Top not flat. Won’t stack.
Makers’ lairs are rarely pristine clean, and there are only few objects there that aren’t positioned on top of other objects. This box does not support this paradigm.
Somebody was apparently trying to “do design”.
This is neat, but I gotta agree with my wife for liking the clear cases where you can see the pi itself.
This describes my workspace so bad.
I like my battered kludgey cases made from candy tins and cigar boxes. They have a certain charm.
Not all Pi need to be stacked. Nice design is a good thing.
Sounds like you’re a potential customer for a Pi Fortress - http://www.bc-robotics.com/shop/the-pi-fortress/
Did anyone else click hoping to see someone was running a Raspberry Pi out of a semi-hollowed actual raspberry pie?
Stackable design that is not stacked is a better option than non-stackable design that suddenly and against the original intentions has to be stacked.
Practical aspects and ergonomy first, closely tailed and competed by cost. Then nothing. Then nothing for a bit more time. Then the aesthetics.
If it is functional, it is pretty by definition.
In principle, yes. In practice, milling a box from a solid block is somewhat wasteful; for the same effect I’d use a cheaper pressure-cast aluminium box, though, and use cable pass-throughs and possibly IP-rated connector adapters on the case - in addition I’d get a sealed box with no ingress of dust nor water. And add an onboard DC-DC converter that’d allow feeding it from a wild range of voltages. Voila, a box for extra-hard conditions that can run even in marine applications where the saltwater spray would eat anything else rather fast.
Thought: they could include copper or aluminium blocks that’d thermally connect the chips and the box lid, for improved cooling.
Still waiting for a case that integrates a compatible USB hub and provides power both for the pi and the hub.
The worst thing is that ‘design’ would not have suffered any obvious ill effects if top were flattened but otherwise unmodified.
It appears to just be ‘not flat because organic’ or something.
There are times when…utilitarian sentiment verging on brutalism…does present aesthetic tradeoffs; but asking for ‘flat top’ is a pretty small demand compared to crying out for rack ears, or DIN rail mounts(maybe picatinny rail mounts, for the US market?), or similar aesthetically questionable features.
What’s questionable on DIN rail mounts? (Same for rack ears, for designs that are wide enough to deserve them.)
Nothing in general, in this specific case(so to speak), the design is too small for rack ears, so they’d be problematic, and DIN mounts would have to be handled very cleverly lest they ruin the ability to sit on a standard flat surface without wobbling a little.
In this case, the rack ears (assuming standard sized rack, not some custom minirack) would be a designer fluff. The DIN mounts would indeed need a bit of cleverness; but a snap-on DIN-rail back could address that as a casemod. Or maybe little legs to address the wobble, either permanent or snap-off ones in case the permanent ones would interfere with the rail.
[quote=“shaddack, post:7, topic:59937, full:true”]
[Practical aspects and ergonomy first, closely tailed and competed by cost. Then nothing. Then nothing for a bit more time. Then the aesthetics.
If it is functional, it is pretty by definition.[/quote]
The process in your first sentence is design, or at least some of design. Design involves working out how to make something, starting with ‘what to make’ and going via ‘how’, with ‘why’ included early on. Industrial Design - the designing of things intended to be made by industrial processes and in large numbers - includes worrying about manufacturing methods, packaging & shipping, material usage, ergonomics, safety, costs and value, and yes, the visual aspects. It involves engineers, technicians, craftsmen, artists, psychologists, writers, and when done properly usually includes a suitably trained and experienced industrial designer that knows enough about each speciality to be able to tie them all together.
Your post makes it sound as if you are under the very mistaken illusion that design is making things pretty. It is not. Your last sentence isn’t even wrong.
My only note here is that my understanding is that aluminum is pretty easily recovered - so they’re probably reusing all the aluminum and it’s not very wasteful.
I am not, actually. Good designers follow the order of importance that I listed. But most of the “designers” aren’t any good. Note I used “aesthetics” and not “design” as the last point.
My problem is with the apparent majority of “designers” who put appearance first and everything else a distant second.
Partially true. It takes a lot of tool time and wear, though (OTOH it is aluminium so not THAT much). And the recovery of machining fluid contaminated swarf is not fully straightforward, but also not THAT difficult.
I’d be tempted to go for brazed enclosure from more parts, but apparently machining is the least bad approach.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.