monotremata

I previously posted this on Reddit, since it reaches more people there (and I didn't want to post everywhere at once, as it makes it harder to keep up with the comments). Sorry about that.

This is a tool for measuring the radius of a circle or fillet from the outside; it uses a moire pattern of slots and lines to enable a direct reading of the values from a vernier scale.

A video of a broken-open version makes it a little easier to see how the moire and vernier features operate: https://i.imgur.com/Ku2nBkq.mp4

More photos of a slightly earlier version are here, including the tool being used for actual readings: https://imgur.com/gallery/moire-vernier-radius-gauge-design-3d-printing-ajy0GBg

I was inspired by this post: https://makerworld.com/en/models/1505553-adjustable-chamfer-gauge#profileId-1575605

which is a gauge which measures chamfers using a sliding probe. The same user had also posted a radius gauge, which worked similarly, but it was much larger, using gears and two racks in it to amplify the motion, which I didn't initially understand. I asked about it, and he pointed out that, because of the geometry of the probing, the slider only moves a small proportion of the length of the actual radius being measured--about (sqrt(2)-1), or 0.414mm per mm of radius. Since we're drawing the marks with a 0.4mm nozzle, it's not really possible to make marks that close together and still have them readable.

So I thought, I bet you could fix that with a vernier scale. And then I had several thoughts all at once--that a lot of people are kind of scared off by vernier scales, and also that I bet you could fix that with 3d printing using the relationship between moire patterns and vernier scales. I don't think I've seen this done before, but it probably wasn't really practical before 3d printing. Arguably it's not entirely practical now, as the deep slots and parallax effects can make it a little hard to actually see the markings. But it was a fun experiment, and I think the result is eye-catching enough that it's probably got some educational value in getting people to actually think about how it is that vernier scales work. (It might even have educational value for things like number theory...e.g., it's important that the vernier factor involve relatively prime numbers, in this case 9 and 10. Can you see why?)

Anyway, hope folks here find it interesting too.

Bear with me for a moment, because I'm not sure how to describe this problem without just describing a part I'm trying to print.

I was designing a part today, and it's basically a box; for various reasons I wanted to print it with all the sides flat on the print bed, but have bridges between the sides and the bottom to act as living hinges so it would be easy to fold into shape after it came off the bed. But when I got it into PrusaSlicer, by default, Prusa slices all bridges in a single uniform direction--which on this print meant that two of the bridges were across the shortest distance, and the other two were parallel to the gap they were supposed to span. Which, y'know, is obviously not a good way to try to bridge the gap.

I was able to manually adjust the bridge direction to fix this, but I'm kinda surprised that the slicer doesn't automatically choose paths for bridging gaps to try to make them as printable as possible. I don't remember having this issue in the past, but I haven't designed with bridges in quite a while--it's possible that I've just never noticed before, or it could be that a previous slicer (I used to use Cura) or previous version of PrusaSlicer did this differently.

Is there a term for this? Are there slicers that do a better job of it? Is there an open feature request about this?

Basically just wondering if anyone has insight into this, or any suggestions for reading on the subject.

Thanks!