Why are instructables made before the beginning of contest not eligible for entry?

I was just wondering why instructables made prior to a contest can't be entered. I have several instructables that I wish to enter, but this rule prohibits me from doing so. Is there a way to re-publish an instructable in order to enter it? I was wondering if a staff member or someone else knew the answer to this question, as I have the feeling that more people wish this rule was not in place. Thanks for any feedback.

Question by stephenmack   |  last reply

Design criteria for Ibles....

I just noticed that we have now standards that need to be followed if you want to publish an Instructable.Standards are good but not so much if the editing options for an Ible are at a standard from the year 2000.If I had fun designing something as simple as whistle that shall be created in a 3D printer: Then why would I need images showing how I designed it?Or why would I need images for the print settings or idea behind it?A community goes both ways!The editing tools are still sub standard and the images handling is a bad joke.If I need to explain something complex with the aid of images then of course I want the images in the right spot with the text - ever thought about this or visited website that offer similar after the year 2000?Usability is not just a means to provide the same look on all browsers and devices or to be able to use the most basic way to convert a website into a PDF.Usability is also for those who create it but that part seems to be lost for years now no matter how many times people ask, suggest or comment on the problem.I have no problem making my creations available elsewhere if that is the only way out here.If you want people to create proper Instructables then for crying out loud give them the means to do so!And fix the damn category selection bogus when posting in the community section.Has no use for years but why bother to fix it....Before you guys force people doing things your way only you should consider in what times we are and how proper usability would benefit this site....

Topic by Downunder35m   |  last reply

Do you have any experience in pyrography?

Hello, My name is Nicole and I am an Industrial Design student from San Jose State University. I am currently working on a product redesign project for pyrography, specifically for the tool (i.e. solid-point burner). At this time I am conducting general research and collecting firsthand interviews with people (of any skill level) who have done pyrography. I have copied and pasted my questionnaire to this, and I would greatly appreciate any contribution. Sincerely, Nicole San Jose State University – Industrial Design – Visualization III: Ergonomics/Human Factors Name: Occupation: Experience Level in Pyrography: (Please choose one, beginner, advanced, or professional) 1.      How did you become interested in pyrography? 2.      Do you do pyrography recreationally or professionally? 3.      How do you choose your pyrography projects? 4.      If professionally, how many hours do you work a day? (You may skip this question if it does not apply) 5.      How much time do you spend working on a project?  About how many hours a day? 6.      Where do you do your pyrography? Please be specific. (For example, if at home, where in your home?) 7.      What does your work area consist of? (For example, what kind of table and chair do you use? What kind of lighting?) 8.      What are your essential tools ready at your work area? 9.      Are there any DIY tools you have made? If so, what are they and what are they used for? 10.  Do you have any specific safety equipment? What kind of safety precautions do you practice? 11. What is your process of cleaning up? What do you use? 12. Do you have any injuries that affect you while working? If so, please describe. 13. What kind of tool do you use? (Please name the brand and model) 14. Do you have any specific complaints about the tool you are using? 15. If you could create a wishlist to make the perfect tool what would they be? Thank you for taking time out to participate in my survey. I truly value the information you have provided. Your responses are vital in helping me with my research for redesigning pyrography tools.

