This page is dedicated to prototyping parts at a 1:1 scale for various projects.
The implementation of the 1-axis gantry with the vinyl cutter attempted last week was a mishmash of semi-sophisticated computational processes and crude assembly strategies. For our first round of prototyping, we opted to produce specialized components designed to eliminate some of the more “jank” elements from the original scene. Specifically, rather than binding a writing utensil to the carriage a la orange tape mummification, we began sketching a simple pen holder that would anchor the utensil to the carriage, allow for variable diameters of the utensil, and alleviate some of the pressure put on the utensil by the paper it makes contact with:
We set out into the wild west of Autodesk Fusion360 with our heads held high, and based on sketches, began mocking up a prototype for the pen holder. our initial printed prototype featured some critical dimension errors, so we stopped the file midway (ain’t nobody got time for that!), but the print made it far enough for us to test our spring, and it worked beautifully, until it broke under mysterious circumstances (which is what we’re calling Grey now.):
For the second round, we went with significantly beefier top/bottom chamber pieces, which, thanks to my ingenious implementation of global variables in the fusion workflow, meant that the proportions for almost everything adjusted accordingly. That is excepting the spring, which was, as far as parametric definitions go, a total failure in my eyes.
We talked a bit in the previous class about some fundamental principles of parametricism, specifically the fact that the success of a parametric model relies more on evolving relationships between entities than it does on the oft-mentioned parameters (i.e. sliders/domains) themselves. relative (lol) to grasshopper, Fusion absolutely seems to promote these relationships heavily. My issue with this arose when making the spring. I set it up as I would a similar form in grasshopper – creating my field of construction geometry, which in this case was 2 rows of points, in order to divine pipe-able linework. However, my issue is that, where in grasshopper I would be referencing objects, lists, trees, etc, Fusion prioritizes actions, transformations, evolutions etc. The long and short of it is, when I updated my number of points, I realized that Fusion was not interested in recognizing them as a family, which prevented my linework from updating. Is this an inherent limitation of the software?
For last week’s iteration of this project, the collar that holds utensils on the vinyl cutter was occupied exclusively by our limit switch. Che-Wei suggested trying to place a writing utensil in the collar as well, so that the final drawing exhibits both the SVG path that generates the drawing, as well as the drawing itself. Grey hopped on that Fusion train and modeled a piece that supplements the collar with a writing utensil sheath of a more appropriate diameter for the utensils we intend to draw with (LE PEN), as well as a chamber for the limit switch holder that would make contact with the drawing surface without jeopardizing the linework coming from LE PEN.
After some sizing and resizing, The prototypes were bundled into a .gcode with Simplify3d and sent to Jules Winnfield (the studio printer).
The issue we’re dealing with now is Sure-Cuts-A-Lot’s cross to bear. SVGs we saved from last week would not initiate this week. What’s up with that?
Update – 09.26.2016
The pen holder is broken. Its connection pieces snapped off under too much pressure. solution? Reprint with larger connection cylinders to create a more forgiving distribution of pressure.
|The Pen Holder. You can clearly see where the fasteners were removed.|
Update – 10.06.2016
We’ve begun prototyping attachments for the magnet in our analog drawing machine (find that project in its entirety here. Namely, we’re trying for a sort of universal shovel; a cross between a UFO and a cow-catcher on the front of a steam engine: