Designing a 45°/90° Steel Rule Positioning Block: The Detail That Holds the Rule

A marking tool can look finished long before it works as intended. With a steel rule positioning block, the question is not only whether the body presents 45° and 90° edges. It is also whether the rule sits where you expect when you bring the tool to a piece of wood.

That small question shaped Version 4 of my 3D-printed positioning block.

Physical photograph: the printed V4 block with a steel rule inserted.

Combining two useful functions

I began with a compact block that offered two common reference angles. The 90° face helps when a line must cross a board squarely; the 45° face offers another familiar layout direction. This is an example of the Combine step in SCAMPER: putting related functions into one tool, then checking whether they still work well together. It is the same question I explored when combining functions in another printed design.

The steel rule is the working edge, so the printed body needs to position it reliably. A printed thumb screw pushes from one side. The exterior reference faces then meet the edge of the workpiece while the ruler remains available for marking.

Physical photograph: the body and matching printed screw.

A small dimension changes the contact

In Version 3, the rule rested on a seat against a straight shoulder, with the screw contacting its opposite edge. The CAD section below makes that arrangement visible. It established the basic relationship, but it also drew attention to the rule's upper edge: a flat shoulder does not place a lip above it.

V3 CAD section: screw, ruler and flat shoulder before the retaining change.

Version 4 adds a 2 mm-high, 2 mm-deep undercut with a 45° internal face along that shoulder. The rule tucks beneath the lip; the existing screw has enough extra travel to press it toward the sloping face. The screw trough was extended by 2 mm to make room for this movement. This is a digital design result, not a claim of measured holding force.

The number that matters first is the thickness of the actual steel rule. The CAD checks considered rules from 0.3 to 1.0 mm thick. Within that range, the geometry gives 1.7 to 1.0 mm of insertion beneath the lip. The 2 mm dimension describes the retaining recess, not a typical rule thickness. This follows the same principle as modelling the accessory before sizing the product around it.

V4 CAD section: the 45° lip and its relationship to two ruler thicknesses.

Physical photograph: the printed profile. The photograph does not measure grip strength.

Function and finish belong together

The body remains about 80 × 55 × 18 mm, with a 45° diagonal reference face, a 90° face and a round finger opening. The softened outside corners and edges carried forward from Version 3 make the form look more resolved and feel less abrupt. I kept the functional junction at the rule seat crisp, because rounding that point would change the contact with a thin rule. In a design drawing, form, function and critical dimensions should support one another rather than be treated as separate concerns.

V4 CAD drawing: body envelope and the two workpiece-contact faces.

Physical photograph: one reference-face orientation at a workpiece edge.

Physical photograph: an alternative layout orientation.

The V4 download includes the body, matched thumb screw and a thread-fit coupon. The printed thread is a custom pair, so I would check the coupon first, inspect the retaining lip in the slicer, then test the assembled tool with the particular rule and workpiece before making a project mark. The supplied photographs show a printed example; they do not establish marking accuracy or long-term retention.

Download the Steel Rule Positioning Block V4 files on Gumroad.

Small details such as the rule's thickness, a two-millimetre recess and a carefully kept sharp contact edge decide whether combining useful features becomes a useful tool.

#SteelRule #MarkingGauge #SCAMPER #CriticalDimensions #3DPrinting #Woodworking #DesignAndTechnology #DesignJournalSOS

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

Shape Borrowing in Product Design: A 3×3 Chocolate Bar Coaster

Sometimes a useful design begins with a familiar shape.

Look at a chocolate bar and you immediately recognise its repeated grid. The divisions invite you to break it into smaller pieces, but they also give the object rhythm, proportion and character. I borrowed that visual language for a simple household product: a 3D-printed drinks coaster.

The result is a square coaster that still reads as a 3×3 chocolate bar, while each feature has been adjusted to suit a cup rather than confectionery.

Physical photograph: two separately printed square coasters in use.

Borrowing a shape without copying its purpose

Shape borrowing is a useful design method for students. Begin with a recognisable object, identify the visual features that give it identity, and then adapt those features for a different function.

The challenge is deciding what to retain. Copy every detail and the new object may become a novelty with little practical value. Remove too much and the reference disappears. In this case, the square outline and repeated divisions were enough to communicate “chocolate bar”. Colour was optional: the orange and white prints still make the borrowed form readable.

For this coaster, the important borrowed feature was the chocolate bar’s grid. Two horizontal and two vertical grooves divide the 100 × 100 mm square into nine equal-looking panels. The grooves are only 2.4 mm wide and 0.8 mm deep, so the pattern remains visible without cutting the coaster into separate sections or making the surface unnecessarily difficult to print.

Physical photograph: the shallow 3×3 grid preserves the chocolate-bar identity.

Physical photograph: the same geometry remains clear in a different filament colour.

Turning the borrowed form into a coaster

A playful, practical coaster inspired by a 3×3 chocolate bar. The raised circular rim helps position a cup and contain minor condensation, while the flat underside keeps the print simple and support-free.

The circular area creates a clear relationship between the square coaster and a round cup. It has an 85 mm flat seating envelope and a 91 mm upper opening. The gently blended transition avoids an abrupt internal corner, while the raised perimeter gives the cup a visual position on the coaster.

The overall height is 7.4 mm. Underneath, the coaster is completely flat. This gives it a broad contact surface and allows it to be placed directly on the print bed without supports. Rounded outer corners and softened edges also make the square form less severe in the hand.

These decisions also offer a useful lesson for design students. An attractive idea still has to be resolved in three dimensions. The cup needs a suitable seating diameter; grooves need enough depth to remain visible after printing; and the base needs sufficient material below those grooves. Form, function and manufacture therefore develop together rather than as separate stages.

CAD view: the grid, circular recess and square outline form one continuous part.

CAD drawing: the 100 × 100 mm body surrounds an Ø85 mm seat and Ø91 mm upper opening.

CAD section: a flat underside and shallow surface details enable support-free printing.

Two ways to print it

The download includes a single-coaster option and a plate arranged for two separate coasters to print sequentially on a compatible Bambu Lab P1S. With the tested PLA profile, the slicer estimates approximately 1 hour 5 minutes and 53.5 g for one coaster, or 2 hours 5 minutes and 107.3 g for the two-coaster sequential plate.

The sequential arrangement passed the stock P1S slicer-clearance checks, but I have not physically printed the complete two-coaster plate. Printer owners should confirm toolhead clearance, plate placement and print order for their own machine before starting a sequential print.

Slicer evidence: two independent square coasters arranged to print one object at a time.

Because the supplied profiles are intended for PLA, avoid placing very hot cookware on the coaster. Material choice and temperature resistance should always match the intended use.

Download the 3×3 Chocolate Bar Coaster files on Gumroad

This small project shows that playful form and practical manufacture can support each other. Shape borrowing supplied the character; careful dimensions, shallow details and a flat underside made that character printable and useful.

#ChocolateBarCoaster #ShapeBorrowing #3DPrinting #ProductDesign #DesignAndTechnology #DesignJournalSOS

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

A Better Way to Sand Small Projects: Two 3D-Printed Sandpaper Holders

Small pieces are often the most awkward to sand. A loose strip of sandpaper may seem convenient, but it can fold, slip or simply follow the movement of the fingers. This makes it harder to keep a surface flat, produce a consistent chamfer or follow a controlled curve.

I originally designed a compact flat sandpaper holder to give a 30 mm abrasive strip a firm, predictable backing. I have now added a second holder with a long, gradual convex face. The fastening idea is shared, but the two tools serve different purposes.

Photograph: the flat and rounded holders show how changing the backing shape changes the sanding task.

One fastening idea, two sanding surfaces

Both holders use a removable rear clamp and a large printed thumb screw. The abrasive strip passes over the working face and is held at the rear. When it wears out, the screw can be loosened and the strip replaced.

The important design decision is the form beneath the abrasive. Sandpaper alone is flexible; the holder controls how that flexibility is used.

The flat holder: keeping flat work flat

The original holder has a rigid flat backing and an 80 x 30 mm footprint. It is useful for small flat faces, controlled chamfers and edge refinement where the intention is to preserve a straight or planar surface.

With loose sandpaper, fingertip pressure tends to concentrate in small areas. The paper can also curl around an edge and round it unintentionally. A flat holder spreads pressure over a defined face and gives the hand a more stable reference.

Photograph: the original flat holder assembled with a 30 mm abrasive strip.

For chamfering, hold the work securely, mark a guide line and maintain a steady angle. Light, counted strokes make matching edges easier to compare. The tool improves control, but the accuracy still depends on the user's judgement.

The rounded holder: following gradual inside curves

The second holder replaces the flat working face with a long convex profile. It is intended for broad concave surfaces, shallow inside curves and gradual transitions that a flat block cannot follow. Its narrow nose can approach tighter areas, while the wider part of the curve provides a larger sanding surface.

Photograph: the side profile reveals the gradual convex face and narrow nose of the rounded holder.

This is a useful lesson in matching a tool to the geometry of the intended result. A flat block helps preserve flatness. A curved form supports the abrasive while allowing it to contact a concave workpiece more evenly. Neither shape is universally better; each is selected for a different outcome.

Photograph: the assembled rounded holder, rear cap and hand-tightened printed screw.

A shared clamping system

The rounded holder uses the same custom printed screw interface as the flat design. Its main body, rear cap and thumb screw are separate parts, making the clamping action visible and easy to understand.

Photograph: the rounded body, removable rear cap and matching thumb screw separated for assembly.

Both holders accept 30 mm-wide strips. About 175 mm is a sensible starting length; fit the strip, confirm its path and then trim if required. Tighten the screw by hand only. The thread is a matched printed pair and is not intended for a standard metal M10 fastener.

Photograph: comparing the compact flat holder with the longer rounded profile.

Printing considerations

The flat holder is supplied in support-free STL orientations and includes a thread-fit coupon. Printing the coupon and screw first allows the thread fit to be checked before the complete tool is made.

The rounded body needs selective removable support beneath the rear retaining rails. The cap and screw print without support. A prepared Bambu Lab P1S 3MF is included with the download. Its slicer estimate is approximately 1 hour 58 minutes and 40.25 g of filament, including purge and support; actual results will vary with printer, material and settings.

CAD view: the rounded holder body and cap measure 80 x 30 x 30 mm, with an 88 mm overall length including the screw.

Slicer evidence: selective support is confined to the rear retaining rails.

The flat holder has been physically printed, assembled and function-tested in PLA on a Bambu Lab P1S with a 0.4 mm nozzle. The supplied photographs confirm that the rounded holder has also been printed and assembled, and its 3MF has passed slicer checks. Its sanding performance, paper retention, support-removal quality and durability still need further physical evaluation.

Sand effectively and safely

Start with a grit suited to the amount of material that must be removed, then move progressively to finer grits. Test the chosen holder on scrap before working on the project. Secure small workpieces, wear appropriate eye and dust protection and stop using any printed part that cracks or allows the abrasive to slip. PLA can soften in high heat, so do not leave the tool in a hot vehicle or near heat-producing machinery.

The files are available separately for each holder, or together as a discounted set:

Download the Flat or Rounded 3D-Printable Sandpaper Holder on Gumroad

A simple holder does not replace skill. It gives the hand a backing shape that makes the intended result easier to judge and repeat. The flat and rounded versions show how one small change in form can produce two distinct workshop tools.

#3DPrintedSandpaperHolder #HandSanding #WoodworkingTools #3DPrinting #WorkshopSkills #MakerEducation #DesignAndTechnology #DesignJournalSOS

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

From Portable Fan to Speaker Holder: SCAMPER, AI and 3D Printing

A portable fan, a rattan pattern and a small Bluetooth speaker became the starting points for this project.

I wanted to design a holder for my Xiaomi portable speaker, with its circular grille seated flush at the top. The process brought together several ideas I often discuss with students: observing existing products, using SCAMPER, developing a form and checking whether it can actually be made.

It also gave me an opportunity to build an AI-assisted workflow around a real design problem.

Photograph: the printed holder with the speaker fitted.

Begin with the object you are designing for

Before developing the holder, I examined the speaker from different directions.

Front

Back

Side

Photographs: each view reveals information that a single picture cannot provide.

The speaker measured 52 mm in diameter and 24 mm thick, with a mass of 66.2 g. These figures became design constraints.

The diameter and thickness informed the receiving socket. The mass mattered because the speaker would sit high above the tabletop, towards the front of the holder. Its position needed to be considered together with the base.

Inspecting the details

Measuring the mass

Photographs: record dimensions, mass and access requirements before modelling.

For students, this is a useful habit: connect every measurement to a design decision. A measurement becomes valuable when it helps determine what to make.

SCAMPER: combine, adapt and modify

The main form came from a portable handheld fan. Its upright body and curved head suggested a way to raise the speaker and orient it towards a listener.

I combined this with a rattan-inspired pattern to develop the holder’s surface.

Form reference

Pattern reference

Supplied design references: the fan informed the overall form; the rattan informed the pattern.

This is Combine in SCAMPER: bringing selected characteristics together to serve a new purpose.

Adapt followed. The area corresponding to the fan outlet became a socket for the speaker. The woven appearance became a pattern of openings in a printed shell, with shallow patterning over the closed base.

Modify helped develop the proportions, speaker orientation and base.

This follows the approach in my earlier post on concept borrowing and idea development: identify a useful characteristic, then develop it for the current design situation.

There is no need to force every SCAMPER letter into one project. What matters is explaining how a prompt changes the idea and why that change is useful.

Early CAD preview: the combined idea becomes a model that can be inspected.

Develop the form through specific revisions

I wanted the speaker’s axis tilted 20° above horizontal, aiming it towards a listener seated above desk level. This was a positioning intention; improved listening performance would need evaluation.

The early model also had an awkward interruption around the back of the bend. I returned to the fan reference and requested a continuous circular section flowing into a seamless curve.

CAD comparison: refine the transition while retaining the intended speaker angle.

I subsequently removed the rectangular access openings so the rattan pattern continued across those areas. This improved visual continuity, but also restricted access for cleaning out supports and handling the speaker.

CAD comparison: removing a feature introduces consequences as well as visual changes.

The developed holder was 160 mm tall, with a 60 mm body diameter and a 120 mm diameter, 5 mm thick base. The wider base addressed the raised speaker’s position. Physical stability still belongs in the evaluation stage.

Front view

Rear view

CAD views: inspect the design from several directions, including surfaces hidden in the presentation view.

As I explained in combining ideas and further refinements, combinations need continued development to become practical solutions.

How I built the AI-assisted workflow

I organised the work into a repeatable sequence:

Measure and photograph → provide references and constraints → generate a model → inspect → revise → check print preparation.

I used Codex to help generate and revise the model, prepare previews and check the geometry and slicing. My role was to establish the requirements, judge the results and give specific feedback.

For example, identifying an interrupted rear contour and requesting a seamless curved transition gave the revision a clear target.

For students using AI, preserve this reasoning in the design journal. Show the input, the result, the issue you noticed and the change you requested. That record makes your contribution visible.

Appearance also affects manufacturing

The perforated body needed consideration during print preparation, particularly around the tilted head and speaker socket. The saved support preview shows where temporary structures were generated.

Slicer preview: plan how supports will be removed as well as where they are needed.

I also explored a smooth, hollow alternative while retaining the main dimensions.

The reviewed patterned project had an estimated print time of 6 hours 17 minutes. The smooth version was estimated at 3 hours 57 minutes—approximately 37% shorter. These were slicer estimates with retained process settings; the changed geometry and base colour coverage both affected the comparison.

AI-generated visualisation guided by CAD previews—not a photograph or dimensional drawing.

Bring the learning back to evaluation

The finished photograph shows the speaker fitted into the printed holder. A fuller evaluation should ask:

• Can the speaker be inserted and removed conveniently?
• Does the holder remain stable during ordinary handling?
• Is charging access manageable?
• Does the orientation suit the intended listening position?
• Are the patterned appearance and printing time a worthwhile trade-off?

Teachers can use this sequence as a design-journal exercise. Ask students to identify what they borrowed, explain each modification and propose a test for each important requirement.

A convincing design journal shows how decisions develop—and what evidence is still needed to judge the result.

#XiaomiSpeakerHolder #SCAMPER #ConceptBorrowing #3DPrinting #AIAssistedDesign #DesignProcess #DesignAndTechnology #DesignEducation #DesignJournalSOS

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

Earn the AI: Why Students Should Think Before Using AI

AI can make students faster.

But faster at what?

The conversation around AI in education is often framed as:

Should students use AI?

I think there is a better question:

When should AI enter the thinking process?

That distinction matters.

A student receives a difficult task.

They are uncertain. They do not know where to begin.

So they ask AI.

Within seconds, the problem is explained, the structure is clearer, and a possible answer appears.

The task gets easier.

But something may also disappear:

the thinking the task was designed to develop.

The answer improved.

Did the learner?

Some friction builds capability

AI is brilliant at removing friction.

That is often useful.

But not all friction is waste.

Some of it is where learning happens.

The uncertainty before a solution.

• The failed first attempt.
• The sketch that does not work.
• The explanation that exposes a gap in understanding.
• The moment when the learner has to decide what to try next.

Remove all of that too early and we risk improving task completion while weakening independent reasoning.

We become more efficient.

But possibly less capable.

Earn the AI

So perhaps the principle should not be:

Use AI.

Or:

Do not use AI.

Instead:

Earn the AI.

Before AI contributes its thinking, the learner should contribute theirs.

• A hypothesis.
• A sketch.
• A paragraph.
• A solution.
• A first attempt.

Something.

This creates a very different relationship with AI.

Instead of asking:

Give me the answer.

The student can ask:

Challenge my answer.

That difference is enormous.

The START Framework

A simple sequence might look like this:

S — Struggle
Stay with the problem long enough to understand what is difficult.

T — Try
Produce an independent first attempt.

A — Ask
Now bring in AI to critique, challenge or extend your thinking.

R — Review
Compare the AI response with your own. What did you miss? What did AI miss?

T — Take Ownership
Decide what survives. Rewrite it. Explain it. Defend it.

The sequence matters:

Struggle → Try → Ask → Review → Take Ownership

AI is still part of the learning.

It simply enters later.

Why the first attempt matters

The first attempt gives students something AI cannot give them:

a reference point for their own thinking.

Without it, they only see the AI response.

With it, they can compare:

1. This is how I thought.
2. This is how AI approached it.

That gap becomes the learning.

• Perhaps the student lacked evidence.
• Perhaps their reasoning was weak.
• Perhaps the AI answer was polished but generic.
• Perhaps the student's original idea was actually better.

Now AI is not simply generating work.

It is making thinking visible.

A simple classroom rule

For selected tasks:

No AI until there is evidence of an independent attempt.

Not because struggle is automatically good.

But because some capability can only develop when the learner has something to push against.

And this may be one of the most important forms of AI literacy we teach:

Not only knowing how to use AI.

But knowing when not to use it yet. 

The goal is not independence from AI.

Nor dependence on AI.

The goal is agency.

Knowing when to think alone.

Knowing when to ask for help.

Knowing what to accept.

Knowing what to reject.

And knowing when the final judgement still belongs to you.

If AI gives us the answer before we have properly met the problem ourselves, we should keep asking:

What exactly did we learn?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Education #AIinEducation #EdTech #TeachingAndLearning #FutureOfEducation #LearningDesign #CriticalThinking #StudentAgency #Teachers #GenerativeAI

The First Two Soldering Tutorials for the Year 9 Bluetooth Speaker Project

The first two soldering tutorials are now available for students working on the Bluetooth Speaker project.

Created especially for Year 9 students, these short videos explain how to check that a soldering iron is ready to use and how to make secure wire connections between the Bluetooth module and speaker component.

1. How to Tell If a Soldering Iron Is Hot Enough — 2 Easy Tests

Start here before making any connection. This video demonstrates two quick tests you can use to tell whether the soldering iron has reached the correct working temperature.

Watch this tutorial on YouTube

2. How to Solder Wires to Speaker Component

This step-by-step demonstration shows how to prepare the wires, heat each joint correctly, apply solder, and make secure connections for the Bluetooth Speaker project. Follow along to connect the wires to the Bluetooth module and speaker component neatly and safely.

Watch this tutorial on YouTube

What you will learn

• How to check whether the soldering iron is hot enough
• How to prepare the wires and soldering points
• The correct sequence for heating the joint and applying solder
• How to connect wires securely to the Bluetooth module and speaker
• How to recognise a neat, reliable soldered connection

Safety reminder: Wear eye protection, keep the soldering iron in its stand when it is not in use, work in a well-ventilated area, and follow your teacher’s instructions at all times.

For more Design & Technology tutorials, visit the mrdanielsos YouTube channel.

Let me know in the comments below if you would like other or additional content.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#Soldering #SolderingTutorial #Electronics #ElectronicsProjects #BluetoothSpeaker #BluetoothSpeakerProject #Year9 #Year9DesignTechnology #DesignAndTechnology #DTEducation #STEMEducation #MakerEducation #PracticalSkills #SchoolProjects #StudentProjects #Wiring #DIYElectronics #EngineeringEducation

How to Know If You’re Ready for an Exam: The Final Recall Test

You may have studied for hours, understood every chapter and reviewed all your notes—yet still perform below expectations in an examination. Why does this happen?

The objective of this video is to explain that understanding a subject is only part of exam preparation. To be truly ready, students must progress through three stages: studying, revision and recall.

Are You Really Ready for Your Exam?

Stage 1: Studying

Studying helps you understand unfamiliar topics and difficult concepts. You read, analyse and work through the material until it makes sense. Understanding is essential, but it is only the first stage.

Stage 2: Revision

Revision means returning to the material after you understand it. By reviewing the content repeatedly, you become more familiar with important concepts, terminology and details.

However, familiarity can sometimes create a false sense of readiness. Recognising information in your notes is different from recalling it independently.

Stage 3: Testing Your Recall

An examination is ultimately a test of recall. You must produce information without textbooks, notes or other reference materials.

A simple way to check your readiness is the blank-paper recall test:

1. Choose a topic.
2. Put away all your notes and textbooks.
3. Give yourself one minute.
4. Write everything you can remember.
5. Use a list, mind map or concept map—whichever works best for you.
6. Compare your response with your study materials and identify what you missed.
7. Repeat the exercise until you can recall the information accurately and quickly.

Each attempt reveals gaps in your knowledge. As you repeat the process, your recall should become faster, more complete and more confident.

What Exam Readiness Really Means

Being exam-ready does not simply mean that you have read everything or understand the subject. It means you can retrieve the necessary information when you need it.

Study to understand. Revise to become familiar. Then test your recall until you can reproduce the material independently. That is the real measure of exam preparation.

Try the blank-paper recall test before your next quiz or examination, then share your experience in the comments.

Watch: How Do I Know If I’m Ready for the Exam?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#ExamPreparation #ActiveRecall #ExamReadiness #RevisionTips #StudyTips #StudyTechniques #StudentSuccess #DesignJournalSOS

Is Your Design Documentation Complete? The Independence Test

Project documentation can take many forms, depending on the requirements of your task and the nature of your project.

In this post, “documentation” refers to the record of your work and experiences that you present as evidence. Rather than discussing exactly what documentation should contain, I want to share a simple way to judge whether your work is complete—and become more confident in assessing it independently.

Becoming Your Own Critic

Instead of repeatedly asking your teacher whether your work is complete, you can reduce that uncertainty by learning to become your own critic.

For example, you may be required to document your construction process each week. You might photograph your progress and the tools you used, then describe the processes you followed, the challenges you encountered, and how you overcame them.

Even after doing all this, you may still wonder whether you have left something out.

Fortunately, there is a simple way to determine whether your work is ready for submission.

The Independence Test

Recall a time when you relied on instructions to build something—a small piece of furniture, a figurine, or a model. If you built it successfully on your first attempt, what made that possible? Would you have achieved the same result if the instructions or illustrations had been unclear?

