheap to make isn't a big deal.
(and maybe vision as well).
Hell no.
Cheap vision and computing power is the one thing that has changed out of all recognition since the "big iron" machines were designed, and is where there is the maximum scope to get very good performance at negligible cost.
A RasPi + camera or PC webcam +simple illuminator would easily be capable of all the vision performance you need.
P&P vision is very low on the scale of difficulty in vision systems - totally controllable environment, sharp edges, fixed focus distance and the simple task of measuring offset and rotation of a known shape.
The fixed distance means you don't even need fancy lenses - a standard lens screwed out to focus closer will be just fine.
It's also a minimal cost to have as many cameras as you need - e.g. for upward facing fixed cams, have a couple so you can use whichever is closest to the feeder, or seperate cams for large and small parts.
My Versatronics machine uses TV-resolution cameras and a Win95 era PC, and the vision works reasonably OK visioning on the fly between picking & placing down to 0402 and 0.5mm pitch.
A modern webcam or phone camera has 4x the resolution, and you can throw a ton of processing power at it for minimal cost.
-
sigh.. You guys make machines for the sake of making machines and tinkering with the machines
..
again : you're not in run to build and deliver a cheap pick and place machine for hobby usage. you're in the run to have fun tinkering with vision recognition code and you happen to use a P&P as development platform.
I'm going to take the advice that I received yesterday and not engage you directly on this forum, I've been told you've racked up a bit of a history bashing open-source, and a bit of googling proves that. He also added, "He's an experienced industry engineer but cannot come down from his lofty heights to where people with lesser requirements dwell."
I'm not one to take trollbait, but please be respectful and do not tell everyone here why Karl and I chose to create this project. You've never met either of us, you have no idea what our motivations are. I would love to sit here and have a little debate with you, but I'm gonna get back to work. I'm not really offended either, I'm just kind of awestruck at how smug you're coming off. As entertaining as it is, I'm trying to pull off 100-hour weeks right now between this and my day job, so I can't sit here and type out petty rants because someone is wrong on the internet.
The only thing I'll ask, as a general courtesy to us as human beings, is please leave the ad hominems out. Feel free to criticize our machine plenty, we'll use that info. But keep the jabs towards Karl and myself out of it, that just hurts your point.
-
I've said before that I think the best solution for any sort of home-brew PnP is to use off the shelf feeders and nozzles (and maybe vision as well). The big guys have that stuff figured out 100%, and there's no cheap solutions that will ever come close to what Samsung/Philips/MyData have already figured out years ago.
Availability would be terrible, and AFAIK prices aren't cheap because these things are sort after. So that's simply not a realistic solution.
Indeed, I think the biggest problem facing the low cost DIY PnP machine is just such a solution.
If someone could tackle that, and that alone, a self contained open feeder mechanism, then a good lot of the issues with realising this dream will go away.
But everyone seems to do it the other way around, they do the PnP head first. Which is understandable, because feeders aren't sexy or as fun.
-
I'm all for people working on these projects because I do think there is some useful stuff that comes out of it. But they seriously need to be more realistic. I think they should be very happy if they can get 0805 parts placed.
Yeah, I wouldn't even bother with 0402, even if you think you can do it. Even the big expensive machines often have a differentiation model or option for going from 0603 to 0402 or below. There are very likely good practical reasons for that.
I'd totally limit the goal to 0603 at best.
-
Did I miss it? Was there any actual video of the gadget actually placing parts in real time? Talk is cheap, and so far, that is all I am seeing.
I just have a deep distrust of that triangular positioning scheme for doing something so critically orthogonal.
-
...
Yes, a well designed manual system would probably be quite popular, once word gets around that DIY PnP's generally suck, and a well designed manual system can work very well.
I can confirm this supposition. We have a "real" PnP at my business, but setting it up is a PITA so it is only worth firing up for a production run. So to bodge together prototypes or just a few production boards I decided to buy a manual PnP ("eZpick") that is basically just a stabilized vacuum pickup pen: http://www.abacom-tech.com/%2FManual-SMT-Pick-and-Place-Machine-ezPick-P93496.aspx (http://www.abacom-tech.com/%2FManual-SMT-Pick-and-Place-Machine-ezPick-P93496.aspx)
It's hard to believe so simple a machine could be of any benefit, but it is - I timed the assembly of a couple different board designs alternating doing them by hand (ie - with tweezers) and with the eZpick (so that familiarity with what parts go where wouldn't unduly affect just one method) and using the eZpick was twice as fast and much less prone to smearing the solder paste from inaccurate initial placement.
I did make some modifications to it almost straightaway. It comes with a lazy susan carousel which you are supposed to place the board on - I really don't see how it it benefits anything as you can rotate the pickup nozzle with your thumb and forefinger freely so I ditched that. I also didn't want to have the boards sitting directly on a plastic surface both because of static charge buildup and there being no good way to fix the board in place, so I attached a piece of galvanized steel sheet (coiled flashing for roofing) on top of another piece of acrylic that fits precisely in between the slide bearing supports. That way I could use strips of flexible "fridge magnet" tape to hold the board and ground the working surface (via a 1M resistor and a wire to earth ground), while the extra sheet of acrylic lets me slide the entire work surface left or right, giving me a much larger working envelope. Attached is a picture showing my setup (sort of) in action (ie - this is a staged picture; no solder paste on the board, etc.).
NB - no affiliation with company or product, just a happy customer.
I found the Ezpick to be nothing but a pile of junk. Regret buying it. Found a Dima FP600 for sale on Ebay, and bought it for $1200. Awesome.
-
Ditto the software - all the talk of various different libraries, licenses etc. already gives me premonitions of it ending up a big mess held together with sticky tape that takes a week's learning to do anything useful.
At the basic level both the software and hardware it needs to be packaged up into a form that just works out of the box. By all means allow people to fiddle, but don't force them to fiddle just to use it at all.
I agree.
The "winner" in this race will be the one that has a solution that works out of the box, and works repeatably and reliably.
A machine that reliably does 1206 will beat a machine that's a bit dicky but can do 0402.
As with most OSHW, the vast majority of people do not actually want to tinker with it, they just want something that works out of the box. The Open aspect is just a warm fuzzy that they can tinker if they want. How many people build their own RepRap? Very few, bordering on zero compared with the numbers of 3D printers used. Indeed, the success of 3D printers has been that people produced ones out of the box that just worked.
-
The only thing I'll ask, as a general courtesy to us as human beings, is please leave the ad hominems out. Feel free to criticize our machine plenty, we'll use that info.
Don't let the nay sayers to distract you, just pick the constructive feedback (and there was some in this thread) and keep going. What you are doing is perfectly valid. You have a vision and you pursue it on your own time and money. Even if you will fail it would be worth trying and you will learn plenty along the way, both on the technical and business sides.
-
Yes but availability is pretty random
if there is something readily available and cheap, maybe, but a nozzle isn't a particularly complicated thing, so designing something custom that is cheap to make isn't a big deal.
[/quote]
I was thinking more along the lines of a PnP from a company that still makes feeders, so availability would be virtually unlimited. I know Quad uses the same feeders on multiple machines, and my previous Fuji IP PnP used the same feeders across multiple machines (although electric and pneumatic). I think many of the MyData ones use all electric feeders and those have been around for ages... there always seems to be a lot of supply on eBay of such feeders.
Same with nozzles... it's one of those things that sounds simple, but the tolerances are tricky to get just right. On the Quad's there is the nozzle and a spring loaded piston that provides correct force when picking/placing. I think the replacements cost $100 or so, and there is supply from both OEM and aftermarket. Infinitely better than a POS Luer lock syringe tip.
Hell no.
Cheap vision and computing power is the one thing that has changed out of all recognition since the "big iron" machines were designed, and is where there is the maximum scope to get very good performance at negligible cost.
A RasPi + camera or PC webcam +simple illuminator would easily be capable of all the vision performance you need.
P&P vision is very low on the scale of difficulty in vision systems - totally controllable environment, sharp edges, fixed focus distance and the simple task of measuring offset and rotation of a known shape.
The fixed distance means you don't even need fancy lenses - a standard lens screwed out to focus closer will be just fine.
It's also a minimal cost to have as many cameras as you need - e.g. for upward facing fixed cams, have a couple so you can use whichever is closest to the feeder, or seperate cams for large and small parts.
My Versatronics machine uses TV-resolution cameras and a Win95 era PC, and the vision works reasonably OK visioning on the fly between picking & placing down to 0402 and 0.5mm pitch.
A modern webcam or phone camera has 4x the resolution, and you can throw a ton of processing power at it for minimal cost.
Interesting! Thanks for the info - I didn't realize 'vision' was that basic of a task... Quad/Tyco liked to sell vision upgrades... dark field systems and all that jazz. I have up and downward vision on my machine, but I only use the down for larger chips... and even then it needs to move it and scan the corners for anything TQFP-100 and up. I think they wanted something like $3k or $5k to upgrade to the wider FOV dark-field imagine solution.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of a PnP from a company that still makes feeders, so availability would be virtually unlimited.
Yes, but at what cost?
I thought feeders were very expensive, like 4 figures a pop?
You can't rely on the 2nd hand market.
-
I've said before that I think the best solution for any sort of home-brew PnP is to use off the shelf feeders and nozzles (and maybe vision as well). The big guys have that stuff figured out 100%, and there's no cheap solutions that will ever come close to what Samsung/Philips/MyData have already figured out years ago.
Availability would be terrible, and AFAIK prices aren't cheap because these things are sort after. So that's simply not a realistic solution.
Indeed, I think the biggest problem facing the low cost DIY PnP machine is just such a solution.
If someone could tackle that, and that alone, a self contained open feeder mechanism, then a good lot of the issues with realising this dream will go away.
But everyone seems to do it the other way around, they do the PnP head first. Which is understandable, because feeders aren't sexy or as fun.
I've had several different brands of PnP machine and the issue you describe above is exactly what makes the Quad feeder solution perfect. The feeder is self contained and just needs 12V (5V on older feeders). There is no communication between the feeder and the machine. The nozzle picking the part breaks a light beam which advances the tape to the next part when the nozzle leaves the beam. The amount of advance is programmed into the feeder using a couple of buttons. The Quad machine itself has no knowledge of a feeder area or anything like that. You just set X/Y/Z pick locations (that you assign numbers to) and X/Y/Z place locations (also assigned numbers) and then your program becomes
PICK 1
PLACE 1
PICK 1
PLACE 2
PICK 1
PLACE 3
and such. The beauty of it is that the machine doesn't care what you are doing for feeders... you can use Quad feeders, you could use a vibratory feeder, you could have some home grown solution, you could use something pneumatic, or anything else. The machine also supports offsets per pick which lets you use either waffle trays for chips or strips of cut tape stuck down to a flat surface, if you like.
These home brew PnP's ought to do the same thing - then they could say "compatible with Quad feeders, MyData feeders, Philips feeders, and our own design of feeder". Because I totally agree with you - everyone tries to figure out the pick/place head and that's not the hard part - the feeders are the hard part. So they have these shite solutions for feeding that nobody would ever use in a real environment and the whole machine ends up being a turd.
It's just like the CNC machines... if you look at what the home brew guys are doing, they usually totally miss the point. They add useless features but then they use ACME leadscrews instead of ballscrews, thinking they can program around it.
-
Indeed, the success of 3D printers has been that people produced ones out of the box that just worked.
Mmm, yes, but I'd argue that the "ones out of the box that just worked" are out there at least in part because those who did want to tinker did tinker and their tinkering led to improvements that enabled somebody, not necessarily them, to create the "ones out of the box that just worked".
-
Indeed, the success of 3D printers has been that people produced ones out of the box that just worked.
Mmm, yes, but I'd argue that the "ones out of the box that just worked" are out there at least in part because those who did want to tinker did tinker and their tinkering led to improvements that enabled somebody, not necessarily them, to create the "ones out of the box that just worked".
Just having finished the build of a 3d printer, I'm now at the tinkering stage.
Without being able to refer back to those users who already have their printer working, this would be a long, frustrating task or rather more of a long, frustrating task.
-
Indeed, the success of 3D printers has been that people produced ones out of the box that just worked.
Mmm, yes, but I'd argue that the "ones out of the box that just worked" are out there at least in part because those who did want to tinker did tinker and their tinkering led to improvements that enabled somebody, not necessarily them, to create the "ones out of the box that just worked".
Just having finished the build of a 3d printer, I'm now at the tinkering stage.
Without being able to refer back to those users who already have their printer working, this would be a long, frustrating task or rather more of a long, frustrating task.
And all it took was for someone to put them out there to begin with.
I think that was exactly sleemanj's point.
-
I've had several different brands of PnP machine and the issue you describe above is exactly what makes the Quad feeder solution perfect. The feeder is self contained and just needs 12V (5V on older feeders). There is no communication between the feeder and the machine. The nozzle picking the part breaks a light beam which advances the tape to the next part when the nozzle leaves the beam. The amount of advance is programmed into the feeder using a couple of buttons. The Quad machine itself has no knowledge of a feeder area or anything like that. You just set X/Y/Z pick locations (that you assign numbers to) and X/Y/Z place locations (also assigned numbers)
*snip*
These home brew PnP's ought to do the same thing - then they could say "compatible with Quad feeders, MyData feeders, Philips feeders, and our own design of feeder".
That sounds like a really good solution, and what I had in mind. A completely self contained feeder system. I did picture some sort of interface in addition to the built in control, but if not needed then all the better.
I wonder what the big boys would think of the design being copied and open sourced?
-
Mmm, yes, but I'd argue that the "ones out of the box that just worked" are out there at least in part because those who did want to tinker did tinker and their tinkering led to improvements that enabled somebody, not necessarily them, to create the "ones out of the box that just worked".
Yes, of course, I never meant to imply otherwise.
That initial seed and the development is vital.
My point was that for anything to succeed in the marketplace, and specifically for a new enabling technology like low cost PnP to become mainstream and usable, relies upon someone taking that initial work and building an out-of-the-box solution that works well and reliably enough for the market to take off and set a defacto standard baseline of usability.
-
As with most OSHW, the vast majority of people do not actually want to tinker with it, they just want something that works out of the box. The Open aspect is just a warm fuzzy that they can tinker if they want. How many people build their own RepRap? Very few, bordering on zero compared with the numbers of 3D printers used. Indeed, the success of 3D printers has been that people produced ones out of the box that just worked.
Agreed. We have found individual tinkering to be inefficient, especially with the broad engineering skillset required for FirePick Delta. Neil is a much faster mechanical/electrical engineer than I am. I have made massively more mistakes in software than he has--hopefully there is some room for innovation in my head. Christian has worked extensively with SMT in his job. Simon has worked 5years with OpenCV, etc. Our frustration with our individual limitations and non-replicable tinkering has brought us together as team. Yet even with that collaboration, it will take multiple iterations to step up to the high standards required of turnkey, especially for the harried small business owner making custom boards. My earlier mention of high school students was to provide an example of an easier, achievable, yet relevant use case. It's a very real use case and I know of at least two high school students out there interested in building FPD today.
The open source approach allows us to share knowledge and resources to put together a minimally useful machine. But that minimally useful machine will be a machine that we can tenaciously iterate and improve collectively or individually towards turnkey. In contrast, today, if you want a TM220 with vision, you have to wait for the Chinese.
-
Agreed. We have found individual tinkering to be inefficient, especially with the broad engineering skillset required for FirePick Delta. Neil is a much faster mechanical/electrical engineer than I am. I have made massively more mistakes in software than he has--hopefully there is some room for innovation in my head. Christian has worked extensively with SMT in his job. Simon has worked 5years with OpenCV, etc. Our frustration with our individual limitations and non-replicable tinkering has brought us together as team. Yet even with that collaboration, it will take multiple iterations to step up to the high standards required of turnkey, especially for the harried small business owner making custom boards.
Yep, unfortunately it's not going to be easy or quick.
Just look at Makerbot, arguably one of the major drivers of the out-of-the-box success of 3D printers. Took them 3+ years, a lot of money, and a lot of people before they started to get it right, and many say they still haven't. My Makerbot Replicator(1) for example is a dog when it comes to extruder reliability.
And 3D printers are relatively simple devices compared to PnP machines, and that's why, realistically many are always going to be quite skeptical about a PnP.
Not that it can't be done, it certainly can, it's just whether is can be done for low enough cost?
Although remember, the 3D printer price points are above $1K or even $2K for decent machine that works well.
No one expect a $300 PnP machine. Heck, you can't even get a half decent 3D printer for that. You can argue it's pointless to even try and meet a price point, better to focus on getting a solution that is robust and works. And then it costs what it costs.
-
No one expect a $300 PnP machine. Heck, you can't even get a half decent 3D printer for that. You can argue it's pointless to even try and meet a price point, better to focus on getting a solution that is robust and works. And then it costs what it costs.
When I designed FirePick 1, the predecessor to FirePick Delta, my replicable cost goal was $500. This is not end user cost unless the end user is a maker. I adhered to a very strict protocol of multiple, repeatable sources and completely avoided eBay 1-of-a-kind-fire-sales for the simple reason that bragging that I made a cheap machine was irrelevant if nobody else could build the machine. So I tried as hard as I could to make FirePick 1 cost $500.
And I failed.
FirePick 1 cost ended up at about $900. And this is where it gets interesting. Analyzing the cost of FirePick 1 revealed big chunks of change going towards certain things like ESD mitigation. FirePick 1 uses Ponoko anti-static plastic 2D laser cut pieces, collectively $200. Neil called me up and said, "Hey Karl, I have carbon nano-tube 3D extrudable plastic--it's ESD safe." When I heard that, I just started laughing. I would have done cartwheels but I'd have killed myself being a klutz. Cheap ESD safe parts. Wow.
That wasn't the only cost mitigation prompted by Neil. FirePick 1 relies on Shapeways for accurate SLS 3D printed parts under the assumption that extrusion printers were cantankerous and inaccurate. Total cost, for Shapeways FirePick 1 parts was about $200. I might have been right about 3D extrusion printing limitations 2 years ago, but the revolution in home 3D printing now fields machines that rival the accuracy and utility of SLS. Once again, Neil demonstrated a way to shave off a chunk of change and speed up the development cycle for mechanical parts from weeks to hours.
Lastly, FirePick 1 relied on the TinyG motor controller and even then it also requires a custom board as well as a Raspberry Pi, so the electronics costs also hovered in the $200 range. Neil said, "heck, we can do better." And several team members have put their heads together to make that custom board happen. Currently we're all using RAMPS/Marlin, but only as scaffolding for future iterations.
In terms of robustness, we hope that the open sharing of the FPD design ensures that we have a scientific basis for comparison since the machines are quite similar (300x300x500mm). We trust that this will enable a natural and rapid process of selection towards robustness and turnkey viability. In practice, I can assert that FirePick Delta is much easier to build and more robust than FirePick 1. We'd like that trend to continue.
-
A quick look on ebay shows used Quad feeders are at least $100 per lane, and pretty much only available in the US.
OK you might occasionally find a big pile but this is not sustainable.
One question when designing a feeder is whether to go single or multi-lane. My thoughts are probably the latter as it has scope for sharing some electrical & mechanical parts. However it is a bad idea to go too overboard in terms of feeders per bank, as this starts limiting flexibility, and is a pain of you have to unload all lanes to clear a jam in one - My machine used 8 lane feeders, which is too many.
I think the optimum number is around the 4-5 mark (8mm) , with the capability to adjust the widths - e.g. where you have 2 lanes of 8mm, it should be possible to move the guide between lanes and use it for one lane of 12 & 16, and remove another guide for 24mm
On a similar subject, does anyone know of an existing feeder that's good for loading short tapes? I believe Mydata have short-tape feeders but how re-purposable are they?
-
I was thinking more along the lines of a PnP from a company that still makes feeders, so availability would be virtually unlimited.
That would always be way too expensive. These feeders are designed for high reliability under heavy usage for years on end, and would be way over-engineered for something like this.
I doubt you could but a single new feeder for any current machine for less than the target price of this machine.
there always seems to be a lot of supply on eBay of such feeders.
Prety much only in the US, or maybe the Far-East, and the weight would make shipping expensive
Same with nozzles... it's one of those things that sounds simple, but the tolerances are tricky to get just right. On the Quad's there is the nozzle and a spring loaded piston that provides correct force when picking/placing. I think the replacements cost $100 or so, and there is supply from both OEM and aftermarket. Infinitely better than a POS Luer lock syringe tip.
Again. $100 is way too expensive for a machine like this
-
It always comes down to the feeders again and again every time someone starts or shows off one of these PnP machines.
Someone needs to come up with a clever cheap solution for this, that works, and works solidly.
A good niche business to sell them ready made and tested.
Then let every fight it out to bring a low cost PnP to market.
-
It always comes down to the feeders again and again every time someone starts or shows off one of these PnP machines.
Someone needs to come up with a clever cheap solution for this, that works, and works solidly.
A good niche business to sell them ready made and tested.
Then let every fight it out to bring a low cost PnP to market.
Absolutely.
A standalone feeder that was cheap and easy to use would even be useful for hand-placing.
Obviously the shape would need to be amenable to sitting on a flat bench with a low feed position, but that would also be a requirement for a cheap P&P, as people would want to sit it on a table, not have a dedicated stand that allowed feeder parts to hang underneath.
-
Just thinking about the minimum requirement for a standalone feeder, and taking a bottom-up approach.
What's the cheapest suitable actuator?
RC micro servo has to be it by very long way. Has the right amount of movement and torque, and a doddle to control very cheaply.
OK it's not up to industrial duty cycles, but so cheap that heavy users can regard it as a consumable - just design it to be easily replaceable.
I'd imagine one issue is wear on the feedback pot.
I can visualise that it would be possible to make a very clever linkage that moves a pin up, pulls along, then drops down again from a single servo.
But maybe keep it really simple and just use 2 servos, one for pin up/down, one for drag-along.
If you did use 2 servos, you could potentially share the pull-along one across multiple lanes.
Even with micro servos, you'd struggle to get single lane width down to get good density for 8mm lanes, so maybe start with a width to accommodate 24mm tape, which is the largest common size, and have it able to be split into 1x16, 2x12 or 3x8mm lanes. Maybe by an interchangeable guide plate.
That leaves cover tape pull-back. The approach on the cheap Chinese unit of a common shaft with friction drive is one possible, but imposes mechanical constraints on positioning.
My P&P uses a reel driven by a belt which is friction driven from the top of the main tape - I think this could be a viable approach, or something else which uses the same mechanism for the pull-along and cover take-up. Maybe a ratchet drive from a wire linkage driven by the pull-along servo.
-
I can visualise that it would be possible to make a very clever linkage that moves a pin up, pulls along, then drops down again from a single servo.
I always end up wondering about a few shark teeth, with ramps. Slide it forward, and it spring-loadedly drops out from the sprocket holes. Drag it back, and it lifts back into the holes, and drags the tape along.
It's be self adjusting for distance, too, no need to be super accurate with the throw length trying to line a pin up with a hole. It'd also spread the load across a bunch of holes. It could also be right at the front of the feeder, for more pull, less push, and less (zero?) need for leader.
-
If you did use 2 servos, you could potentially share the pull-along one across multiple lanes.
Small solenoid, horizontal under each lane.
When activated pushes on a linkage which extends a pin vertically through the tape.
Linkages and solenoids run on a horizontal sled under the lanes, driven by a single stepper (can be very thin for desktop, think like one of those flat geared steppers in modern scanner heads on printers, it only has to move a couple cm and speed records need not be broken)
Advance tape = actuate solenoid for lane, drive stepper tape pitch of that lane forward, deactivate solenoid, rewind stepper
If you could live with the added height, ditch the linkage and just mount the solenoids vertically under the tapes and they can go through the tapes themselves (with an appropriately pointy tip). You can get really small cheap solenoids, very low cost.
Take up of the cover tape in my mind is the biggest problem, some sort of "clutch" mechanism is necessary there.
-
Just thinking about the minimum requirement for a standalone feeder, and taking a bottom-up approach.
What's the cheapest suitable actuator?
I've never really looked into it, but how tough are the mylar tapes that have to be pulled back anyway? Tough enough to stick between a pinch roller and the tape body itself and then drag back to advance to the next part?
No need for anything to drive the index hole.
Pretty crude, just throwing the idea out there.
