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

Create a new 3DCrowd compatible laser cut headband design based on the DoES design #70

Open
ajlennon opened this issue Apr 12, 2020 · 7 comments
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed National

Comments

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor

ajlennon commented Apr 12, 2020

Spun out of #16

NOTE: This is for the national visor effort, not at this time the internal DoES visor workflow.

  • 3DCrowd have bulk half mm visor shields which can be delivered by them nationally to "local hubs"

  • These are preferred by doctors to the thinner acetate sheets we are using and more likely to receive NHS approval.

  • They will be cheaper than anything DoES or other organisations can source themselves due to bulk purchase.

  • Sourcing 3DCrowd visor shields greatly simplifies the visor workflow as producers only need to make, clean and pack visor bands then forward on with a pack from a stock of pre-made visors shields.

  • I am receiving enquiries from SMEs and education about how they make these visors and how they source the materials. I intend to support them in this effort.

  • To leverage the die-cut visor design the laser-cut band design needs to conform to the Prusa RC3 standard, which the current iteration does not. My understanding is this is just changing hole spacing.

Can somebody help me with this? @huffeec ? Thanks!

@ajlennon ajlennon added help wanted Extra attention is needed National labels Apr 12, 2020
@ajlennon ajlennon changed the title Create a new 3DCrowd compatible laser cut design based on the DoES design Create a new 3DCrowd compatible laser cut headband design based on the DoES design Apr 12, 2020
@ajlennon ajlennon mentioned this issue Apr 12, 2020
@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

ajlennon commented Apr 12, 2020

Some initial sizing work in mm (current v1 design)

image

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

ajlennon commented Apr 12, 2020

Assuming International Standard 4 Hole Punch this applies

ISO 838

ISO 838 template
The most common standard dimension and location of filing holes punched in paper is International Standard ISO 838. Two holes with a diameter of 6±0.5 mm are punched into the paper. The centers of these holes are 80±0.5 mm apart and have a distance of 12±1 mm to the nearest edge of the paper. The holes are located symmetrically in relation to the axis of the sheet or document.

Any paper format that is at least 100 mm high (e.g. ISO A7 and larger) can be filed using this system. A printed document with a margin of 20–25 mm will accommodate ISO 838 filing holes.

4-hole extension ("888")
A four-hole extension is also commonly used. The two middle holes are punched in accordance with ISO 838, and so paper punched with the four holes can be filed in binders that are consistent with ISO 838. The two additional holes are located 80 mm above and below these. The use of two additional holes provides more stability. This extension is sometimes referred to as the "888" system, because of the three 8-cm gaps between the holes. Some 2-hole punches have an "888" marking on their paper guide, to assist punching all four holes into A4 paper.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punch#International

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

And this is the Prusa RC3 Visor

image

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't quite know where all those numbers come from in the DoES design but I reckon I just need to change the top centre 86 to a 64 or thereabouts and that'll do it.

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

ajlennon commented Apr 13, 2020

3DCrowd have informed me they want to put the DoES design through CE approval @afroleft @amcewen. For this to happen we'll need to fit to their Prusa based visor shield.

I will follow up on liability in another thread but current best advice is we must have CE approval whether we sell or give away splash visors and whatever we call them.

@plastictactics
Copy link
Contributor

If 3DCrowd have the budget (estimate from Dave Kershaw of £10k-£50k) and admin capacity to put the design through CE marking, that's a great opportunity to take liability off DoES. Would probably require input from @amcewen and others involved on design process, iterations and documenting needs of the healthcare people spoken to during design stage - not a small task.

@ajlennon
Copy link
Contributor Author

ajlennon commented Apr 14, 2020

If 3DCrowd have the budget (estimate from Dave Kershaw of £10k-£50k) and admin capacity to put the design through CE marking, that's a great opportunity to take liability off DoES. Would probably require input from @amcewen and others involved on design process, iterations and documenting needs of the healthcare people spoken to during design stage - not a small task.

They do. I think it's just a matter of changing one hole spacing and getting feedback. Also the Welsh Government is paying for approvals. Carwyn and 3DCrowd are now fully engaged (M-Sparc and 3DCrowd SOPs are merging) and we have the potential to put the new variant of the DoES design through with W.G. paying possibly.

Basically either Kitronix or DoES designs (possibly both) are going to be CE approved imho. And whatever design is CE approved is the design everybody needs to be laser cutting nationally #BecauseLiability imho

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed National
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants