Talk:Industrial robot

Untitled
Note that this article meets all the requirements for a class B but due to a disagreement with the assessor it is being held at C. Moreover the quality scale states "For robotics articles, B-class will mean anything that's definitely better than the "Start" category, but doesn't fit the description of "GA" above." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Since everyone has gone home I am rating this article B myself. Robotics1 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Content regarding industrial robots due to International Federation of Robotics and ISO definition (e.g. no service robotic, no automation systems, no mobile platforms), only articulated robots, cartesian, parallel, scara robots, flex picker. For other robotics content see robotics, robot, Autonomous_robot, Laboratory_robotics, Battlefield_robot, social robots or ludobot.

external links: only one link per industrial robot manufacturer (either link to headquarter or to english speaking page), no links to their distributors or integrators. note this section has been removed entirely due to editor conflicts. Robotics1 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

comment on focus of article
''Jdietsch 10:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) You say that there should be no mobile platforms, yet the Future section explicitly refers to mobile platforms:

"Other developments include downsizing industrial arms for consumer applications and using industrial arms in combination with more intelligent Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) to make the automation chain more flexible between pick-up and drop-off."

Certainly IEEE considers AGVs to be industrial robots; their Robotics & Automation group focuses on mobile platforms, as does their Industrial Activities Board. ''

Stanford arm
The reference to the Stanford arm is in error. The Stanford arm was not the prototype for the PUMA. Scheinman designed a second arm for the MIT AI Lab. That was called the "MIT arm" and that's the one that evolved into the PUMA.

History
This looks like a good idea by the Bangladeshi student but he embedded his name even his phone number in the text. Plus the text was one long paragraph and needs to be made into a readable list. There had been so many edits with his name and phone number I just had to revert right back to the 18th august version. Removing each bit would have taken too long. The list can go back providing it is properly organized and has no name address and phone number. Robotics1 08:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact there already is a list of the history of robotics in ROBOT. All this person has done is cut and the text out of that neat table and paste it into this article without any heading or any table. Robotics1 09:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Rework of this article.
I want to make some major changes but I don't want to step on the toes of the original writer.

My main concern is 'movements and singularities'. I think this should move up above 'robot programming'. Then the part of 'movement and singularities' which describes point to point programming should be moved down to below and part of 'robot programming'. Then I would like to copy the part of 'robot software' which describes how this point to point program would actually be programmed using various languages used in industrial robots.

Coming back to what will be left of 'movement and sigularities' I would like to expand a little on robot movement. I can't actually see any singularities at all in this section but I may have a different understanding of the word singularity. I would like to put in an example of a singularity in terms of what can go wrong.

Any comments please. Robotics1 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

pictures & focus
the article is about more then just about robot arms; the pictures must include other robots, other robots must be mentioned and perhaps some of the info can be moved to the robot arm article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.48.38 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Robotics Design Inc. from list of industrial robot manufacturers
I found a commercial link and removed it. The originator restored it. Any opinions please on the following exchange:

No reason was given for the removal, except in the page history, where you claim that this compan does not manufacture industrial machines. I invite you to go on you tube and search for ANATROLLER robots, some industrial duct cleaning robots featured on youtube, or visit http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/ for complete information on all Robotics Design's industrial robots. You change has been reverted, please notify me of an changes being made to my posts when doing so. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I disagree. The article is all about industrial robots. The robot manufacturers listed make industrial robot arms like the ones described in the text. I went to your company's website and I must say I was impressed. Some fantastic products, innovative and useful but not the sort of industrial robots that are described in the text. If you disagree with me then post on the discussion page and let's see what other opinions are. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will need to elevate this to an administrator. I would have discussed this with you but you don't have a page. Robotics1 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have once again restored Robotics Design Inc. to the list and ask you not to remove it again. The ANATROLLER ARI-100 is an industrial duct cleaning robot that carries up to 100 pounds that can also be used for materials handling in the industrial workplace, made by Robotics Design. The ANATERGOARM AEA-15 manipulates up to 15kg manually and a new arm for Hydro-Quebec called the ANATERGOARM TMA-500 will manipulate 1,200 kg, and is set to be released this month. We also make the ANAT AMI-100 which is a robotic snake-arm manipulator that is used for assembly, welding and materials handling. The are all industrial robots, if you think there is another category Robotics Design should be presented in I encourage you to talk to staff and find it, but leave it be for now, it does fit perfectly into this section. Thank you. And you may discuss with me on my talk page.Canadiansteve (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK to prevent an edit war we should consult admin. However the status quo is that entries that are not agreed to fit should be left out until agreed. So I have deleted it again. I will now ask for admin opinion. Robotics1 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * and now I see TOSY with their pingpong robot in there. And they have even created their own page. I am reporting that. Robotics1 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Robotics Design products like Anatroller do not conform to the definition at the top of the article or in the talk page see above "Only Content regarding industrial robots due to International Federation of Robotics and ISO definition (e.g. no service robotic, no automation systems, no mobile platforms), only articulated robots, cartesian, parallel, scara robots, flex picker. For other robotics content see robotics, robot, Autonomous_robot, Laboratory_robotics, Battlefield_robot, social robots or ludobot." It is quite unambiguous. The Anatroller is a good machine but it does not belong here. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
 * The ANAT AMI-100 is an hybrid scara articulated robot that is controlled by a central master controller, and individual modules can continuie to work without dirrections from the central controller. This is an industrial robot as defined and i never mentionned the ANATROLLER ARI-100 on this page so i am reverting your edit because the reason you provided was not relevant. For more information visit http://roboticsdesign.qc.ca/ami-100.html, or see a mention in the popular media at http://roboticsdesign.qc.ca/EPT%20Magazine%20sept%2009%20complete.pdf.
 * but you wrote the article. It even looks like the kind of article that you pay to have printed. Not that I am saying you did but it certainly does not count as media attention.Robotics1 (talk)
 * I must say I am really impressed with the ANAT modules. It is a super idea. Maybe is ok to mention in robot. But the ability to make the modules into an industrial robot is a gray area. We need other opinions. The ISO definition is clearly defined right at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First commercially available micro-processor controlled industrial robot.
First let me introduce myself as I am new to Wikipedia & declare an interest. I am working for ABB and notice that the ASEA IRB 6 robot does not get a mention in the Industrial robot entry. For completeness I think this should be considered. I would propose to add the following just BEFORE "In 1973 KUKA Robotics ....

In 1973 ABB Robotics (formerly ASEA) introduced the worlds first commercially available all electric micro-processor controlled robot. The first two of these IRB 6 robots were sold to Magnusson in Sweden for grinding and polishing pipe bends and were installed in production in January 1974.

Reference: Pages 51-54 The Extended arm of man by Lars Westerlund ISBN 91-7736-467-8 Robot Legend (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ha! I see you did it anyway. However it looks fair to me. Sorry I didn't get back before. I try to look after this page but it is generally a very safe page i.e. very little vandalism so I get a bit lazy. The first micro-processor controlled robots would indeed be a milestone. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

New to this so I did wait a while but then my impatience got the better of me. Seems like a fair edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robot Legend (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding early industrial robots: The Norwegian company "Trallfa" produced robots for internal use in 1964 (painting of wheelbarrows etc.) and these robots where commercially available by 1969. Production of industrial robots became the company's main product through the seventies and by 1985 they had ca 50% of the world market for robots for painting and surface treatment, according to their own hompage - www.trallfa.no (Norwegian only....). During the years 1985-1989 the company's robot-division was aquired by..... ASEA, of course (the later ABB and ABB Robotics). A picture of one of there models can be found here: http://www.norskdesign.no/industridesign/trallfa-robot-tredelt-versjon-article1706-287.html (the site of the Norwegian Design Council regarding Trallfa's price for excellent design i 1973). Their robots were all electric, but whether they were micro-prosessor controlled as early as in 1969, I don't know. Maybe user Robot Legend can help out here, since (s)he is working for the company that aquired Trallfa Robot? --Tinymonty (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tinymonty - The Trallfa robots you refer to from the mid 60's to the early 80's were hydraulic not electric.129.35.204.162 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What's a "microprocessor" ? Given the usual interpretation of the term, and the general acceptance of the 1971 Intel 4004 as the first, that would rule out anything before the early '70s. Most early microprocessor robots were also using the RCA 1802 (and mostly Forth) which dates them to 1976 and after, rather than the very early Intel chips.
 * Mostly though, these first "microprocessor" robots were nothing of the sort, and were hosted by minicomputers instead - notably the PDP-8 family. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ABB Robotics has its headquarters in China
Just to be clear.Please DO NOT reset the ABB Robotics HQ to Switzerland. Whilst ABB is headquartered in Zurich, ABB Robotics HQ is in Pudong, Shanghai, China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robot Legend (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just researched it and you are right! I thought that was vandalism. My apologies. Robotics1 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thinks there are still some problems (in the article) though. Regarding these matters :-
 * Their own magazine from 2008 lists the head of robotics as "Anders Jonsson Head of Division - ABB Robotics" in Sweden, making him probably from ASEA, and has it's address as ABB Robotics AB, 721 68 Västerås, Sweden.
 * In 2010 the head of robotics is now "Mark Kingsley President, Robotics" and the address is ABB Robotics AB, 721 68 Västerås, Sweden
 * I think the problem you are suffering from is the production centre for Automation tech, as per the quote below, and its head office and the actual robotics division which had its head offices in Sweden, not Switzerland until Jan 2010.
 * "Anders Jonsson was appointed Executive ... In 2005, he was the head of the former Automation Technologies division in China." "The Robotics division’s manufacturing and research and development locations are organized globally, with headquarters in China." (pp. 59)
 * Can all people who have researched this and found contradictory evidence please provide their results so that we can move forwards with this
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed ABB and got this reply:
 * David thanks for your concern on the subject of the correct location of the ABB Robotics HQ.
 * I am David Marshall Head of Communications for ABB Robotics (& Robot Legend on Wikipedia) and I can confirm that the HQ is in Shanghai.
 * We have the Swedish (Vasteras) address in the magazines bacuase it is produced & edited from there but it is not our HQ.
 * Robotics1 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Robotics Certification Standards Alliance (RCSA)
An external link was put in for this organisation by MartyRobar then removed by Andy Dingly as spam. I had a look t seems to be a non profit organisation and just the sort of external link that would contribute to this page. Doesn't look like spam to me. Any comments? Robotics1 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it's legit, then re-add it. I removed this (and a batch of others) as it appeared to be a spam run across a number of articles, related to RCSA. It may well be that RCSA is reasonable as either or both an article, and as an EL. At the time it didn't demonstrate appropriateness for some of those to which it was added. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the heads up. I didn't know about the others but I'll restore this one. Robotics1 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

+++ Why does Motoman seem to absent from the conversation? They have obtained #1 in U.S. Sales a couple of times over the last decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.146.4 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yaskawa Motoman Robotics and Nachi Robotics
Yaskawa robotics home page says:

Yaskawa Electric Corporation Head Office 2-1 Kurosaki-Shiroishi, Yahatanishi-Ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka 806-0004 Japan

the US subsidiary is a subsidiary.

Nachi homepage lists the Tokyo HQ and the robotics division also HQ Tokyo.

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation Shiodome Sumitomo Building 1-9-2, Higashi-Shinbashi Minato-Ku, Tokyo, 105-0021 Japan Tel: 81-3-5568-5240 Fax: 81-3-5568-5236

Nachi Robot Engineering Co. Ltd Shiodome Sumitomo Building 1-9-2, Higashi-Shinbashi Minato-Ku, Tokyo, 105-0021 Japan Tel: 81-3-5568-5240 Fax: 81-3-5568-5236

Robotics1 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commercialism - List of Suppliers
This section has been tagged since March 2010. It is clearly commercial with links to Wikipedia pages and webpages of preferred suppliers. See WP:ELNO. Wikipedia does not support commercialism. This section must go. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  With these changes I have assessed the  article as a B rating.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference section
See |WP:REF. References and sources can be footnotes, in-line citations, and general references such as books. Grouping them makes sense. This makes it clear that the books are indeed general references to support the article. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and revert me. I'm just not keen about using "general references", because they end up cluttering up the article. These references have been here so long that the original editor that added them is probably long gone and will never end up applying an inline ref. But like I said revert me if you like. Wizard191 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is a good article.  The references are a little weak, yet not to the point of tagging it.  This inclusion of general references strengthens the article so  I could assess the article  as a B in Technology.  Rlsheehan (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized there was a discussion about this, sorry. But general references dot books does not seem to me to be any kind of improvement. This article is not a good article at all. It is already 8 years old and has changed very little. I added the paragraphs about repeatability but really it needs total restructuring. Tagging it or changing odd words here or there are not what is needed. That's just pruning, what we need is a creative effort. Robotics1 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlsheehan if you are in the mood for pruning please take a look at robot software. It's a complete mess - a playground for every kid with a pet programming project. Half the article is external links. I just removed another asinine contribution by leaderpro but really it needs someone to wade in there with a flame thrower. Robotics1 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, consensus seems to be that the article should not include books as general references. The lack of references now stops the article from earning a B Technology rating.  Rlsheehan (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit confused here. I don't know how or when it happened but the section entitled "notes" used to be called "references" and it currently contains the reflist. So assuming no-one objects I will rename it references. I confess my reversion was incorrect on that one. Seems I have contributed to the confusion and my apologies to Wizard191 with whom I have collaborated in the past. I hope this is ok with you Wizard191. Notes is now references that are referenced from the article in the usual way. The list of further reading can be called anything you like but they are not references because they are not referred to in the article. Or am I missing something? They are further reading, no more and no less. As for the grade I don't think it matters if it is a B or a C grade. As far as I am concerned it is not a good article but it is accurate, unlike robot software. If anyone wants to know what industrial robots are about this is it. There isn't anything better. As soon as I get time I will start to make suggestions about restructuring and I hope others who are interested in robotics will join me. Robotics1 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Movement and singularities
I have two improvements I would like to make: First is to split this into two articles. Originally the section had movements and singularities mixed together with examples of programming steps. I already edited it a while back to put sinularity in its own paragraph. I would like to split off the software part and edit the remaining so that movements are discussed in just a bit more detail, for example how 5 and 6 axis robots move which in turn leads to the problem of singularity. It could also include the differences between pick and place and continuous path motions.

