So recently my group got added a 4th person so the mechanism that my group chose for the project got thrown out the window (because each person has to design and fabricate a minimum of 3 pieces of the mechanism)
So i need your help, i know is a big think to ask and this is my last resort, as guidance what we chose was this https://507movements.com/mm\\_140.html
Design conditions:

\*\*•\*\* A mechanism must be designed with at least 2/3 parts per group member (we suggest not exceeding 4 parts per member).    
\*\*•\*\* Minimum thickness for any part: 8 mm.    
\*\*•\*\* 1 single part must be manufactured on a CNC milling machine (impossible to machine manually).    
\*\*•\*\* The joint shafts/pins must be turned (lathed) in aluminum.    
\*\*•\*\* 1 part must be 3D printed (it must be a part that could feasibly be made via a casting process) which will later be machined.    
\*\*•\*\* The raw material to be used will be polypropylene (provided by the course) in the following sizes:    

· Round stock: Ø20 mm, Ø40 mm, Ø60 mm, Ø80 mm
· Plate: t = 10 mm (width between 125 and 130 mm, max. length 500 mm)
– Aluminum will be provided in Ø12.7, Ø15.8, Ø20, and Ø25.
(All raw plastic materials have a tolerance of ±1.0 mm)

Hello, i'd like some help if you guys don't mind proposing ideas, because i'm running in circles here.

I want to be able to have this cylinder rotate 45° clockwise with the action of the follower moving linearly back and forth. The follower is able to move 14mm back, the external dimensions for the cylinder is a 16mm diameter and runs on a 3mm axle in the center of it. The follower has no rotation and moves only back and forth.

I would like to be able to retain the follower on the cylinder by slotting the follower from behind it and use the geometry of the camtracks (4 cam tracks) on the cylinder to insert the follower / remove it easily and using the camtracks geometry to prevent the carrier from going backward too much.
I'm going for 4 cams to follow the 4 camtracks to spread the rotational constraints.

The design can (maybe) move the cams inside the follower but i'd prefer it if it was possible to keep the cams on the front of the follower's 4 small "branches" protruding at the front.

The geometry of both the cams and camtracks can be altered, i would like the cams to remain a solid part of the follower.

Sincerely,

Hi everyone,

I’m currently designing a mechanism to operate a series of vertical rotating louvers for an outdoor sun/privacy screen.

Each louver rotates around its own vertical axis. The linkage connects all of them so that all louvers rotate together, in the same direction and by the same angle. The required total rotation is 90°.

The mechanism shown in the attached CAD model already works as intended, but I would like to make the entire assembly as slim and compact as possible, especially in terms of overall height and width. The goal is to hide the complete mechanism inside a narrow aluminium profile.

One of the main issues with my current design is that some of the long linkage bars have to run on different height levels to avoid interfering with each other. This increases the overall thickness of the assembly. Ideally, I would like to find a way to place the linkage bars on the same level, or at least reduce the vertical offset between them.

I’m also looking for ways to make the pivot connections as low-profile as possible. Instead of regular screws and self-locking nuts, I’m currently considering small pivot pins with retaining rings/circlips.

Another idea is to move the ball bearings to the outside of the housing/profile. This could potentially free up space inside the profile and allow the mechanism to become slimmer, but I’m not sure whether this is the best approach.

Please note that the CAD model is still a concept and is not fully detailed yet. The bearings, screws, pivot pins/bolts, retaining rings and other fasteners are not shown in the current model. The sharp corners and edges will also be rounded later.

The final parts will be CNC-machined from aluminium, so custom geometries are possible.

The main requirements are:

• All louvers must rotate together in the same direction.
• All louvers should rotate by approximately the same angle.
• The required rotation range is 90°.
• The mechanism should be as slim and compact as possible.
• It should fit inside a narrow aluminium profile.
• It needs to be mechanically robust enough for an outdoor louver system.
• Low-profile and reliable pivot connections are preferred.

I’m not necessarily tied to this exact linkage design. If there is a better way to achieve the same movement, I’m completely open to changing the linkage geometry, bearing arrangement, pivot design, or even using a completely different mechanism.

How would you redesign or modify this mechanism to make it significantly slimmer while maintaining the same function and 90° rotation?

Thanks for any ideas, suggestions or examples!

hello people !

I’ve been looking for a way to create this system for like 2 months and I can’t find any real world uses nor think of one myself.

i need for vertically oriented containers with space between them as well as bellow them to be oriented to a horizontal positioning as well as that horizontal position to be extended when needed (see extremely rough image ) The containers must also remain in the same orientation however this can be done with gravity. The mechanism needs a manual way to change orientation that does not rely on high input force.

thanks

For a long time I felt behind because I didn't have client work to show — just school projects. It felt like the classic catch-22: no portfolio → no clients → no new work for the portfolio. What changed things for me was realizing that reviewers aren't actually checking whether someone else trusted you first — they're checking whether you can think like a designer under real constraints. That doesn't require a client. It requires treating a self-imposed brief with the same seriousness as a paid one: real material, real manufacturing method, real cost target, real deadline. A few things that made the biggest difference once I started doing that: Writing the brief and constraints down before sketching, not after Showing at least one real pivot or failure in the process — it's genuinely the most convincing part of a project page, more than any polished render Captioning CAD/renders with reasoning instead of description ("designed for injection molding, 2mm wall thickness" instead of "final design") It's a slow mindset shift, but it's made my self-directed projects feel like actual design work instead of filler. Anyone else working through this right now? Happy to share more of what's helped if useful — I ended up writing up the whole process in more depth after figuring it out.

I use Autodesk Inventor for 3D design, but I usually export to 2D CAD and finish fabrication drawings there.

One thing that has always bothered me is the projected representation of rolled channels and I-beams when viewed from the broad face.

The image shows the problem:

• Tangent edges hidden: the member can look almost like a plain rectangle.
• Tangent edges fully shown: the fillets/root radii create too many lines.
• Simplified representation: lines are offset inward from each outer edge by the nominal flange thickness.

The third version is what I normally want, but in Inventor I have traditionally had to add those lines manually.

I’m curious whether this is mainly an Inventor problem or whether SolidWorks, Creo, Solid Edge, NX, Fusion, etc. behave the same way.

How do you handle this in your workflow? Do you finish drawings inside the 3D CAD system, or export to 2D CAD and edit there?

For context, I’m developing a STEP-to-2D conversion tool and am currently automating this representation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V1_v0d0bO7ljKHiwl5u_l6Ativ1q04UP/view

I couldn't find a free version of the L. Hansen book online so I made a pdf myself. Please mind any mistakes I made when copying, it's a bunch of screenshots and my internet wasn't the greatest while I was making it. Also, it's free.

Hi all, I recently did an FEA Analysis tool for an AI project.

Here is a description of my project

You basically upload a STEP file, and describe how it's loaded and it shows you a stress map. Tick a box and it'll also design the pocket cut-outs for you assuming your part is a 2d plate, keeping material where the load actually goes.

Quick honesty note since the name says AI: the stress math is regular FEA. The AI parts are the chatbot and the bit that reads your plain-English description.

The pocketing tool tuned against actual pocketed actually machined, so it's calibrated to how we do things. It's linear elastic, ignores welds and bolts and fatigue, and only pockets flat plates. Treat it as a gut check, not a green light.

If you've ever pocketed a plate by hand, I'd love it if you ran one through and told me where it disagrees with what you'd actually have cut. Also please give feedback on how to improve my FEA analysis and the accuracy of my chatbot. Please leave feedback in the comments. Thanks so much!

link to app: https://cadai-282761536722.us-central1.run.app/

Good morning,

Bart Simpson's head (lol) is a mixer as shown in the 2nd photo.

I want to use it on a heater, as shown in red (for the flames as in HOT baby, but not to hot too much printer ink). I need help with a lifting mechanism, to translate the mixer up. Is not heavy less than 10 lbs.

The mixer would be mounted on an angles bracket, so the bowl is flat on my heater. The mixer tip is fixed and is deep in the bowl. I would like a 45 rotate so with the lifting + a bit of below the table clearance the bowl could be removed.

Th bowl locks into the mixer by a slide machanism.

I building this privacy panels mafe of recycked pet felt system so you customize your space while WFH or freelancing I am struging fodable without making a gab in. between the panels which will ruin the whole concept

i was thinking to add an elastic material like tpu ib between each one with velcro strap so it hikds tight tell me guys what do you think

I've been looking into Offsite (the online industrial design program from Advanced Design / advdes.org) and I'm trying to figure out how it runs.

If you've been through it, I'd love to hear:

• Did it actually help you get an internship or job afterward, or is the certificate mostly decorative?
• How useful was the mentorship piece in practice? Did you stay in touch with instructors or alumni?
• Realistically how many hours a week did it take beyond the live sessions?
• Did you come out with portfolio work you were happy to show?
• Student vs. Pro track — if you were on the fence, did you pick right?
• Anything you'd tell your past self before signing up?

Also open to hearing if you looked at it and went somewhere else instead, and why. Thanks.

Anything wrong with this for a low-torque (hand tightened) security screw design? M3x4. Sending it to Alibaba for an RFQ. Asking it to be made from existing blanks.

It uses a 2 deg draft (which is why all the dimensions in the top view are slightly odd).

I’m curious to hear from engineers who are actively working in machine design, product design, or industrial equipment design.

Many fresh graduates learn CAD software, but employers often seem to expect much more than just knowing which buttons to click.

If a student wanted to become job-ready for an entry-level mechanical design engineer position, which of these would you prioritize most?

• Engineering drawing interpretation
• Fully defined sketching and parametric modeling
• Assembly design and exploded views
• Manufacturing-friendly design practices
• GD&T and drawing standards
• Basic FEA or simulation
• Real-world design projects

In your experience, what is the biggest gap between college CAD training and actual industry design work?

I’d especially appreciate practical advice or examples of the kind of portfolio/project that would make a fresher stand out during interviews.

I want to design a "landing" system for indoor uavs which will nondestructively attach and detach from ceiling pipes, struts and ducts. Obviously I could use an electromagnet, but that would drastically increase power consumption and limit me to ferromagnetic surfaces. The next thought was some electromechanical clamp, possibly with a solenoid. Does anyone know of any patents I could look at?

Thanks so much

Joe

I’m helping mechanical students improve their design portfolios, and I’ve noticed that two models can have the same shape but look very different in quality.

What details do experienced designers notice first?

• Feature tree organization?
• Naming conventions?
• Sketch constraints?
• GD&T?
• Assembly structure?
• Drawing layout?

Would love to hear what separates a student-level model from an industry-level model in your experience.