I tested out a couple ideas to add a pop-up mechanism to lift/tilt the glass on the Bambu X1C LED riser.  The initial idea was to use a latching pop up mechanism with springs. However that design had several points where parts were too weak, and I didn't think it would last.  So I decided to skip the fancy pop up and use something simpler.  The 2nd version is just a rotating block, which can be flipped into position to provide a couple raised points.  There will be two of these on each side of the front of the riser, which will just flip into position so the top glass can be tilted up with the front of the glass resting on these blocks.  The new design has a hinge which uses two tiny rice size pins, which slide into position when the block is fully assembled.  It works surprisingly well for such small parts.  

​The first image below is the pop up block, which was abandoned in favor of the simpler tilting block, shown next.  The prototype parts were all printed in Duramic3D Gray PLA+, however in the final design, the top covers will be made from TPU.  The prototypes are cut down versions of the models, to minimize waste during testing, however the pop up mechanism will be integrated into the L-shaped front corners of the final LED riser design.

Update 2: I have a couple more ideas for additions to the riser, but I need to wait for parts (from AliExpress).  I expect that I can get back to this in about 2 weeks when the parts arrive.

Update 9/8/2024: AliExpress was pretty quick this time, and I now have the parts I needed.  The first update will be to add some 3x10mm cylinder magnets to the swing up block, which helps to hold it in place when raised (this is tested and works).  The second update is still in progress, and will be an optional PIR sensor wired in series with the LEDs.  That should enable me to leave the LED's on only when printing, since the PIR should detect the movement of the print head.  These changes need to be fully tested, and I plan to build a 2nd riser to make sure it all works correctly.

Update 9/8/2024 (2):  The design is completed, so I next need to test it out.  The PIR is angled down by 10°, however that was just based on a guess.  It may require a redesign if it is not triggering from the movement of the hot end.

Update 9/14/2024: I'm printing the parts for this now, starting with the TPU (really TPE) gaskets.  

Update 9/27/2024: There were a few side projects that bumped this down a few pegs on the priorities list, but I'm printing the parts again now.  The TPU parts are all printed, so I just have a few of the corners to print.

Lately I've been considering a Printables Club, so I can get some cheddar to defray the cost of this hobby I love, and maybe offer some commercial licenses.  I really like the idea of the clubs, since they help creators and also support Printables (they take a 10% cut).  But after reading through the terms, I think it would be too much of a hassle.  The problem is taxes.  It's not that there is a problem with paying income taxes on earnings from the clubs, but rather, the process of paying sales taxes and VAT on every membership.  From what I read in the terms:

"3.6. Please note that if you offer digital content to third parties for a fee through PRINTABLES STORE, the income from such activity will most likely be considered business income and the operation of a business. In this regard, you are fully responsible for ensuring that such activity complies with the applicable laws and regulations that apply to you and such activity, including any applicable tax regulations and obligations, including any applicable VAT. You acknowledge that when setting the price for digital content in the Store, you are required to state the Selling Price so that it is inclusive of all taxes and fees that are associated with the sale of digital content under applicable law ("Selling Price"). You, as the Creator, are responsible in particular for ensuring that the Selling Price is the final display price to the Buyer."

and

"4.5. All tax obligations, levies and reporting related to the Creator's revenue from the sale of digital content are the sole responsibility of the Creator. In this context, the Creator may use third-party services such as STRIPE TAX or specialist accounting firms. PRUSA is not obliged or authorised to provide the Creator with any accounting, tax or legal advice in this context."

So if that means that creators need to manage the remittance of sales and VAT, that'd be a pretty big deal for me.  I'd not expect to make more than a couple hundred bucks a year from clubs, which would not be worth the hassle of figuring out how to pay sales taxes and VAT for memberships paid by EU members.    

I checked Patreon, and it seems they do collect taxes and VAT (for many US states and countries at least), and I believe they take care or remitting the sales taxes and VAT where they collect it at least.  That way (from my understanding), the creators only need to worry about their own personal (or business) income taxes, and not paying the local taxes for every transaction.  This seems like a reasonable approach.

I looked at STRIPE TAX, and it looks like an administrative burden for the average person without a business (with a business it would probably be worthwhile though).  So if I understand this correctly, I cannot see any way that using a Printables club would be worth my time, considering the associated hassle in trying to pay every tax related to the transactions. 

