TechyMagThings

For a time, pocketwatches were all the rage, but they were eventually supplanted by the wristwatch. [abe] built this cyberpunk Lock’n’Watch to explore an alternate history for the once trendy device.

The build was inspired by the chunky looks of Casio sport watches and other plastic consumer electronics from the 1980s and 90s. The electronics portion of this project relies heavily on a 1.28″ Seeed Studio Round Display and a Raspberry Pi 2040 XIAO microcontroller board. The final product features a faux segmented display for information in almost the same color scheme as your favorite website.

[abe] spent a good deal of the time on this project iterating on the bezel and case to hold the electronics in this delightfully anachronistic enclosure. We appreciated the brief aside on the philosophical differences between Blender, TinkerCAD, and Fusion360. Once everything was assembled, he walks us through some of joys of debugging hardware issues with a screen flicker problem. We think the end result really fulfills the vision of a 1980s pocketwatch and that it might be just the thing to go with your cyberdeck.

We’ve seen accelerometers stuffed into old pocketwatch cases, a more useful smart pocketwatch, or you could learn how to repair and restore vintage watches.

This week, Jonathan Bennett, Randal Schwartz, and Aaron Newcomb chat about Linux, the challenges with using system modules like the Raspberry Pi, challenges with funding development, and more!

Did you know you can watch the live recording of the show Right on our YouTube Channel? Have someone you’d like us to interview? Let us know, or contact the guest and have them contact us! Take a look at the schedule here.

Direct Download in DRM-free MP3.

If you’d rather read along, here’s the transcript for this week’s episode.

What if your 3D printer could fit in a box of filament but still rival the build plate size of heavyweights? Enter the Lemontron, a free and open source portable printer making waves in the maker community for its compact form factor and budget-friendly price. Watch [James]’ video on his build story here. Built around the Positron drive—a unique mechanism introduced by [Kralyn] in 2022—the Lemontron is the latest evolution of this innovative design. Although Kralyn mysteriously disappeared, their work inspired other projects like the Positron JourneyMaker and this Lemontron.

The Lemontron started as a unibody chassis mod for the JourneyMaker but grew into a complete redesign, cutting costs in half without sacrificing performance. By eliminating expensive CNC parts, it’s entirely made from off-the-shelf components, bringing the build cost to just $413. Compare that to $800 for the JourneyMaker and $699 for the Positron v3.2 kit.

Recent video updates show the Lemontron in action, printing impressively large and complex models. It tackled a marble run with 80-degree unsupported overhangs and a ‘comically large’ Benchy, proving its capability. Its compact design, paired with robust performance, is an exciting alternative for tinkerers seeking quality on a budget.

The Lemontron is in its final development stages, with frequent updates dropping on its YouTube channel. If you’re in the market for a more “traditional” mini-printer, check out this cool suitcase model from 2014.

Yesterday, Prusa Research officially unveiled their next printer, the Core ONE. Going over the features and capabilities of this new machine, it’s clear that Prusa has kept a close eye on the rapidly changing desktop 3D printer market and designed a machine to better position themselves within a field of increasingly capable machines from other manufacturers.

While some saw the incremental upgrades of the i3 MK4 as being too conservative, the Core ONE ticks all the boxes of what today’s consumer is looking for — namely high-speed CoreXY movement with a fully enclosed chamber — while still offering the build quality, upgradability, and support that the company has built its reputation on. Put simply it’s one of the most exciting products they’ve introduced in a long time, and exactly the kind of machine that many Prusa fans have been waiting for.

Unfortunately, there’s one feature that’s ominously absent from the Core ONE announcement post. It’s easy to overlook, and indeed, most consumers probably won’t even know it’s missing. But for those of us who are concerned with such matters, it’s an unspoken confirmation that an era has finally come to an end.

With the Core ONE, Prusa Research is no longer in the business of making open source 3D printer hardware, but that doesn’t mean that the printer isn’t hackable. It’s complicated, so read on.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

To say that Prusa Research pivoting away from the open source hardware (OSHW) principles that guided the company, and indeed the 3D printing community, through its early years is a disappointment would be quite an understatement. It’s a crushing blow. One which critics will use to call into question the viability of building a sustainable business model around OSHW. But it’s also not hard to see how we got to this point.

The first warning sign came back in 2021, with the announcement of the Prusa XL. With this new high-end printer, the company seemed uncharacteristically hesitant to open things up, which frankly wasn’t entirely unreasonable. The pricing of the XL put it closer into the professional market than a traditional hobbyist machine, and there were some new features like tool changing and a  segmented heated bed that were unique enough that they’d want to keep the details under wraps until the machine at least got a foothold in the market. So if Prusa wanted to play this one a little closer to the chest, so be it.

But things took a concerning turn last year with the release of the i3 MK4. Although Prusa still called the printer open source in their marketing, the reality was a bit more complicated. While at least some of the printer’s technical information was made available, especially the elements that were inherited from the earlier i3 models, there were several rather large omissions.

Printable parts were available only as STLs, there were no design files released for the printer’s control board, and the Nextruder (which was introduced with the XL) remained all but completely proprietary. Many argued that the MK4 didn’t meet the standards that Prusa had set with their previous printers, and that continuing to call it open source was misleading.

If it wasn’t already obvious that Prusa’s commitment to open source was beginning to waiver, Josef’s post on the Prusa Blog made his position abundantly clear. Framed as a call for discussion, the post outlined his feelings on the open source community and what he perceived as the failures of common licenses such as the GPL. While he said that the company still intended to make their machines open, the writing was clearly on the wall.

A New Chapter for Prusa

To be clear, the Core ONE is of critical strategic importance to Prusa. The company needed a revamped machine to combat increased competition from Chinese printer manufacturers, and while it’s not being marketed as a replacement for the i3 MK4, it’s not hard to see the direction the market is moving in. The i3 is a workhorse, and won’t be going away anytime soon, but the chances that it will see a MK5 at this point seem exceptionally slim.

But the Core ONE also represents a mostly clean slate design, one that shares relatively little with the i3. This frees Prusa from any obligation, perceived or otherwise, to continue releasing the printer’s design files. Indeed, the term “open source” only appears once in the announcement post for the printer — and that’s when referring to the firmware and slicer code, which are.

Although we don’t have documentation or an assembly guide for the Core ONE or the MK4S->Core upgrade kits yet, it looks as if very little of Prusa’s remaining open source hardware has been brought forward.

Potentially the Core ONE is using some variation of the CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed MK52 magnetic heated bed, but beyond that, we already know that Prusa is still keeping the design files for major components such as the Nextruder and xBuddy 32-bit control board under wraps for the time being.

Not Open, But Hackable

So we know that Prusa isn’t advertising the Core ONE design as open source hardware, and that only limited technical data has been released for the few components and subsystems that it inherits from the XL and MK4S. But what does that actually mean for users like us?

That’s where things get a little tricky. While Prusa’s newer printers certainly do not meet the literal requirements of OSHW, they’re still remarkably transparent in a world of proprietary black boxes. We might not get the design files for the printed parts in these new machines, but you’ll get STLs that you can run off if you need a replacement. We can also be fairly sure that Prusa will continue their tradition of releasing wiring schematics for the Core ONE as they’ve done with essentially all of their previous printers, which is more than we can say for the vast majority of consumer products.

While the lack of design files for these new Prusa printers is unfortunate on a philosophical level, it’s hard to argue that they’re any less repairable, upgradable, or hackable than their predecessors. In fact, Prusa’s actually made at least one improvement in that department — announcing that breaking off the control board’s “Appendix” security device and installing a new firmware will no longer void the printer’s warranty.

We should also consider that even Prusa’s earlier printers have not always been as open as the company would perhaps like us to believe. Sure, for the Prusa Mini you could hop on GitHub and grab the KiCad files for its mainboard, and the design files for the i3 up until the MK3 are available as GPLv2 licensed OpenSCAD code. But the company has never actually provided a complete Bill of Materials for their printers, and even after years of requests from the community, they have still yet to release the source code for their bootloader as they consider it a separate project from the main GPL-licensed firmware.

Prusa has always used a somewhat piecemeal method of releasing the source and design files for their products. But it’s worked for them up to this point. The bottom line is, makers and hackers will still have plenty to work with, even if things aren’t quite as open as we’d prefer.

Becoming Your Own Enemy

On a personal note, I find myself conflicted. I’d argue that the i3 MK3 is one of the best purchases I’ve ever made, and there’s no doubt in my mind that the “Prusa Experience” — support, reliability, upgradability — is worth spending the extra money on. I’m also confident that the Core ONE is precisely the kind of machine Prusa needed to remain competitive in today’s market.

At the same time, there were issues that I was willing to overlook because the company was producing open source hardware. When a shipping date slipped, or a firmware update introduced a new issue, I let it slide because it was for the greater good. But now that they’re no longer calling their printers open source, I can’t help but feel some of that goodwill evaporating — and I’m probably not the only one having similar thoughts.

Ultimately, the part that bothers me the most about this change in Prusa’s approach is that it all seems predicated on a bogeyman that I’m not convinced actually exists. The company line is that releasing the source for their printers allows competitors to churn out cheap clones of their hardware — but where are they?

