The modern hacker and maker has a truly incredible arsenal of tools at their disposal. High-tech tools like 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC routers have all become commonplace, and combined with old standbys like the drill press and mini lathe, it sometimes seems like we’ve finally peaked in terms of what the individual is realistically capable of producing in their own home. But occasionally a new tool comes along, and it makes us realize that there are still avenues unexplored for the home gamer.

After spending the last few weeks playing with it, I can confidently say the eufyMake E1 UV printer is one of those tools. The elevator pitch is simple: with a UV printer, you can print anything on anything. As you can imagine, the reality is somewhat more complex, but the fact that you can toss a three dimensional object in the chamber and spray it with a high-resolution color image with a few button presses holds incredible creative potential. Enough that the Kickstarter for the $1,700 printer has already raised a mind-boggling $27 million at the time of this writing, with more than a month yet to go before crossing the finish line.

If you’re on the fence about backing the campaign, or just have doubts about whether or not the machine can do what eufyMake claims, I’ll put those concerns to rest right now — it’s the real deal. Even after using the machine for as long as I have, each time a print job ends, I find myself momentary taken aback by just how good the end result is. The technology inside this machine that not only makes these results possible, but makes them so easily obtainable, is truly revolutionary.

That being said, it’s not a perfect machine by any stretch of the imagination. While I never ran into an outright failure while using the eufyMake E1, there’s a fairly long list of issues which I’d like to see addressed. Some of them are simple tweaks which may well get sorted out before the product starts shipping this summer, while others are fundamental to the way the machine operates and could represent an opportunity for competitors.

Theory of Operation

Before we go any further, I think it’s important to explain how the eufyMake E1 works. Not only because UV printers aren’t the kind of thing that most of us have had first-hand experience with, but because I want readers to understand how much the product gets right.

In the most basic case, you’ll open up the door of the E1, and stick an object on the bed. (There’s a larger bed that you can swap in for over-sized objects, but you have to run the printer with the doors open.) That’s a literal “stick”, by the way, as the bed is designed to be tacky to provide a bit of hold on smaller objects which might otherwise jump around as the machine moves. The E1 will then go through an automated process that includes flashing lights and sweeping red laser beams. This provides the machine with a 3D scan of the object on the bed, which is necessary for positioning the print head later on.

At this point, the software (available for Windows, Mac, and mobile devices) will present the user with a “bird’s eye view” of the bed and any objects on it. From here you can either use the basic art tools in the software, or more likely, import some artwork created in a more comprehensive piece of software. In either event, the process is the same, in that you virtually apply your artwork directly on the overhead image. Once you’re happy with how it looks, you hit “Print”, pick a few options relating to the target’s surface material and the print quality, and off it goes.

Printing is admittedly slower than I had expected. Depending on the image complexity, even a palm-sized job could take 20 or 30 minutes. While I never pushed it so far personally, I’ve heard from other testers that larger projects can take hours to complete. In that way, it’s a lot like a 3D printer — you aren’t the one that has to do all that work, so who cares if the process takes an hour or two, just let it run and come back to it later. In my experience, the results have always been more than worth the wait.

Practical Examples

I’ve said as much previously, but we don’t take reviews and hands-on articles like this lightly here at Hackaday. Companies offer to send us hardware on an almost daily basis, but we turn down the vast majority of them as we just don’t think they’re a great fit for our audience. Is the average Hackaday reader really going to be interested in a review of yet another 3D printer or laser engraver? Probably not.

So before we agreed to take a look at the eufyMake E1, Elliot and I talked a bit about how such a machine would be used in our community specifically. We came up with a few things we thought hardware hackers would want to do with this kind of capability, and I made sure to focus on those applications over the more “crafty” demonstrations that you may have seen elsewhere.

Full-Color PCB Art

While we’re starting to see board fabs support color silkscreens, it’s not a capability that’s necessarily ready for prime time. Beyond the mixed results we’ve heard from those in the community in terms of the quality of the resulting boards, there’s some unfortunate software/vendor lock-in that we’d just as soon avoid. So what if you could skip all that and simply put your professionally made PCBs in the E1 and have it apply your artwork to them?

In this fairly simple example I’ve taken one of the spare boards from my Soma FM badge and applied a few high resolution images onto it. I never really had any doubt that the eufyMake E1 could do PCB art, but still, it was extremely satisfying to see it in person.

Control Panels

High quality control panels have always been tricky to produce at home. Sure there’s ways to pull it off, such as the recent trick we covered that used specially treated inkjet printouts, but they tend to be time consuming and the results are highly dependent on the material you’re working working. With the UV printer, front panels are a breeze and you’ll get consistent results whether you’re working with plastic or metal.

For this example I came up with a flight-sim style panel inspired by various fighter jets. The workflow was actually quite nice: I designed the panel itself in OpenSCAD, and then exported it as both a 3D STL and 2D DXF file. The 3D file got printed out, and the 2D file was imported into Inkscape. With a 1:1 outline of the panel in Inkscape, I could position the text and images knowing they would line up perfectly with the real-world object. I exported my Inkscape design as an SVG, loaded it into the E1’s software, and applied it to the printed panel.

Truly Custom Keycaps

We’ve seen incredible interest in bespoke keyboards over the last few years, and customized keycaps are a big part of that.  But even the most decked out keyboards are generally still using off-the-shelf keycaps. But why settle for that when you can buy blank caps and apply whatever text or artwork you wish on them?

These are such a perfect application for the E1 that I imagine it’s going to ignite something of a custom keycap revolution once the printer gets into consumer’s hands. Whether you want each key to be the face of a different anime character, or want all the legends to be in Comic Sans, you have complete control. They also serve as a great example of the fine detail work that’s possible on the machine.

The Perfect PCB Machine?

I know what you’re thinking: “Stop teasing me, can the damn thing make PCBs or not!” The short answer is yes…but the long answer is worth a bit more examination.

The UV print seems to work very well as an etch resist, as it was completely unfazed by its encounter with ferric chloride. In fact, the first challenge was figuring out how to get the stuff off after etching. Alcohol, turpentine, and paint thinner did nothing to it. Eventually I found that soaking the board in acetone will break down the bond between the printed layer and the copper — you still need to peel it off, but once you get under an edge with a razor blade it parts without too much trouble.

Early results look promising. The lines aren’t as clean as I’d like, so it will probably have problems with tight pitch parts, but the traces were intact down to 0.2 mm, and the pads for the SOIC8 footprint I picked as a test were properly isolated from each other. At this point, it’s a working PCB that’s at least as good as something made with the old school toner transfer method. But the E1 promises so much more.

Putting the board back in the machine, I was able to spray it with additional layers that act as both a soldermask and silkscreen. While I want to experiment a bit more and refine the techniques involved, even this first attempt produced a remarkably professional looking board with very little manual effort on the user’s part.

That said, while this proof of concept shows it’s clearly possible to produce impressive boards on the machine, the process is made frustrating by various limitations of the hardware and software.

One-Off Versus Production

Let’s be clear, as a product, the eufyMake E1 is designed to let crafty folks put pictures of their kids on slate coasters and emblazon mugs with the logo of their favorite sports team. The software and hardware is clearly designed to make it as easy as possible to toss an object into the printer, get your image virtually aligned on it, and then spray it on. At this, the product excels, and I have no doubt it will be a commercial success.

But while hardware hackers are certainly not immune to the charms of putting memes and logos on their possessions, we also have slightly higher demands. If we’re talking about using it for producing PCBs, or even just adding art to existing boards, we’re looking for high positional accuracy and repeatability.

To that end, I have to report that the E1 is not particularly well suited to such technical tasks. It can be pushed into service, but there’s several aspects of the product that would really need to be addressed before this could be a workhorse for the hackerspace.

Lack of Physical Indexing

As it stands, the bed on the eufyMake E1 is a completely flat surface, with no provisions for work holding or indexing. You’re expected to visually align your print each time — workable for one or two copies of an object, but excruciating beyond that.

Now you might be thinking that this is an easy enough problem to remedy…but you’re probably forgetting that 3D bed scan. Any fixture you come up with to hold your object in position runs the risk of screwing up the scan and causing the print to abort. Even trying to tape a PCB down with blue painter’s tape would occasionally trigger an error during the scan as the machine couldn’t find a clearly defined edge.

As you’ll see below, I’ve had some success with very thin 3D printed fixtures that avoid the ire of the scanner. Long term, I’d like to see an alternate bed that resembled a CNC fixture plate, so that multiple parts can be held in position with low-profile pegs.

The Parallax View

At the suggestion of Thomas Flummer, I printed out a few thin (1.2 mm) jigs that could be taped down to the bed and help position multiple objects for batch processing. This is much better than having to eyeball things each time, but it uncovered a new issue.

For objects in the center of the bed, the optical alignment system works pretty well. It should get you within a millimeter or so on the first attempt, but it’s way off on the edges of the bed. Take a look at the following example: the in the software, both blue rectangles were perfectly aligned within the footprint of the 1206 LED:

As you can see the alignment on the board in the center is pretty locked in, but on the other board, it’s halfway out of the footprint. This might be close enough if you’re making grandma some Christmas ornaments, but it won’t cut it for SMD work.

The good news is that you can go back into the software and move objects at the sub-millimeter level by typing in the desired coordinates. This will cause the visual representation to become misaligned, but so long as you know where the target is in the real-world, it doesn’t matter. So if you can afford a bit of trial-and-error, it’s possible to get the alignment dialed in even across multiple objects on the bed.

The Shape of Things to Come?

As I said at the start, the eufyMake E1 is not a perfect machine. Beyond the major issues I’ve outlined here, there’s all sorts of weird quirks and limitations I’ve run into during my time with it. For example, why don’t the lights inside the enclosure turn on when the door is open? Why doesn’t the printer itself have a small screen to display status information? We won’t even get into the fact that all your interactions with the printer have to go through the cloud — there isn’t even so much as a USB port on the printer to allow local control.

But at the end of the day, I’m still extremely excited about this machine. The fact is, there’s really nothing else quite like it on the market, at least, not at this price anyway. It reminds me a bit of the MakerBot Cupcake 3D printer, or even the K40 laser. It represents such a huge leap forward in capability for the individual that it’s easy to excuse the rough edges.

Like those machines, I believe the eufyMake E1 will set many of the standards for the products that come after it. You may never own this particular UV printer, but I’m willing to bet that after a few hardware generations, when the cost of the technology is driven even lower thanks to increased competition, the printer that you do buy will be able to trace its lineage back to this moment.

Last week, the mainstream news was filled with headlines about K2-18b — an exoplanet some 124 light-years away from Earth that 98% of the population had never even heard about. Even astronomers weren’t aware of its existence until the Kepler Space Telescope picked it out back in 2015, just one of the more than 2,700 planets the now defunct observatory was able to identify during its storied career. But now, thanks to recent observations by the James Web Space Telescope, this obscure planet has been thrust into the limelight by the discovery of what researchers believe are the telltale signs of life in its atmosphere.

Well, maybe. As you might imagine, being able to determine if a planet has life on it from 124 light-years away isn’t exactly easy. We haven’t even been able to conclusively rule out past, or even present, life in our very own solar system, which in astronomical terms is about as far off as the end of your block.

To be fair the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy researchers, lead by Nikku Madhusudhan, aren’t claiming to have definitive proof that life exists on K2-18b. We probably won’t get undeniable proof of life on another planet until a rover literally runs over it. Rather, their paper proposes that abundant biological life, potentially some form of marine phytoplankton, is one of the strongest explanations for the concentrations of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide that they’ve detected in the atmosphere of K2-18b.

As you might expect, there are already challenges to that conclusion. Which is of course exactly how the scientific process is supposed to work. Though the findings from Cambridge are certainly compelling, adding just a bit of context can show that things aren’t as cut and dried as we might like. There’s even an argument to be made that we wouldn’t necessarily know what the signs of extraterrestrial life would look like even if it was right in front of us.

Life as We Know It

Credit where credit is due, most of the news outlets have so far treated this story with the appropriate amount of skepticism. Reading though the coverage, Cambridge’s findings are commonly described as the “strongest evidence yet” of potential extraterrestrial life, rather than being treated as definitive proof. Well, other than the Daily Mail anyway. They decided to consult with ChatGPT and other AI tools in an effort to find out what lifeforms on K2-18b would look like.

So, AI-generated frogmen renders not withstanding, what makes these findings so difficult to interpret? For one thing, we have very little idea of what extraterrestrial life would actually be like, so proving that it exists is exceptionally difficult. Scientists have precisely one data point for what constitutes as life, and you’re sitting on it. We only know what life on Earth looks like, and while there’s an incredible amount of biodiversity on our home planet, it all still tends to play by the same established rules.