Question by itisNicole   |  last reply

Tips and tricks for UV curing glue, resin and coatings

Only a few years ago your only option to repair certain plastics, glass or even a broken crystal was epoxy based resin or the good old superglue.You might have already tried one of the 5-seconds-repair pens or tried your own UV curing nail polish art at home.For the later you might be lucky as the resins used here are optimised for the purpose and lights you get with them.Sadly even the best nail polish is no substitude for a glue as the material properties need to be different.One of the most common complaints when it comes to using some UV glue, like Kafuter or similar is that it never comes with instructions.Sould be straight forward but it is not free of problems.For example almost all commercail UV curing glues that you can buy require quite stirct procedures and for the light the right wavelenth(s).Resins and coatings can be even more painful here as they might also require you to stick to the correct temperature.Let's start with one thing you might have encountered already...The glue is definately cured and rock hard but the surface tacky and smeary.Quite annoying if you want to fix a piece of jewellery and can't prevent it from collecting dirt and dust...The next thing you might have encountered is that despite having transparent materials it seems to be impossible to cure the clue.Both problems come down to wavelenght and exposure.UV curing glue is prevented from curing in the presence of oxygen - a factor utilised for example in resin based 3D printers.Uncovered glue is exposed to the oxygen in the air and won't cure easy.The glue or resin below this layer however with fully cure with ease in the absence of oxygen.For the second problem consider that not all materials that you can see through will let UVC light pass through ;)Bonding strenght is another complaint I hear a lot...Be aware that certain things just are no good for UV curing glues or resins.Take the molds you get for that purpose: on the material the glue won't bond!Teflon is another prime candidate here.But in a lot of cases it comes down to surface preparation.Don't be afriad to sand the surface!Not only will the surface area increase but the scratch marks will be invisible once filled anyways.Use sandpaper on your fingernails, then go over with clear nail polish -mirror finish ;)With curing often a problem consider to fully cover the glue.A bit of clear sticky tape, food wrapping foil....If that is not an option then eliminate the oxygen.You can use a container filled with inert (for the glue) gas like CO2 or just place a burning candle in it until it goes out....Either way the amount of oxygen should then be low enough to cure the surface of your glue.Not always is any of the above an option.Then you can still try more power and a lover wavelength.Mercury based lamps for example provide a very broad and powerful light that in most cases will cure within seconds.For a proper surface cure you need a wavelength of 265nm or lower.LED's offering this exist but at prices well out of range for the hobby user.A mercury lamp under high pressure is nothing for short term use and the limited lifespan does not always justify the costs of buying them.Like with most things in life certain inventions can have a dual purpose.Quality germicidal lamp systems for examples often state to go as low or even lower than 265nm.And they come at a fraction of the cost you have with a broadband mercury lamp.Even cheaper is the fre weather forecast.If the sun is siad to be strong enough so you need protection than even the worst glue will fully cure in seconds outside in the sun - tackfree!Don't be fooled and protect yourself!!These tiny LED lamps for your glue stick, the curing thingies for your nailpolish and everything else using UV light comes with warnings.For very good reasons!It might be hidden in the fineprint but you can not really see UV light.The blueish-purple glow you see is on the high end of what comes out and by that in the visible range of your eye.Just because a LED only gives a faint glow you see does not mean the UV light wouldn blind you if you could see it!Even worse for fluoroscent lamps or open cruning systems like those for your nailpolish.Reflected UV light is still UV light and you can still NOT see it!Stories of people getting sunburnt from germicidal lamps in a butcher shop or other people going blind from checking money as their living have a true base...In most cases lamps used well past their lifespan or simply the wrong type of lamp but still: the damage came from UVC light...If you just love creating your own artwork or jewellery with UV curing resins and glues than protect yourself.Proper sunglasses with a stated UV protection for example or just black nitrile gloves for your hands...

Topic by Downunder35m 

Global Warming - Ruling on Documentary

UK Broadcasting watchdog OfCom has ruled that the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle broke broadcasting rules by implying that GW was not due to human activity.The film's key contentions were that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and that the modern focus on climate change is based in politics rather than science. It is seen in some "climate sceptic" circles as a counter to Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, and credited with influencing public perception of climate science. It has reportedly been sold to 21 countries and distributed on DVD. GW experts featured in the documentary complained that they were quoted out of context, had not been told of the aims of the programme makers, and some quotes attributed to experts were, allegedly, made up by the reporters."It's very disappointing that Ofcom hasn't come up with a stronger statement about being misled," said Sir John Houghton, a former head of the UK Met Office and chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment. "I know hundreds of people, literally hundreds, who were misled by it - they saw it, it was a well-produced programme and they imagined it had some truth behind it, so they were misled and it seems Ofcom didn't care about that," he told BBC News."The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality," said Bob Ward, former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film. "The ruling noted that Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and data used in the programme, yet decided that this did not cause harm or offence to the audience." Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set out in the complaints." On another issue - whether contributors to the programme had been treated fairly - Ofcom mainly found against Channel 4 and the film's producer WagTV. Former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King had been misquoted and had not been given a chance to put his case, the regulator said. Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been invited to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but which turned out to be "an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance". The film alleged that the IPCC's scientific reports were driven by politics rather than science, and Ofcom ruled the organisation had not been given adequate time to respond. Full BBC article, plus links

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply