A stack of standalone units that can display all combinations of 4 (2x2) pixels.
To make the experience fit your profile, pick a username and tell us what interests you.
We found and based on your interests.
This is the first test with one unit, I 3D-printed the rollers and they are a bit slippery, so i need ti find a solution for that, any ideas?
All the wires run through a pocket cut in the acrylic sheet so they do not interfere with the pixel loop of the next unit
To make the pixel loop go round and drive it from the inside there is a gt2 belt running along all four rollers.
The strip used as a closed loop has 32pixels in two rows which when taped together can display all combinations of 2x2 black and white pixels. If someone can make it more efficient let me know.
Before the closed loop version the previous version of the display had two strips wound around a single tube (bit like a cassette tape) with a gear in the middle to drive it. I thought the tension wouldn't be much of a problem considered its a fairly short strip, but at the ends of the strip it was to tight.
Create an account to leave a comment. Already have an account? Log In.
If you are having trouble with your roller friction, a couple of o-rings inserted onto the rollers would help the grip. You could include a chamfered groove into the roller so the o-rings will not slide along the shaft but still stick out enough to grip.
Awesome project, inspiring!
ya know, with careful planning, you can turn that 32by2 ribbon into a 16by2 ribbon.
It would be possible to do something similar with Larger grids, but the bigger they get, the harder it is to wing it. I worked it out for 2by2, but 3by2 has 64 combinations and I need a spreadsheet to keep it organized.
I made a typo, I meant 16x2 or 32/2 pixels.
Yeah I know, I wrote a script that can calculate all possible grid sizes with the least amount of pixels. but ribbon-length-wise the 2x2 is the most efficient option. A 3x3 quickly goes to about 750/2 pixels (3x2=±70x2). Or you have to make it 5x1 which will be about 49 pixels but then it would be about 1" tall and you can't get a stepper to fit in it.
You could use a more compact DC motor with an optical sensor and index marks printed on the inside edge instead of a stepper.
Become a member to follow this project and never miss any updates
By using our website and services, you expressly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality, and advertising cookies. Learn More
Damn, that's so obvious, yet so cool. Can we somewhat cheaply make a larger scale display with this?