I've lately been touched by a bit of "gridsanity", while I've been organizing a bunch of small electronic component and hardware organizers into a Gridfinity system.  To transfer the parts from their stock plastic organizers (the clear plastic type that come with many small parts), I've been designing a bunch of 1x3 and 2x3 multi compartment lidded bins.  When those were about done (with the CAD part), I saw a great comment by MooseMan over on MakerWorld, who suggested that some form of latching mechanism would be beneficial to have on the smaller lidded bins (to paraphrase).  That was something I'd tried initially, when I was designing the smaller lidded bins.  But I didn't spend much time on it, since I just needed the lids to keep small items from migrating between bin compartments when using them with my cases.  So the issue of the small lids needing to stay closed was not a big deal (since the case lid keeps them closed).  But I told him I would think about possible solutions, since sometimes coming back to an idea will giggle some betters ones loose.  I'm not sure if this is a better idea yet (I still need to test print it when my printer is free again), but from the slicer and CAD, it looks like it could work.  There are some internal bits which perform a latching function, but again I have no idea how well any of that will work yet.  These will not be heavy duty latches in any case though, since the parts are so small.  For a more robust latch, I suggest using my latching bins (here, here, here and here), though they are larger, with the smallest being a 1x2.  

Update: My prototypes never work this well on the first attempt, but I will take it!  I just got the test bin off the printer and the lid works really well.  The snap closure is better than I could have hoped for, and the latch actually holds pretty well.  I am gonna do some more testing to see if the snap action degrades with use, but I think this is a winner!

Update 8/25/2024: Between other things, I've been working on these as a replacement for the lidded bins.  After running a few tests without any issues, I started designing more bins, and forgot to stop.  Below is a pic showing the almost 100 bins, and well over 100 parts so far.  I think I've made every permutation of 1x3, 2x2 and 2x3 bins, with between 2 and 10 compartments.  

Now, the hard part is gonna be exporting these, and figuring out some logical way of setting up profiles (the part I really dislike unfortunately).  I'm also doing some more test prints to verify that everything works.  But I'm not printing every flavor of these bins, just some representative examples that I can actually use.  Unfortunately, due to a new latching feature, only the lids will be backward compatible with the new design, not the bases.  This is gonna be a lot of work though, and I still have several other projects that need my attention, so there is no eta.

Update 8/27/2024: I was in the process of modeling some additional bins and noticed something odd.  It turns out that somewhere along the line I managed to rotate every single bin by 0.062°.  I have no idea how long this had been going on, but fortunately it does not appear to have caused a problem with the bins themselves, but was a bit of a pain to correct since there are so many objects in the workspace that I had to rotate them back in chunks.  I also managed to print a few dud bins, where I forgot to add notches for the latches, and a few latches that somehow got exported to STL's with a few errors which caused some failures...good times. There are some new 2 compartment bins, which required some tweaking to the parts where the lid rest against the bins, to improve the functionality.  It's good to test though, since stuff happens, and it's better to know before that stuff wastes other people's filament (OPF?).  I'm still adding to the collection as I go on organizing my collections of hardware bits, so there may be a few more before I'm done.  The plan is to stick with the 1x, 2x2 and 2x3 bins for now, and there are currently variations from 2 to 10 compartments per bin. 

Update 8/29/2024:  I have quite a collection of these latching bins, with various iterations of the design, and I've learned a few things while putting them together.  The design works well, but assembly is a bit tedious, and the filament hinge can be tricky to insert.  I have been using a small flat nose pliers to install the filament hinge, and have gotten the process down pretty good to where I don't have much of a problem... but it's not as simple as I think it could be.  So I went back and made some changes to the lid design, which will hopefully remove the need for the filament hinge - though that could still be an option.  There is one downside to the new lid design though, and that is a couple of small 1mm wide openings, which are needed to give the room to flex the hinge into position.  These could cause problems with really small items (like m1 or m1.2 hardware), so I plan to keep the filament hinge version as an option, if these work out.  

Update 9/3/2024:  I keep finding small optimizations to help with printing these.  The models have some small features, and I've had a few failures in my test prints, which were related to the integrated supports.  The problems were due to adhesion of the small support features.  So I went through all the bin lids, and added a larger brim for the supports, and also fixed a few of the models which did not get exported to STL's correctly.  The last thing I want to do is spend all the time and effort to plate these up in a 3mf profile, then find out there are problems with the design (and have to do it all over again).  I think though, although I cannot test every bin and lid combo (there are over a hundred models), the problems are worked out now.  

