alfon1917

Dear Jessy,It tastes even better, but don't take my word for it. Try it yourself, and share with us your impressions (and of course any improvements you make to the recipe).All the best,Alf

Dear John,I suspect it is more your skill with a handsaw than the jig that is responsible for the results you get. As for me, I am not a hand-tool wizard, and I love my bandsaw (when it works, that is).

Absolutely beautiful, including the choice and placement of veneer. Bravo!

Thanks. If / when this "someday" comes, make sure to check the instructable again. I intend to add new material as I make improvements.

I am not sure this is a good idea. Pure copper may be food safe (and even this is disputable), but verdigris certainly is not. And verdigris forms when copper reacts with the elements. This is the reason between practices such as tinning or enameling copper utensils.. Have a look at this for more: https://worldofpans.com/copper-pans-lined-with-tin/ or google "copper food safety" or "verdigris safety".

Let me know how it goes. And make sure you check this recipe, which uses tyrosalata: https://www.instructables.com/Best-1-minute-Potato-Recipe-Ever/

Well, you and your compiler are right, of course. The code should be:void loop(){ if (sensor()) // check the sensor haunt(); // start the program}int sensor(){ return (analogRead(KnockSensor) >= THRESHOLD) ;}Seems I've been away from the C language for quite some time...

I second that.

This is what was wrong in my code. Regarding the issue in your code, a more detailed explanation might be useful:Every time you call a function (in C and most procedural languages), the processor continues execution with that function. It needs to know where to return, however, when this function ends. To do this, it places the "return address" (i.e. the address of the first instruction after the function call) in a specified section of memory called the stack. When the function ends, the address is removed from the stack, the processor continues executing the code in this address and all is well. If before returning, the code in the called function calls another one, the new return address is "pushed" onto the stack, in the position just under the previous one. Again …

This is what was wrong in my code. Regarding the issue in your code, a more detailed explanation might be useful:Every time you call a function (in C and most procedural languages), the processor continues execution with that function. It needs to know where to return, however, when this function ends. To do this, it places the "return address" (i.e. the address of the first instruction after the function call) in a specified section of memory called the stack. When the function ends, the address is removed from the stack, the processor continues executing the code in this address and all is well. If before returning, the code in the called function calls another one, the new return address is "pushed" onto the stack, in the position just under the previous one. Again no problem: when the second called function ends, the second return address will be removed, then when the first called function ends the first return address will be removed. The problem is that the stack has a finite size, which in microcontrollers like the one used in Arduino is rather small. When you have recursive code (a function that calls itself, then calls itself again and again and again, this space will overflow. Although recursion is a legitimate coding practice (e.g. you could define the factorial of a number as this number multiplied by the factorial of the next lowest number), it must be used in a controlled way, which avoids its being used endlessly (e.g. in the factorial example, factorial(1) should return 1, not 1*factorial(0) )otherwise the stack will be exhausted, and the "stack pointer" (the variable that shows the next position used for the stack) will either move outside the area designated for the stack and start overwriting program variables, or it will "wrap around" and start overwriting the first values pushed into the stack itself.I hope the above makes sense. What it means in short is that you should avoid having a function call itself unless you are sure you are in full control of the situation.Best regards,Alf

Looks like some kind of spreader.

In your code, you are calling "sensor" recursively. This will lead to stack overflows. I would go for something likevoid loop(){ if sensor() // check the sensor haunt(); // start the program}int sensor(){ return (analogRead(KnockSensor) >= THRESHOLD) ;}

A great idea. Equally great is the fact that you keep working on it, experimenting further etc.A few thoughts:- On waterproofing: Woodworkers have a large amount of know-how. This has already been pointer out by others, but to keep the organic/non-polluting character of this, there are at least two ways you can go: oils and shellac. I would stay away from commercial "boiled linseed oil", as it reportedly usually (always?) contains metallic driers, which can be quite nasty. My personal choice is walnut oil. Walnut oil is rather expensive and can be used in cooking, but If you look around you may be able to find it cheaply in non-food-safe versions (I guess this just means that it was processed, bottled etc in ways that do not meet guidelines for food). After brushing your object …

A great idea. Equally great is the fact that you keep working on it, experimenting further etc.A few thoughts:- On waterproofing: Woodworkers have a large amount of know-how. This has already been pointer out by others, but to keep the organic/non-polluting character of this, there are at least two ways you can go: oils and shellac. I would stay away from commercial "boiled linseed oil", as it reportedly usually (always?) contains metallic driers, which can be quite nasty. My personal choice is walnut oil. Walnut oil is rather expensive and can be used in cooking, but If you look around you may be able to find it cheaply in non-food-safe versions (I guess this just means that it was processed, bottled etc in ways that do not meet guidelines for food). After brushing your object with walnut oil, let it dry for a couple of days, then brush it with shellac - as many coats as you want. Shellac dries quickly and you can apply more coats within minutes. The end result will NOT be waterproof, but it will be fairly water-resistant. For a more waterproof solution you would look into a polyurethane varnish, but this would largely defeat the purpose of this all, which in my mind is the eco-friendliness.One more thing: I would hesitate to use this in a compost, with seedlings etc, unless I had made the paper myself in the first place. In the manufacture of paper, many chemical additives are used (including but not limited to bleach). This is not important in general use (Essentially what you do keeps paper away from dumps, so it protects the environment. Even if it does eventually get dumped, this will have a zero net effect compared to dumping it in the first place, perhaps even positive in that it will have kept you from using other, more harmful materials in its place) but using paper in ways that (parts of) it will end up in your food is something I would avoid.

Food coloring?

Food coloring?

I totally agree about using glue to strengthen it.Two additional notes:- skipping the saran wrap and allowing the cardboard to stick to the bottom and top pieces would immensely increase the rigidity.But...- There is such a thing as TOO MUCH rigidity. I assume that when performing tricks, the board will be subjected to very strong stresses. In such cases, some elasticity is beneficial. Total lack of it might lead to the board breaking for being unable to flex.

I actually found the site very likeable.

Great instructable.I do keep wondering, however: will it still be food-safe with the glue? And will the lamination hold up if used for cooking?

Have you tried removing the delay (100);line and moving the linedigitalWrite(moisturePowerPin, LOW);directly after the analogRead line?Doing so should further diminish the power consumption / corrosion rate without affecting the measurements

You are probably referring to osmosis. However, osmosis only applies to non-electrolytic solutions. cells will NOT 'attempt to balance the electrolyte gradient' (there is no gradient here either, BTW).