Now apply the same idea to your documentation.

Your documentation should clearly communicate what you did. If someone reads it and returns with questions, what might that tell you?

We usually ask questions when the information we need is missing or unclear.

Put Your Documentation to the Test

Give your documentation, working drawings, or project records to someone else and say:

“Now you make this.”

If your documents are clear and complete, that person should have very few questions. If questions arise, use them to improve your work. Add the missing information, revise your drawings and annotations, and review the order and flow of your explanation.

The goal is not necessarily to eliminate every possible question. It is to discover whether someone can understand and reproduce your process without depending on you to fill in important gaps.

More Than a Completeness Check

By doing this, you learn to review your own work independently. You also practise collaborating with your peers and help one another develop the ability to produce clear, high-quality work.

Conclusion

This post is not about how to create documentation or how to score an A. It is about developing the initiative to reflect on and review your own work before relying on an authority figure for reassurance.

That independence is perhaps one of the most valuable qualities you can demonstrate.

#DesignDocumentation #ProjectDocumentation #DesignProcess #TechnicalDocumentation #DesignEducation #IndependentLearning #ReflectivePractice #ProjectBasedLearning #StudentProjects #AssessmentTips

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee? https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mrdanielsos

DesignJournalSOS Blogspot Has a New Home

A happy announcement after 19 years:

DesignJournalSOS now has a new home.

What began in 2007 at

https://designjournalsos.blogspot.com

is now also available at:

https://designjournalsos.com

The original blog is not going away. It will continue to grow alongside the new website.

So this is less a move, and more an expansion.

Same DesignJournalSOS. A new home. Still growing.

#DesignAndTechnology #DesignEducation #TechnologyEducation #DesignProcess #DesignJournal #DesignPortfolio #CAD #3DModelling #LaserCutting #DigitalFabrication #STEMEducation #TeachingResources #DesignJournalSOS

From Sketch to Print: Designing a Custom 3D-Printed Clipboard Pen Holder

Here I go again, making either something better or just another variation for the sake of it. I designed a clipboard pencil holder previously. Now I thought of holding a pen. The pen I frequently use. 

Not because I like it, but because I bought them in bulk. And really, they are not too bad. Else why would I bother making a clipboard pen holder just for this specific pen? 

To begin, I always start with a sketch of the most basic potential holder design. One that first comes to my mind. Before that, I would sketch the cross-section of the pen, then the holder 'gripping' it. See Fig. 1. 

Figure 1: A quick few minutes Pen Grip Sketch

As I sketch, a mental calculation simultaneously refines and considers subtle details like a ‘clip grip’ at the pen’s end. This provides extra hold while enhancing its overall aesthetics.

I’ve determined the top of the ‘U’ shaped grip should slightly pass the pen’s centre for a better grip.  The other dimensions like the flat section for attaching to the note pad’s reverser are simply estimated.

  

Figure 2: Series of photos showing the pen-grip in action

Figure 2 displays a batch of photos showing the 3D-printed pen grip in real life.  When placed correctly at a specific angle, the pen clicks neatly into the grip with a satisfying ‘click’.  It remains securely fixed even with light handling. However, any nudge on the un-gripped pen section dislodges it. Despite this, the pen fits the grip perfectly.

Figure 3: Tinkercad model of the second iteration

I felt the initial print could have been improved.  For the next version I doubled the horizontal grip section’s length and added slots to the flat section.  The Tinkercad model is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4: The new improved pen-grip design

Figure 4 shows a comparison between the first and second 3D-printed pen grip designs.  Visually, the second variation appears to offer a better grip than the shorter one.  It’s easy to guess which I used on my notebook.

Like my contents? Support me, support my work? Buy me a Coffee? https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mrdanielsos

#3DPrinting #Tinkercad #ProductDesign #IndustrialDesign #DesignProcess #RapidPrototyping #PrototypeDesign #IterativeDesign #DesignThinking #Sketching #TechnicalSketching #CADDesign #MakerEducation #STEMEducation #DesignTechnology #EngineeringDesign #DigitalFabrication #3DPrinted #FunctionalDesign #ClipboardHack