We assume those rules to be a constant on other planets, but that’s only because we don’t know what else to look for. Consider that the bulk of our efforts in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) thus far have been based on the idea that other sentient beings would develop some form of radio technology similar to our own, and that if we simply pointed a receiver at their star, we would be able to pick up their version of I Love Lucy.

This is a preposterous presupposition, which doesn’t even make much sense when compared to humanity’s history. Consider the science, literature, and art that humankind was able to produce before the advent of the electric light. Now imagine that Proxima Centauri’s answer to Beethoven is putting the finishing touches on their latest masterpiece as our radio telescope silently checks their planet off the list of inhabited worlds because it wasn’t emanating any RF transmissions we recognize.

Similarly, here on Earth dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) are produced exclusively by biological processes. DMS specifically is so commonly associated with marine phytoplankton that we often associate its smell with being in proximity of the sea. This being the case, you could see how finding large quantities of these gases in the atmosphere of an alien planet would seem to indicate that it must be teaming with aquatic life.

But just because that’s true on Earth doesn’t mean it’s true on K2-18b. We know these gases can be created abiotically in the laboratory, which means there are alternative explanations to how they could be produced on another planet — even if we can’t explain them currently. Further, a paper released in November 2024 pointed out that DMS was detected on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft, indicating there’s some unknown method by which it can be produced in the absence of any biological activity.

Finding What You’re Looking For

All that being said, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the presence of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide was indeed enough to confirm there was life on the planet. You’d still need to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that those gases were present in the atmosphere. So how do you do that?

Within our own solar system, you could send a probe. Which is what’s been suggested to investigate the possibility that phosphine gas exists on Venus. But remember, we’re talking about a planet that’s 124 light-years away. In this case, the only way to study the atmosphere is through spectroscopy — that is, examining the degree to which various wavelengths of light (visible and otherwise) are blocked as they pass through it.

This is, as you may have guessed, easier said than done. The amount of data you can collect from such a distant object, even with an instrument as powerful as the James Webb Space Telescope is minuscule. You need to massage the data with various models to extract any useful information from the noise, and according to some critics, that’s when bias can creep in.

In a recently released paper, Jake Taylor from the University of Oxford argues that the only reason Nikku Madhusudhan and his team found signs of DMS and DMDS in the spectrographic data is because that’s what they were looking for. Given their previous research that potentially detected methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of K2-18b, it’s possible the team was already primed to find further evidence of biological processes on the planet, and were looking a bit too hard to find evidence to back up their theory.

When analyzing the raw data without any preconceived notion of what you’re looking for, Taylor says there’s “no strong statistical evidence” to support the detection of DMS and DMDS in the atmosphere of K2-18b. This conclusion itself will need to be scrutinized, of course, though it does have the benefit of Occam’s razor on its side.

In short, there may or may not be dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide gases in the atmosphere of K2-18b, and that may or may not mean there’s potentially some form of biological life in the planet’s oceans…which it may or may not actually have. If you’re looking for anything more specific than that, the science is still out.

If you had to guess, what do you think it would take to build an ocean-going buoy that could not only survive on its own without human intervention for more than two years, but return useful data the whole time? You’d probably assume such a feat would require beefy hardware, riding inside an expensive and relatively large watertight vessel of some type — and for good reason, the ocean is an unforgiving environment, and has sent far more robust hardware to the briny depths.

But as Wayne Pavalko found back in 2016, a little planning can go a long way. That’s when he launched the first of what he now calls Maker Buoys: a series of solar-powered drifting buoys that combine a collection of off-the-shelf sensor boards with an Arduino microcontroller and an Iridium Short-Burst Data (SBD) modem in a relatively simple watertight box.

He guessed that first buoy might last a few weeks to a month, but when he finally lost contact with it after 771 days, he realized there was real potential for reducing the cost and complexity of ocean research.

Wayne recalled the origin of his project and updated the audience on where it’s gone from there during his 2024 Supercon talk, Adventures in Ocean Tech: The Maker Buoy Journey. Even if you’re not interested in charting ocean currents with homebrew hardware, his story is an inspirational reminder that sometimes a fresh approach can help solve problems that might at first glance seem insurmountable.

