Designing a curved baseplate for nano-mics

Hi everyone!
While I’m not new to design, I’m new to the amazing Rhino world, and quite puzzled by all the possible ways to do a same thing using different techniques.
It’s been around two weeks only that I’m working on something luthiers/instrument-builders usually do on paper… and we don’t ask ourselves if we’re going to add or remove (think of everything fitting within a rectangle, which is true for wood carving as well as Rhino).
There, I’ve got a very complex modular amplification system in the works on paper. Now I need to make it in Rhino so I can 3D print it over and over.
My issue is that I don’t know if there’s a better way than another to get a same result: a curved surface (in a square O shape) with moveable baseplates for each mic I want to be able to move sideways to adjust its position under a string, as well as being tilt-able to even better accommodate the situation…
It’s only a matter of putting real-world stuff in Rhino, and of using the result on real-world-sized (sub-millimeter) objects.
I’ve got a host of matrixes I could use to get 3D from 2D, but I fear it won’t be enough since there are extremely small and carefully designed parts including holes for nano-sized nuts and bolts…
Hmmm. It all boils down to: do I add or remove (trim) in order to get the complex shapes I need? It’s comparable to bridge industrial design, only much smaller.
What would you do?
I can not tell everything about my work since I don’t want my work to be “stolen” again for commercial uses (which is not the case for me). Feel free to ask for details, I’ll do what I can to explain more clearly if needed.
Thanks for your time and insight!

Hello - it is impossible to understand the shape you are describing in a useful way without an image or a starting point in a 3dm file.

-Pascal

1 Like

Oh snap! I had files attached to my initial message!
Well then, here’s a pen- and - paper matrix of the front view of a viola da gamba bridge, to give you an idea of my usual way of working in 2D even though it will end up in 3D once carved.
It’s what I do almost daily. How do I best proceed to get the same shape within Rhino? See how everything is divided and fits in rectangles even though it’s only traditional work, without any notion of NURBS:

RubyBridgeMatrix.pdf (39.4 KB)

There’s also this one, just to give you an idea (made it as a rough estimate of what may be):

The rounded -edged rectangular hole in the middle is just to give you an idea of the size of a mic (10mm witdh, 18mm length, 7.14mm height without its baseplate).

Here is one : image

The thing is that I only drilled one hole, but the whole piece there (which is to be located at the end of the fingerboard, right where the white paper sheet is:

will be open in a square-O shape from end to end (minus the end parts used to bolt this curved part to another one underneath), with little moveable baseplates perhaps moving along a « rail « , each one holding a mic. If I open the curved part the way I think about doing, it’s because the electronics and nano-cables for the integrated preamplifier are located below and require extra room, otherwise I wouldn’t bother with it and put everything above. There are 5 cables per mic and 7 mics, which make a lot even though it’s on the nano-size. Also, even if I put baseplates a bit larger than the mics, I’ll have to put on a nuts- and - bolts system to fasten things once the position is « right ». I wish I could explain that with instrument-maker lingo, but it’s tricky enough like it is. Sorry about the headaches, but I cannot find words to explain what I can only picture in my head (it wouldn’t make sense for anyone but me even on a matrix /on paper). Or maybe is it made clear that way ?

The curved part in this last draft is the shape of the neck - and - fingerboard end, not the one of the curved part I want to add. It’s still something I wonder how to best design so it really integrates with real - world stuff.