I like the idea of having a grid highlighting system, but didn’t see any info on what happens when you have more than 49 unique parts in your current 7x7 grid.
Any plans to allow for multiple unique parts in one cube? And if so, would you prefer to mix like parts with like parts, or mix different part types? i.e. one bin holds multiple types of resistors or one bin holds a unique resistor value and a button
Asking because I’ve tried both approaching when setting up lab spaces, but both systems sort of fall apart without the correct maintenance/tidying_up. Apologies if you answered it in the blog and I just missed it.
Either way, I like the idea of busting out the hammer you know how to use.
While the UI isn't set up for it atm, the database already handles the case of more than 49 unique parts. My idea was to have several of these grids stacked on top of each other in a shelf, so you'd be able to flip through the layers, each containing up to 49 parts.
For my purposes, the bins are small enough that I'm fine with only keeping a single part in each bin. The problem is however related to something I was considering, namely multi-square bins for bigger parts. I decided against implementing it simply to reduce the scope for now, but it is for sure possible.
If I were to place multiple parts in a single square, I'd probably subdivide the bin and keep related parts in each sub-bin. Perhaps resistors in a series of Ohms or resistors with the same resistance but different sizes.
This reminded me about an old blogpost I read. This linked post may not be the one I remember, but it's close[1].
Back in 2011 there was an earthquake that New Yorkers felt. There were New Yorkers who read tweets of people further south on the East Coast posting about feeling an earthquake, and then the New Yorkers feeling the same earthquake a few seconds later.
There were some news outlets that picked up the story which you can find, but not exactly what OP was discussing.
When designing hardware, you usually define what the expected operating environments are. Some typical environmental considerations are the min/max temperature, debris ingress, shock & vibration. If you know your product is going to operate in an area where material is likely to enter the product, then you can either try to keep that material out (sealing the product up), or make sure that dust entering the product won't cause failures (i.e. electrical shorts won't happen on a board by covering exposed areas with glue or making sure a mechanism can crush/clear particles). It's not necessarily more complexity in the product to navigate these constrains, but it is another thing to consider in the design.
For example, if you're making a phone that is going to be sold around the world, then you're going to worry about arctic/equator temps (will some of your components melt or ICs fail), salty sea air (will the product begin to corrode for people living by a beach), or fast moving elevators (will the speakers pop from a sudden change in pressure).
You can check out this manufacturers robot arms as some examples of existing products. They list some data sheets for their robot arms, including some arms that are IPxx rated. I don't think looking at robot arms is a 1to1 comparison for what you could expect from a humanoid robot since the considerations in the design process are going to be different.
website is kuka dot com/en-at/products/robotics-systems/industrial-robots/kr-agilus
6 months from announcing rePebble (Jan '25) to shipping your first units (July '25) seems like a quick turnaround for a compact consumer electronics device. Curious to know if these first units are closer to a white label of existing hardware or more of a JDM model.
Side note - I got the first pebble through the kickstarter pre-orders in my first year out of high school. Seeing something so novel was definitely a contributor to me switch from CS to Mech E and working in the consumer electronics space now. Thanks for making cool and interesting things :)
Could another benefit be the ability to change payloads? If there was a desire to change the orbits and payloads, then could these serve a function as a more responsive version of existing satellites?
The US Space Shuttle could similarly "change payloads", with its modular payload bay capable of carrying either one-time cargoes (often satellites for launch), or reusable modules such as Spacelab, parts of which flew on a total of 35 Shuttle missions.
But modularity is also inherent in conventional rocket-based launches, with cargoes fitting within the fairing bay capable of being deployed or orbited.
Changing payloads in space is a rather different prospect, though the ability to rendezvous with, take on-board, and de-orbit satellites (man-made or artificial, the US's own, or other nations') is another possible capability. The X37's small size gives only limited potential here, and I'm pretty sure that if the US were snatching other nations' satellites we'd have heard about it.
I recommend a video by Joe Scott[1] that explores this What If scenario. He created renders showing what rings may look like from Earth and from Space. He also went into details such as how seasons may have been impacted, or how the night sky wouldn't be as dark because of the sun's reflections.
This is brining back memories of playing with my older siblings. For the long jump, I would smash the buttons as quick as possible and then my sibling would time (triangle?) to jump before the line....looking back at it they probably just wanted me to do the most tiring task.
Thanks for the rec. I'm going to check out "Human Smoke". Now I want to recommend "Letters from a Self-Made Merchant to His Son"[1] which is a collection of letters that a man, who made his wealth through the Chicago meat industry, to his son who went to college. It gave a warming perspective of a parent who would express his love in one letter, and frustration towards his son for showing up to work late in another. It beautifully illustrates a "modern" parent-child relationship in a time period I often imagine as cold and distant.
You could try a battery powered phone charger since it's a "relatively simple" first project. The big hurdle for learning these types of tools is usually "What buttons do I press to create the output that I want.
For the electrical side, there are plenty of schematics online that you can try to copy or use as a starting point. And the CAD side can be a simple box with snap fits. I'd recommend OnShape if you're just starting out since it's the lowest barrier of entry, but Fusion 360 is also good. All in, it should be <$150 for the PCBs + Components + 3D Prints.
After you get the satisfaction of seeing your device charge from something you made, then you'll start getting the itch and find more excuses to make things.
I'll follow your recommendation and try the simple stuff. Looks like OnShape is right up my alley. All very exciting feels like I'm "programming hardware" !
If you don’t want ti deal with doing the testing yourself, the EPA has a list of certified labs that can test your water for you. If you follow the link, you’ll find Michigan’s cert program and a list of contact info for those labs.
I’ve never done it myself, so I don’t have a sense of how expensive it would be.
That EPA site more than obtuse. It's impossible to find a company that has a service that will mail you a container, have you add the water to it, then send it back to them to have them test it.
The closest I found was: https://www.meritlabs.com/sample-bottle-order but there are not even prices and it appears that you have to be more or less an industry expert to even fill out the order form.
Someone should make a startup like 23andMe but for water. Lots of us would pay $500 to have water accurately tested. Especially if the data could be aggregated and made pubic.
https://gosimplelab.com/ZM7S1O
is my report. I found their UI/UX quite good, and very comparable to a 23andMe experience. Pleasantly surprised to say there were zero attempts at ongoing subscription upsells, reengagement, virality etc.
Since my collection was based on a plastic bottle, I doubt microplastics would be part of the report. However the same lab offers other tests with different collection containers and different assays.
since the back end testing and reporting is done through gosimplelab you might wish to look at their offerings more directly
https://gosimplelab.com/solutions/pfas
Doesnt seem to have pfas in any of the standard city water test batteries. I'd also like to see microplastics and medicines (hormones, antibiotics etc) in a test.
I think PFAS is actually hard to test for because you'd have to remove any added fluoride salts etc, and then use spectrometry. And microplastics is expensive to test for because it requires human evaluation through a microscope
Any plans to allow for multiple unique parts in one cube? And if so, would you prefer to mix like parts with like parts, or mix different part types? i.e. one bin holds multiple types of resistors or one bin holds a unique resistor value and a button
Asking because I’ve tried both approaching when setting up lab spaces, but both systems sort of fall apart without the correct maintenance/tidying_up. Apologies if you answered it in the blog and I just missed it.
Either way, I like the idea of busting out the hammer you know how to use.