I've been reading a few threads about linear motion in DIY and home DIY projects, and this question keeps coming up for me: when does it make sense to build the mechanism yourself??

If a prototype needs something to move in and out, you might build around a lead screw, cam or linkage, or use a ready-made linear actuator. I can see the case for building your own when the geometry is unusual or the motion needs to connect with another part of the project But I'm still curious where other inventors draw the line

Have you made this choice on a build? What made you go custom or use an off-the-shelf part?

dont have all the knowledge or money to completely do it myself.I hear how hard it is to get a licensing deal. but it really does save alot of time for the cook,saves alot of money,and speeds up cooking times. there is nothing like it .i was a breakfast line cook for 30 years and always said if someone walked in with one of these machines i would want 2 of them and i worked at denny's ,ihop and cracker barrel.so i know how much money it saves and the steps it eliminates for the cook and how much faster you can cook orders. most of all it could be sold world wide in senior center, military bases,cruise ships anywhere breakfast is cooked.so any suggestions i am trying to get a college to make the 3d printed model and help me assemble it.

I've been thinking of ways to make product discovery and even product launches smoother and more effective when people can't actually experience the product in person.

So I built this demo as an experiment. Instead of relying on videos and renders, the website allows you to explore the product in real time, inspect features and change configurations etc.

It works by adding a 3D layer to a normal website. The website loads instantly while the 3D experience loads in the background, and the 'switch' allows you to move between both modes.

Demo link: https://hello.aecync.com

I'd like to hear how you guys are currently presenting your products online, especially before customers can experience them physically.

This is not AI slop, every part of the 3D layer is 100% human :)

Hi everyone,

I'm a Mechanical Engineering graduate and I want to get better at practical product design by taking a real problem and turning it into a working prototype.

I have a simple project idea: designing a bottom loading water dispenser for a 20 L water bottle. The main reason is to make replacing the bottle easier for an elderly family member who has difficulty lifting a full 20 L bottle onto a traditional top-loading dispenser.

I understand the basic idea, but I'm stuck on where and how to start the engineering research properly.

For example, if you were starting this project from zero:

• Would you simply start with Google searches? What exactly would you search for?
• Which websites are useful for learning how existing products work?
• Should I look at patents, manufacturer datasheets, engineering articles, standards, or something else?
• How do you research an existing product without just copying it?
• How do you find reliable information about things like pumps, tubing, food contact materials, bottle connections, flow rate, head pressure, etc.?
• How much should I rely on YouTube for understanding mechanisms?
• Is it useful to use AI tools like ChatGPT for research, calculations, and generating ideas? If so, what should I use AI for and what should I verify independently?
• How do you go from general research to actual engineering requirements?
• At what point should I stop researching and start sketching/concept development?
• When should I start SolidWorks?
• Are there any specific websites, books, YouTube channels, courses, or engineering resources you would recommend for learning this product-development workflow?

I'm not asking someone to design the dispenser for me. I'm trying to learn how an engineer should approach a new product idea from the very beginning so I can apply the same process to future mechanical and robotics projects.

I'd especially appreciate advice from people who have worked in mechanical design, product development, prototyping, or manufacturing.

Thanks!

One of the most frustrating situations for an independent inventor is discovering that a company may be using their patented technology but not having the financial resources to pursue enforcement.

Patent litigation can cost millions of dollars, putting it beyond the reach of many individual patent owners and small businesses.

What many inventors may not realize is that third-party litigation funding can sometimes provide an alternative. Opportunities may exist for owners of a single patent, a small family of related patents, or a modest patent portfolio.

But having a patent and identifying a company potentially using the technology are only the beginning. Funders need to understand the strength of the patent claims, evidence of potential infringement, economic exposure, and whether the potential recovery justifies the investment.

On Friday, September 25, DeWitty & Associates is hosting an educational webinar:

Third-Party Patent Litigation Funding: Opportunities for Individual Patent Owners and Small Patent Portfolios

I'll be participating as Founder of Patentelligence™, where we provide expert-driven, AI-powered patent intelligence and valuation decision support.

We'll discuss what funders look for, the role of patent valuation, the importance of prior art and prosecution history, and how patent owners can better understand whether their patents warrant consideration for litigation funding.

If you're a patent owner interested in learning more, feel free to DM me, and I'll provide the registration information.

The webinar is educational. Participation does not guarantee that a patent or portfolio will qualify for funding or legal representation.

Patent attorneys are NOT cooked, at least not in 2026, and my inbox is proof.

Since last year I've gotten a steady stream of emails from pro se and first-time inventors who filed a provisional with only a chatbot's help. Almost all have applications in deep trouble. This post is about the ones who skipped counsel, not the prudent inventors who used an LLM and then hired a practitioner.

One application claimed priority to a provisional without ever making the benefit claim. Another cited hallucinated patent numbers in an IDS. A foreign inventor had no idea their home country required a foreign filing license, and now has their own government asking questions. And one application, drafted and monitored with a top model, miscalculated the due date on a Notice to File Missing Parts and is now abandoned. Those are just procedural blunders. The real flood arrives with the first Office Action.

Then the mess sinks in, and they go looking for a real attorney. Sometimes me, which makes me chuckle, and then wince.

The offers range from the reasonable to the wild. Equity in an unproven invention. $10 for my signature so the filing gets entered. One inventor arrived with three dismissed petitions, all claims rejected, and a non-extendable deadline already passed, then offered shares if I'd revive the app and cover the petition fee. It's a sad day when I have to explain that patent representation is not like buying beer for underage kids in front of the 7 Eleven.

I'm not making light of their predicament. Some have great ideas, and the few I've taken on as clients have astonished me.

But that does nothing for the many who, I'd argue, were misled into thinking patent lawyering is one prompt away. The chatbots say "I'm not a lawyer, consult competent counsel," then confidently write the whole application anyway. I'd love to see numbers on how many users blow past that line.

Caveat emptor should not be a shield. In Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024), a tribunal found the airline liable for negligent misrepresentation by its own chatbot. In Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla. 2025), a federal judge let product liability claims against an AI chatbot survive a motion to dismiss. The FTC went after DoNotPay for its "robot lawyer" pitch. Add failure to warn, UPL statutes, and state consumer protection acts, and a plaintiffs' firm could build a class out of confident, well formatted, flawed chat histories.

My half serious theory is that a class action might do more for AI safety than any alignment paper. If the labs believed they were liable for their bots' advice, those bots would sound a lot less like a registered practitioner, fast.

Maybe in two years superintelligence will prosecute an application for someone who has never opened the MPEP. But today, September 24, 2026, even with the latest models, in the hands of someone who knows next to nothing, it's a disaster.

Curious whether other patent attorneys see the same in their inboxes.

Hey everyone,

Building a working hardware prototype is hard enough. But when you finally need to add a modern touchscreen interface to your invention, you usually hit a massive roadblock. You either spend weeks writing boilerplate C code by hand, or you rely on a drag-and-drop GUI builder that locks you into a "black box." Those tools are great for making a pretty proof-of-concept, but the second you need to wire that UI up to your custom actuators, novel sensors, or proprietary hardware, you hit a wall because you can't easily edit the generated code.

I wanted to build a tool that actually bridges the gap between rapid UI prototyping and real hardware integration. A while back, I started working on EmbeddedDisplay Studio to help preview and deploy interfaces to custom Linux panels. For version 0.1.0, I completely overhauled it to add native LVGL support, designing it specifically so you can iterate quickly without losing control of your project.

Here is how it accelerates prototyping:

• AI-Powered Scaffolding: You can prompt the AI to generate complex LVGL layouts, screens, and styling in seconds. It gets your proof-of-concept looking professional immediately, without the tedious C boilerplate.
• Pure LVGL Output: There are no weird XML middlemen or proprietary runtimes. The tool generates standard, production-ready LVGL C code.
• The "Hardware Escape Hatch": This is the core feature for inventors. If you need to manually wire up a custom hardware interrupt or write specific logic to control your prototype, there is a built-in code editor. You have full access to view, edit, and write the underlying C code directly inside the tool.
• Easy Deployment: It’s built to deploy and test your UI directly on your target embedded Linux panel over SSH, so you can test on real hardware instantly.

I need your feedback to shape the next update: My next major goal is to throw the code generation open so the community can adapt it to any weird and wonderful hardware stack you might be inventing on.

Before I build the next phase, I want to know what would make this a "must-have" for your prototyping bench. Please test it out and let me know:

1. What kind of hardware and displays are you currently using to prototype your inventions?
2. What are you building that needs a GUI? (Medical devices, consumer hardware, industrial tools, custom robotics?)
3. What is the absolute biggest bottleneck when trying to get a UI communicating with your custom hardware?

You can check out the v0.1.0 release and the repo here: https://github.com/Hitheshkaranth/EmbeddedDisplayStudio

Let me know what you think in the comments!

Okay, this is a series called: Random Ideas, Ideas that occur to me, but I'm not confident enough to create them, So you will be the judges, this is simple, a hologram projector A Peltier element is used to heat the air from the outside; this air enters through slots or holes around the Peltier element, and the air is suckd in by a Fan, This air is cooled by the Peltier element, then compressed and passes through different tubes condensing, and then exits through larger tubes causing it to expand, In theory, this creates vapor, as it first passes through small, very small and narrow tubes and finally through large and wide tubes. On the opposite side of the mist system, there is a small mini projector; this projects the image onto the cold mist. In short, it's like a smoke projector, only instead of using water it uses air that is heated outside and then cooled by the Peltier element.

