search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Thermal imaging & vision systems


Machine vision: cutting the cost M


In the following article, Zohar Kantor, VP sales & project management at Inspekto, compares the costs of traditional and autonomous machine vision


achine vision has always been a necessary evil. While manufacturers require visual quality assurance (QA) to


detect defective products, it is an expensive, complex and expert-dependent process.


The cosT of TradITIonal machIne VIsIon Once the manufacturer has decided to implement visual QA at any point on the production line, they require a systems integrator to build a tailored solution. Because of the associated costs, industrial QA managers must consider each point in the production line, to decide whether the investment is justified The systems integrator will create Proof of


Concepts, develop a possible solution, test it, optimise it, and eventually come up with an installation. The integrator must purchase the necessary components at expense to the manufacturer, including cameras, lenses, lighting, housing and communication and more. Assuming a solution is applicable to the targeted point on the production line, the integrator then builds it. Not only is the manufacturer charged for the


professional services of an integrator, but there are additional costs of wait-time till the solution is ready, and of downtime while it is installed, tested and commissioned. For a single inspection task on a pre-defined product, the manufacturer is typically faced with a bill in the range of €20,000 to €150,000. As well as the capital expenditure to get a


system up and running, the manufacturer should consider operational expenditure. If there is an environmental change in the plant or the manufacturing line is modified, the manufacturer will have to call on the systems integrator to adjust or redesign the system – usually after defects have gone unnoticed for some time. Re-usage of the solution at any other point in the plant is usually out of the question. These costs, combined with the solution’s complexity and long timelines for implementation, mean that for many manufacturers it is possible to implement visual QA solutions only at major junctions on a production line, in most cases end-of-line inspections, which increases scrap levels and reduces productivity and yield. As one plant manager put it – the end-of-line visual QA test protects the customer; while the many inline visual QA tests protect the plant.


The TIdes are TurnIng Autonomous Machine Vision technology offers manufacturers a cost-effective alternative. By opting for a small, standalone, self-learning system that can be installed in minutes by the


40


manufacturer’s own personnel, the manufacturer can cut costs in testing, professional services and hardware by 90 per cent. Autonomous Machine Vision systems can be installed in minutes or hours, instead of weeks or months. This reduction in time and cost means that manufacturers can implement the system at any point on the production line, enabling Total QA, where visual quality assurance is universal upon the production line. Even better, a self- learning system can be easily and independently moved from one point on the production line to another and self-adjust to a new environment or to new products. On top of that, Autonomous Machine Vision


savings go far beyond the far lower cost of any single QA location. It impacts the whole manufacturing paradigm, ensuring every step on the production line complies with specification, and disposing of scrap components before they are combined with good components to make a defective product. With this in mind, Autonomous Machine Visions systems savings are far greater than 90 per cent.


Inspekto inspekto.com November 2018 Instrumentation Monthly


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56