Most of us have computers on our desk that would have been considered supercomputers not long ago. We always wonder how many of them get any actual workout other than decoding video. If you want to simulate circuits you may very well start chewing up significant CPU time, so you might consider Xyce, an open source high-performance analog circuit simulator from Sandia National Labs. As you’d expect from a giant government lab it is able to support large scale parallel computing, but will also work on common desktop systems. On Linux, it will do what they call “small-scale parallelism.” In addition, it can deal with simulations of things as diverse as neural networks and power grids.
The code is open source, but oddly you do have to register to download it. Xyce has been around for a bit, but version 7.0 just arrived in April. Many of the changes are to improve compatibility with other Spice programs, notably HSpice.
It used to be a staple of junior high physics class to build some sort of motor with paperclips or wire. A coil creates a magnetic field that makes the rotor move. In the process of moving, brushes that connect the coil to the rest of the circuit will reverse its polarity and change the magnetic field to keep the rotor turning. However, brushless motors work differently. The change in magnetic field comes from the drive controller, not from brushes. If you want to build that model, [Rishit] has you covered. You can see his 3D printed model brushless motor running in the video below.
Usually, you have a microcontroller determining how to drive the electromagnets. However, this model is simpler than that. There are two permanent magnets mounted to the shaft. One magnet closes a reed switch to energize the coil and the other magnet is in position for the coil to attract it, breaking the current. As the shaft turns, eventually the second magnet will trip the reed switch, and the coil will attract the first magnet. This process repeats over and over.
Apple recently patched a security problem, and fixed the Psychic Paper 0-day. This was a frankly slightly embarrasing flaw that [Siguza] discovered in how iOS processed XML data in an application’s code signature that allowed him access to any entitlement on the iOS system, including running outside a sandbox.
Entitlements on iOS are a set of permissions that an application can request. These entitlements range from the aforementioned com.apple.private.security.no-container to platform-application, which tells the system that this is an official Apple application. As one would expect, Apple controls entitlements with a firm grip, and only allows certain entitlements on apps hosted on their official store. Even developer-signed apps are extremely limited, with only two entitlements allowed.
This system works via an XML list document that is part of the signed application. XML is a relative of HTML, but with a stricter set of rules. What [Siguza] discovered is that iOS contains 4 different XML parsers, and they deal with malformed XML slightly differently. The kicker is that one of those parsers does the security check, while a different parser is used for that actual permission implementation. Is it possible that this mismatch could contain a vulnerability? Of course there is. Continue reading “This Week In Security: Psychic Paper, Spilled Salt, And Malicious Captchas”→
If you’ve ever flown or watched anyone fly a racing drone for any length of time, you know that crashes are just part of the game and propellers are consumables. [Adam] knows this all to well, decided to experiment with combining multiple broken propellers into one with a 3D printed hub.
A damaged propeller will often have one blade with no damage, still attached to the hub. [Adam] trimmed the damaged parts of a few broken props, and set about designing a 3D printed hub to attach the loose blades together. The hubs were designed let the individual blades to move, and folding out as the motors spin up, similar to the props on many photography drones.
Once [Adam] had the fit of the hubs dialed in, he mounted a motor on a piece of wood and put the reborn propellers through their paces. A few hubs failed in the process, which allowed [Adam] to identify weak points and optimise the design. This sort of rapid testing is what 3D printing truly excels at, allowing test multiple designs quickly instead of spending hours in CAD trying to foresee all the possible problems.
He then built a test drone from parts he had lying around and proceeded with careful flight testing. The hubs were thicker than standard propellers so it limited [Adams] motor choices to ones with longer shafts. Flight testing went surprisingly well, with a hub only failing after [Adam] changed the battery from a 3 cell to a 4 cell and started with some aerobatics. Although this shows that the new props are not suitable for the high forces from racing or aerobatics/freestyle flying, they could probably work quite well for smoother cruising flights. The hubs could also be improved by adding steel pins into the 3D printed shafts, and some carefully balancing the assembled props.
We’re not exactly sure what kind of shenanigans [Conrad Brindle] gets himself into, but apparently it often requires cylindrical couplings to attach 3D printed parts to each other. He found himself designing and redesigning this type of connector so often that he decided to just make a parametric version of it that could be scaled to whatever dimensions are necessary for that particular application.
In the video after the break, [Concrad] explains the concept behind the coupler and how he designed it. Put simply, the tabs inside of the coupler are designed to grab onto each other once the coupler is spun. When he demonstrates the action, you can see that both sides of the coupler are pulled together tightly with a satisfying little snap, but then can be easily removed just by rotating them back in the opposite direction.
The nature of desktop 3D printing means that the female side of the connection requires support when printing, and depending on your printer, that might mean a relatively rough mating surface. [Conrad] notes that you’ll need to experiment a bit to find how small your particular machine can print out the design before things get too gummed up.
We’ve often said that one of the best applications of desktop 3D printing is the production of custom enclosures. A bespoke case adds a touch of professionalism to any project, and considering the materials needed to print one will cost less than even the cheapest generic project box, it’s a no-brainer. There’s only one problem: it can take hours to print even a simple case.
To try and speed things up, [Electrobob] has been experimenting with running off enclosures using spiral or “vase” mode on his 3D printer. Unlike the normal layer-by-layer approach, in this mode, the printer’s hotend continually rises at a steady rate during the entire print. Think of it as akin to printing out a Slinky and you should get the idea.
Spiral printed boxes may need manual retouching
As you might expect, there are some trade-offs here. For one, the walls of the box can’t be very thick since the printer is only making one pass. The nozzle on most printers is 0.4 mm, but in his experiments, [Electrobob] has found he’s able to reliably double that to a wall thickness of 0.8 mm by adjusting the extrusion rate.
You also need to approach the design a bit differently during the CAD phase. Printing holes in the side of the enclosure, which would be easy enough to do normally, doesn’t really work when running in spiral mode. For those situations, [Electrobob] recommends designing a “pocket” into the side that you can come back and cut out with a knife. It will add a little time to the post-processing stage, but the time saved during the print will more than make up for it.
So how much faster are we talking about? In the example [Electrobob] shows in his write-up, the print time went from nearly two hours to just 18 minutes. The resulting enclosure obviously looks a bit different than the traditionally printed version, and isn’t as strong, but the concept still clearly holds promise for some applications. If you’re building a sensor network that needs a bunch of enclosures, those time savings will really add up.
As the world faces a pandemic of monumental proportions, hospitals have been hit hard. The dual problems of disrupted manufacturing and supply chains and huge spikes in demand have led to many medical centres running out of protective gear. Makers have stepped up to help in many ways by producing equipment, with varying results. [Packy] has shared a link to a 3D-printable face shield that, unlike some designs floating around, is actually approved by the National Institute of Health in the USA.
The shield consists of a 3D printed headband, which is then coupled with a transparent piece of plastic for the face shield itself. This can be lasercut, or sourced from a document cover or transparency sheet. The design is printable in PLA or a variety of other common materials, and can be assembled easily with office supplies where necessary.
