In industrial automation and robotic applications, bowl feeders have been the go-to solution for feeding parts for decades. However, as technology advances and production lines require more flexibility, traditional bowl feeders may not always be the best option. That's where flexible feeding systems like Asyril come in.
If you're looking for an alternative to bowl feeders or considering a flexible feeding system, this blog will provide you with valuable insights to help you make an informed decision.
Advantages of Flexible Feeding Systems Over Bowl Feeders:
Flexibility/Versatility: Flexible feeding systems like Asyril can handle a wide range of part sizes, shapes, and materials. This makes them ideal for production lines that require frequent changes in part types and sizes. Programming a new recipe on an Asyril system takes approximately 20-30 minutes. The flexibility of an Asyril system means businesses can use a single system for multiple products.
Easy Integration: Asyril's flexible feeding systems are designed to be plug-and-play, making them quick and easy to connect to robots and other automation equipment without complex programming or integration. Asyril offers plug-ins for most robotic platforms (Fanuc, ABB, Kuka, Universal Robots, etc.) and PLC fieldbus protocols (EtherCAT, Ethernet/IP, Profinet).
Footprint: Asyril's flexible feeding systems are more compact than bowl feeders and can be configured to fit into tight spaces, making them ideal for smaller production areas.
Disadvantages of a Flexible Feeding System vs Bowl Feeders
While flexible feeding systems like those from Asyril offer many advantages, there are a few disadvantages that businesses should consider before making a decision based on your application.
Throughput: One disadvantage of flexible feeding systems is that they generally have a lower throughput than bowl feeders. While flexible feeding systems generally max out at around 60 parts per minute for one feeder, bowl feeders can handle parts at much higher rates. However, it's important to note that flexible feeding systems are still capable of high throughput rates and can handle most applications.
Initial Cost: Flexible feeding systems can come with a higher initial cost than a bowl feeder. Bowl feeders generally have a lower initial cost because they require less complex machinery compared to a vision-guided feeding system. They are usually more cost-effective if the process only requires feeding one type of part. However, businesses should also consider the long-term cost benefits of flexible feeding systems, which can provide significant savings in terms of increased efficiency, reduced downtime, and increased productivity.
Ultimately, the best choice depends on the specific needs and requirements of the process. If high-speed assembly is the primary concern and the parts being handled are uniform in size and shape, a traditional bowl feeder may be the better option. However, if the process requires handling a wide range of parts with varying sizes and shapes or frequent changes in part types and sizes, a flexible feeding system like those from Asyril may be the better choice.
If you're looking for an alternative to bowl feeders or considering a flexible feeding system like Asyril, keep in mind that the best choice depends on the specific needs and requirements of the process. If you need to handle a wide range of parts or frequently change the production line, Asyril may be the better choice due to its flexibility and ease of integration. If your process requires an extremely high-speed assembly, a traditional bowl feeder may be the better option.
At BlueBay, we specialize in providing flexible feeding solutions to businesses looking to optimize their production lines. Contact us today to learn more about how Asyril's flexible feeding systems can help improve your production line's efficiency and productivity.