-
Open Pick-N-Place Tape Feeder
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7291 (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7291)
Ultimaker PICK-n-PLACE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsWpC6L91qo#)
-
I've never really looked into it, but how tough are the mylar tapes that have to be pulled back anyway? Tough enough to stick between a pinch roller and the tape body itself and then drag back to advance to the next part?
Not sure they're mylar, and not quite strong enough. I'd say I get away with it about 90% of the time when pulling tape through my feeders if I can' be arsed to do it properly. I should really learn...
The tape also stretches and springs back a bit, which may also be a problem. (Spotting the sprocket hole(s) with a photodiode would be easy enough, though if anyone came up with a non-indexed drive solution. Vision could then compensate for any residual offset by looking at the sprocket holes before it picks.
Another thing to think about is that, if you're exposing more than one component at a time, you need to be somewhat gentle with both the acceleration of the tape, and the picking of the previous component, or you get components everywhere.
-
I thought the U shaped path was a bit extreme and a straight through sprocket driven tape feed would be simpler.
You need the U shape, otherwise you end up with empty tape all over your PCB. this is a bad thing.
-
Just thinking about the minimum requirement for a standalone feeder, and taking a bottom-up approach.
What's the cheapest suitable actuator?
I've never really looked into it, but how tough are the mylar tapes that have to be pulled back anyway? Tough enough to stick between a pinch roller and the tape body itself and then drag back to advance to the next part?
No need for anything to drive the index hole.
Pretty crude, just throwing the idea out there.
Nope - on my machine the feed pin is about 4" from the feed position, so to get the last few parts off tapes I manually pull the cover tape to advance parts, and there are a few issues that make this a nonviable approach.
Some cover tapes are quite stretchy. If you get a kinked paper tape, you need significant force to pull it through, and on plastic tapes, it tends to pull off with 'stutter' in small sections instead of smoothly, and this would make the tape bounce, throwing parts out.
However a friction drive to the main tape, with optical feedback of hole position might work, though clear tapes could be problematic to detect reliably. Maybe you could do it with a small air jet (from a fan) , detecting pressure change.
You still have the issue of thickness and drive position - you couldn't friction drive plastic tapes as you'd crush them, and driving from the edge means you'd need to deal with the different thickness and texture of plastic and paper tapes.
-
I thought the U shaped path was a bit extreme and a straight through sprocket driven tape feed would be simpler.
You need the U shape, otherwise you end up with empty tape all over your PCB. this is a bad thing.
Not necessarily - look at the cheap Chinese machine - that shoves the waste tape under the PCB
If folding back, You need a moderately big U radius to deal with tapes with large pockets, which will be rigid.
-
Not necessarily - look at the cheap Chinese machine - that shoves the waste tape under the PCB
To me that's the really obvious and most elegant way to do it.
I'd put a polycarb sheet or whatever under the board area so tapes don't curl back up and ruin your day. The sheet catch all the dropped parts from the head, and you could pull it out from the end to get the dropped parts (the crumb tray)
-
If you did use 2 servos, you could potentially share the pull-along one across multiple lanes.
Small solenoid, horizontal under each lane.
When activated pushes on a linkage which extends a pin vertically through the tape.
Linkages and solenoids run on a horizontal sled under the lanes, driven by a single stepper (can be very thin for desktop, think like one of those flat geared steppers in modern scanner heads on printers, it only has to move a couple cm and speed records need not be broken)
Advance tape = actuate solenoid for lane, drive stepper tape pitch of that lane forward, deactivate solenoid, rewind stepper
If you could live with the added height, ditch the linkage and just mount the solenoids vertically under the tapes and they can go through the tapes themselves (with an appropriately pointy tip). You can get really small cheap solenoids, very low cost.
That's exactly the mechanism used on the Versatronics feeders - they use electromagnets with hinged plates instead of solenoids though.
A gearmotor with a cam may be a cheaper alternative to a stepper, though gear wear may be more of an issue.
-
Not necessarily - look at the cheap Chinese machine - that shoves the waste tape under the PCB
To me that's the really obvious and most elegant way to do it.
It also significantly reduces the maximum pull force you need as you're not fighting the tape - it's going where it naturally wants to go.
-
I bookmarked this guys blog site some time ago since I thought his tape pull idea was interesting. Essentially it mimics the sprocket driven film feed of a 35mm camera except he has a "U" shaped feed path where the tape ejects back in the direction of the incoming tape.
This is one image on his site. ( I thought it best to not rip his photo off, so I link to his site)
(http://tim.cexx.org/projects/pickplace/shorty_feeder/pics/tn_smd_feeder.jpg)
The URL for the site: http://tim.cexx.org/?tag=pickplace (http://tim.cexx.org/?tag=pickplace)
I thought the U shaped path was a bit extreme and a straight through sprocket driven tape feed would be simpler. In his design prototype the two plates with the tape guide path are held together by a rubber band, which suggests a means where it can be adjusted to different width tapes.
I don't think a simple sprocket wheel is viable as it will inevitably pull the tape downward at some point, which can make plastic tape bounce. Thick paper tapes may also present a lot of friction, which will end up pulling a lot of paper dust out & into the mechanism.
It really needs to be a pretty clean up-along-down motion, ideally with a little backward motion before the downstroke so it doesn't rub along the edge of the hole
-
It also significantly reduces the maximum pull force you need as you're not fighting the tape - it's going where it naturally wants to go.
Yeah, into a massive tangled snarl under the PCB. (I'm envisioning feeders on 2, maybe 3 sides).
-
massive tangled snarl under the PCB. (I'm envisioning feeders on 2, maybe 3 sides).
Can't they simply re-spool the tape back onto a reel (or simply a hub with removable flange)?
Even back in the days of magnetic audio and then video tape, we spooled the tape onto a hub, flanges optional
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lHx8-ypYn0I/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
I don't think a simple sprocket wheel is viable as it will inevitably pull the tape downward at some point, which can make plastic tape bounce. Thick paper tapes may also present a lot of friction, which will end up pulling a lot of paper dust out & into the mechanism.
It really needs to be a pretty clean up-along-down motion, ideally with a little backward motion before the downstroke so it doesn't rub along the edge of the hole
I'm not sure how much of the site you looked at, and it isn't obvious at first glance in the single image I linked to, but the tape runs in a narrow channel and the sprocket holes are exposed only at the drive wheel position. If the tape continued on in the channel beyond the drive wheel then it could not bend. Not as in the picture where the channel curls around at the diameter of the drive wheel and ejects the tape at the bottom.
With a rotary sprocket you'll always get some downward force on the tape as it's being driven forward
-
massive tangled snarl under the PCB. (I'm envisioning feeders on 2, maybe 3 sides).
Can't they simply re-spool the tape back onto a reel (or simply a hub with removable flange)?
Even back in the days of magnetic audio and then video tape, we spooled the tape onto a hub, flanges optional
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lHx8-ypYn0I/maxresdefault.jpg)
Yes, but you then need enough leader to fix it to the takeup reel
-
Yep, unfortunately it's not going to be easy or quick.
Nothing worthwhile ever is.
Just look at Makerbot, arguably one of the major drivers of the out-of-the-box success of 3D printers. Took them 3+ years, a lot of money, and a lot of people before they started to get it right, and many say they still haven't. My Makerbot Replicator(1) for example is a dog when it comes to extruder reliability.
And 3D printers are relatively simple devices compared to PnP machines, and that's why, realistically many are always going to be quite skeptical about a PnP.
Not that it can't be done, it certainly can, it's just whether is can be done for low enough cost?
Although remember, the 3D printer price points are above $1K or even $2K for decent machine that works well.
No one expect a $300 PnP machine. Heck, you can't even get a half decent 3D printer for that. You can argue it's pointless to even try and meet a price point, better to focus on getting a solution that is robust and works. And then it costs what it costs.
Makerbot isn't a great example of a great turnkey printer, IMO. It's got real flaws, like it's inferior extruder and lack of a heated bed, when compared to other designs. I speak from experience here, as I've got a ton of 3D printing background, that's what I did before starting the PnP stuff. I've used the Makerbot plenty, as well as many other commercial and open-source versions. I'm intimately familiar with the ways that each of them attempted to solve the various problems of 3d printing, and what worked, and what didn't. If you want an example of a real turnkey 3d printer that is useful, the Lulzbot TAZ 4 is a great machine (and currently retails for less than the Makerbot). Also, for DIY, the Prusa i2/i3 with J-Head and MK2B heated bed is a champ, if you're careful with sourcing your parts. I built a Prusa i2 for $250 in one weekend, back in January, and have put about 25 kg of PLA and ABS through it, without a single clog (I print so much that my filament vendor knows me by name and sends me free tailings of neat colors). I don't know where some people have this idea that you have to spend more time tweaking a 3D printer than using it. I certainly don't. Mine prints almost 24/7 sometimes, for weeks on end, and I've never really had to do anything to it since I built it.
As far as the $300 price goes, it's not as absurd as it sounds. That price would be for a barebones kit of parts, mostly sourced from China. You would be responsible for building it, wiring it, and printing your own feeders using the 3d print nozzle. The delta design uses considerable less parts and less motors than the Prusa i2 that I build for $250, and that wasn't sourced from China. I don't plan on making any profit from the cheap kits, I plan on making my profit from taking the same design, and selling a full-featured, fully-assembled commercial machine with a full set of feeders/nozzles, with support and warranty, for $5000 - $10000. That's obviously assuming that we can meet all the technical challenges that we face. As Dave said, it won't be easy or quick, but that's never stopped me before. This is what I want to do with my life, I'll figure out how to do it one way or another, I don't just give up so easily. The advice we've had here is great and we'll definitely try to work some of it in as we move forward.
-
If you want an example of a real turnkey 3d printer that is useful, the Lulzbot TAZ 4 is a great machine (and currently retails for less than the Makerbot)
Yeah, but that's still a $2K printer, and that's my point.
People will it seems happily pay $2K for a 3D printer that really works. So it's easy to think that will pay at least the same for a PnP machine that really works.
As far as the $300 price goes, it's not as absurd as it sounds. That price would be for a barebones kit of parts, mostly sourced from China. You would be responsible for building it, wiring it, and printing your own feeders using the 3d print nozzle. The delta design uses considerable less parts and less motors than the Prusa i2 that I build for $250, and that wasn't sourced from China. I don't plan on making any profit from the cheap kits, I plan on making my profit from taking the same design, and selling a full-featured, fully-assembled commercial machine with a full set of feeders/nozzles, with support and warranty, for $5000 - $10000.
And you'll most likely make a killing, if it works reliably.
A lot of people are already paying close to $5K for that Chinese one.
One potential problem I can see with the $300 DIY version, is that it's just that DIY, and people will, with absolute certainty, screw it up and it won't work right.
And well, ok, so be it, but the thing is that that could reflect badly upon your higher end fully built model if "word gets around" (even if it's not your fault) that the product has issues. Just something to be cautious of by trying to shoot for a low end low cost DIY model first.
The 2nd issues about shooting for a low target price for the base model is as I have mentioned before, having that in the back of your mind may ultimately cause a compromise in the design that turns out to be the Achilles heel for reliability or accuracy etc that unwittingly flows into your high end model.
e.g. you've chosen and presumably locked into the Delta design, and that looks great now, but what if it turns out to just not be viable right on the edges of performance where you need it and people expect a $5K machine to work at?
And even though I don't know much about this stuff, that's what my engineering spidey sense is telling me might possibly happen here. So personally I would likely have gone for pretty much what the Chinese design has, and then figure out ways to either tweak the cost, or add a killer feature etc.
But hey, I could be wrong, take with a grain of salt. I think what you are doing is great.
-
If you want an example of a real turnkey 3d printer that is useful, the Lulzbot TAZ 4 is a great machine (and currently retails for less than the Makerbot)
Yeah, but that's still a $2K printer, and that's my point.
People will it seems happily pay $2K for a 3D printer that really works. So it's easy to think that will pay at least the same for a PnP machine that really works.
As far as the $300 price goes, it's not as absurd as it sounds. That price would be for a barebones kit of parts, mostly sourced from China. You would be responsible for building it, wiring it, and printing your own feeders using the 3d print nozzle. The delta design uses considerable less parts and less motors than the Prusa i2 that I build for $250, and that wasn't sourced from China. I don't plan on making any profit from the cheap kits, I plan on making my profit from taking the same design, and selling a full-featured, fully-assembled commercial machine with a full set of feeders/nozzles, with support and warranty, for $5000 - $10000.
And you'll most likely make a killing, if it works reliably.
A lot of people are already paying close to $5K for that Chinese one.
One potential problem I can see with the $300 DIY version, is that it's just that DIY, and people will, with absolute certainty, screw it up and it won't work right.
And well, ok, so be it, but the thing is that that could reflect badly upon your higher end fully built model if "word gets around" (even if it's not your fault) that the product has issues. Just something to be cautious of by trying to shoot for a low end low cost DIY model first.
The 2nd issues about shooting for a low target price for the base model is as I have mentioned before, having that in the back of your mind may ultimately cause a compromise in the design that turns out to be the Achilles heel for reliability or accuracy etc that unwittingly flows into your high end model.
e.g. you've chosen and presumably locked into the Delta design, and that looks great now, but what if it turns out to just not be viable right on the edges of performance where you need it and people expect a $5K machine to work at?
And even though I don't know much about this stuff, that's what my engineering spidey sense is telling me might possibly happen here. So personally I would likely have gone for pretty much what the Chinese design has, and then figure out ways to either tweak the cost, or add a killer feature etc.
But hey, I could be wrong, take with a grain of salt. I think what you are doing is great.
Cool! Sounds like we've hit some common ground, more-or-less ::) I believe that the uber-EE's that frequent this forum will like our $5000-$10000 machine more than our $300 kit. That's always been the plan, however, the Hackaday version is focused solely on the cheap kit, which has made for some confusion. The two-tiered approach may seem a bit strange, but software companies do that all the time as a business model (e.g. Github, Trello, and other companies having a 'freemium' model and an paid enterprise version; they take a loss on the former and profit on the latter). As for going low-end and having design compromises / achilles heel / etc, that's always a concern for any company that wants to make a consumer product. There was that first engineer that wanted to start using plastic parts under the hood of an automobile, and was probably laughed at, but now other companies have followed suit and even well-built Toyotas and BMWs have all sorts of cheap clever solutions made out of low-grade parts. That's innovation. It's not as glorious as other types of innovation, but it's still progress. I'm actually on the third revision of the delta mechanism, and the fourth revision of the component feeders (still need one more rev after the first full system tests). If we find something that works, then others can copy us (abiding by the CC-BY-SA, hopefully). If we fail, we'll be an example of what not to do. We'll definitely be cautious and will be sure to document the crap out of whatever we come up with... Including troubleshooting, etc. The delta design is REALLY hard to screw up, we're doing lots of camera calibration before, and even during the job, to account for any misalignment that could happen. This design errs on software complexity more than hardware complexity, which is a unique approach to PnP, but is an approach that's being used more these days in other fields like transportation.
Edit: editing after seeing edits to your last post. If our delta mechanism is a dead end, we'll try CoreXY or something like that, we won't either (A) just give up or (B) try to make it work even though it's flawed. From my calculations, which I've documented on my HaD blog, I believe that I can make it work. So far it looks promising, but it does require a bit of work envelope calibration using a multi-point Z-probe and XY grid points for the camera to inspect and calculate a vector error map. But again, that's all software, and once we get the calibration stuff in place, it will work pretty well. Definitely not as easy as Cartesian machines with ballscrews and glass scales.
-
Pulling the cover tape.
I thought Vbesemens had a neat way of doing this, that would kill two birds with one stone - assuming that the cover tape is strong enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPw1u8_RcOc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPw1u8_RcOc)
If this was done with multiple steppers (offset, so you could use the bigger cheaper units), I think this would be quite viable - even using those very cheap motor/gearbox assemblies. I'd consider using optical hole detection (clear plastic tapes???) though or perhaps a jockey wheel/encoder thing, the wear on a microswitch could be high (paper tape is quite abrasive), leading to occasional replacement.
The other thing, I think it will only be a matter of time before a Chinese firm replicates the TM220A/240A 'success' story with a vision based machine. These guys seem to have already done it.
http://www.hothotsmtmachine.com/ (http://www.hothotsmtmachine.com/)
-
Just thinking about the minimum requirement for a standalone feeder, and taking a bottom-up approach.
What's the cheapest suitable actuator?
RC micro servo has to be it by very long way. Has the right amount of movement and torque, and a doddle to control very cheaply.
Hmm, i would go for a simple, tiny DC motor with a worm gear, driving a falt wheel with sprockets on one end. Some motor like these: http://www.ebay.de/itm/1-Stuck-Motor-Johnson-Kleinmotor-13-V-mit-Schnecke-/310803801758 (http://www.ebay.de/itm/1-Stuck-Motor-Johnson-Kleinmotor-13-V-mit-Schnecke-/310803801758). And then add a LED plus phototransistor to detect the holes on the side of the strip, that way it can advance one, two, three, or whatever many holes to have the next part. I guess that a servo would have a too limited range for larger parts.
Just send it a pulse, and it will advance as many holes as are set (configurable by dip-switches, for example). Only requires a very small micro and a FET to switch the motor. Should be really simple electronics.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Pulling the cover tape.
I thought Vbesemens had a neat way of doing this, that would kill two birds with one stone - assuming that the cover tape is strong enough.
This will fail as soon as you get a kinked tape (like you often get when you order from farnell), and also bear in mind that torque will decrease as the takeup reel fills up
Thinking about it, a reflective optical sensor could probably be made to work on all tape types - diffuse reflection from paper, specular reflection from plastic. This would also have the advantage of not having to have something each side of the tape
-
Just send it a pulse, and it will advance as many holes as are set (configurable by dip-switches, for example). Only requires a very small micro and a FET to switch the motor. Should be really simple electronics.
And a feed pushbutton, on the actual feeder unit, pleeeeease!
When threading, often while balancing on one foot and contorted into a weird shape to reach the feeder in the far corner, I really can't guide the mouse (or trackpad, thanks, Mike!) onto the feed button on a screen a few feet away.
-
Just send it a pulse, and it will advance as many holes as are set (configurable by dip-switches, for example). Only requires a very small micro and a FET to switch the motor. Should be really simple electronics.
And a feed pushbutton, on the actual feeder unit, pleeeeease!
Absolutely. And of course it always feeds a single index regardless of setting, so you can get it in phase.
And no need to bother with mechanically half-indexing unless the feeder design make it easy to do - you can do that by offsetting the pick position.
-
This will fail as soon as you get a kinked tape (like you often get when you order from farnell), and also bear in mind that torque will decrease as the takeup reel fills up
Thinking further about inconvenient tape supplies, short or absent leaders and all the other things that plague short runs...
Could one build a feeder that (optionally?) ran with a plate over the top, and peeled the cover tape away some distance back, to avoid exposing multiple pockets, or requiring extension pieces to be attached to the cover tape?
Just jamming your 100-piece tape in the back of the feeder, pulling the tape off to feed the carrier into the feeder, and accepting that, at the end of the job you toss the remainder of the tape and components... Pull the tape from the front, to make sure you can feed all the parts.
The passive strip holder trays that are used with Versatronics (and others) are almost OK, but I always fear the components pinging everywhere. Since proper feeders are expensive, and many customers won't have full reels for a lot of their parts, supporting cut strip as well as possible would be a win! (Hmm, have I just talked myself into a few proper feeders, and a load of drag feeds with fishing weights for the one-part-per-board poxy passives?
-
... I believe that the uber-EE's that frequent this forum will like our $5000-$10000 machine more than our $300 kit. That's always been the plan, however, the Hackaday version is focused solely on the cheap kit, which has made for some confusion.
How do you see it working for hobbyists, will it be possible for example to feed a single MCU without having to purchase a longer tape? Have you considered feeding from loose trays?
-
This is a really cool thread. Getting back to the topic of low-cost, I built a manual machine for about $50. You can read more about it and see videos here:
http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-fsr-circuit-boards.html (http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-fsr-circuit-boards.html)
http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-manual-pick-and-place-machine.html (http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-manual-pick-and-place-machine.html)
(http://www.socha.com/blogs/trains/Building-the-FSR-Circuit-Boards_102A2/P6171944_600.jpg)
I have a video too, but I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post. If someone tells me how, I'll embed that as well. I have a friend who has been making the circuit boards and we've made about 100 so far. We're both over 40 (by more than a little), so I take off my glasses and he uses an Optivisor, and it works great. We're using 0603 components, so nothing too small. And each circuit board has four LEDs, so getting the orientation correct is much easier than doing it by hand.
I was inspired to make this manual machine after assembling a couple of PCBs by hand with tweezers under a microscope. That worked, but this machine is faster. And this is true open source--I uploaded all the design files on Thingiverse (link from my blog) and wrote assembly instructions. Anyone can do whatever they want with this design.
-
I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post.
Just paste the link, but delete the s from https
-
Nice
I have a video too, but I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post. If someone tells me how, I'll embed that as well.
Here you go, just put the url in the page, make sure it's not the https version of the link
and it automagically embeds it.
Longer Manul Pick and Place Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBR6LnZ37QU#ws)
Edit: my tablet's browser crashed so I didn't get the warning that Mike already answered the embedding of youtube videos.
-
Oh, that's way too easy. No wonder I couldn't figure it out. :D
Thanks
I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post.
Just paste the link, but delete the s from https
-
I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post.
Just paste the link, but delete the s from https
I always wondered by it doesn't work for me. Thanks.
-
Nice
I have a video too, but I wasn't able to figure out how to embed the YouTube video in a post. If someone tells me how, I'll embed that as well.
Here you go, just put the url in the page, make sure it's not the https version of the link
and it automagically embeds it.
Longer Manul Pick and Place Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBR6LnZ37QU#ws)
Edit: my tablet's browser crashed so I didn't get the warning that Mike already answered the embedding of youtube videos.
Very nice. This is something I would buy, assembled or as a complete kit (except for the vacuum pump, valve and pedal which I already have). Virtually zero setup and can feed from loose parts. Currently I place them with free hand and then nudge the parts under a microscope to improve the accuracy.
-
miguelvp, thank God someone brought this up again. I'm also building something similar to the JohnSL manual PnP machine. I still have to figure out how to rotate the pen by 360 degrees without twisting the air hose. :-/O
Edit: btw, good job John. :-+
-
. I still have to figure out how to rotate the pen by 360 degrees without twisting the air hose. :-/O
2 concentric sleeves
-
miguelvp, thank God someone brought this up again. I'm also building something similar to the JohnSL manual PnP machine. I still have to figure out how to rotate the pen by 360 degrees without twisting the air hose. :-/O
Edit: btw, good job John. :-+
If you look at this head you can see how I got around the problem. (http://briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-2.aspx) We used a needle shaft with a hole drilled down the centre and another drilled sideways in between two polished sleeves that sat snugly within a block of delrin that made up the handle. A pair of rubber O-rings made sure the seal was tight without restricting the rotation. The motor was connected into the top which gave an air tight seal around the shaft. We then drilled a hole in the end of the delrin handle and used a small brass insert to connect the vacuum hose. The motor can rotate the needle as far as it needs to go without the air hose moving.
-
. I still have to figure out how to rotate the pen by 360 degrees without twisting the air hose. :-/O
2 concentric sleeves
Hm, I was thinking about that. :-+ I will come back tomorrow with some drawings. Heck, let's build this sucker! 8)
Edit: and101, thanks for the tip! Excellent project there btw. :clap:
-
If you look at this head you can see how I got around the problem. (http://briandorey.com/post/Diy-Manual-Pick-and-Place-Machine-part-2.aspx) We used a needle shaft with a hole drilled down the centre and another drilled sideways in between two polished sleeves that sat snugly within a block of delrin that made up the handle. A pair of rubber O-rings made sure the seal was tight without restricting the rotation. The motor was connected into the top which gave an air tight seal around the shaft. We then drilled a hole in the end of the delrin handle and used a small brass insert to connect the vacuum hose. The motor can rotate the needle as far as it needs to go without the air hose moving.
That is an amazingly nice handpiece, beats the crap out of anything I've seen. :-+
-
. I still have to figure out how to rotate the pen by 360 degrees without twisting the air hose. :-/O
2 concentric sleeves
Hm, I was thinking about that. :-+ I will come back tomorrow with some drawings. Heck, let's build this sucker! 8)
Edit: and101, thanks for the tip! Excellent project there btw. :clap:
..of course you only need +/-180, or at a pinch +/-90, as you can offset when picking. If you use something soft like silicone tubing, twisting may not be a problem.
