• Petri Mantere
  • Member
  • Posts 36
  • Reputation 1
  • Member Since
  • Last Active
    This user has not added any photos yet.
All Posts Topics Started Likes
Absolute dimension shoudn't be an (serious) issue since everything will be expanded or shrinked in the same ratio.

Two more pictures about the lock mechanism and the bump:

lock2.png  lock3.png 
At least in my prints the reality correlates to the theory quite well.

Main dimensions of the case:

0 0
I downloaded latest STLs from Github and made test print. Lock mechanism seems to work correctly in my print.

Could somebody else make a test print and report if it prints as expected?

@LeissKG is there possibility that your printer settings are slightly off?
0 0
Thanks for the feedback. I will download the files from the Github and double check that there isn't any issue with them.

This is how it should work:
(I had some older version on my hands)
0 0
LeissKG wrote:
Recently i printed my first OpenPLC-Neo case. Aside from small problems fitting the lock due
a printer problem it is nice and fits the Din-Rail. Due to the tightness of the fit the lock
will probably stay closed in use, but i see possible problems during transport. Commercial cases
mostly have an integrated spring, but the lock would have to be at least double the thickness
to allow fitting one. While there are flat printed springs like
they may not be compatible with all print materials. PLA will probably crack under compression.
To sum this up. If you want to ship this case fitted on the Din-Rail you better conceive a
way to secure the locks.

Another case related question, does anybody know which type of screws are intended to be used
in the case?

My print works quite nicely, the lock needs a couple tens of grams to open. When you open the lock,
you should hear noticeable "click"-sound when the lock is slided over the bump.

Are you using the latest vesion with this kind of mechanism (see the picture)?


Please check that the bump (marked on blue in the picture) is printed correctly.

M2 x 12, 4pcs (DIN 912)
M2 x 4, 2pcs (DIN 912)

0 0
I agree. In the long run we will probably need different kinds of outputs. It is more about the question which is made first.

Low side switching is simpler and that's why I will prefer it. That said, I don't have a strong opinion about this.
0 0
IMHO: it is the best to go with low side switching MOSFETs. They are economical/modern choice.
0 0
Sorry for the delayed response, I have been travelling on this week.

@HKTarzan, @thiagoralves
- I think that better place for the USB connector would be on top. It is after all debug feature, that is not constantly needed. IMHO front panel should be reserved stuff that is used in normal operation.

@HKTarzan - Hole in the PCB should be 2.2mm - 2.5mm (x6). Four corner holes will need at least 4mm (diameter) circle around the hole that is free from components. Two holes around the bus connector will need at least 5.5mm (diameter) circle that is free from components (and isolated). We will use M2 washer with the the two bolts around the bus. Diameter of the M2 washer is 4.5mm - 5mm depending of the supplier.

If I missed some questions, please poke me.

0 0
HKTarzan wrote: Now I need all mechanical Jodas to check the component placement, clearances ect...


e-dimension is slightly different than in STEP-file. Shouldn't be issue, though.

20-pin header should be Samtec ESQ-110-34-T-D. There is Molex connector in BOM and STEP (might be just place holder).

PCB is very thin in STEP-file. What is correct thickness?

0 0
HKTarzan wrote: Missing documents in above post.....

Some of the components are quite massive...


There is only 9.4mm free space on top side of the PCB.
0 0
Connector on PCB is Phoenix Contact 1897885, but there is (cheaper) substitutes also, like Geato said.

Somebody who knows more about IEC classifications etc. please check that the connector is suitable for our purposes (voltage levels).
0 0
It would be better if you could put over 4mm tall components on top side. I can make room for up to 5.5mm components also to backside, I just have to carve some material from the case (there will be thinner wall around the area where the component is located).
0 0
HKTarzan wrote:

To any of the more mechanical sound members out there...

I am busy with component placement and I'm gonna use both sides of the PCB....

Question: how much space is between the PCB bottom (Solder side) and the plastic enclosure??


Urgent feedback would be appreciated

0 0
d6stringer wrote: Don't forget that the size of 3D printers is limited. Though we are currently well within the size, creep tends to... creep and you may find yourself larger than practical for many 3D printers. My bed is ~150mmX150mm but some/many are smaller. At least in my field I like to say "Small as it can be, big as it has to be" 

I agree, we shouldn't expand dimension too much. About 20mm expansion in height and depth will be ok.
0 0
I just copied dimensions from Beckhoff modules. We can change case dimensions according to PCB design.

After first prototypes we should consider big picture and check how much another modules needs PCB real estate. Whole system should be designed according to the worst case scenario.
0 0
You are absolutely right. It is always better to do the first prototype sooner than later. However, this change is basically relocating pinheader from middle of the board to the side. It is not very big deal from engineering point of view.

That said, I am happy with the orginal concept.
0 0
count post selected

Add a Website Forum to your website.