The second (additional) section would be more about the programming and would list all that P1 P2 stuff. So as not to rock the boat I wrote a lump about how this programming is actually done in the most popular robot labguages. I researched the major manufacturers for examples of programming to make that lump, but I ended up putting that into robot software to try to give that article some support and maybe a bit of grounding. The article is rather ethereal for the most part. However someone already removed the link, that I had to restore and the robot software article is already under attack as being too ambiguous (see that talk page). I am inclined to bring that lump back to industrial robot in this new section. Any thoughts? Robotics1 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * DONE Robotics1 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

manufacturers list on Industrial Robot
I have removed this entire section for 2 reasons: 1 it's a foot in the door for people to add more and more companies - see earlier discussions above - 2 the numbers quoted can not be verified - or if they can then we need references. Robotics1 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

/* Reference section */
I see the statistics from IFR for reference 4 are no longer available. I have written to them to see if they have an alternative reference. Robotics1 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC) New reference supplied and edited. Robotics1 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

video added to defining parameters
The video didn't seem appropriate. It had nothing to do with defining parameters. There was no explanation of what the robots were supposed to be doing, neither could you see what they were doing. By all means put in a video but put it in a better section and explain what it is that we are seeing and what part of the article it illustrates.Robotics1 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * media doesn't have to be directly relevant to the section it's next to. The description is provided by the caption not the section. In this case "A demonstration of a pair of industrial robots" which is accurate. They are not actually doing anything. They are decommissioned car construction robots that are now museum pieces.


 * After years of writing manuals I would say it does. People do expect the picture next to a paragraph to have some relation to the content of the paragraph. Robotics1 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a manual.©Geni 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * of course not. But in a manual the picture is placed near the text to help explain the text. Same in a magazine article. Same in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a picture book. Just because someone has a nice picture doesn't mean they can insert it anywhere they want. The reader is reading a section, sees the picture or video right next to it and wonders what the hell it is for. I did, others did. So I removed it. If someone has a great video a propos of nothing in the article that is what youtube is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Howerver it is unlikely we will get a pic to show "Defining parameters" and we don't have one at the moment. The pics on the article all show robots as static items and thus it is useful to show robots as moving objects.©Geni 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, put the video back. It was a good video. But can we put it under the pictures at the top of the page. It was just so out of context where it was. Robotics1 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that we already have a solid bank of images down the right of the page at the start and I'd prefer if that wasn't extended further.©Geni 21:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have comfused myself. The video already is at the top of the page. I didn't delete it. Or am I confusing with another video? Robotics1 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * extra confusion - it's not even a video. It's a picture. I don't know who created this section in talk. I thought it was me but my original paragraph has been deleted. There is also one paragraph above that is not signed. How did that happen? Anyway I suggest we leave the page as it is. But if some video were forthcoming it would be a good addition in place of one of the pictures. Robotics1 (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The video is File:Industrial robot thinktank.ogv.©Geni 16:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Going to add something on electric motor types used.
Is this ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. — ¾-10 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pick and Place ambiguous?
Not familiar with robots, and new to editing wikipedia, but there is a type of soldering surface mount components referred to as "pick-and-place" (which involves a pick and place machine), the article is here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SMT_placement_equipment -- when the main article refers to "pick and place" and links to the word "pick", I was a little confused. I suggest altering that statement in a way that removes the ambiguity between "pick-and-place" soldering and picking up objects and placing them down (seriously, there has to be a better phrase for that.)
 * First of all, re-factoring other peoples posts can be regarded in a bad light, as one is not really supposed to do that. I realise that your intent may have been simply to help by making obvious corrections, but please remember that some may take offence at being corrected.
 * The term pick and place is correctly applied to robotic machines and robots that perform that series of actions, picking up and placing down - be they a P&P machine such as those used for components on a soldering board, Freddy II or for palletising, or indeed for any other robotic device that uses such a process some examples at the bottom, pic is of one such application. Pick-and-place is not limited to PCB construction, in fact most SMT machines are robotic machines rather than robots. The picture of the German robotic arms used for palletising bread products is a good example of a large pick and place robotic system (top of the page on the right).
 * The article SMT placement equipment is limited to PCB construction. I am assuming you are talking about the first paragraph of the article, I have corrected the links for clarity. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What Percentage of Total World Manufacturing is Done by Robots? Also, what is the Breakdown By Industry?
Such figures would be the best concrete description of where robot manufacturing stands in relation to the human workforce. The rate of growth at a net level, and in key industries would also be very relevant figures for the article. 65.102.241.122 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

repeatability vs precision
My edit was reverted by Andy Dingley with the comment "no this is quite wrong". Andy, you could be right, but rather than leave me guessing as to why could you not have put in an explanation? I have looked after this page for some years; most of what you see here are incremental edits by myself. If I make a mistake I am open minded enough to agree but surely some explanation would be only polite? Robotics1 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference between accuracy and precision is widely described, even if not so widely understood. The distinction with repeatability is a little less clear: sometimes being regarded as a form of accuracy, sometimes as a third measure in its own right. However what's very clear is that it isn't the same thing as precision. Of the two, repeatability is closer to accuracy than it is to precision. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point. However certainly accuracy and repeatability are not the same and that is covered in ISO 9283. Sure people do think that they are the same but they are not. I had to actually purchase my copy of ISO 9283 to refine that section. Repeatability is not close to accuracy according to that paper. The description of precision vs accuracy is virtually the same. When I came across that article I could see the similarities and thought a cross link would be good. Looking back through the accuracy vs precision article history I see at one time it was descibed using targets. That is exactly the same as in robotics. So it is not true to say "no this is quite wrong", maybe "I think this is wrong" with explanation. Maybe put something in the talk page. Why didn't I put something in the talk page first? Because whenever I do I rarely get a response from anyone so I go ahead anyway. Can you give me more information on your POV please. Robotics1 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * done some more research and thinking. Although as you say the distinction with repeatability is less clear the standards do make it very clear and it is those we should write about, not perceptions. However I think the mathematical/statistical approach is different so they are not the same exactly. The accuracy and precision article is so clear and understandable I think it is a valuable link from repeatability. I have changed it to "similar" rather than "same as". It's worth keeping the link because the precision article explains things so well. If I were to try to explain repeatability with diagrams etc. I would probably end up with the same thing. Robotics1 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comau
I have removed the references to Comau in the last paragraph of history of industrial robotics. Even though they are a major provider of robot arms they are not part of the history of robot arms in the way that Staubli and ABB are. We used to have a list of robot manufacturers and removed it by agreement between various editors. If we allow Comau in this paragraph next we'll have Kawasaki, Reis, Epson, Tenso, Denso, etc etc. Please leave this paragraph alone. Robotics1 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturers
It will be good if someone can create "World's largest industrial robot manufacturers" page, something similar to Automotive industry page.-.@Photnart. (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC).


 * trouble was we had a simple table of manufacturers and more and more were added until it got ridiculous. If we have a largest manufacturer table then we have to set a criterion. Also largest may not be the most interesting or noteworthy. Robotics1 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the edit by Andreas-B because it is a return to the chaos of the original table of manufacturers. If you look back you will see we had a list that grew and grew and became a table complete with flags that grew and grew until it became a big advertising forum. Please see manufacturers list on Industrial Robot above. The table was finally removed by agreement with other editors in Feb 2011. I will block a return of such a table unless other editors will agree it can be used. Robotics1 (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A table of manufacturers should not be included.  This would be providing commercial links and advertising.  Wikipedia is not a shopping list.   Rlsheehan (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood and accepted. My intention was not to make an adverstisemnet list. But for me it is interesting who are the industrial robot manufacturers, if we have an article about industrial robots. And for shure nobody buys robots like consumer goods- so no danger it is a shopping list. Any ideas? I like .@Photnart. idea to create a seperate list like for car manufacturers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers. I am looking also for such informations - like car brands - in wikipedia. Andreas-B Andi 15:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas-B (talk • contribs)


