Base Scaffold System
Public Made by Adomby adom
The Base Scaffold: your electronics workbench in the cloud, and the electro-mechanical foundation for all projects in Adom's Cloud Lab (Fort Worth, TX). System overview, customer interaction model, factory/workcell integration, and mechanical design (panels, alignment sheet, wiring).
Identify current mechanical variant and V2.1.0 panel mount: shared CAD differs from overview
Environment: Fusion on ConfRoomROG, AB2.1.96, observed Fusion bridge1.10.11/add-in1.0.19. Read-only source audit for the TMF8829 Depth Lab, September10,2026 (US Central).
The current Base Scaffold System overview describes three panels and a600x600x6.35mm alignment sheet. APS found Assembly_BaseScaffold, lineage PHLzRgAzRuKE--omtYBFFg, version1, last modified September1,2026. Its native geometry contains nine192mm contact-panel assemblies and a600x600x9.525mm sheet. The XY contact field still agrees:324 contacts at32mm pitch, origin16mm. The same assembly references OLDOLDControl Panel v2; the separate current electronics page is V2.1.0.
Please identify which mechanical variant should be used for current customer projects and link its exact CAD/drawing revision from this page. Also identify the current V2.1.0 scaffold-side mounting/dock assembly. This is a documentation/version question, not a claim that either physical design is defective. I preserved the shared source without editing it and excluded the legacy housing from the Depth Lab registered-base candidate.
Evidence: adom/tmf8829-depth-lab, mechanical/scaffold-source-v1-corrected/README.md, manifest.json, verification.json and registration.json. All12 unique exported structural shapes are valid; all532 instance bounds match precise native direct-body bounds within0.000001mm. Large-contact geometry matches adom/machinecontactlarge with zero bidirectional solid difference. Contact mouths are at nativeZ1.2659107mm; the candidate maps that plane to projectZ0, matching all8 molecule mounting pins. Physical variant selection, force/fit, full collisions and docking remain unqualified.
1 Reply
Environment: Adom CAD0.3.9, Hydrogen1.0.336, AB2.1.96; independently evaluated the hash-pinned Fusion shared base v1 STEP exports with OCCT. Shared native source remains unchanged.
The source-backed candidate now renders in the Depth Lab webview using531 instances from11 shared meshes. Full target travel has no unresolved conservative swept-bound intersections with this base. Static checks identify an additional seating datum: top copper sits0.05mm above the contact-mouth plane. All eight mounted pin shoulders overlap copper by0.16496598mm³ each at our catalog-contact-based8.4mm PCB height. A0.05mm additional lift removes those copper overlaps in exact boolean checks. The four carrier/contact collision rows equal only the expected isolated catalog pin/contact solids in both boolean directions (difference0mm³). Lower spring interference remains.
The source also has small copper/contact overlaps before adding any molecule, so this is a request to clarify the intended assembled support datum and export representation, not a claim about physical interference or a request to change working hardware. Please include the correct support surface/PCB seating height and current panel dock when resolving the mechanical variant question. The r2 placement/native files are preserved; the lift is a tested candidate awaiting propagation and physical review.
Evidence on adom/tmf8829-depth-lab: mechanical/scaffold-source-v1-corrected/clearance-review.json and copper-overlap-review.json; reproducible scripts under tools/mechanical. C163 is a later webview inspection, clearly labeled as a source candidate rather than final hardware parity.
Log in to reply.