DIY All the Way

As Dan Maloney commented when he wrote-up that first buoy’s journey in 2017, the Bill of Materials for a Maker Buoy is tailored for the hobbyist. Despite being capable of journeys lasting for several thousand kilometers in the open ocean, there’s no marine-grade unobtainium parts onboard. Indeed, nearly all of the electronic components can be sourced from Adafruit, with the most expensive line item being the RockBLOCK 9603 Iridium satellite modem at $299.

Even the watertight container that holds all the electronics is relatively pedestrian. It’s the sort of plastic latching box you might put your phone or camera in on a boat trip to make sure it stays dry and floats if it falls overboard. Wayne points out that the box being clear is a huge advantage, as you can mount the solar panel internally. Later versions of the Maker Buoy even included a camera that could peer downward through the bottom of the box.

Wayne says that first buoy was arguably over-built, with each internal component housed in its own waterproof compartment. Current versions instead hold all of the hardware in place with a 3D printed internal frame. The bi-level framework puts the solar panel, GPS, and satellite modem up at the top so they’ve got a clear view of the sky, and mounts the primary PCB, battery, and desiccant container down on the bottom.

The only external addition necessary is to attach a 16 inch (40 centimeter) long piece of PVC pipe to the bottom of the box, which acts as a passive stabilizer. Holes drilled in the pipe allow it to fill with water once submerged, lowering the buoy’s center of gravity and making it harder to flip over. At the same time, should the buoy find itself inverted due to wave action, the pipe will make it top-heavy and flip it back over.

It’s simple, cheap, and incredibly effective. Wayne mentions that data returned from onboard Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) have shown that Maker Buoys do occasionally find themselves going end-over-end during storms, but they always right themselves.

Like Space…But Wetter

Early on in his presentation, Wayne makes an interesting comparison when talking about the difficulties in developing the Maker Buoy. He likens it to operating a spacecraft in that your hardware is never coming back, nobody will be able to service it, and the only connection you’ll have to the craft during its lifetime is a relatively low-bandwidth link.

But one could argue that the nature of Iridium communications makes the mission of the Maker Buoy even more challenging than your average spacecraft. As the network is really only designed for short messages — at one point Wayne mentions that even sending low-resolution images of only a few KB in size was something of an engineering challenge — remotely updating the software on the buoy isn’t an option. So even though the nearly fifty year old Voyager 1 can still receive the occasional software patch from billions of miles away, once you drop a Maker Buoy into the ocean, there’s no way to fix any bugs in the code.

Because of this, Wayne decided to take the extra step of adding a hardware watchdog timer that can monitor the buoy’s systems and reboot the hardware if necessary. It’s a bit like unplugging your router when the Internet goes out…if your Internet was coming from a satellite low-Earth orbit and your living room happened to be in the middle of the ocean.

From One to Many

After publishing information about his first successful Maker Buoy online, Wayne says it wasn’t long before folks started contacting him about potential applications for the hardware. In 2018, a Dutch non-profit expressed interest in buying 50 buoys from him to study the movement of floating plastic waste in the Pacific. The hardware was more than up to the task, but there was just one problem: up to this point, Wayne had only built a grand total of four buoys.

Opportunities like this, plus the desire to offer the Maker Buoy in kit and ready to deploy variants for commercial and educational purposes, meant Wayne had to streamline his production. When it’s just a personal project, it doesn’t really matter how long it takes to assemble or if everything goes together correctly the first time. But that approach just won’t work if you need to deliver functional units in quantities that you can’t count on your fingers.

As Wayne puts it, making something and making something that’s easily producible are really two very different things. The production becomes a project in its own right. He explains that investing the time and effort to make repetitive tasks more efficient and reliable, such as developing jigs to hold pieces together while you’re working on them, more than pays off for itself in the end. Even though he’s still building them himself in his basement, he uses an assembly line approach that allows for the consistent results expected by paying customers.

A Tale Well Told

While the technical details of how Wayne designed and built the different versions of the Maker Buoy are certainly interesting, it’s hearing the story of the project from inception to the present day that really makes watching this talk worthwhile. What started as a simple “What If” experiment has spiraled into a side-business that has helped deploy buoys all over the planet.

Admittedly, not every project has that same potential for growth. But hearing Wayne tell the Maker Buoy story is the sort of thing that makes you want to go dust off that project that’s been kicking around in the back of your head and finally give it a shot. You might be surprised by the kind of adventure taking a chance on a wild idea can lead to.