Zip Ties for Cable Management #109
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
For creating 2D rectangular geometry with rounded corners.
Cable management!
For retaining the motor and sensor wires when exiting downwards to prevent them from interfering with the flap spools on adjacent modules.
For retaining the motor and sensor wires when exiting upwards (PCB mounted on top) to prevent them from interfering with the flap spools on adjacent modules.
The "$fn=$fn" argument seems a little odd / self-referential, but it appears to work as intended.
When used outside of the zip tie functions, the geometry may not be a hole!
The previous value was close but not exactly equivalent.
Merged
scottbez1
approved these changes
Dec 22, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Neat!
Have you tested that the zip tie's natural bend radius on the inside of the enclosure keeps it clear of the flaps? I'd be a little worried that a zip tie will naturally bow out around the bends and interfere with the side of the flaps given how tight that space is. I'm happy to do a test later today if you'd like; sounds like a great opportunity to try out some smaller endmills on my new CNC machine 😄
scottbez1
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2020
Adds alignment indicators to the enclosure to aid in assembly: a triangle on the left side, a circle on the right side, and an 'up' arrow on the front face. The goal is to provide an easy visual cue for how the enclosure pieces fit together - particularly the front piece, which is slightly asymmetric. I opted not to add indicators to the top and bottom pieces because they seemed a little redundant. The triangle and arrow geometry were added through modules included in a new `shapes.scad` file. This also includes the rounded rectangle module that was submitted separately as a part of PR #109 (Zip Ties). I also cleaned up the other etched features in the design and removed the 3D difference feature for the etched spool indicators which struck me as excessive. All etched features now go through a single helper function to set the positional offset, height, and color. #### Ponoko Quotes (3.0 mm MDF, 2020-12-21): | Branch | Variant | Commit | Price | |------------------------|----------------------------------|---------|--------| | `master` | | 0f6d8b7 | $20.29 | | `alignment-indicators` | one-ended (submitted) | 71fcfb8 | $20.85 | | `alignment-indicators` | two-ended | 9e60870 | $24.80 | | `alignment-indicators` | two-ended , line-etched, no label | 9e60870 | $21.55 | This submitted version only has the one-ended indicators, which add $0.56 USD to the cost of each enclosure or an increase of 2.7%. In my opinion the symmetry of the two-ended indicators looks much better but is not worth the cost increase. I'm suspecting the large jump in price comes down to how the laser-etching process works. When I used to operate a laser the software would rasterize the design and then run the head back and forth horizontally at a steady pace over all areas with etched items, firing the laser itself only over etched areas. Because the pair of alignment indicators are lined up horizontally the laser is likely performing a continuous slow travel move over the height of the front panel, which would increase the time to cut the design and explain the jump in cost. For good measure I also tested the two-ended version without the text label and with line-etching instead of area etching, which would presumably reduce the travel time costs but increase the cost of etching itself. Even so, it would still be cheaper to keep the label and use area engraving with one-ended indicators - which is what is submitted. #### Photos:    
This was included in shapes.scad as part of PR scottbez1#111 and does not need to be repeated here.
|
Go for it! Sounds like a good excuse to run a few parts 😁 I haven't tested it myself but I don't expect interference to be an issue. With wires on the opposite side the back portion of the tie should pull pretty flush to the enclosure. |
|
"pretty flush to the enclosure" is accurate 😄 I'm seeing < 1.5mm sticking out on the back side with some dummy wires zip-tied which is more than flush enough.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds holes for cable management zip ties into the left side of the enclosure: one pair underneath the sensor PCB for wires exiting downwards (PCB behind module) and one pair above the motor for wires exiting upwards (PCB mounted on top of module(s)). The goal is to prevent the wires from bending outwards and getting tangled in the moving spools of adjacent modules.
These are sized to work with your typical 2.5 mm wide mini zip ties.