-
That's innovation. It's not as glorious as other types of innovation, but it's still progress. I'm actually on the third revision of the delta mechanism, and the fourth revision of the component feeders (still need one more rev after the first full system tests). If we find something that works, then others can copy us (abiding by the CC-BY-SA, hopefully). If we fail, we'll be an example of what not to do.
Sure, and that's why I fully support what you are doing.
If you think the delta system might be workable then it's certainly worth a shot, and of course everyone learns from it which is great.
The delta design is REALLY hard to screw up, we're doing lots of camera calibration before, and even during the job, to account for any misalignment that could happen.
I don't doubt that, but is it a good enough platform to use for $5K-$10K PnP machine, and the level of precision people would expect in that price range?
That's the big question here, I guess we'll find out.
If our delta mechanism is a dead end, we'll try CoreXY or something like that, we won't either (A) just give up or (B) try to make it work even though it's flawed.
Excellent!
Again, I think what you are doing is awesome, you seem to have the commitment to drive this beyond what most people/teams have done, I hope it works well.
-
This is a really cool thread. Getting back to the topic of low-cost, I built a manual machine for about $50
That looks very usable.
Begging out for a small camera where you can do it all through a monitor.
-
Pulling the cover tape.
I thought Vbesemens had a neat way of doing this, that would kill two birds with one stone - assuming that the cover tape is strong enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPw1u8_RcOc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPw1u8_RcOc)
Nice. Yes, that's close to what I had in mind.
-
This is a really cool thread. Getting back to the topic of low-cost, I built a manual machine for about $50
That looks very usable.
Begging out for a small camera where you can do it all through a monitor.
Yes, something like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/400433543387 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/400433543387) would be a nice solution for about $100.
-
This is a really cool thread. Getting back to the topic of low-cost, I built a manual machine for about $50
That looks very usable.
Begging out for a small camera where you can do it all through a monitor.
I originally had a USB microscope mounted, but ended up taking it off. Because the microscope was at an angle, it was difficult to figure out where the device would end up being placed. I tried using a Processing program that displayed crosshairs, and this helped. However, both my friend and I found that using our eyes worked better.
-
I have a question about vacuum pumps. Right now I'm using a fish pump reversed to make it a vacuum pump, following these directions (and using the same pump): http://www.instructables.com/id/Circuit-Board-Lab-POV-Business-Card/step5/Build-an-SMD-Vacuum-Pick-and-Place-Tool/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Circuit-Board-Lab-POV-Business-Card/step5/Build-an-SMD-Vacuum-Pick-and-Place-Tool/)
This doesn't have much of a vacuum, so I'm wondering what others would recommend as a step up, but not expensive.
-
The $100 glue dispensers off eBay / AliExpress are also good as a vacuum unit. You will need a shop air compressor and regulator though. We use one of those units for dispensing solder paste and placing SMD parts.
-
The $100 glue dispensers off eBay / AliExpress are also good as a vacuum unit. You will need a shop air compressor and regulator though. We use one of those units for dispensing solder paste and placing SMD parts.
Do you mean one like this: http://www.amazon.com/Sanven-Controlling-Solder-Liquid-Dispenser/dp/B00HIY1YWE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407043878&sr=8-2&keywords=solder+paste+dispenser (http://www.amazon.com/Sanven-Controlling-Solder-Liquid-Dispenser/dp/B00HIY1YWE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407043878&sr=8-2&keywords=solder+paste+dispenser)
If so, how would you use this? It looks like it's designed to provide a puff of pressured air, and then a vacuum after that. I've never used one, so I'm not really sure how it works.
-
They provide vacuum using a simple vacuum generator using the Coanda effect. Makes a reduced pressure area at the nozzle of fast flowing air, but uses a lot of air for this purpose, and can be quite noisy in operation as you cannot restrict the outlet air with a muffler easily without having a pressure change that negates the vacuum.
Aquarium pump or an old fridge compressor ( with oil separator on the outlet and some method to return the oil to the compressor) and a large pressure vessel to store the vacuum along with a switch to run it as needed. A filter in the inlet line as well to remove dirt ( and sucked in parts) before the vacuum valve will also be good. A cheap small car fuel filter ( smallest 5 or 6mm one you can get) does fine here.
This method is used by Tektronix/ Xerox on the Phasor series of wax transfer printers to transfer wax during cleaning cycles. Works well there.
-
I have a question about vacuum pumps. Right now I'm using a fish pump reversed to make it a vacuum pump, following these directions (and using the same pump): http://www.instructables.com/id/Circuit-Board-Lab-POV-Business-Card/step5/Build-an-SMD-Vacuum-Pick-and-Place-Tool/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Circuit-Board-Lab-POV-Business-Card/step5/Build-an-SMD-Vacuum-Pick-and-Place-Tool/)
This doesn't have much of a vacuum, so I'm wondering what others would recommend as a step up, but not expensive.
I am using this pump http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0 (http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0) and am very happy with it. You can adjust the suction and I never need to get to the max, even though I don't use those rubber suction cups, just a plain needed (smaller area = less force). Also, you don't need to reverse it. For hose I am using flexible silicon fish tank tube from a local pet store.
-
The $100 glue dispensers off eBay / AliExpress are also good as a vacuum unit. You will need a shop air compressor and regulator though. We use one of those units for dispensing solder paste and placing SMD parts.
Do you mean one like this: http://www.amazon.com/Sanven-Controlling-Solder-Liquid-Dispenser/dp/B00HIY1YWE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407043878&sr=8-2&keywords=solder+paste+dispenser (http://www.amazon.com/Sanven-Controlling-Solder-Liquid-Dispenser/dp/B00HIY1YWE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407043878&sr=8-2&keywords=solder+paste+dispenser)
If so, how would you use this? It looks like it's designed to provide a puff of pressured air, and then a vacuum after that. I've never used one, so I'm not really sure how it works.
Yep, that's the type. I'm sure there's a couple of threads in this forum that covers what they do.
One of my guys set it up and uses it at work. He used a spare dispensing tube with a small hole in the side (finger covers it) for the pickup "pen".
-
It may be worth keeping a lookout on ebay for a laboratory vacuum pump. They are better built than the chinese fish tank or dispenser pumps and are designed to run all day. A small diving bottle or something similar makes a good vacuum chamber for smoothing out the flow from the pump.
-
Sparkfun sell a small diaphragm pump
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10398 (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10398)
(https://cdn.sparkfun.com//assets/parts/4/8/5/4/10398-02.jpg)
There are some similar-sized ones on ebay from China
An improvement over turning a small pump on/off is to add a solenoid valve to get a clean release
when dropping.
-
I originally had a USB microscope mounted, but ended up taking it off. Because the microscope was at an angle, it was difficult to figure out where the device would end up being placed. I tried using a Processing program that displayed crosshairs, and this helped. However, both my friend and I found that using our eyes worked better.
What about one of those thin edoscopes?
-
How about a 45 degree angled mirror, with a small hole through the middle for the needle?
-
It may be worth keeping a lookout on ebay for a laboratory vacuum pump.
Just trew one away completely useless for these applications, those are made to go to extreme high vacuum, use a lot of oil (smokes) are 30kg+, noisy, take up huge space and need maintenance.
Look for a small maintenance free vacuum pump, they are pricey though. I ended up with the Festool vacuum pump because I can also use it for my other woodworking hobby.
If you want a manual PnP and hate the continuous pumpnoise make sure to install a vacuum vessel of 10 litres that works as a sort of vacuum reservoir (capacitor) and a vacuuum switch that turns (via a relay) on the pump when the vacuuum becomes too low >-0,6 bar for instance.
-
On this subject, one of the potential uses I was considering for my cheap ipod nano screen+camera combination was as a magnifier.
The cam & screen are small enough to sit right on the camera and not get in the way, and you can get the right focus distance by screwing the lens out of the camera module
Some initial tests look promising - still in the process of investigating different camera modules, but other stuff is getting in the way ATM.
-
regarding vacuum pump...
did anyone tested a vacuum pump from a diesel car engine ? it's relatively small and can be driven by a relatively small DC motor or a small brushless.
once i'll decide to build a manual pick-and-place, then i'll definitely try such a setup (but for now i don't need a pick-and-place yet).
-
Diesel vacuum pump will work but it does need an oil feed for the drive side, as it is lubricated with the engine oil, either splash or via a gallery and bleed. Otherwise it will seize up in short order when it runs dry. the ones integrated into the alternator though are self contained and will not need an oil supply, as they have sealed bearings. They do not however tolerate any side load on the shaft so you will likely have to use the alternator rotor shaft and NDE bearing and housing as well in the drive to keep it in alignment. You probably could use an inverter to turn the alternator into a synchronous motor though and not need a motor at all, just a 5V supply and a simple 3 phase driver with simple sequential logic and a current limiting resistor for the rotor current. Low load and easy to drive from 5V.
-
Diesel vacuum pump will work but it does need an oil feed for the drive side, as it is lubricated with the engine oil, either splash or via a gallery and bleed. Otherwise it will seize up in short order when it runs dry. the ones integrated into the alternator though are self contained and will not need an oil supply, as they have sealed bearings. They do not however tolerate any side load on the shaft so you will likely have to use the alternator rotor shaft and NDE bearing and housing as well in the drive to keep it in alignment. You probably could use an inverter to turn the alternator into a synchronous motor though and not need a motor at all, just a 5V supply and a simple 3 phase driver with simple sequential logic and a current limiting resistor for the rotor current. Low load and easy to drive from 5V.
i'm aware of the need for lubrication, but that can be solved ;)
but the idea of using the alternator + vacuum combo is actually a good one ! :-+ modding a 3 phase brush-less driver (one of the higher power controllers for RC brush-less motors - those without HAL feedback) could be a option to turn the alternator into a motor. and the best is that apart from building a support for the alternator/pump combo, there is no other machining needed ;)
-
I just dug out the Sparkfun pump linked above & I think it would work fine for pick/place use. You can under-run it at about 8-9v to reduce noise (not too bad to start with), and it still puts out plenty of suck.
As I mentioned before, you ideally want a valve to release quickly, but on a DC motor powered diaphragm pump, you may be able to get close to this by actively braking the motor.
You'd probably need to have some intentional leakage as well due to the pump valves, but I think that pump has plenty spare capacity for this.
-
Diesel vacuum pump will work but it does need an oil feed for the drive side, as it is lubricated with the engine oil, either splash or via a gallery and bleed. Otherwise it will seize up in short order when it runs dry. the ones integrated into the alternator though are self contained and will not need an oil supply, as they have sealed bearings. They do not however tolerate any side load on the shaft so you will likely have to use the alternator rotor shaft and NDE bearing and housing as well in the drive to keep it in alignment. You probably could use an inverter to turn the alternator into a synchronous motor though and not need a motor at all, just a 5V supply and a simple 3 phase driver with simple sequential logic and a current limiting resistor for the rotor current. Low load and easy to drive from 5V.
This is getting way out of hand - you don't want anything with oil in the same room. You can buy a perfectly suitable pump for $15 from Sparkfun and probably cheaper for a similar unit on ebay
e.g.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/For-OKEN-SEIKO-DC12V-Mini-Vacuum-Inflatable-Pressure-Air-Pump-with-1m-Air-Pipe-/121386536850?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c43338f92 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/For-OKEN-SEIKO-DC12V-Mini-Vacuum-Inflatable-Pressure-Air-Pump-with-1m-Air-Pipe-/121386536850?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c43338f92)
No need to dick around improvising stuff.
-
The little diaphragm pumps like Sparkfun and similar work great. Usually get enough vacuum that don't need to change tips so often. I do most of my 1206 / 0805 SOIC manual placement with 2 tips. I used a couple of modified aquarium pumps before but was not happy with them.
Be sure to use an in-line filter in the pickup tubing to keep from sucking up dust, debris and solder paste.
Something like this works well.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Disposable-1-8-Barbed-Nylon-HDPE-Inline-Air-Liquid-Filter-Partical-Disc-Disk-/310620531751?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48526d2c27 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Disposable-1-8-Barbed-Nylon-HDPE-Inline-Air-Liquid-Filter-Partical-Disc-Disk-/310620531751?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48526d2c27)
-
Those are expensive. I buy the cheap G4164 filters for under $3 each retail, and they do the job.
-
I am using this pump http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0 (http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0) and am very happy with it.
One of the odd requirements for the in-home micro-factory is noise mitigation. You really don't want to annoy the significant other or roommate watching TV. Not everybody has the luxury of an anti-social soundproof personal makerspace. Many on the FirePick Delta team use the SparkFun pump and unanimously hate the noise. The 10 litre vacuum vessel mentioned above is a great solution--until the pump kicks in when the significant other is watching a scene of quiet emotional intensity. I'm using a reversed fish pump (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000A0PYQK/ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000A0PYQK/)) bought with the assumption that fish tank pumps are acceptably quiet for home use. However, even the fish pump is loud enough to precipitate door slamming. Coanda effect hissing might also result in large objects being thrown across the room in anger. Amusingly, I verified that our vacuum cleaner does produce enough vacuum and is a somewhat acceptable social noise in the home although I think that burning out the vacuum cleaner with extended duty cycles would also led to domestic unrest.
Zapta, in the above context, how do you feel about your vacuum pump. I had not seen this before and it looks quite interesting. Is it acceptable or disruptive in a semi-social setting?
-
I actually did use a vacuum cleaner as a replacement for a vacuum pump for around 3 weeks while waiting for the replacement pump. It worked and did survive, though I did have a spare motor assembly for it as spare, but did not need it at all. It ran pretty much 6 hours a day during that time, and survived. Depending on the model you buy they can be pretty quiet, just choose ones with HEPA filters as this tends to muffle the motor noise quite well.
-
I am using this pump http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0 (http://amzn.com/B00A8PLOM0) and am very happy with it.
One of the odd requirements for the in-home micro-factory is noise mitigation. You really don't want to annoy the significant other or roommate watching TV. Not everybody has the luxury of an anti-social soundproof personal makerspace. Many on the FirePick Delta team use the SparkFun pump and unanimously hate the noise.
It wouldn't exactly be hard to put it in a noise reducing box (which could double as your vacuum tank)
-
Zapta, in the above context, how do you feel about your vacuum pump. I had not seen this before and it looks quite interesting. Is it acceptable or disruptive in a semi-social setting?
I would say about the same noise as those small bug looking fish tank pump. More in the high setting and less in the low setting. In my case it makes more noise because I am using a normally blocked valve. You can here it in this video (and learn how to decorate your boots).
BTW, the ability to set the vacuum level is very important if you use a relief hole instead of a valve because you need to adjust the residual vacuum force to be below the component weight.
Swarovski Crystal Rhinestone Pick it Up Vacuum Tool Instructional Application Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E5ZknZVxQk#ws)
-
Video of rhinestone cowgirl with wandering shoulder strap
Zapta, I am speechless. I never ever ever thought that I would be spending Sunday morning watching a rhinestone video. Thank you for brightening my day. And you're right, the sound is indeed a rubber diagram pump.
And Mike, also thanks for the novel suggestion of putting the pump into vacuum tank for noise mitigation. That one hadn't occurred to us.
SeanB, agreed on Hepa filter. We have a Miele, which is really quiet and really expensive. I did not want to endanger the Ferrari of vacuums with my sucky demands.
-
Video of rhinestone cowgirl with wandering shoulder strap
Zapta, I am speechless. I never ever ever thought that I would be spending Sunday morning watching a rhinestone video. Thank you for brightening my day. And you're right, the sound is indeed a rubber diagram pump.
And Mike, also thanks for the novel suggestion of putting the pump into vacuum tank for noise mitigation. That one hadn't occurred to us.
SeanB, agreed on Hepa filter. We have a Miele, which is really quiet and really expensive. I did not want to endanger the Ferrari of vacuums with my sucky demands.
I haven't noticed the wandering shoulder strap until you mentioned it. I was looking at the pick up tool all the time. Is this a bad sign that I'm getting old? :'(
-
I haven't noticed the wandering shoulder strap until you mentioned it. I was looking at the pick up tool all the time. Is this a bad sign that I'm getting old? :'(
no, it's the sign that the lady in the video is getting old :D (i'll go to hell for this one, but worth it :-DD)
-
I haven't noticed the wandering shoulder strap until you mentioned it. I was looking at the pick up tool all the time. Is this a bad sign that I'm getting old? :'(
no, it's the sign that the lady in the video is getting old :D (i'll go to hell for this one, but worth it :-DD)
Uf, I already thought something is wrong with me. ;D
j/k ;)
Edit: Anyways, she's a good looking woman. :)
-
I originally had a USB microscope mounted, but ended up taking it off. Because the microscope was at an angle, it was difficult to figure out where the device would end up being placed. I tried using a Processing program that displayed crosshairs, and this helped. However, both my friend and I found that using our eyes worked better.
What about one of those thin edoscopes?
This is the type of camera I am using on the head of my PnP machine. (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-2M-Wire-USB-4-LED-Waterproof-Borescope-Endoscope-Snake-Tube-Cam-Camcorder-/251579411724?pt=UK_BOI_Medical_Lab_Equipment_Medical_Equipment_Instruments_ET&hash=item3a934d2d0c) It is not great in terms of image quality but it is perfectly usable for inspecting the pcb and aligning components and it is tiny which makes it easier to find somewhere it put it.
Here is a screen shot of it looking at a populated board, I think the smallest parts are 0201. The camera is about 80mm above the pcb. At the moment I am just using natural lighting as I still need to design a defused LED array to fit on the head.
(http://i.imgur.com/WmWGzTt.png)
-
Many on the FirePick Delta team use the SparkFun pump and unanimously hate the noise. The 10 litre vacuum vessel mentioned above is a great solution--until the pump kicks in when the significant other is watching a scene of quiet emotional intensity. I'm using a reversed fish pump (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000A0PYQK/ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000A0PYQK/)) bought with the assumption that fish tank pumps are acceptably quiet for home use. However, even the fish pump is loud enough to precipitate door slamming.
Build a small wooden box, line the insides with soft foam (like the stuff used in a mattress), that will silence it quite a bit. In addition you can put a small "reservoir" vessel inside it as well, to mitigate the noise from the pulsating air"suck".
Greetings,
Chris
Edit: Damn, Mike beat me to it ;)
-
That would always be way too expensive. These feeders are designed for high reliability under heavy usage for years on end, and would be way over-engineered for something like this.
I doubt you could but a single new feeder for any current machine for less than the target price of this machine.
Again. $100 is way too expensive for a machine like this
What I'm saying is that if the feeder is compatible with the Quad style (totally self contained, the machine and feeder have no connection to one another - and the feeder handles 100% of the job of presenting the part at X/Y location each time the nozzle comes over), then someone using the PnP for a "real" application can buy a bunch of Quad (or MyData or whatever brand) of feeder... or they can use a home grown solution, or they can use cut strips or tape, or heck, they could even line up a row of components manually. Abstracting the feeder from the machine and possibly offering a cheap solution but with the ability to use commercial solutions would be a huge bonus for a machine like this.
Same for the nozzles... IIRC, my Quad's just have something like a #10-24 threaded hole with the vacuum through it - the entire nozzle assembly screws in. Someone wanting a robust solution could by an off-the-shelf nozzle/spring assembly, or they could use a cheap home grown solution also - but better to make the machine compatible with tried-and-true off the shelf parts which are available.
-
This is the type of camera I am using on the head of my PnP machine. (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-2M-Wire-USB-4-LED-Waterproof-Borescope-Endoscope-Snake-Tube-Cam-Camcorder-/251579411724?pt=UK_BOI_Medical_Lab_Equipment_Medical_Equipment_Instruments_ET&hash=item3a934d2d0c) It is not great in terms of image quality but it is perfectly usable for inspecting the pcb and aligning components and it is tiny which makes it easier to find somewhere it put it.
I used one of these USB Microscopes: Mini Portable 200X USB Digital Microscope (http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Microscope-Magnifier-Endoscope-Otoscope/dp/B009N8JL9Q/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1407126011&sr=8-14&keywords=usb+microscope)
Here is a screen shot from the camera that I was using:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/o-m-g-cheap-pick-and-place-machines-coming!/?action=dlattach;attach=104501;image)
As you can see, because of the angle, it's a little difficult to position the part just right. When the part is above the board, the part will be near the top of the picture. So you have to move the crosshairs to the center of the part placement location, and then slowly move the part down. While this seemed like a great idea, I found it doesn't work as well in practice. For this to be effective, I think I would want two cameras 90 degrees from each other. It's amazing how important stereo vision is to getting the correct placement with a manual machine.
By the way, what software are you using on your machine?
-
I am looking at ccv camera's since USB requires another computer with monitor and I'd like the manual PnP to be autonomous.
Besides it would be nice to have two camera's for two 90o angles on some large flatpack ic's for placement I think.
Problem I have is the distance to the board, if I use a 25mm lens I get too little zoom at a reasonable distance. To correct this I should make an extender putting the lens further away from the sensor.
-
I am looking at ccv camera's since USB requires another computer with monitor and I'd like the manual PnP to be autonomous.
Hack of these?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/9mm-INSPECTION-CAMERA-Video-Monitor-Digital-LCD-Endoscope-Borescope-NEW-NR-/121399336837 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/9mm-INSPECTION-CAMERA-Video-Monitor-Digital-LCD-Endoscope-Borescope-NEW-NR-/121399336837)
-
Hack of these?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/9mm-INSPECTION-CAMERA-Video-Monitor-Digital-LCD-Endoscope-Borescope-NEW-NR-/121399336837 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/9mm-INSPECTION-CAMERA-Video-Monitor-Digital-LCD-Endoscope-Borescope-NEW-NR-/121399336837)
I have experimented with a Milwaukee inspection camera just like that and found it inadequate perhaps it was the 200 line lcd but it looked not sharp enough.
http://www.milwaukeetool.com/instruments/inspection-and-detection/2310-21 (http://www.milwaukeetool.com/instruments/inspection-and-detection/2310-21)
I bought a 600 and 480 line Sony ccv bullet style cameras on ebay for $30-$50, the picture is really excellent but I am still in search of the right 12mm lens for this application.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Bullet-Indoor-CCTV-Camera-600TVL-1-3-SONY-HAD-CCD-OSD-Menu-D-WDR-DNR-DC12V-/140905095698?pt=US_Security_Cameras&hash=item20ce992212 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Bullet-Indoor-CCTV-Camera-600TVL-1-3-SONY-HAD-CCD-OSD-Menu-D-WDR-DNR-DC12V-/140905095698?pt=US_Security_Cameras&hash=item20ce992212)
-
I originally had a USB microscope mounted, but ended up taking it off. Because the microscope was at an angle, it was difficult to figure out where the device would end up being placed. I tried using a Processing program that displayed crosshairs, and this helped. However, both my friend and I found that using our eyes worked better.
you would need to mount it parallel to the needle, or perpendicular with a mirror
Anotehr idea: two cameras (arbitrary angles for depth reconstruction) with some image processing to augment the picture like Steve Manns welding helmet
High Dynamic Range (HDR) Video Image Processing For Digital Glass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygcm0AQXX9k#ws)
why? Image processing is cheap (laptop), cameras are cheap, this would turn manual P&P into monkey on a tricycle/video game type of affair, where you can put totally clueless person behind the desk and ask them to do what the pretty green lines on the screen tell them to.
btw cheap vacuum pumps are in hot air stations
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=Aoyue+Replacement+/+Repair+Pump&_sacat=0 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=Aoyue+Replacement+/+Repair+Pump&_sacat=0)
this is the pump used for hot air / desoldering station combo
-
why? Image processing is cheap (laptop), cameras are cheap, this would turn manual P&P into monkey on a tricycle/video game type of affair, where you can put totally clueless person behind the desk and ask them to do what the pretty green lines on the screen tell them to.
a few thoughts of why not:
- a manual PnP machine will become quite large with a laptop , the screen of the laptop has to be in view with the attached keyboard infront not very ergonomical, an external large monitor will take even more space.
- you have to boot the laptop for 30 seconds, run the correct program, be annoyed all the time with all kinds of OS bullshit popup messages like updates/virusscans etc.