Let’s be honest, Bambu didn’t need to copy any of Prusa’s hardware to take their lunch money. You can only protect your edge in the market if you’re ahead of the game to begin with, and if anything, Prusa is currently playing catch-up to the rest of the industry that has moved on to faster designs. The only thing Prusa produces that their competitors are actually able to take advantage of is their slicer, but that’s another story entirely. (And of course, it is still open source, and widely forked.)

So will the Prusa Core ONE be a good printer? Almost certainly. Will I buy one? Very likely. But part of me will always be disappointed that the guy with the open source hardware logo tattoo took his ball and went home as soon as the game starting getting tough.

Tinkerers and tech enthusiasts, brace yourselves: the frontier of biohacking has just expanded. Picture implantable medical devices that don’t need batteries—no more surgeries for replacements or bulky contraptions. Though not all new (see below), ChemistryWorld recently shed new light on these innovations. It’s as exciting as it is unnerving; we, as hackers, know too well that tech and biology blend a fine ethical line. Realising our bodies can be hacked both tickles our excitement and unsettlement, posing deeper questions about human-machine integration.

Since the first pacemaker hit the scene in 1958, powered by rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries and induction coils, progress has been steady but bound by battery limitations. Now, researchers like Jacob Robinson from Rice University are flipping the script, moving to designs that harvest energy from within. Whether through mechanical heartbeats or lung inflation, these implants are shifting to a network of energy-harvesting nodes.

From triboelectric nanogenerators made of flexible, biodegradable materials to piezoelectric devices tapping body motion is quite a leap. John Rogers at Northwestern University points out that the real challenge is balancing power extraction without harming the body’s natural function. Energy isn’t free-flowing; overharvesting could strain or damage organs. A topic we also addressed in April of this year.

As we edge toward battery-free implants, these breakthroughs could redefine biomedical tech. A good start on diving into this paradigm shift and past innovations is this article from 2023. It’ll get you on track of some prior innovations in this field. Happy tinkering, and: stay critical! For we hackers know that there’s an alternative use for everything!

Who doesn’t like dial-up internet? Even if those who survived the dial-up years are happy to be on broadband, and those who are still on dial-up wish that they weren’t, there’s definitely a nostalgic factor to the experience. Yet recreating the experience can be a hassle, with signing up for a dial-up ISP or jumping through many (POTS) hoops to get a dial-up server up and running. An easier way is demonstrated by [Minh Danh] with a Viking DLE-200B telephone line simulator in a recent blog post.

This little device does all the work of making two telephones (or modems) think that they’re communicating via a regular old POTS network. After picking up one of these puppies for a mere $5 at a flea market, [Minh Danh] tested it first with two landline phones to confirm that yes, you can call one phone from the other and hold a conversation. The next step was thus to connect two PCs via their modems, with the other side of the line receiving the ‘call’. In this case a Windows XP system was configured to be the dial-up server, passing through its internet connection via the modem.

With this done, a 33.6 kbps dial-up connection was successfully established on the client Windows XP system, with a blistering 3.8 kB/s download speed. The reason for 33.6 kbps is because the DLE-200B does not support 56K, and according to the manual doesn’t even support higher than 28.8 kbps, so even reaching these speeds was lucky.

Last Thursday we were at Electronica, which is billed as the world’s largest electronics trade show, and it probably is! It fills up twenty airplane-hangar-sized halls in Munich, and only takes place every two years.

And what did we see on the wall in the Raspberry Pi department? One of the relatively new AI-enabled cameras running a real-time pose estimation demo, powered by nothing less than a brand-new Raspberry Pi Compute Module 5. And it seemed happy to be running without a heatsink, but we don’t know how much load it was put under – most of the AI processing is done in the camera module.

We haven’t heard anything about the CM5 yet from the Raspberry folks, but we can’t imagine there’s all that much to say except that they’re getting ready to start production soon. The test board looks very similar to the RP4 CM demo board, so we imagine that the footprint hasn’t changed. If you look really carefully, this one seems to have mouse bites on it that haven’t been ground off, so we’re speculating that this is still a pre-production unit, but feel free to generate wild rumors in the comment section.

The CM4 was a real change for the compute module series, coming with a brand-new pinout that enabled them to break out more PCIe lanes. Despite the special connectors, it wasn’t all that hard to work with if you’re dedicated. So if you need more computing power in that smaller form factor, we’re guessing that you won’t have to wait all that much longer!

Thanks [kuro] for the tip, and for walking around Electronica with me.