The disclaimer says they’re trying to get it approved which implies they believe it could be
That’s a tough one and I doubt they will succeed with this. As far as I know, they would need to certify a material + process (3d-printer & settings, slicer-software & settings) + 3D-model combination. Far easier to certify a product containing 3D-printed parts than a 3D model/file.
Plastic is the wrong material due to moisture building up inside and some other pitfalls.
First of all: Legal is the bare minimum.
If you run a contest or sweepstakes and set out rules you are bound to them. Ignoring them like Prusa did exposes you up to liability claims.
You’re mad that the contest was moderated?
More the opposite. The sloppy way they moderate it to the point where they don’t even bother to remove comment spam below the contest description page.
Voters voted on the submissions they liked the most. Get over it. Voters voted on the submissions they liked the most. Get over it.
That’s not how it works. There is no public vote.
Honestly I stopped reading. Something about a paid part integration that you got mad about because it’s heavily discounted and you can submit photos even if you don’t have one or something?
Just read the comments here: https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-experiential-robotics-challenge_97306/
Dozens feel like this isn’t a good choice.
Btw. I don’t take part in them but it is still very ugly what they do. Similiar you don’t need to buy Nestle to understand that Nestle might be problematic in some aspect.
The teeth is indeed a critical aspect. It has to be symmetrical as this assembly is mirrored to block the rotation in the other direction.
An alternative to this would be printing the spring with the contact surface separately and inserting it into this print (pause at layer height, insert part, continue print) allowing other geometries (that would overlap with the teeth if printed in place) and pretension. The downside is it’s a manual task and one more separate part to keep track of.
This is small and the tolerances of the center hub cause the teeths/“gear” to move approx. 0.3-0.5mm of centre. This means what you see in the CAD/slicer isn’t how it will look once printed. I had to narrow the gap down as much as I could to get the largest contact area. If you make it a sled on one side there is less material/surface area.
A further consequence is that the tip of it doesn’t touch anything as such you could remove the very tip to adjust the sound signature. The feeling is slightly changed but primarily this replaced the high-pitched plastic sound with a deep tone.
The nice aspect is that in the blocking position, it is a solid connection meaning it can take as much load as the teeth (tip) can support (hence the trying to maximize the contact area there). The spring element is only there to return this blocking “bolt” into position after a teeth passes through.
Watch your attitude.
I think you still somehow assume this is some kind of ad to sell this design for money or I am a jerk for not just publishing it with source files.
Also not everybody spends their time designing and publishing whatever is popular at the moment on Makerworld to collect points/store credit. There is a different world that doesn’t run on Fusion360 source file most people could edit and can design parts with a particular material & print(farm)/process in mind to get the most out of the FFF 3D-printing process.
Here you go: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6595547
v10 should still be 0.4mm tolerances (easy to print) on all sides and working. Otherwise not a great design but enough for you to understand that there are dozens of parameters to tune in such a “simple” mechanism and it is (nearly) impossible to nail it on the first try. Have we started talking about optimizing the force required to break it loose? That’s one more thing that needs to be accounted for.
If you consider sharing mechanical design concepts as not in line with the spirit it’s fine but others are likely interested in seeing how things work and takes it as inspiration for their designs.
Go and recreate it. Nobody stops you. Could provide the STL but wouldn’t be worth a lot as this is so dialed (tolerances) that it comes down to the specific printer/extrusion system. There are older revisions with huge tolerances (0.4mm) that work but wear down rapidly. To print this exact version it needs to be capable of printing with 0.23mm gap/tolerance between parts.
3D-scanning and work with the digital twin.
OpenScan is a opensource project for smaller objects. With the PS5 maybe a Creality CR-Scan but it’s quality will be borderline unusable for a shape like a PS5 panel. So after all the entry scanner for a job like this could be a Shining Einstar.
Good news: If you own an iPhone try it’s lidar first. Creality CR-Scan is only slightly better than iPhones. With Android phone, you could try photogrammetry but to scan the PS5 part you would need matting spray and even more tracker (small dots glued to the surface).
Btw. Somebody somewhere at some point in time already scanned or modeled the PS5 side panel. As starting point check GrabCAD and thingiverse for a 3D-model.
They used 1 resistor for CC1 and CC2. The fix and correct implementation was to use one resistor per CC-line (two in total).
The issue was they didn’t direct the stock to the industry. They directed the stock to large customers and the small companies had no inventory at all for years or were squeezed (by the market) to the limit with a Pi4 going for $200 and more instead of $50.
The Pi CEO already went out in an interview and was like we did the right thing and would do it again. As such it was pathetic (to me) when they launched the Pi5 and were like community first. To be honest, they probably know that they need initial community support/software packages to sell it to their primary customer: Big companies.
I agree that the 3B+ was the best Pi but for other reasons:
To keep alive the community that maintains the packages that businesses use? /s
There are a few things you won’t forget and the last years were one of those events. Thankfully the competition made leaps forward regarding software support.
Do you remember FTDI-gate 1 & 2 (approx. 1 decade ago)? I do and FTDI never made it back onto my BOM and probably never will again, at least until SiliconLabs, WCH, and Holtek screw it up.
DRM kept me away from streaming services.
Since my devices didn’t had the required DRM level, I could only get 360p with my paid abo. Paying for potato quality if there are alternatives in fullHD or 4k? Pretty bad sales pitch.
Wood stoves are a major problem. As soon as it gets cold in Germany, air pollution rises from below 5µg/m^3 to 20-100 µg/m^3 and stays there for months (in this particular area).
Well … I think the Middle East wants to enter the chat. Multiple wars, multiple revolutions, and multiple plagues.
Depends. If you are talking to Asia or US just referring to yourself or a place as EU is the best option. Same goes for technical documentation. There is for example “EU machine directive” which would trigger the block list.
EU? That would be like banning USA.
The intent is to provide developers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for being able to pay the API bill.
How about a 3D-printer that prints its own z-axis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek_7tBOCcAI