Something that I need to decide on though, is whether or not to keep an option for the flip up (non-latching) lids.  I will probably drop those, since the latching lids are better in most ways.  And if it seems like the non-latching lids could be needed, I can always add them later.  I plan to release the new latching lids with both the filament hinge option, and also a snap in lid option, since some folks will probably need the filament hinge version for one reason or another.  I also suspect that some filaments will be too brittle for the snap in lids (like ABS).  My test prints all use Duramic3D PLA+ in Gray, and so far I have not snapped a hinge installing them, but they do need to flex a bit before they pop in place.

Update 9/6/2024: I keep having odd failures in about 1 out of 15 lids that I print, usually due to adhesion of the integrated supports, but sometimes other problems which are more general to 3D printing small features.  Part of the problem is probably related to using a smooth PEI sheet to print them, which helps with the labels, but is generally more troublesome than a textured sheet.  I've reworked the integrated supports once already, but am considering doing it again, to see if it helps.  The supports are probably never gonna be perfect for every printer, and I hate the idea of increasing support material waste, but I think adding a bit more will save filament in the long run (due to fewer failed lids).    

Update 9/22/2024: There was some time this week, so I worked on getting the integrated supports fixed, and the print failures seem to be resolved.  There will be a bit more waste, since the fix was to wrap a few lines of material around the doors, to connect each independent support.  I also did a plate setup with all the models, which was a big pain in the rear (and it's not over yet).

I had to print a few dozen more lids to test things out, and I noticed that maybe the tabs are a bit tight.  Since the tabs are the supports for part of the lids, they require a bit of leverage from something pointy and flat to break them free (I use a letter opener, which is maybe a bit too sharp, but it works well).  Still, after breaking them free, they are a bit tight, until they loosen up after cycling a few times.  I think that could be improved though, and I have a simple idea to make them a bit less tight, but still tight enough.  If that works, then I think this will be done (finally).  I've thought that this was almost done for a while, but this tab issue should be the last tweak, since everything else has been tested.  I did not test every single bin though, but I tested enough of them, and every type, to be sure they will work.

Update 9/25/2024:  I spent a few hours testing about a dozen iterations of the tabs, with very small adjustments to optimize the amount of force needed to unlatch them.  I also tested with PLA and PETG to see if the same design worked OK for both (it did fortunately), so the tabs are now looking good.  I spent another hour working on updating the 3mf profiles with the new lids (and tabs), and am about half way through 'em.  

It was pointed out on Reddit that some of my Gridfinity Stuff is not posted under the correct license, though it was not noted what the correct license is.  I had thought that Gridfinity was more a spec, but after looking around for info on it, I'm not sure if that is the case or if I need to attribute a specific source.  I pulled the models down temporarily while I look into this.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's important to make sure I can get it right.

Update - after an hour (or more) of sorting through a dozen websites, and the VoidstarLabs discord, I'm still looking for a way forward.  First for some context though, I would l like to keep some of the Gridfinity stuff I have made under the Standard Digital License, for several reasons:

• I want to be able to maintain the designs, which means I want to control which repositories they are available on (currently MakerWorld and Printables).  The CC licenses are very permissive about redistribution (not a surprise, since that is an obvious goal).  What that means for 3D designers is that models can be copied and uploaded by anyone, to any repository.  That is great from an open source standpoint, but sucks when a designer wants to get feedback and maintain a design.  Add to that the financial incentives some repositories stack on, and it becomes a bit sour tasting to find ones models on random sites, where somebody is collecting points for simply moving your design from A to B.
• I may in the future want to start a Printables Club, and would like to offer some designs exclusively.  Nothing that is currently available would be moved to an exclusive design, but I have some things in the works that could be.
• Traditionally the concept of "remixing" has been loosely defined as making a substantial change to an original model, where the "remix" has some new function or aesthetic difference.  The CC licenses however are much more permissive of what is considered an adaptation, and they way I read it, it seems that can include simply scaling or rearranging the parts of a model.  So (again from how I read it), the CC license concept of an adaption, would commonly be referred to as a "copy" in the 3D printing world, with some changes made in the slicer covered as "remixes".  The repositories sometimes go a step further than the CC license though, and try to remove obvious copies which clutter the space - but that is inconsistent at best.  If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of slicer or low effort remixes, which either scale or rearrange a designers models, without adding anything substantive or new on their own.
• I do not currently license my designs for commercial work. Originally that was because this is just a hobby and I could afford to use up filament to test and get designs ready for being shared.  But over time, the expenses have added up, and it would be nice to defray some of the costs involved.  The Standard Digital License should allow me to have that option if I want to use it.  On some models with the CC BY-NC-SA license, I've been told by sellers who were inappropriately selling my stuff, that they thought it was OK if they "threw it in as a freebie", or in other cases they found my designs through remixes which were not correctly licensed for NC.

