Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Zip Ties for Cable Management #109

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 24, 2020
Merged

Conversation

dmadison
Copy link
Contributor

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.

sf-zip-tie-mounts png

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.
@dmadison dmadison mentioned this pull request Dec 22, 2020
Copy link
Owner

@scottbez1 scottbez1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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:

![sf-alignment-ind-normal](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24282108/102844535-a9c29d00-43d9-11eb-8ee6-0e57ca9c08c7.png)

![sf-alignment-ind-right](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24282108/102844539-ab8c6080-43d9-11eb-826c-c32a8664e9ac.png)

![sf-alignment-ind-left](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24282108/102844544-ad562400-43d9-11eb-9a50-c91fa171e5cb.png)

![sf-alignment-ind-flat](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24282108/102844708-fc03be00-43d9-11eb-95a2-db97f7863511.png)
This was included in shapes.scad as part of PR scottbez1#111 and does not need to be repeated here.
@dmadison
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@scottbez1
Copy link
Owner

"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.

PXL_20201224_055402052
PXL_20201224_055422982

@scottbez1 scottbez1 merged commit 979dab1 into scottbez1:master Dec 24, 2020
@dmadison dmadison deleted the zip-ties branch December 24, 2020 08:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants