Building your own sprinkler system controller isn’t that difficult on the face of it, but what happens when your system starts to grow, adding more distant areas? To tackle this, [Vinnie] leveraged the tried-and-true RS-485 differential pairs to communicate reliably with ever-more-spread-out valves on his farm’s irrigation system.
The system uses a Raspberry Pi to control when each valve turns on and for how long. It does this via a custom RS-485 valve master board, whose code and design files are on GitHub. The master board communicates with the Pi over I2C and issues RS-485 commands while controlling the 12V line to the valves. Toggling the 12V supply is a smart move it lets [Vinnie] save power by not keeping the valves energized when idle.
At the valves themselves lives a valve node board (also on the GitHub repo). Each node has a unique address so it knows when its name is called to open or close a valve. The valves are latching solenoids, ideal because they don’t require constant current during the watering cycle. The Valve Nodes also support their own protocol to report state, firmware version, and allow in-situ configuration.
Be sure to head over to [Vinnie]’s project page and check out all the work that went into this great DIY irrigation control system, along with the thoughtful boards and tools he made to help others set it up. This is a welcome addition to the sprinkler-related projects we’ve seen.
Screws are useful fasteners for 3D prints, but the effectiveness of a screw (not to mention the ease or hassle of insertion) depends on the hole itself. This comprehensive guide on how to design screw holes in 3D printed parts takes guesswork out by providing reference tables as well as useful general tips.
The guide provides handy tables saying exactly how big to design a hole depending on screw type, material (PLA, PETG, or high-flow PETG) and whether the hole is printed in a vertical or horizontal orientation. This takes the guesswork out of screw hole design.
There’s no reason to guess the right size of hole for a screw, just refer to some handy tables.
The reason for different numbers is because multiple (but predictable) variables affect a 3D-printed hole’s final dimensions. Shrinkage, filament properties, and printing orientation can all measurably affect small features like screw holes; accounting for these is the difference between a good fit, and cracking or stripping.
In addition to the tables, there are loads of other useful tips. Designing lead-ins makes screws easier to insert and engage, and while increasing walls is an easy way to add strength it’s also possible to use 3D-printed microfeatures which are more resistant to distortion and don’t depend on slicer settings. There’s even suggested torque amounts for different screw and material types.
Sure, the most reliable way to get a hole of a known size is to drill it out yourself. But that’s an extra step, and drill bits aren’t always at hand in the desired sizes. The guide shows that it is entirely possible to print an ideal screw hole by taking a few variables into account.
If your design calls for screws, be sure to check it out and see if there’s anything you can use in your own designs.
If you mention the word bus, you might think of public transportation or, more likely for us, a way to connect things together. But in the satellite world, the bus is the part of a vehicle that supports the payload but isn’t itself the payload. Typically, that means the electric power system, propulsion, radios, and thermal control, among other systems. If you are designing a CubeSat, you will want to read A Guide to CubeSat Mission and Bus Design by [Frances Zhu].
The Creative Commons-licensed book has twelve chapters, ranging from systems engineering — that is, defining what you want to do — to analyzing structures, handling power, setting up communications, and more. Of particular interest to us was the chapter on command and data handling. The final chapters cover software, system integration, and there’s even a chapter on Ethics.
If you want to build a CubeSat or just want to learn more about how satellites actually work, this is a great read. There are videos and other features, too. If you don’t like reading in your browser, you can download an EPUB, PDF, or MOBI near the top of the page.
It’s fair to say that there are a lot of development board form factors for MCUs, with [Tech Dregs] over on yonder YouTube on the verge of adding another one to the pile, but not before he was having some serious thoughts on the implications of such a decision. Does this world really need another devboard with the ubiquitous 2.54 mm (0.1″) pitch pin headers, all so that it can perhaps be used in the same traditional 2.54 mm pitch breadboards?
The thought that [Tech Dregs] is playing with is to go for something more akin to the system-on-module (SoM) approach that’s reminiscent of the Raspberry Pi compute module form factor. This means using a 1 mm pitch for the headers and castellated edges in case you want use it as an SMT part, while breaking out many more pins of the onboard ESP32 module in far less space.
Obviously, the main advantage of this approach is that much like with compute modules you can leave most of the tedious cheap stuff on a carrier board, while the expensive to manufacture components are on a self-contained module. Meanwhile with the much finer pitch on the SoM contacts it’d straddle the divide between a 2.54 mm breadboard-capable devboard and a fully custom PCB, while making any mistakes on the carrier board much cheaper to redo.