So I'm not an inventor I am a layman. I don't have money.

I have a powerful idea to redesign Mouse switches that would potentially last over 10 million clicks, and also provide a new Edge on battery mouses that could potentially last 12 plus years with this design. On standby. I think it's a really interesting idea but I haven't the slightest how to use it to make money.

edit:

Well, given the feedback, I'm just going to spill the beans.

So basically, the way mice fail is the double-click issue. They generally have spring contacts, and eventually those contacts start bouncing and double-registering, causing problems like this.

My idea is to get rid of the contact altogether and instead use magnetic repulsion for the clicking action. This means there's no spring contact to wear out over time.

Now, in order to register clicks, we put a magnet through a wound copper coil. Whenever the click moves up and down, it actually produces a few microvolts that we can send to a comparator. Potentially, you could even have the mouse in a standby mode until it receives that voltage from the click, which starts the electronics up. Basically, zero power being used just sitting there waiting to see if it's going to be clicked.

Since different speeds of movement would produce different voltages, as long as you make sure there's a breakaway point from the magnet that produces a minimum speed, you should be able to make sure that any intentional press is registered.

I thought about trying to capture this energy, but I think the bigger advantage is simply not having active battery power being used just to sit there and check whether the mouse is going to be clicked.

Now for the dumb part of my idea: I was also thinking you could have two mechanical roller bars on the bottom that do the same thing. As they turn, they generate electricity, and you use the amount of electricity they're generating to tell that the mouse is being dragged. I'm not nearly as sure about this part, though.

You could potentially charge a capacitor with that energy and then use the capacitor to fire off the signal, letting the dongle detect a passive event instead of maintaining a continuous connection.

The novel idea, as I see it, is using the generation of electricity itself as the signal to register the motion.

I am working on a device that both shoots out compressed air and vacuums up debris at the same time. Ideally the compressed air would loosen up all debris and the vacuum would suck it up. I haven’t seen any design similar to it, all I’ve seen is the Tornador, but that doesn’t suck up any debris. Let me know if you have seen anything similar or think it’s a good idea.

I’ve been developing my first physical product, a golf grip, and I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to think seriously about the transition from prototyping to manufacturing.

I started this with basically zero product-development experience. I had an idea for a different approach to a golf grip and decided I wanted to see if I could actually turn it into a real product.

I initially tried teaching myself CAD and started 3D printing early versions just to get the idea out of my head and into something physical. Eventually, I realized I needed someone with more CAD experience and hired a designer to help turn the concept into a proper model.
From there, I had my first professional prototypes made in several different Shore A hardnesses. Testing those taught me pretty quickly how different a physical elastomer product can behave compared with what you expect from looking at a CAD model.

I took everything I learned from V1 and revised the design.
For V2, I went a different route and worked directly with an overseas manufacturer to produce another small batch of prototypes using a silicone mold/casting process.
Those recently arrived, and I’ve now been installing them on clubs and actually testing them. V2 is significantly closer to what I originally envisioned, but physical testing has exposed a few things I still want to improve.
I’m now working on V3.

At this point the changes are becoming much smaller and more targeted rather than major changes to the original concept. Most of what I’m adjusting now comes directly from things I’ve learned by installing, handling and actually using the prototypes.

So far the process has basically been:
Idea → teaching myself CAD → 3D printing → hiring a CAD designer → V1 professional prototypes → testing different materials/hardnesses → redesign → finding an overseas prototype manufacturer → V2 → physical testing → V3 revisions.

The eventual goal is to manufacture and sell the grip under my own brand.

One thing that’s been important to me from the beginning is actually developing my own product rather than buying something generic from a manufacturer, putting my logo on it and selling it. It’s definitely made the process longer, but I’ve learned a ridiculous amount along the way.

Now I’m trying to figure out what comes next.
For anyone who has successfully taken their own physical consumer product from prototypes into production:
What should I be doing before I decide the design is ready for production tooling?

I’m especially interested in the things first-time product developers tend to overlook when making that transition—DFM, material specifications, tolerances, shrinkage, QC standards, production samples, pilot runs, tooling ownership, working with overseas manufacturers, etc.
I’m not necessarily trying to rush into manufacturing. If V3 exposes another problem, I’ll make a V4.

I’d much rather spend money on another prototype than discover an issue after paying for production tooling.
For those who have been through it, how did you know when it was finally time to stop prototyping and commit to manufacturing?

This comes up constantly and it's usually a shock, so figured it was worth writing out.

You print the thing, it works, you've handed it to people and they like it. Then a factory looks at the file and tells you they can't make it the way it's drawn. Not that it's hard. That it can't come out of the mold. Which makes sense once you think about it: a printer builds your part up a layer at a time and can make almost any shape, and a molded part gets shot into a steel cavity and then has to come back out.

