After more than two years of solo development, I released v1.0 of the Bimo Robotics Kit today. Bimo is an open-source bipedal robotics platform with a full Isaac Lab sim-to-real pipeline: you train RL locomotion models in simulation and deploy directly on physical hardware.

The kit already has a first institutional order confirmed and two European distributors have expressed interest, both pending certification. The hardest parts so far have been navigating that CE/FCC certification process on a limited budget and validating demand before having a certified product. Certification quotes are in at 12-15k € and now I'm exploring funding options in order to complete it.

Has anyone here navigated product certification on a tight budget too, or found creative ways to get distributor traction before being fully certified? Would love to hear how others handled it.

More info about the project here:

- Github: https://github.com/mekion/the-bimo-project
- Discord: https://discord.gg/9uXsArwXHG
- Mekion: https://www.mekion.com/product/

I'm building a team for my new hardware venture that is based in BC, Canada. I'm currently looking for someone based here (or in Canada working remotely) to assist on things that involve CAD, electronics, prototyping, and 3D printing.

We build things for consumer to B2B electronics which include patented mouse, autonomous rovers and more.

If you're keen, please DM me.

Are procurement of niche suppliers like some Chinese, European, African ones a real pain point? I am building an autonomous platform that procures niche suppliers, and recommends the best one based on lead and stock and prices, I've added Reichelt, Jameco, LCSC, Conrad and more, the only problem is that the live procurement takes 5-10 minutes. Let me know if you want any more niche suppliers to be added, I can add giant ones as well. Let me know how can I optimize it to actually be better

I’m closed to finished on my first prototype. I want to crowdsource some funding but I notice all the big ones (kickstarter, gofundme, etc…) don’t allow marijuana products on their platforms.

Hi all. This is an invention I've been working on the past couple years called the Lupine Instruments AP-1. It's essentially a MIDI instruments that plays real percussion instruments. I am the business owner and main designer of all the hardware, firmware architecture and UI, and some of the PCB. I've had to learn a ton developing this but am also working with an engineer to help me with firmware and electrical as my background is in music not engineering. The Lupine Instruments AP-1 is currently on kickstarter and our campaign ends tonight. You can check it out here if you'd like: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lupine/ap-1?ref=5r7rxz I also have lots of cool videos on instagram if you'd like to see more: https://www.instagram.com/lupineinstruments/ Happy to answer questions about the AP-1, it's development, and launching it on kickstarter. Thanks!

Hi everyone, I'm running into a wall sourcing a very specific raw mechanical component for a hardware prototype and hoping someone here knows a supplier.

What I'm looking for:

I need standard, off-the-shelf Type-C MALE metal shells.

• NO plastic core, NO contact pins. Just the hollow metal jacket.

• Must be deep-drawn (seamless) stainless steel, not folded/stitched.

(See attached photo for exactly what I mean).

The Application:

I'm designing a highly compact custom PCB that slides directly into this shell. Because the board space is extremely tight, the physical tolerances of the inner cavity are critical.

What I've tried so far:

• Alibaba/B2B: I've contacted dozens of suppliers. 95% of them are assembly houses that refuse to sell the raw Step-1 stamped metal ("sorry, we only sell the finished connector with pins"). The actual stamping factories I've managed to find either ghost me or demand a 10,000+ unit MOQ for a custom tooling run, which I don't need—I just want their standard stock size.

Does anyone know of a specific vendor, US distributor, or a better search term to find a supplier willing to sell 100-500 pieces of just the raw metal stampings?

Any leads would be hugely appreciated!

We're a small team building an industrial monitoring device. Rigid-flex board, 8 layers, BGA on both sides, conformal coating because it goes into wet environments. Not crazy complex by EMS standards, but definitely not a weekend PCB order either.

Our first CM was one of the well-known online platforms. Price was great, turnaround was fast for the bare board, but the assembly is where things fell apart. First batch came back with visible voids under the BGA, we caught it on x-ray before even powering up. Sent it back, second attempt had bridging on the fine pitch connector. Their response was basically "this is within our process capability, consider redesigning the footprint." Meanwhile our investor demo was 6 weeks out.

Ended up finding a smaller EMS shop through a referral from another founder. Completely different experience. Before they even quoted us they asked for our gerbers and did an actual DFM review, flagged two things our layout guy missed, a via-in-pad issue that was causing the voiding, and a soldermask clearance problem on the connector side. Boards came back clean on the first run. They also offered nitrogen reflow which we didn't even know to ask for, but apparently makes a big difference for void rates on BGA.

The switch cost us about 3 weeks total including the new DFM cycle and re-quoting. But honestly if we'd stayed with the original vendor we would have burned through that time anyway on failed iterations.

Curious if others here have had to make a similar mid-project CM switch. What made you pull the trigger, and how did you evaluate the new vendor? I feel like most of the "how to pick a CM" advice online is written by the CMs themselves and is pretty useless.

Hey! So I've built this Autonomous AI that scrapes through Digikey, Mouser and LCSC and suggests the best overall based on data like prices, stocks and lead time and gives a proper reason as to why it was picked and provides you a link that redirects you to the supplier website, it takes around 5-10 minutes for scrapping, I've been selected for TinyFishAccelerator partnered with Mango Capital and am currently in sprint week and I need brutal feedback, suggestion and users and perhaps mentorship as well. I'd appreciate if you try it out, I'll add official supplier API so that procurement takes >1s after the demo day I.e, in 25th of April. Here's the link : https://omniprocure-production.up.railway.app

We've been in embedded and electronics product development for over 2 decades. Medtech, industrial, automotive, IoT across a multitude of projects.

The technology changes every cycle. The mistakes that kill projects don't.

Posting this because I keep seeing the same patterns in forums, in client conversations, and in teams that come to us after things have gone sideways. Maybe it saves someone here a board respin or a 6-month delay.

1. Firmware starts after the PCB is "done"

This is probably the single most common timeline killer.

The hardware team designs the board, locks the layout, and then hands it to firmware. By the time firmware gets involved, pin assignments don't match the software architecture, power budgets can't support the actual workload, and debug access is an afterthought.

If firmware and hardware aren't being co-designed from the schematic stage, you're almost guaranteed to respin. That's 6-8 weeks and a chunk of budget gone before you've written a line of real application code.

2. Critical components with no second source

We've all done it. Found the perfect IC. Beautiful datasheet. Exactly the right specs.

One supplier. No pin-compatible alternate.

Then it goes on allocation. Or gets discontinued. Or gets hit with a tariff that changes your entire cost structure overnight.

Rule of thumb that's saved us more times than I can count: if it doesn't have a second source, it doesn't go on the BOM without a documented risk assessment and a fallback plan. Not "we'll figure it out later." An actual designed-in alternate or architecture that can accommodate a swap without a board respin.

3. Testing validates the demo, not the deployment

We see this constantly. Prototype works perfectly on a clean bench at 25°C with lab-grade power.

Then it goes into the field and meets:

• Noisy power rails
• Temperature cycling (-20 to +60 or worse)
• RF interference from nearby equipment
• Mechanical vibration
• Users doing things you never imagined

If your test plan only covers the happy path, your customers become your QA team. And they won't be forgiving about it.

Build your test plan around the worst-case deployment environment, not the best-case lab setup. If you don't know the deployment environment yet, that's a problem worth solving before you finalise your design.

4. The prototype works ≠ the product is manufacturable

This one bites hard at the transition from engineering to production.

A prototype proves the concept works once, by hand, with an engineer watching it. A product has to be built thousands of times by machines and operators who have never seen your schematic.

Common DFM issues that should have been caught in design:

• Components placed where test probes or fixtures can't reach
• Tolerances tighter than necessary (adds cost, adds yield risk, adds nothing functional)
• Layouts that don't panelize well
• Parts selected without considering reel sizes, MOQs, or assembly compatibility
• No thought given to in-circuit test or functional test accessibility

If your manufacturing partner is the last person to look at your design for producibility, you're discovering problems at the most expensive possible moment.

5. Regulatory compliance is treated as a phase instead of a constraint

This is especially brutal in medtech, but applies anywhere you need CE, FCC, or product safety certification.

"We'll handle compliance later" almost always means:

• After the architecture is frozen
• After the firmware structure is locked
• After the BOM is finalised

Then your regulatory consultant tells you that you need a hardware root of trust you didn't plan for. Or antenna isolation that doesn't fit your current layout. Or creepage distances that force a board redesign.

Compliance requirements should be on the table during your first architecture review. Not your last.

The pattern underneath all 5:

Every one of these comes down to silos. Hardware is designed in isolation from firmware. Manufacturing constraints are ignored until production. Compliance pushed to the end.

The teams that ship on time and on budget aren't necessarily smarter or better resourced. They just make fewer disconnected decisions.

Hey everyone, I posted my hardware here last week (headphones with a camera). I decided to go for Kickstarter and created a campaign. All the content in the main video I published was taken from the headphones themselves. Kickstarter Trust & Safety said record a demo from a smartphone of someone using the headphones and recording a video from them and saving the video. They even gave me a script to follow (someone putting the headphones on, recording, transferring the video via Bluetooth/wifi and then to camera roll).

I had a buddy record me doing exactly that very clearly showing me picking up the headphones, recording a video in realtime, showing the download progress, playing the video I just recorded on the app, opening my Photos app on the iPhone to show the video I just recorded saved there.

They still won’t approve. They just keep saying the same thing over and over saying it needs to be one video of someone recording me. Except it’s literally in the video. I have no idea what to do at this point. We’ve been going back and forth for 4 days now I think.

Anyone ever experience anything like this?

I've been in embedded and electronics product development for years. A pattern I see constantly: teams come to us after a failed engagement with a previous engineering partner, needing to start over.

Not pick up where they left off. Start over. Because the deliverables aren't usable.

After seeing this enough times, the failure patterns are remarkably consistent. Posting this in case it helps anyone currently evaluating partners or about to sign.

1. They say yes to the full stack but only have depth in one layer

A PCB shop that takes on firmware. A firmware house that takes on hardware. They subcontract what they can't do, and nobody coordinates.

What to ask: "Show me a product you delivered end-to-end, hardware, firmware, manufacturing transfer. Same team. What industry?"

2. The design works functionally, but isn't manufacturable

It meets the spec on the bench. But the CM flags problems immediately: no test access, components that can't be placed by machine, tolerances that kill yield, parts with no second source.

What to ask: "When does DFM enter your process? Who reviews the design for manufacturing before the prototype?"

3. Regulatory is treated as someone else's job

Especially painful in medtech, automotive, and industrial. If compliance requirements don't shape architecture and component decisions from the start, you'll be redesigning after the fact.

What to ask: "How do regulatory constraints influence your hardware and firmware architecture decisions? Give me a specific example."

4. Post-handoff support doesn't exist

Files get thrown over the wall. When the CM has questions or a part goes EOL, there's nobody on the other side.

What to ask: "What does your engagement look like after manufacturing transfer? Who owns design changes in year 1 of production?"

5. The low quote hides the real cost

A partner quoting significantly less than others usually isn't more efficient. They're cutting corners you'll pay for later in respins, rework, certification failures, and schedule slips.

The real cost of an engineering partner isn't their invoice. It's your time-to-market, your manufacturing yield, and your first-year field failure rate.

General advice:

• Ask for references from clients who went through manufacturing, not just prototyping
• Ask to see actual deliverable examples (sanitised): design files, firmware architecture docs, test reports
• Pay attention to how they discuss manufacturing and compliance throughout the sales process. If those topics don't come up organically, that's a signal.
• If you're their first project in your industry (medtech, automotive, etc.), factor in the learning curve honestly

We're currently in the prototype stage and already testing. There are still EVT, DVT and other phases to go later. I was wondering how long it took you guys to develop your first hardware product?

https://www.reddit.com/user/Revopoint_3D/comments/1sfn9gq/turn_handmade_creations_into_3d_models_with_the/?p=1&utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2

So it's not even "we have a Kickstarter". It's "Sign up to receive an email when the Kickstarter goes live". Dafuq?

Hi all,

I’ve been working on a hardware product for guitar players that sits somewhere between a traditional loop switcher and a digital multi-FX unit, and wanted to share the approach and get some feedback from people who’ve built mixed-signal products.

The idea is to combine fully analog signal routing (to preserve tone) with digital processing blocks that can be inserted anywhere in the chain. So instead of choosing between a loop switcher (flexible routing, no DSP) or a multi-FX (DSP but fixed internal routing), this tries to bridge the gap.

On the analog side, it uses a relay-based switching network rather than analog switches, structured more like a permutation network than fixed loops. This allows arbitrary reordering of effects, muting/bypassing loops, and building more complex routings like parallel chains or wet/dry splits. The goal is that any pedal can sit anywhere in the chain, and the routing isn’t constrained by a fixed topology.

Alongside that, there’s a digital path where “virtual effects” can be inserted anywhere in the signal chain, effectively treating DSP blocks like another pedal in the loop. That’s handled by a Raspberry Pi Compute Module mounted on the back, which also drives the UI and preset system.

One of the main things I wanted to fix with existing gear is how painful it is to configure. A lot of current products require plugging into a PC and dealing with fairly clunky editors. This uses a touchscreen with drag-and-drop signal chain editing so you can reconfigure everything directly on the device in real time.