 * I understand where you are coming from. That's why initially I supported the list. But gradually more and more names were added including the great many companies making hobby kits. That left us with deciding criteria for inclusion and that got contentious. A separate list like the one you quoted might be good if other editors support it and if criteria can be agreed. Robotics1 (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Robot Simulation
Someone added a whole section titled Robot Simulation. But there was already a paragraph "Offline Programming" which is the same thing near enough and there was some duplication. The new section was also wordy and large and seemed to promote Robologix. I have removed some of the text into the paragraph about offline programming and removed the new section entirely. The text by the author of the new section are largely still there but in the old section with some duplication and repetition removed. Robotics1 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of offline and online programming by Cwlin9011112
Cwlin9011112 added a substantial section on the advantages and disadvantages of offline and online programming that I have temporarily removed as it needs discussion. Offline programming is described already in the article. The addition by Cwlin9011112 is factually correct but is top heavy compared to the rest of the article. It is almost an article in itself. It should perhaps be shortened and integrated into the existing article. It needs to be discussed before a section this big is added to the article. Robotics1 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)

I also notice that people have been adding to the paragraphs on offline programming and robot simulation. The Offline programming paragraph refers more to robot simulation than the robot simulation paragraph. There are two apparent citation references [8] and [9] that are not linked at all. I think the best thing is to rewrite these two paragraphs and include in them some of the advantages and disadvantages mentioned by Cwlin9011112. Robotics1 09:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)

Robots in other industries than manufacturing
There is a problem with the lead section because manufacturing is the only industry described as using robots. Why not include robots in the mining and agricultural industries? For example this page from MINING.com refers to the use of automated trucks to haul iron ore. - Fartherred (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a good point. I will tackle that soon. However I don't think automated trucks is part of the industrial robot category. Robotics1 08:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)
 * What about automated trucks makes them incompatible with the industrial robot category?  May be that what is really needed is a renaming of the article to Robots in Manufacturing.  - Fartherred (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unimation robots ... called programmable transfer machines" are referred to in the article. They were used "...to transfer objects from one point to another..."  It seems to me that automated trucks are just as much robots as those Unimation robots and mining is just as much an industry as manufacturing.  - Fartherred (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have decided to put the issue right in the hands of the reader. My edit of the article shows what I think.  If there is a better solution, have at it.  - Fartherred (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Norman Heroux
Unfortunately I didn't log in enough and my notifications expired. Consequently I did not see the addition of Norman Heroux as being the inventor of the Unimate robot. I have searched the internet and his obituaries and I see he was a field service engineer at Unimation. George Devol holds (held) the patent so George Devol invented the industrial robot. Devol employed engineers and Heroux was no doubt one of them. Maybe Heroux *designed* the Unimate while working for Unimation and George Devol. That does not make him the inventor. The only references I can find to that connection are extremely vague, for example one link is 404, one link ends up with "pecfest15 Girl is gone rap in battle"; next goes to iq option trading; wikiomni is a page of code and pictograms; next goes to binomo trading; next is a link to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but it's some German spoof and heroux was only added in August and what's more all the content is "redirected from Wikipedia". Many other links such as wordaz simply refer back to wikipedia. It looks to me like a deliberate attempt to get google coverage to bring people from Wikipedia to these various trading sites. There is certainly evidence that Heroux worked for Unimation and the Bridgeport news mentions he gave a talk in 1972 but that is only genuine article and it does not mention inventor. Therefore I intend to delete all references to Norman Heroux and if anyone has any genuine evidence please discuss it with me. Robotics1 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

more: the two references are suspect. One is legacy.com which is highly respected but it's only 1 line. I would like to see much more concrete evidence that Heroux was the actual "inventor". The word inventor is very powerful and would completely undermine what is written about George Devol. Robotics1 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

more: I tried searching for Normal Heroux. There is only the one picture. One result is Revolvy with all content taken from Wikipedia and all the rest are Wikipedia itself including commons. Try using image search for that picture of Heroux. Again limited results. One is a French blog and the picture is dated september 30 2016. Robotics1 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial robot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224213437/http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/History_of_Industrial_Robots_online_brochure_by_IFR_2012.pdf to http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/History_of_Industrial_Robots_online_brochure_by_IFR_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)