The counterpoint here is of course that something like an ESP32 module is already a module with a finer pitch, but if you need more than just what it offers, or you want to use an STM32 or RP MCU across boards it could make a lot of sense.
Having 1 mm pitch breadboards would honestly also be rather nifty, natch. That said, what are your thoughts on this matter?
A computer does one thing at a time, even if it feels like it’s doing multiple things at once. In reality, it’s just switching between tasks very quickly. But a VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) computer is different. Today, [Asianometry] tells us about VLIW computing and its history.
Processors have multiple functional units; for example, you might have separate units each for addition, multiplication and division. But because it runs one instruction at a time, these units tend to spend a large amount of time idle. VLIW aims to address this inefficiency by reinventing what an instruction means. Instead of telling the whole processor what to do, a VLIW instruction tells each functional unit what to do at once. Sounds good, right? Well, that was the easy part.
The hard part? How to compile a program for a VLIW computer, that can actually make use of all the functional units at once; after all, the efficiency promise is that the higher activity makes up for larger instruction words to fetch. That is the compiler’s job; VLIW compilers try to reschedule the operations in the program to convert sequential code into more parallel operations then compiled into the titular very long instruction words.
When taking macro photographs, you often need just a tiny bit of controlled motion — so little that it’s tough to pull off by hand. To address this, [Salveo] designed a small open-source macro photography slider featuring an anti-backlash handle.
Macro photography gives you an extremely shallow field of view, sometimes under 1 mm of depth, in which subjects stay in focus. To combat this, it’s common to capture multiple images while sliding the camera forward or backward, then combine them for a much larger depth of field than a single shot provides. [Salveo]’s slider gives fine control over this focus-stacking process, with the knob even marked to show every 1 mm of linear travel.
The slider is built around a 150 mm linear rail, though it could easily be lengthened or shortened to suit your needs. A T8 leadscrew, paired with anti-backlash nuts, translates the knob’s rotation into smooth linear motion. The knob itself uses a custom-designed anti-backlash mechanism to ensure the slider works cleanly in either direction.
You can grab all the 3D-printable files as well as the full bill of materials from the project page. Be sure to check out [Salveo]’s build video below. Thanks [Tim L.] for sending in this awesome open-source slider. Be sure to check out some of the other macro photography projects we’ve covered, too.
If you’ve never heard of the threadless ball screw, which was invented over sixty years ago, [Angus] of Maker’s Muse has a video demonstrating the whole thing, covering its history and showcasing both its strengths and weaknesses. If you like seeing mechanical assemblies in action, give it a watch.
The device — consisting of little more than a smooth rod and three angled ball bearings — is a way to turn rotational motion into linear motion. Not a single belt, thread, or complex mechanical assembly in sight. While a simple nut on a threaded rod can turn rotation into linear motion, those come with their own issues. The threadless ball screw was one effort at finding a better way.
While it lacks precision, the threadless ball screw nevertheless offers quiet and smooth motion with adjustable tension in a very DIY-friendly design.
Threadless ball screws never really took off, although they were given some consideration for use in 3D printers back in the RepRap days. Today one can purchase quality CNC components without leaving one’s web browser, but back in the early 2000s things like lead screws and ball screws were rather more specialized, less accessible, and more expensive than they are today. RepRap folks had to make their own solutions. But while the threadless ball screw is a very DIY-friendly design, it was ultimately lacking in performance.
The main problem is they’re just not precise enough for anything like CNC work. [Angus] does some back-and-forth tests with a 3D printed unit that shows serious drift after only a few minutes. Now, he knows perfectly well that his 3D-printed test unit is far from ideal, but the rapidity at which it drifted was still a surprise. Making a carriage with two threadless ball screws — one at each end — performed a lot better, but was ultimately still flawed.
It’s not all bad. There’s zero backlash. They are mechanically simple, remarkably smooth, and utterly quiet. Also, [Angus] discovered that the maximum force this setup can be made to apply is surprisingly significant, and is directly related to the tension on the bearings. That means one can trivially adjust how easily the carriage slips (or doesn’t) just by tightening or loosening the screw holding each bearing.
Sure, they’re not precise. But maybe you don’t need precision. Maybe you just need to move something back and forth in a strong & silent sort of way that can still slip gracefully (and quietly) if something goes awry, like bottoming out an axis. 3D printing makes it pretty easy to whip one up, so maybe there’s still a place for the threadless ball screw.