- there are a lot of problems reported to get two identical USB camera's on one PC working
- you probably have to write your own software which will take weeks/months to get correct, only interesting if you go to a DIY fully automated PnP
-
why? Image processing is cheap (laptop), cameras are cheap, this would turn manual P&P into monkey on a tricycle/video game type of affair, where you can put totally clueless person behind the desk and ask them to do what the pretty green lines on the screen tell them to.
a few thoughts of why not:
- a manual PnP machine will become quite large with a laptop , the screen of the laptop has to be in view with the attached keyboard infront not very ergonomical, an external large monitor will take even more space.
- you have to boot the laptop for 30 seconds, run the correct program, be annoyed all the time with all kinds of OS bullshit popup messages like updates/virusscans etc.
- there are a lot of problems reported to get two identical USB camera's on one PC working
- you probably have to write your own software which will take weeks/months to get correct, only interesting if you go to a DIY fully automated PnP
A $300 android tablet and be done with it.
http://opencv.org/platforms/android.html (http://opencv.org/platforms/android.html)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67076-nvidia-shield-tablet-review.html (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67076-nvidia-shield-tablet-review.html)
Has one camera too many but in any event, in a year this probably goes for $200 or even less :)
-
why? Image processing is cheap (laptop), cameras are cheap, this would turn manual P&P into monkey on a tricycle/video game type of affair, where you can put totally clueless person behind the desk and ask them to do what the pretty green lines on the screen tell them to.
a few thoughts of why not:
- a manual PnP machine will become quite large with a laptop , the screen of the laptop has to be in view with the attached keyboard infront not very ergonomical, an external large monitor will take even more space.
- you have to boot the laptop for 30 seconds, run the correct program, be annoyed all the time with all kinds of OS bullshit popup messages like updates/virusscans etc.
- there are a lot of problems reported to get two identical USB camera's on one PC working
- you probably have to write your own software which will take weeks/months to get correct, only interesting if you go to a DIY fully automated PnP
Why are you mentioning manual ? I was referring to a vision correction system for auto P&P.
For manual all you need is camera+monitor
-
These monitors are cheap, work, and are easy to mount.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Car-Rear-View-System-Backup-Reverse-4-3-TFT-LCD-Monitor-/231242565070?pt=US_Rear_View_Monitors_Cams_Kits&hash=item35d72185ce (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Car-Rear-View-System-Backup-Reverse-4-3-TFT-LCD-Monitor-/231242565070?pt=US_Rear_View_Monitors_Cams_Kits&hash=item35d72185ce)
-
That's much like I run on my manual PnP - the 272(H) pixels is a bit crappy. Sure, you can go closer to get 0603 to look massive, but then you can't see enough of, say, QFNs or QFPs.
Hence my rambling earlier in this thread about building something better. And 3D, with 2 cameras.
-
Why are you mentioning manual ? I was referring to a vision correction system for auto P&P.
I was not responding to you Mike, it was another subdiscussion mentioning manual PnP, at least how I read it.
-
why? Image processing is cheap (laptop), cameras are cheap, this would turn manual P&P into monkey on a tricycle/video game type of affair, where you can put totally clueless person behind the desk and ask them to do what the pretty green lines on the screen tell them to.
a few thoughts of why not:
- a manual PnP machine will become quite large with a laptop , the screen of the laptop has to be in view with the attached keyboard infront not very ergonomical, an external large monitor will take even more space.
- you have to boot the laptop for 30 seconds, run the correct program, be annoyed all the time with all kinds of OS bullshit popup messages like updates/virusscans etc.
- there are a lot of problems reported to get two identical USB camera's on one PC working
- you probably have to write your own software which will take weeks/months to get correct, only interesting if you go to a DIY fully automated PnP
you are effing with me, right? complaining about how difficult and unwieldy laptop is to operate? :D especially compared to setting up full blown P&P :)
Consider the benefits of manual, but vision augmented p&p - you put absolute MONKEY in front of your manual pick and place machine, and all that untrained monkey has to do is follow pretty pictures on the screen. This means you dont have to do the boards, intern/your kid/cheap manual labour.
Most expensive part of P&P machine is ... machine itself :) precise repeatable quick mechanical bits. Software is cheap in comparison.
AR program wouldnt even need to know how to read board files, it could learn on the first pass - make first board yourself, and on the next pcb program knows where all the components go and overlays accurate positions/orientation/directions.
hmm those guys could give it a go (granted it should work better than their slow clunky demos)
Augmented Reality BreadBoard circuit building guide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfVQ4N-u0sk#ws)
-
Why are you mentioning manual ? I was referring to a vision correction system for auto P&P.
I was not responding to you Mike, it was another subdiscussion mentioning manual PnP, at least how I read it.
oops - sorry I speed-read the "...are cheap" and thought it wad a reply to my comment about not trying to re-use vision systems from old pick/place machines!
I'd certainly agree that using a laptop to just display an image from a camera is a very far-from-optimal solution!
-
you are effing with me, right? Consider the benefits of manual, but vision augmented p&p
No I am not effing with you, I am dead serious. But reflecting on your last post I think I just have different requirements for a manual PnP machine than you do.
I just want a simple design but accurate manual PnP where the human still has to do some labour and handling and can judge on two small monitors if the position of the part is correct.
Most important for me it should be finished in < 100 hours of work to be able to complete it at all in my spare time off work.
For me the manual PnP is a tool I want to use to easier do my hobbie projects, not a goal on it own.
If you want your described finished product for the end of the year, it should become an open source software group community project with a lot of very enthousiastic people, or you must be a student/unemployed with 80 hours a week to spend on it and a brilliant programmer. The database of all possible physical packages and their possible orientations alone would scare me away from starting :)
IMHO it will be a very ambitious project with a high risk of never ever being completed (working 100% properly), but if that is your ambition and you can and will do it, my hat goes off to you sir and I wish you succes.
-
Well, I'm building 007. The 7th Firepick Delta. Why.. Because I can. Will it work. Ask me sometime later. What will I loose. Some time. about $350 of materials ( incl freight ). What will i learn.. Heaps probably. And i'll be be able to apply this to some real world problems.
Hey, i already have a might fine Manual Pick and Place machine ( Dima FP-600, bought 2nd hand from Ebay ) and i can place about 400 parts per hour on that. ( the ladies at the factory get more like 800 but they are awesome ). We use a big Juki based system for doing production.
bit like the First guys who went to everest, they did it because it was there.
Cut these guys some slack. If they fail, it won't hurt you.. if they succeed, well, that will be great won't it.
-
hmm those guys could give it a go (granted it should work better than their slow clunky demos)
I was almost really excited, then I realized they do work for corporations and charge $250 a month minimum plus a $10000 starter fee package.
-
Neil,
I have had 3d printed venturies made before: http://www.ponoko.com/design-your-own/products/eductor-7902. (http://www.ponoko.com/design-your-own/products/eductor-7902.)
They work surprisingly well.
I also came across this paste extruder not to long ago: http://www.structur3d.io/#discov3ry (http://www.structur3d.io/#discov3ry)
They are going into production soon, and are designed to interface with any 3d printer.
--J. Kha
-
*bump
I finally have some spare time to finish the manual pick and place machine mentioned in this post --> https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/o-m-g-cheap-pick-and-place-machines-coming!/msg489146/#msg489146 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/o-m-g-cheap-pick-and-place-machines-coming!/msg489146/#msg489146). Regarding this pen, if someone has it, please precisely measure the diameter and post it here. I think it's 10mm but I have to be 100% sure. The pen has to slide through this linear bearing. There are bearings for 10mm and 12mm shafts. I don't want to order this stuff and get a wobbling disaster. Thanks guys. :)
The pen.
(http://i.imgur.com/QoSK71O.jpg)
Linear bearing.
(http://i.imgur.com/F1ke4Jd.jpg)
-
12.02 mm but it varies slightly (it is a tube). The internal diameter is 10.03mm.
-
pickle9000,
Thank you very much mate for your fast response! :-+ Ok, I'll order the 12mm bearing and the pen and hope it perfectly slides in. :)
-
... and hope it perfectly slides in. :)
a 0.02mm bigger journal than the bearing is almost the standard spec for what they call an interference fit where you have to heat the bearing to get it onto the shaft. Even then the shaft is usually solid
-
AlfBaz,
that is worrying me. If the pen slides in and comes out that it's too stiff, especially those difficulties while rotating, pushing down etc, then I'm afraid the pen will be useless. Anyways, the pen is, like you aussies would say, dirt cheap. I'll use the plastic tip and find an appropriate aluminium tube. :-+
-
That ball bearing is sloppy as hell, it will accommodate 0.02 mm without any problems.
-
That ball bearing is sloppy as hell, it will accommodate 0.02 mm without any problems.
Any bearing that accommodates a shaft 0.02mm larger than its bore diameter needs to be thrown through the manufacturers window, hopefully hitting them in the head ;D
-
AlfBaz,
that is worrying me. If the pen slides in and comes out that it's too stiff, especially those difficulties while rotating, pushing down etc, then I'm afraid the pen will be useless. Anyways, the pen is, like you aussies would say, dirt cheap. I'll use the plastic tip and find an appropriate aluminium tube. :-+
If it's to tight you may be able to fit the pen onto a drill to spin it and use some very fine grain emery cloth to reduce it's diameter. Since the pen's body is probably made from aluminium, be very careful not to take too much off. If you get it to the point where it is to loose, you can apply some glue. Normally one of various grades of Loctite will do but I can't imagine a great deal of mechanical strain that couldn't be overcome with whatever glue you have lying around
-
If you want to get it to slide go to the bearing supplier and look for needle roller inner races, which come in assorted diameters and lengths. Those have a very controlled outer diameter, so will fit in the linear bearing perfectly, though you will probably need one that is 15mm outer diameter so you have the 12mm inner diameter, and a linear bearing to suit that. You can simply fit 2 or 3 of the inner races on the shaft to handle the length, the ends will simply leave one ball in the linear slide loose as it rolls past, which will do nothing.
-
This is unbelievable. I can't find any of those linear bearings over here in local shops. So, of course, I ordered it over ebay and it might take 2 weeks to get them. Anyways, the base is finished and the trolley. Also bought a cheap arse usb microscope and the AOYUE 932 vacuum unit. The vacuum station needs some hacking. Need to add some solenoid valves and add an option for the foot switch pedal. Will post some pics soon. :)
-
If you want to get it to slide...
Oh, I thought he wanted the pen to just turn and not slide up and down :palm:
-
That ball bearing is sloppy as hell, it will accommodate 0.02 mm without any problems.
Any bearing that accommodates a shaft 0.02mm larger than its bore diameter needs to be thrown through the manufacturers window, hopefully hitting them in the head ;D
Sorry ataradov, you may be right. I looked at the picture and immediately thought it was a pedestal bearing, with a normal ball bearing in it. I see now it's a linear bearing
-
If you want a hollow long shaft to replace the aluminium go to a bike shop and look at gudgeon pins, as there you get a long precision ground outer with a reasonable inner diameter hole. Used ones are either free or scrap steel price, as there when the piston is worn the pin is good enough to still work in a linear race, even if it has been in the engine and was picked out of the exhaust after it tore itself to pieces.
-
@Sean,
thanks mate for the tip. I already found a candidate for the pen --> http://www.tme.eu/en/details/gn480.1-d12-200-ni/profiles-and-holders/elesa_ganter/gn4801-d12-200-ni-os/ (http://www.tme.eu/en/details/gn480.1-d12-200-ni/profiles-and-holders/elesa_ganter/gn4801-d12-200-ni-os/)
The tube length is 200mm but I'll cut it down to 150mm. Seems enough for the overall height (linear bearing+spring+tip). Also, there is enough thickness to thread it on both sides in order to mount the plastic tip and the air hose plug. I still don't have the linear bearing. |O
-
This looks like a massive commitment.
Homemade SMD Pick and Place Machine - complete cycle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRSLbo_8nTQ#ws)
https://www.vbesmens.de/en/pick-and-place.html (https://www.vbesmens.de/en/pick-and-place.html)
-
This looks like a massive commitment.
The paste dispensing should be left out. A stencil is not that expensive and if you have the numbers (why else use a P&P) its peanuts to the total BOM.
As seen too many bridges and under the Fets/transistors he removes at the end you clearly see only 3 dots of paste while it should be almost completely covered for good heat exchange.
But overall looks like a very nice machine, if it is 100% DIY, I take my hat off to the designer.
-
Why have one pick-n-place head when you can have 20
Fuji CP-643 Chip Shooter 20 Head - Circuit Board Assembly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRu02F6AOmg#)
-
This looks like a massive commitment.
