That's very nice. The nut dispenser is very effective. Small, and feeds well.
The screw dispenser is starting to run into jamming problems. It will probably start to jam more as the acrylic gets scratched and friction becomes worse. But it's manual and low volume, so jamming isn't a big issue.<p>He's discovered that dispensing is easy, but order from chaos is harder.<p>There's a whole theory of feeder design.[1] There are clever tricks to orient strangely shaped parts using feeders made from passive components. A basic trick is to get parts aligned in one axis, then arrange it so that the ones that are backwards or upside down hit some obstacle or are not supported, so they fall back down for another try.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyuHIxSC-A" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyuHIxSC-A</a>
When we count pills, we use a simple device that has a flat part and a channel to count into. A hockey-stick-like spatula moves pills into the channel. The excess is poured back into the bottle the opposite way and the channel is then emptied into the bottle.<p>I count in multiples of 3 so I don't lose my place. The last number is unique for every 30.<p><a href="https://share.google/VshUpiSioUh6rLg4q" rel="nofollow">https://share.google/VshUpiSioUh6rLg4q</a>
(Image link)
Can you explain the counting a bit more?<p>I interpreted it as:
For every three pills I put into the channel, I add +1 to my internal count.<p>"The last number is unique for every 30" means... if you have a mental count of 13, you have 39 pills channeled? I didn't quite follow...
At scale, use weight and supply 1 or 2 extra.<p>This is how pretty much every IKEA, LEGO, etc works with very small, cheap parts.<p>End users benefit because it's easy to drop/lose/break one.
So that explains why the smallest parts often have spares in ikea and lego builds. Is this done because of the error in weighing the smallest parts, so they have a margin for error by allowing for an extra 1 or 2?
> Is this done because of the error in weighing the smallest parts, so they have a margin for error by allowing for an extra 1 or 2?<p>This is a secondary benefit, the primary benefit is if the end user loses/breaks one. That part very well could be show stopper (Ikea 110630 anyone?). Now the end user is stuck - has to call, you have to ship, do you charge? do you give for free? they have to wait. they're annoyed, you're annoyed.<p>No one is happy.<p>The supply chain headaches for giving exact number of tiny parts is terribly expensive, relatively speaking. So you give spares because in the long run it's way cheaper.
Being aware of this, I am waiting for a solution to what to do with the leftovers besides chuck them into a landfill. The problem, of course, is scale. No one is mailing 3 screws and an Allen wrench anywhere. Maybe once you hit 5 pounds of spare Lego . . .
If you have an IKEA store they do have a place for spares, and you can return them there. Assuming you go back from time to time.<p>For stuff bought online, e.g. Amazon, not much you can do.
Just tacking on to mention the smallest parts are most likely to be lost, they’re the ones that - if dropped - seem to bounce and roll under a refrigerator or into the ether. They don’t give extras on the larger parts because they’re not likely to be lost. Frequently enough all it takes is a violent/careless bag opening to send the small pieces flying.
How does this work without dispensing onto the scale one by one? Just shaking them out of a hopper?
Or a vibrating seperator which can give perfect counts if needed.
> during the endless toil I dreamed up a gun that could shoot out six nuts at a time.<p>So glad my ex didn’t have one of these
> You can probably guess my opinions on it though, the software is very good but the cloud-based vendor lock-in is grating, and the free tier is hobbled beyond the point of usefulness. On the plus side, being browser-based, it works perfectly on Linux.<p>> The 1.1 release of FreeCAD should be soon. I really want FreeCAD to succeed, but blimey they have a big hill to climb. My fingers are crossed.<p>Since these parts mostly seem to be laser cut acrylic (so mostly 2D), it seems like solvespace would do a good job at cranking out the designs. I haven't used it for a larger project like this though, maybe it was already considered.
For what it's worth I've been using FreeCad 1.1RC2 lately, and for me it's the first FreeCad version worth bothering with. It's now a tool I actively reach for over OpenSCAD and Blender for various projects. Previously I couldn't make the simplest part with it.<p>I can't wait for the release proper, but I can heartily recommend everyone try the release candidates as well. I've got a feeling this is the tipping point for FreeCad like 2.5 was for blender.
Solvespace can also be used for 3D.<p>It is sad that FreeCAD gets all the attention. If Solvespace had some of it, and the development time following from it, it could get improvements and some of the cool stuff in their pipeline. That would IMO make it a much better CAD program than FreeCAD could ever become.
I know, it's just that in this particular blog post, the designs mostly seem to be extruded 2D sketches which solvespace is particularly good at with its sketch interface.<p>Solvespace can also do a lot of useful 3D stuff, but it's also missing a lot so I can't in good faith recommend it for any arbitrary CAD work.
A beautiful balance of effort and benefit.<p>I don't know any better, but the screw counting mechanism seems awkward. Imagine the set has 10 components..<p>I'm surprised there is no standard solution to this - like a tape and reel solution? A counting and dispensing gun that works for different sizes? But how much more would anyone pay for M3 bolts on a tape?<p>Helmke had a tube feeding his dispensers in one of the videos, with bolts lengthwise. That tube idea could be used for a manual dispenser - imagine a drink dispenser, but giving 3 bolts. Maybe easier to store away, but just as awkward to load.
Soon to be banned in the UK no doubt
In a similar vein: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@christopherhelmke" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@christopherhelmke</a>
> the (OnShape) free tier is hobbled beyond the point of usefulness.<p>The free tier is identical to the standard tier except you can not create private documents and it has a no commercial use clause. This has been the case for many years, so I'm not sure where "hobbled beyond the point of usefulness" is coming from.
I love this so much. Such simple machines, for human-scale problems. I often get pulled down rabbit holes of machines and automation - this is a nice reminder that you can solve a lot of problems without reaching for an arduino or a servo.
Oh come on, now I want that clock.<p><a href="https://mitxela.com/shop/clock4" rel="nofollow">https://mitxela.com/shop/clock4</a>
Awesome solve!!! Lasers and 3d printing is my side hobby business and is what keeps my sanity intact. I love seeing the practical creations that are realized by them! One of my core tenets is being self-sufficient and achieving efficiencies. This post is exactly that. Well done.
a small scale problem = assisting device<p>a medium scale problem = a better assisting device<p>a large scale problem = hire people
Push button, nut.
Wow, that's so cool!
[dead]
Insane!
<p><pre><code> >> I have wasted a significant chunk of my life counting out small numbers of parts into bags and posting them to people.
</code></pre>
So, small parts like this are always counted by weight, and I'm wondering why you would spend so much time on a counting solution when "buy a scale" is right there.
He's counting out like 6 at a time. He needs a fast way to pick small quantities precisely, not a fast way to check large quantities. Once they're picked they're easily verified by eye.
In volume, small parts are dispensed by carefully designed machines, <i>and then the result is counted by weight</i>. You still need control of the dispensing, and as he's putting in small numbers of items the counting is the easy bit.
A scale doesn't help with dispensing the parts. You've changed a tool based process back into a fully manual process.
Yes it's by weight when you need exactly 20k tiny screws in a box. But when you need six that won't save you any time.
Until counting machines got ubiquitous, banks in India would count notes/bills by weight as well.<p>It wasn't very precise but you could move a lot of money in ball park with this method. Atleast internally across branches.