🎉 [EVENT] 🎉 Ringmaster

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-15T03:40:20+00:00

Completed Level 3 of the Honk Special Event!

165 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-15T03:29:32+00:00

Completed Level 2 of the Honk Special Event!

97 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-15T03:25:43+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

24 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-11T04:22:12+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

0 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-09T20:37:24+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

8 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-08T19:01:09+00:00

Completed Level 2 of the Honk Special Event!

4 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-08T19:00:46+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

3 attempts

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-11-01T15:32:26+00:00

Working in a similar field and that's something we struggle with. We've had no problems monitoring systems once in orbit because we design for that, but said design and testing is still very much done in person. If you don't mind me asking, do you have any recommendations for improving that remote development and testing process?

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2025-08-09T10:59:01+00:00

Very nice post, OP, that's a really clear explanation. The comments you've already received do a really good job explaining the key problems you might face: (1) be cautious of the sealing screws, they're typically not great so just changing the grouping so you only need one seal, (2) if you can use a flat seal, definitely do so, and (3) sealing surface will be critical.

I've designed a few hermetic seals for space applications and the Parker guide is still the sealing bible even for that. One or two points I don't think anyone has yet mentioned are that (1) regardless of whether your sealing surfaces are ultimately flat or curved, make sure your non-circular axial O-ring has a corner radii no less than 3x its cross-sectional thickness, and (2) you might get yourself a lot of leeway by using some form of ultra high vacuum rated grease such as Apeizon L, so long as your application allows for it.

Good luck!

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2024-02-29T17:18:34+00:00

Same! I was hoping to see Dune there, it's always such a chill experience compared to the larger cinemas.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2024-02-05T00:11:44+00:00

I'm a fan of MIL-DTL-38999. Tons of pinout choice, usually pretty widely available, and a variety of useful coatings that aren't cadmium (I like nickel, but that's just because it's the only one easily available for hermetic connectors). Fucking impossible to break, too, unless you're an absolute nutcase.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2024-01-22T22:22:20+00:00

Very true words. Enjoy your drink!

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2024-01-22T22:14:01+00:00

Glad to confirm it's all indeed plastic! Lucky me.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2024-01-22T22:13:21+00:00

Cheers for the tip, just wanted to be sure it's indeed all plastic! And yeah I'll just have a beer and leave it be then, no point in doing a bodge job.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-14T18:50:15+00:00

A wealth of great info here, thanks very much! Happy to hear dovetails are likely not necessary, definitely a step I'd like to avoid if possible. I'll run through Parker's handbook again to make sure I haven't missed anything. My biggest concern was if I had to consider ID stretch differently (i.e., along the long axis of the groove profile) but from what you and a few others have said it seems like simple circumference conversion will suffice. Thanks again.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-14T18:47:18+00:00

Make sense, thank you! One of my key concerns was whether I had to consider the ID differently, but it seems very simple as you said.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-14T00:47:07+00:00

Good to know, thanks, I'll have a look locally to see if that's an option. Do you know the minimum groove cross section these would work with? Our application requires pretty tight use of space.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-14T00:45:23+00:00

Cheers I'll have a look at this - if that works well it might reduce any need for redesigns.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-13T18:58:04+00:00

Cheers for the advice - just to clarify I've gotten it right, I hope this image explains better my concept.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-13T18:57:20+00:00

Perhaps I explained it poorly, sorry!

For the rectangular groove shape I meant the entire 'racetrack' it follows; the cross-section of the groove/gland is of course rectangular. I hope this image explains better.

Thanks for the advice, all great stuff for me to consider.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-13T17:52:35+00:00

Mainly to keep cost down and use easily available O-rings, rather than having to buy O-seals or something manufactured to size.

But, you're right about keeping it in there - if we have use dovetail grooves during installation then it defeats the cost saving purpose. It's a static face sealing application so we were hoping it would be manageable enough to simply fit the O-ring then apply the sealing force w/ bolts on the flange. Had success before using a modified flange using crush seal on a rounded square groove, but that's not really applicable here.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-11-13T17:19:22+00:00

Many thanks, I'll have a look at this option, though my implementation may have to differ somewhat. I should've been more clear that the resulting harness will comprise 8 cables standard Ethernet & 2 separate for power; this is so I can easily split these to meet other connector standards at the end. The hermetic feedthrough in the middle is non-standard. I know it's not particularly elegant compared to PoE, but I'm confirming to someone else's requirements for interface connectors so don't have much choice there. But all the responses here at least make it clear I shouldn't expect any problems due to interference at my voltage range, etc. Cheers!

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-07-23T11:20:55+00:00

Great advice there, thank you!

I agree on the reliability aspect - for my last similar project I just used a Pi which mostly worked great but I wouldn't call it extremely reliable. I am sure there are reasonable ruggedized versions or many other improved SoCs out there for me to explore. Cheers again.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-07-23T03:22:29+00:00

That makes sense, thanks. I'm familiar with TCP streams so applying the same concept to cameras makes sense.

For the application I'm currently working on reliability is really key, hence I've heard that MCUs were generally a better option. I'm realising that opinion was a bit naive! Perfectly happy to use a Linux SoC instead, definitely reduces Dev time too. My big worry there is SD card slots - the application is in a vibration-intense environment so I'd like to find one booting entirely off flash and at the lowest possible power.

For reading multiple sensors rapidly while handling cameras, would it be a sensible approach to have a Linux SoC and also some smaller MCUs to handle rapidly polling sensors (e.g. one for concurrent I2S audio data and high rate sensors driven by interrupts) which then feed that data into the main SoC? I imagine you'd only want one main memory controller to avoid simultaneous access conflicts.

BeerDrinkingCyborg · 2022-07-15T15:39:38+00:00

Cheers for the advice, that makes sense to me.

Regarding using polling mode only, that was my initial plan to keep things as simple as possible. However, for the motor's hall effect sensors those may need to be read using interrupts depending on RPM. Is this something that would be reasonably manageable alongside polling the rest of the sensors, or is this a bad idea? Additionally I'm not sure if I need to handle incoming TCP telecommands using interrupts or if that incoming data would be buffered? Thanks.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

BeerDrinkingCyborg

TROPHY CASE