A lot of flex/movement on the PCB when the head comes down onto to it. That can't be helping placement accuracy much.
-
A lot of flex/movement on the PCB when the head comes down onto to it. That can't be helping placement accuracy much.
I saw that as well. I'm sure it's something that can be tweaked. Really not an issue worth mentioning IMHO.
-
This looks like a massive commitment.
A lot of flex/movement on the PCB when the head comes down onto to it. That can't be helping placement accuracy much.
dont the big boys suck pcb to the table? I seem to remember watching YT clip of one of expensive P&P boxes using vacuum to keep board in place.
-
*bump
Here is an update. Got the linear bearing and the vacuum pen. The pen perfectly slides through the linear bearing but for the project it's too short! So I dismantled it, kept the plastic tip, the cap, needle and the suction cups. Here is a preview photo made in Solidworks. The base and the trolley is finished. Oh, that's not a wireless camera. I only showed a bit of the usb cable. :D
-
I have a similar design I've been using for a little while now:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:385567 (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:385567)
http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-fsr-circuit-boards.html (http://trains.socha.com/2014/07/building-fsr-circuit-boards.html)
I originally had the camera like in your design, but discovered it didn't help very much. The problem I had was a result of the angle, so I couldn't use the camera very easily for alignment. I ended up removing the camera and just using my eyes. It's amazing how much a difference stereo vision makes for accurate alignment.
I've thought about having two cameras, 90 degrees apart, but I haven't tried that.
-- John
-
Hi JohnSL,
Yea, that's a well known problem with these kinds of microscopes. :( I tried to place it as much as possible over the working spot. I don't expect problems with small packages like 0805, 1206, SOT23 etc but certainly there will be problems with bigger chips. Well, like you said, more cameras might do the job but that makes the project more complicated. Anyways, I can't work with SMDs without a camera anymore. When you step into your 40's your eyesight isn't perfect anymore. ;D Btw, nice job you did there John. :-+
-
I've been raiding my junkbox and putting a manual machine together. It's falls more under the catagory of a "junkbox special". My eyes are poor so that's the reasoning. I'll grab a few picks to show how it's going.
Don't laugh too hard this is mainly so I can see how I want a system to work before I do a finished unit. Knowing me if it works out to be "good enough" I'll just use it as is.
I'm using a security camera with a telephoto lens on it, 4.5 inches off the board at 10 deg off 90. It's on the back of my tool so I the board is not obscured.
-
If you happen to be at Maker Faire this weekend, there's a working FirePick being shown there. I saw at least one other PNP machine there as well. While I wasn't being distracted by the 3D printers, CNC machines, plasma cutters, and laser cutters!
Scott
-
I've been working on a Pick and Place Machine now for a few months. Maybe you guys can look at it a pick it apart. To really see all the info it might be easier to look at our Hackaday page hackaday.io/protovoltaics (http://hackaday.io/protovoltaics) when you're there just click on our pick and place project.
Here is the latest video on our machine we took yesterday. The video is from a phone camera, because I forgot my camera at home :palm:
https://youtu.be/C7Pi4akL5og
Thanks!
-
Although I didn't know when I started my own Pick and Place machine, I am quite amazed there is an entire community and a lot of Pick and Place machines solutions on the internet. Unfortunately, most of these afforable P&P machines are just for prototyping - for intance most of them don't work with real reels. I actually started 8 months ago as builing a home-made P&P Machine .
Right now, I am working to design VisionBot (http://VisionBot) which is an affordable Surface Mount Technology assembly shooter that can be used to place about 2,000 SMD chips onto Printed Circuit Boards for PCBA. Practically the VisionBot machine will enable the dream of millions electrical engineers, hackers and makers just like me to manufacture electronic devices in their own garage. One week ago we changed VisionBot design from using a needle to advance the cut tape with automatically feeders.
VisionBot (http://VisionBot) is still in the beta testing and in a few months it will be available to the makers through our website and maybe a crowd-funding platform. Using advanced Computer Vision VisionBot is avoiding electronical waste and is professionally assembling Printed Circuit Boards. It is estimated that VisionBot will be able to assembly about 75,000 electronic boards per year.
Although, VisionBot is compatibile with standardized files like RS-274X Gerber files, the machine works also with the classical CSV files. VisionBot will enable the dream of many makers who want to turn their homemade prototypes into industrial products by starting an electronic production.
VisionBot Main software showing the Gerber Editor (http://visionbot.net/images/public-images/Gerber-Editor.png)
A picture of the VisionBot machine
(http://visionbot.net/images/public-images/VisionBot-SMT-Placement-Equipment.jpg)
How it looked like two months ago: (http://visionbot.net/images/public-images/VisionBot-Pick-and-Place-machine.jpg)
VisionBot (http://visionbot.net/) very old Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-I5qtRG73c)
-
I am planning to make a PnP machine. Can someone recommend me a good bottom camera for vision system? I have tried a few cam but I was not satisfied with the results.
-
The VisionBot is looking quite promising!
-
I've found a cheap-ish chinese made machine, that has vision, and takes up to 40 reels, plus tray pick ups.. About $10k USD, for a 4 head vacumn pick up and 40 reels.
Made by a crowd called BoreyTech. They have smaller ones listed on alibaba.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Desktop-Automatic-Visional-SMT-Chip-Mounter-LED-Pick-and-Place-Machine/32416534844.html?ws_ab_test=201407_5%2C201444_6%2C201409_2&spm=2114.01020208.3.57.eOCqr3 (http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Desktop-Automatic-Visional-SMT-Chip-Mounter-LED-Pick-and-Place-Machine/32416534844.html?ws_ab_test=201407_5%2C201444_6%2C201409_2&spm=2114.01020208.3.57.eOCqr3)
Its certainly an interesting option.. Next time I'm in China, i'm going to go and check this out..
NB. I have no interest in this company other than i hope its the real deal.
-
At least that looks like a real P&P machine - warning light tower & all.
But why the big leadfree sign on it?
-
Hardware is only 50% of the package. I have seen beautifull chinese hardware with desastrous software ruining the whole experience. So check out the software.
-
At least that looks like a real P&P machine - warning light tower & all.
But why the big leadfree sign on it?
I guess they think it will sell? Maybe you get a PB-free and a PB sticker in the box?
-
VisionBot software UI looks horrible. :palm:
-
I have a large batch of boards arriving in the next week, and I tuned up some of my tools in anticipation. Then I came across this thread, and have been blown away at discovering the "manual PnP machine."
e.g. http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:385567 (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:385567) from John
I think this bears being repeated:
How about a 45 degree angled mirror, with a small hole through the middle for the needle?
Absolutely brilliant idea, credit to Mike, and I can't imagine why this comment seems to have disappeared without a trace in the discussion. I suppose you would need to reverse the image, though, and I don't know if there's an off the shelf solution for that.
Also, as for rotation without twisting the tubing, the tube-in-a-tube idea is really all it takes, which Mike has also pointed out. I have used simple brass tubes from the hardware store to make linear bearings, and for an application with zero side loading, like this, it would be more than adequate. There are a couple pairs of standard K&M Engineering brass tube sizes at your local hardware store that slide within each other with relatively high precision. Even without grease, you probably have a good enough vacuum seal. Heck, this could be your linear bearing, pen body, and your free X degree rotation without kinking the tubing, all in one.
All that said, I am baffled at the engineering and time being misapplied to this device from the start. It seems to me this design completely hits its mark, but it's the wrong mark. I believe the valuable features can be done in possibly more efficient ways without having to make the compromises that come with this design. I think it might be a bit of a Rube-Goldberg machine.
-
I have a large batch of boards arriving in the next week, and I tuned up some of my tools in anticipation. Then I came across this thread, and have been blown away at discovering the "manual PnP machine."
I have a manual PnP machine and for single - five peice jobs which seems to be often around here, its just awesome. The time taken to set up can often be just a few minutes which you'll just never do with a auto machine.
I was really lucky to pick mine up on Ebay for a very cheap price ( $800USD ), they are around $7000 new.. But much of it could we be borrowed. what is particually good is the pick up mechanicsm
Dima FP600 ( http://www.nordsondima.com/smt-systems/products/pick-place-systems/fineplacer-fp-600 (http://www.nordsondima.com/smt-systems/products/pick-place-systems/fineplacer-fp-600) )
-
Well, I have to agree on the Dima. I think the component holder is brilliant. I was thinking of all the features of any of these manual PnP machines, the rotating component tray is perhaps the most beneficial for the effort involved to a DIYer. Perhaps something like that could be made to attach to the base of a stereomicroscope, where the end of one or two compartments of the tray could be placed on the edge of the FOV. It would be fixed to just above board level, so that the board can be slid around underneath. Obviously, to be used on lower magnification to maintain focus on board and parts.
But the homebrew machines posted on this thread seem to have beelined in on what works for machines, rather than for people. It seems to me that instead of moving your hand around (and just your right hand, leaving your left hand to have no part other than playing the brakes) is rather backwards. It seems like you would want your right hand anchored in the same place and to just move the board (+- the parts holder) around under the hand. To this end, you could just have a floating rest to keep your hand above the level of a board. (I actually use something like this; a simple board with feet high enough to float above typical SMD components, and long enough to allow a largish board or small panel to be maneuvered around underneath, with a small tray for components on it, just on the edge of my FOV.) This way, my view through the scope doesn't change, my hand doesn't move, and my reach to the board doesn't vary. My left hand just moves the board to position, between components.
Your hands are highly skilled and dexterous instruments. They just need to be dialed down a little. Your left hand can easily maneuver the board to fairly good accuracy, just the way you were born. This leads into my critique of the fixed Z axis. Unlike a stepper motor, your hand is capable of a complete range of motion with a high degree of responsiveness and accuracy. Fixing the Z axis just gimps the hand and forces you to make fine XY adjustment with your ARM? Nooo... All your hand needs is a little gear reduction or vibration dampening to place chips with perfect accuracy. The basic pickup tool is simply a bit crude and inaccurate for what it needs to be. I have a 1 minute fix for this, and all it takes is a coat hanger and some tape. Will post a pic tomorrow. Getting late.
-
VisionBot software UI looks horrible. :palm:
Take a look at our UI let us know your thoughts. We just finished getting the CV working really reliably. Our thought process was first make it work then make it fast. Now we are working hard to get the speed up above 1000CPH (not a stopping point just our next goal). We want to be at that point before we go to the World Maker Faire in New York City. This faire is only 10 days away and we are getting very close. We are laser cutting the last part we need for our new pick head today. Should have new videos up soon! Let us know what you all think! ^-^
https://youtu.be/Ny99KzsySHE (https://youtu.be/Ny99KzsySHE)
-
Take a look at our UI let us know your thoughts. We just finished getting the CV working really reliably. Our thought process was first make it work then make it fast. Now we are working hard to get the speed up above 1000CPH (not a stopping point just our next goal). We want to be at that point before we go to the World Maker Faire in New York City. This faire is only 10 days away and we are getting very close. We are laser cutting the last part we need for our new pick head today. Should have new videos up soon! Let us know what you all think! ^-^
It's much better, but few notes:
- Please don't use full colored icons. Try to use only 2-3 colors and their tint.
- Icons should be the same size but ensure that also picture inside should be fit to icon size with same margin 1 - 3px.
- Next is only my feeling that used font is not very suitable for this type of application
- If is possible try to use one word label on buttons an use the ToolTip for explanations
- Use group boxes for areas like Cameras, Communications ... size of this labels isn't necessary to be big as is.
- Please read some of UI design rules manuals for next improvement
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff728831%28v=vs.85%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff728831%28v=vs.85%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396)
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/software_engineering/software_user_interface_design.htm (http://www.tutorialspoint.com/software_engineering/software_user_interface_design.htm)
http://bokardo.com/principles-of-user-interface-design/ (http://bokardo.com/principles-of-user-interface-design/)
Overall it's good piece of software :-+
-
Overall it's good piece of software :-+
Thanks! Great feedback we hope we can make the UI better and learn some more from the links provided. :-+
-
btw does the laggy blurry picture from those chinese cameras bother your CV code in any way?
-
btw does the laggy blurry picture from those chinese cameras bother your CV code in any way?
No, we throw away some frames, so we can look at a good picture.