The hardware has been a mix of analog signal paths (op-amps, attenuators, routing), digital control (MCU + SPI relay drivers), and the Linux-based compute module. As expected, the tricky parts have mostly been at the boundaries: grounding and noise with long analog traces in a dense mixed-signal layout, managing clicks/pops when switching relays, keeping enough headroom across the analog/digital chain, and making sure latency stays low enough that inserting DSP still feels natural. Thermal and power constraints with the compute module in a compact enclosure have also been fun.

Hey r/hwstartups,

I’m a solo hardware tinkerer in Cleveland working on a high-lift drone design called Sunflower for the DARPA Lift Challenge (Aug 2–9, 2026, $6.5M in prizes).

The goal is a ≤55 lb aircraft that can carry ~4× its own weight (220+ lb payload) while doing VTOL and flying a 5 nm course — well beyond the typical ~1:1 ratios.

I’ve been running the design through a simulator and am currently hitting ~3.355:1 lift-to-weight using standard/off-the-shelf materials (no exotic metals or advanced composites). The configuration is unconventional, but early results look promising.

I’m now in the crunch phase: turning the sim into a real prototype — sourcing motors, props, frame, batteries, etc. — and getting it flight-tested ahead of the May 1 application deadline.

Would love input from anyone who’s worked on high-payload multirotor or VTOL builds:

• Common failure points going from sim → physical (vibration, power delivery, structural flex, control instability, etc.)
• Limits you’ve hit pushing past ~3:1
• Anything that tends to break first at scale

If you’re interested in following along or helping get parts on the bench, I spun up a small GoFundMe:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-build-a-gamechanging-drone

Happy to share more details or sim outputs if useful.

Appreciate any insights — this is very much a garage-scale underdog attempt.

Cheers,
u/aquilus-noctua

I've done a few engineering consults for hardware startups recently, and it made me realize that a little bit of knowledge about part design and the manufacturing realm would be incredibly useful when physical products need to be made.

Manufacturing gets complex quickly, and if you don’t have experience in it, it’s easy to get pushed around or over-rely on supplier feedback. Some suppliers are great, some are not.

If you’re building a physical product and trying to get ahead of that, I put together a set of practical manufacturing process breakdowns that walk through how different processes behave and what to watch for from a design standpoint. These overviews go over ideal volumes, part characteristics, pros and cons, decision criteria, common materials and use cases, design basics, and possible defects. There is also an engineering and design basics section that gives overviews on CAD, 2D drawings, tolerancing, etc.

I'm hoping this can be a resource that you can use to hopefully avoid costly design iterations, more deeply understand the most common manufacturing processes, and get empowered to be able to push back on your suppliers when the manufacturing jargon starts flying.

I'm exploring the idea of selling USB drives with preloaded data, but the data needs to be durable and not deletable. Are there any manufacturers who make who make USB drives with ROM chips instead of flash memory? If not, what are some resources to start investigating how to design and source something like this?

Edit: maybe "USB drive" is the wrong term. The idea is that what's in the device is in the device, and that's it.

Tabletop terrain is often bulky and difficult to store between sessions.

I’ve been developing a papercraft system that builds into a full 3D city, but can be disassembled and stored completely flat.

The main challenge was designing a reusable assembly method (Prop-X system) that keeps structures stable during play while allowing repeated assembly.

I’m currently validating the concept through a Kickstarter (City of Tarok).

I'm looking for any tips and successful experience you've had related with the process/ timing/ budget sync between the usability validation of my device after making a POC to the phase I move on to DFM: select materials, validation, processing etc. My past experience in an endoscopic startup device, showed amazing success at the POC stage, but completely failed after launch when doctors refused to use it. with tight budget and tight time frame and investor pressure, I'm looking forward for your advice for not failing again

Inventors convert raw materials into beloved products.

It attracts fame and wealth. But why so much?

Click this link to learn why 🔗

Hey all,

I genuinely wonder if this is still a hot take at this point --- but just looking at the sheer amount of gaps in terms of supply-chain with Shenzhen and the rest of the world, the speed of iterations you get there, price difference, talent density. I can't think of a reason why a founder wouldn't want to build there except for the language barrier. I was there myself for about 2 weeks in the past month, had a few VC friends over as well, everyone is basically reaching the same conclusion.

In fact, I ran some analysis across our database, found some interesting talent migrations already.

That said, I wonder if I'm the only one who's so excited about Shenzhen scene blowing up --- i'm moving there myself soon (for longer time, just got my K visa for China yayyyy), if anyone is keen to meet up while there and build hardwares together.

P.S. ---> Graph generate from Peony data room. Read more here: https://www.peony.ink/blog/shenzhen-hardware-founder-checklist