So the Standard Digital License is great?  Not really, I think it is just the best of the worst for my situation.  I'd like to allow remixing, just not the low effort kind of "slicer remixing".  The Standard Digital License should block commercial use though, since there is pretty much no question about that.  Maybe one day we will have an off the shelf license that will better suit 3D models, and has a tighter definition of adaptions or remixes.

Back to how I can manage to keep the Standard Digital License (or in some case the CC BY-NC-SA license), while also correctly attributing Zach Freedman's work to create the Gridfnity Standards?  Well that will take some more research, since there are a few factors I need to look at.  The MIT license, which Zach Freedman used to unleash Gridfinity on an unsuspecting world, does not require that derivative works use that same (or any particular) license.  It is considered a very permissive license apparently, only requiring attribution by the posting his MIT license with the derivative work (though again the derivative work does not need to be distributed under the same MIT license.  I have some other concerns though, which I need to research, and I'm not a lawyer.  So it's gonna take some time, but I want to get this right so I don't need to do this again.


Update 2: Digging deeper, I think that I can keep the Standard Digital License on the models where it is already applied, however I will need to add Zach's MIT license to the description.  I have never actually seen Zach Freedman's MIT license on any Gridfinity designs though, so it makes me wonder why I was called out for it on Reddit (but it's good that it happened, so I can fix this).  I suspect the user may have thought I should be using one of the CC licenses and not the restrictive Standard Digital License.  However (I think) that the CC licenses, by themselves, do not technically satisfy the MIT license for Zach Freedman's work either.  That is because they do not attribute, and do not include Zach Freedman's MIT license.  It's all really confusing, which is unfortunate, since it seems the MIT license was chosen because it's one of the most permissive, not to cause confusion.  

So I will need to add some text to make it clear that the MIT license is for the Gridfinity elements of the design only, or the "gridfinity spec" as I would call it, and added to satisfy Zach Freedman's MIT license requirements.  However, the MIT license will not be the license which my models are going to be licensed under, since that is not required (the only requirements seem to be that there is attribution and that Zach's MIT license is displayed).  But again I AM NOT A LAWYER, so don't take any of this as advice, I'm just trying to work through this, and figure out the best way forward. 

I'm gonna try and think up some text to add and explain Zach Freedmans's MIT license in the description of my designs, and also thank him for introducing the world to Gridfinity, in the least confusing way possible (lol, wish me luck).  Once I get some boilerplate, then I will start working through each model to update the descriptions, so they will be compliant.  After that the models will be made public again.  I don't plan to change the existing licenses used for my models though.  
​
In the meantime if there are questions on the designs, please contact me via PM on Printables, and I will do what I can to assist.      

Update 3 - 8/17/2024: I think I have some "boilerplate" that explains Zach Freedman's MIT license and gives proper credit for the Gridfinity design elements (or specification) used in my designs.  However before I go all in, and update every one of my Gridfinity models, which is a bit of work that I'd rather not do twice, I asked the Reddit community in r/Gridfinity for their advice.  I also asked if there is a known example of how to do it.

Update 4 - 8/17/2024:  r/Gridfinity came through, and I feel better about the text I was planning to add, and added a bit more based on the discussion.  I'm still working on it, But things will back up soon (definitely this week and probably much sooner).

Update 5 - 8/18/2024:  After reading through the posts on Reddit and thinking about this, I decided to add an attribution and thanks comment to my models with Zach Freedman's Patreon and Youtube links.  I did not post the MIT license, since it is the Gridfinity specification that I'm using (or at least something close to it that is compatible), and I did not directly remix Zach's original models (which I had to go looking for on his Thangs account, when I first started this side quest).  I am not a lawyer though, and this is not by any stretch of the imagination, advice.  But that is how I'm attributing him for sharing the Gridfinity system with the world, and I hope it's correct.   I'm updating the models now, and have everything on Printables back up, aside from a few older revisions of some designs, which I decided to leave down since they are not maintained anymore.  I'm having a problem updating the MakerWorld stuff though.  I was able update a few things on MakerWorld, but the last several I updated did not seem to take.  I'm gonna circle back later today and see if I can finish those up and get them updated.  

There are a few updates I'm working on, which should be posted soon (aiming for this week).  The first are some additional labels for the Bambu Spares case, along with an revised SD card holder.  The SD card holder on the current case is just a slot and works fine, since really it is just a slot which took several revisions to get just right.  The newer design is already used on the A1 Spares Case and has a bit of a spring to help retain the cards.  I need to test how the new design works on the larger X1/P1 case though, since the SD sits a bit deeper in the slots on that case.  

