Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

techprowd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#21

Post by hanniabu »

jstanley wrote: post #13
sirn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a beginner (have been learning CAD since a week ago), I tried OpenSCAD then FreeCAD and found FreeCAD to be simple enough to get started. I followed the tutorial in FreeCAD Wiki[1], particularly the Toothbrush Head Stand[2] one (since my primary use was 3D printing) and could get comfortable with the software within a day or two. [1]: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/Tutorials [2]: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/Toothbrus…

For anyone else reading this: The key thing to know in FreeCAD is that you almost always want to use the "Part Design" workbench. Then the workflow for creating a part starts with creating a "Body". The "Body" represents a single solid. The major features of your part are created with 2-dimensional sketches (either on the base planes, or on flat surfaces of the part, or on datum planes that you can define). The sketc…

That's the difference between freecad, sketch, and blender? I often see these names thrown around but not sure if each is used for a different purpose or if they're all the same but different people just prefer different software.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#22

Post by throwaway0a5e »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #19

It looks like this guy plans to do a lot of jumping up and down on his desk.

The copious amount of joints that are held together by the fasteners only and the non-structural deck are not going to like that long term.... but it's also a home office so it really doesn't matter what sins you commit, it'll all survive anyway.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#24

Post by dazzawazza »

OzzyB wrote: post #16

Is there is link for his old UK desk build? Those steel tubes look boss, great look, and might be something I could tackle myself. This new Japan project looks a lot more ambitious, good luck xD.

Looks like this: https://simplifiedbuilding.co.uk/kits/desk-tables.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#25

Post by jstanley »

hanniabu wrote: post #21
jstanley wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone else reading this: The key thing to know in FreeCAD is that you almost always want to use the "Part Design" workbench. Then the workflow for creating a part starts with creating a "Body". The "Body" represents a single solid. The major features of your part are created with 2-dimensional sketches (either on the base planes, or on flat surfaces of the part, or on datum planes that you can define). The sketc…

That's the difference between freecad, sketch, and blender? I often see these names thrown around but not sure if each is used for a different purpose or if they're all the same but different people just prefer different software.

FreeCAD is a parametric CAD program. A Sketch is a type of thing within FreeCAD. Sketches are defined using constraints and dimensions, not free-hand drawing.

Blender is polygon-based 3D modelling with (pretty much) free-hand drawing and no constraints or dimensions.

FreeCAD and Blender can both export to many of the same formats (notably STL, for 3d printing), but their internal data representation, and supported workflow, is completely different.

FreeCAD is more appropriate when you want mechanical parts, and Blender is more appropriate when you want something artistic like a figurine.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#26

Post by chiefalchemist »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #20
chiefalchemist wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I have no interest in electric. Sooner or later they'll breakdown. On the other hand, this thing is sturdy and well made. It will always be work bench worthy. My only issue is that at full-height it's a bit short for my taste as a standing desk. But I knew that would be the case. That's where the supplemental top comes in. If anyone is wondering, the hand crank is easy to turn. But if I had to I could trick it o…

Could you take off the hand crank and fit a battery-powered drill in its place? A drill is almost a necessity to own for me, but is not something I use all that often, so if its storage place is chucked onto my desk, that would work just fine.

Con - It would have to be a drill with a lot of torque. The handle on the crank is approx 6". That's adequate for manual, but less would take significant effort. A knob would be tough (and would take too long). Of the drills I own, I'm not sure any of them could do it. But I also do not own anything super-duper top of the line.

Pro - Yes, the hand crank is removable. The socket the crank sits in is maybe a 3/8" hex (female). That is, getting the drill to interface w/ the socket should be straight forward. The concern is the drill being powerful enough.

-- What if the crank was larger? Say 12" or more, like a wheel? Would that help you? Perhaps the drill could leverage that somehow? But my recommendation would be - if you are physically able to use it - to extend the crank to 2 feet (or more). That should help.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#27

Post by maxerickson »

Cro_on wrote: post #7
sokoloff wrote: post #3

Glad to learn about cutlistoptimizer as I looked casually for something like that in the past. I’ll have to figure out how to feed it from Fusion360. Also interesting to learn that Japanese “2x4”s are in that ratio exactly. In the US, they’re 1/2” under nominal size (so 1.5” by 3.5”). Makes it awkward to stack pieces together at times. (2 2x2s next to each other in the US are smaller than a 2x4.)

I knew about the smaller 2x4s, but now I have a sudden irrational anger that the 2x2s are not also smaller... How 2x4s depreciate according to Twin Peaks: [0]. It appears in the US they start out at 2x4 and are trimmed down to make them look more finished. [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=txPcLOtbG3s EDIT to ask if OP means 'bigger' rather than 'smaller'?

I'm curious how the difference came about. It seems likely enough that a standard was written and then processes improved to the point where essentially everything was at the small end of acceptable. But maybe it is just the drying and trimming.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#28

Post by flaviu1 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #22
nmeofthestate wrote: post #19

It looks like this guy plans to do a lot of jumping up and down on his desk.

The copious amount of joints that are held together by the fasteners only and the non-structural deck are not going to like that long term.... but it's also a home office so it really doesn't matter what sins you commit, it'll all survive anyway.

What would be the proper way to do something like this? I've made a couple desks myself, but I've never been able to figure out a good way to do joints.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#29

Post by chrisdalke »

xcambar wrote: post #6

Looking forward to the follow up! I have a question: what CAD software do you use? Would you recommend it to a beginner? I'm desperate in that software space, everything seems either clunky, too complex (as a beginner) or overly expensive...

Fusion 360 is free but has a certain clunkiness that is hard to get past if you’ve used other CAD products.

There are many sneaky ways that people get expensive CAD licenses (I use Solidworks) - many organizations offer an educational license if you are a member. For example, check out the Experimental Aircraft Association.

Re: Designing an Overkill workbench for home office

#30

Post by TeMPOraL »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #18
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant smaller. A US nominal 2x2 piece of framing lumber is 1.5” x 1.5” (for the same reason a 2x4 is 1.5” x 3.5”) If you still want to have anger, you can take solace that 2 1x2s do stack up to be (very close to) a 2x2, but 2 2x2s do not make a 2x4. https://www.archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/wood-plastic-c...

Actually, 2x2s are often or usually 1⅜" x 1⅜", which is rather annoying at times. I'm not sure if that has always been the case, but these days they're mostly only available in finger-joint spruce/fir/pine (presumably from offcuts of larger sizes), which might have something to do with it. (Unlike solid 2x2s, which tend to twist and warp so much as to be completely useless, finger-joint 2x2s are super stable, and alw…

Is there a sane explanation for why 2 = 1.375?
Post reply on HN