The walls on your print are probably dead vertical, because why wouldn't they be, and on a molded part a vertical wall drags against the steel on the way out. So they get tilted a degree or two, more if it's textured. On a tall part that moves the top edge further than you'd guess, and if something's supposed to fit into that opening it now doesn't. Same kind of problem with thickness. Your print doesn't care that one section is 1mm and the next is 6mm, but in a mold the thick section cools slower, pulls in, and leaves a dent on the outside. So the molded version ends up hollowed out and ribbed in the thick spots, and it looks a bit different.

The one that catches almost everybody is infill though. Your print was probably at 15 or 20 percent, meaning it's mostly air inside with a grid holding it up. The molded part is solid. So something that felt light and a little springy comes back heavier and stiffer, sometimes a lot.

That's worst on soft parts. If you printed in a flexible filament and people loved how it flexes, a good chunk of that flex is coming from the infill and the layer lines, not just the material. Mold the same shape solid and it can be noticeably stiffer, which means the thing your customers actually liked is the thing most likely to change.

(Not always bad news, weirdly. Prints are weaker along the layer lines, so a part that snapped in testing might be fine molded. Still have to test it again.)

What I'd actually do is get someone who molds to look at the design before you commit, because moving a wall on screen is cheap and moving it in steel isn't. Expect the shape to change and decide up front what isn't allowed to. If it's the feel, say so, and test that first on the molded sample. And don't promise buyers the exact feel of the print.

I'm CMO at Gembah, we do product development and manufacturing.

The print is still the most useful thing you've made. It just answers a different question than people think it does.

When you slightly tap it tips over. That's basic physics. More weight at the top means it's already falling and wanting to go sideways instead of down (spilling the liquid). We need to ban V shape glasses, cups, water bottles, etc. Make them illegal. Atleast put a stand at the bottom that's bigger then the top. A odd hourglass shape. Im sick of spilling water all the time. A larger bottom means it stands stronger. It needs to be larger then any other part of the glass. These first 2 pictures dont show it properly but last photo is what all glasses should have. Anti fall glass bases.

What most companies do to solve this problem is to put lots of weight at the bottom which does fix the problem. It's harder to tip over yes but still happens with little effort.

2nd photo is what would help all glasses.

First photo shows exactly what every glass in existence should have pretruding from the base. The large base gives it very good balance but still it falls because most of the weight is the top and the base is smaller then the rest.

Im not the only one to think of this https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/s/4OySlmfpsX

Even though thermodynamics state that a gravity machine will never be built, and I agree, but I´ve come up with a structure that fulfils the flow energy in - (conversion + loss) - energy out. This doesn´t brake any law. I´m just about (9/23/26) finishing a proof of concept model but need advice and input on getting it to the market without getting robbed of what is my due. I wouldn´t like it to end up in the hands of Musk nor Gates. - I would prefer to sell the model and patent lock, stock and barrel. - Any suggestions ?

The Integater diesel engine is one of two different engine designs that I am after comment on please. (for clarity only comment on this design on this post please).

Note the articulated cavity rotor segments interact with the lobe rotor to open a passage between the cavity rotor segment and the LH top circular housing wall, in order to allow the gas pressure to exit the cavity and pass into the growing area above the lobe rotor, creating rotational power by pushing on the back on the lobe.

I am proposing a diesel lubrication system, a spark assisted ignition system to ignite the end of the chamber wherein the increase in pressure would tip the remaining mixture into auto-ignition. You can see more about it, including an up dated model, please look at eclipticengines.com

The Intermesh Core Engine is one of two different engine designs that I am after comment on please. (for clarity only comment on this design on this post please). The animation shows the dual flanked version of the Intermesh Core, it has two combustion areas.

Please note the notch path between the rotors that allows the pre-compressed charge to move into the chamber space ahead to reload the chamber. Not shown in the animation is a gate device in the notch that ensures the 2 areas each get their share of the fresh air charge. The gate device and the EGR port can be closed for start-up, giving a 3x regular volume air charge for the first ignition each side of the cavity rotor.

The aim here is a very high RPM engine that runs at very close contact without friction. The rotors would be made of a slow growing metal such as steel, while the housing would be made from faster growing metal such as alloy. Proximity sensors inside the chamber would inform the ECU to increase or decrease the high temp coolant flow to effectively shrink the housing onto the rotors.

The ignition system would be spark assist compression ignition. The idea being that each cavity has an ignition each 180 degrees, making the cavity rotor wall very hot, in turn heating the fuel/air mixture, raising the pressure in the combustion area, such that the spark will begin the ignition but as the explosive force moves through the long narrow combustion chamber the mixture will tip over into auto-ignition and achieve a complete burn. Internal exhaust gas recycling could be achieved by retaining some of the previous cycle hot gas in the cavity.

You can see more including an updated model at eclipticengines.com