I'm also working on some new single compartment bins, which were requested.  These will use the small tabbed lids, and I decided to make them in 1x2, 1x3 and 1x4 sizes, and in 3U, 6U and 9U depths (from the Gridfinity standard).

The Ikea Alex 57.8mm base "Bigfinity" system is also almost ready to be uploaded.  It's done and tested, I just need to write it up. 

I have a few other things in progress, which I plan to post about when they are closer to being ready. 

Finally, I'm also considering the possibility of setting up a Printables Club for anyone who wants to support my work, but also to set up a method for commercial licensing of some of my models.  I'm still on the fence though, and gathering info and experiences from folks who have went down the same path.  I don't want to have all the fun sucked out of this hobby, due to the expectations that may arise from commercial use licenses.  Currently the only way to sell some of my designs is to violate the license, which is non-commercial on all of my designs, and most of the stuff I remix as well.  That puts legitimate sellers who want to do the right thing in the position of being unable to sell prints of my designs, while many others just copy with impunity.  I also get nothing for my work when that happens.  But like I said, I'm on the fence about the whole thing, and trying to decide if monetizing some of my designs is worth it or not.

I've been testing a few different waist cooling fans, and recently had one of them apart, so I thought I'd post some pics.
​
The pics below just show the inside of one of my fans, which is a 20000mAh dual blower waist fan.  The batteries are each 134268 10000mAh 3.7v Lion cells (13x42x68mm), with two cells wired in parallel, and then the two packs connected to the board (total of 4 cells).  This would be a 2P/2S arrangement, and it is nice to see, since it looks like a legitimate 20000mAh pack (though I did not test the capacity).  I can say though that the runtime is several hours on high at least, and I suspect it would probably run at least 8h and maybe close to double that (it should be a 37x4w pack, and the load is probably less than 9w, but there will be loss due to the boost converter). 

As for the output, it is better than the single fan models, but is also heavier.  In practice, I'd say it feels maybe 50% more powerful than the single fan model (which has a smaller battery), which is just my subjective opinion.  I honestly don't mind picking up the single fan model if the dual fan is charging, they both work well enough.  In either case, the tiny fans put out an impressive amount of air, but they are a bit loud on high (like a hair dryer on low).  The runtime should be a bit better on the dual fan model vs the single fan version, but probably not by much.  If you consider buying one of these, make sure to verify the battery sizes though.  The dual fan version should have a 20000mAh battery, and the single fan version should be 10000mAh (I have seen some dual fan models sold with smaller 10000mAh batteries).    

When wearing these on a belt, the weight disappears after a while.  But one problem with all the waist fans I have tried so far (which is 3 versions), is that the clip for holding the fan under a shirt does not keep the tail of the shirt held very well.  They use smooth metal clips to clip to the shirt on one side and the belt on the other, so I suspect it may wear a shirt down over time.  I think possibly adding some fabric tape to the clip, or possibly even the shirt may help with that though.  

I have a few different types of these types of cooling fans, and aside from one of them which I sent back, they all do the job.  I have tested a couple vest type fans as well, and just a tip if considering those, go at least a size larger than you wear.  I have a 3x vest and it feels like a 2x.  I think the waist fans cool a bit better than the vests though, as long as the shirt can stay clipped in place.  I may post a review of the several I versions I have tested in the future.  For work outdoors in hot weather though, these types of devices are really nice to have, despite the drawbacks (bulk, weight and sometimes having to be readjusted).

The links posted here are to amazon listings to the same products I am testing out (my affiliate links), but you can shop around on AliExpress, and find the same things usually cheaper (though shipping is usually slower).    

Update - I added some fabric repair patch to the areas where the clip attaches to a shirt tail, and wrapped some around the metal clip as well.  The hold seems much better now, but I still need to test this.  The tape sticks really well to the plastic (and also to fabric), though I'm not sure how heat affects it, hopefully it will last.

Update 2 - The fabric repair tape on the steel tabs pretty much solves the problem of the shirt getting pulled out of the clip.  I have been using both the dual and single fan belt fans several times each now, and they don't do miracles, but they do help when working outside in the heat.  Now if they could add a Thermo Electric Cooler (TEC), and get a runtime of a couple hours that would be even better, but that is not gonna happen with today's battery tech (TEC's need way too much power, and would also require another fan to remove the heat from the TEC).