DEV Community: Walter Chen

Turn a Markdown release note into a readable image carousel

Walter Chen — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 10:24:47 +0000

Disclosure: I’m the maker of MarkdownPic. This is a short workflow for sharing existing Markdown as images.

A release note is easy to read in a repository, but a screenshot of the editor often carries a lot of extra UI. A carousel also needs deliberate page breaks: shrinking the whole note until it fits usually makes it hard to read.

Here is a small example you can paste into MarkdownPic:

# Release notes
Three changes worth knowing about.

<!-- page -->

## What changed
- A clearer settings screen
- Faster search
- Better keyboard navigation

<!-- page -->

## Before you update
1. Save your current work.
2. Read the migration notes.
3. Test the workflow you use most.

These are sample release notes, not claims about a particular product release.

Choose Pages, pick a size and theme, and inspect each page. The  marker belongs on its own line and gives you explicit control of where a page starts. Auto split is also available, but manual breaks are useful when each slide should contain one complete idea.

Use a short heading and a few points per slide. If a page is crowded, split the content instead of repeatedly reducing the type size. Check the final image at the size a reader will actually see on a phone.

Export PNG, JPEG, or WebP. Multiple pages can be exported in a ZIP for uploading in order. No account is required to use the tool.

When publishing, keep a text version or link to the full release notes alongside the images, and add useful alt text where the platform supports it. Images should make the note easier to discover without becoming the only way to read it.

MarkdownPic handles the layout and export; you still write the content and publish it yourself. I would welcome feedback on page breaks and Markdown elements that are difficult to fit into a small image.

Writing disclosure: this post was drafted by an AI agent; the workflow and feature descriptions were checked against the tool.

Copper LPBF RFQ Checklist: Geometry, Material, Inspection, and Post-Processing

Walter Chen — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:45:23 +0000

A copper laser powder bed fusion request is much easier to evaluate when the engineering package connects function, material, geometry, finishing, and inspection. This checklist is intended for engineering teams preparing a first feasibility review for pure copper or CuCrZr components.

1. State the functional priority

Start with the property that drives the design:

thermal conductivity for heat spreaders and cold plates
electrical conductivity for conductors and induction hardware
strength at temperature for CuCrZr applications
leak integrity for manifolds and heat exchangers
low mass or compact packaging for aerospace and RF systems

A material name alone is not enough. Define the final condition, the required property, and the test method.

2. Identify the interfaces that control manufacturing

Mark sealing faces, threaded features, electrical contacts, bearing fits, and datum surfaces. These are the locations most likely to need machining allowances or controlled surface finish.

Avoid applying tight tolerances to every feature. A focused drawing makes the post-processing plan clearer and reduces unnecessary machining.

3. Review internal channels before releasing CAD

For enclosed flow paths, confirm:

minimum hydraulic diameter
curvature and sudden area changes
powder escape paths
cleaning access
CT or alternative inspection access
pressure and leak-test requirements

Long blind passages and sharp dead ends increase powder-removal risk. Channel design should be reviewed together with build orientation.

4. Separate as-built and finished requirements

The RFQ should distinguish:

as-built geometry
heat-treated condition
machined interfaces
polished or coated surfaces
final inspection condition

This prevents confusion about which dimensions or properties apply before and after finishing.

5. Define the evidence required for qualification

A practical verification plan may include density, dimensional inspection, conductivity testing, tensile coupons, surface roughness, CT, pressure testing, or flow testing. The smallest critical feature should drive the inspection method.

6. Supply a complete but concise RFQ package

Recommended inputs:

STEP model and controlled drawing revision
material and final heat-treatment condition
critical dimensions and datums
machining allowances and finish requirements
conductivity, density, and mechanical targets
channel-cleaning and inspection requirements
quantity, application, operating temperature, and delivery target

For additional copper additive manufacturing context, review COPPER 3DP's copper LPBF engineering resource.

A structured intake page is also available for copper LPBF RFQ preparation.

Closing note

Good copper LPBF results usually start before the quote. Early alignment on material condition, heat path, interfaces, support access, and qualification evidence produces a more reliable feasibility assessment and a more comparable commercial proposal.

A Practical RFQ Checklist for Pure Copper and CuCrZr LPBF Parts

Walter Chen — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 02:10:05 +0000

Copper LPBF projects move faster when the RFQ is treated as an engineering data package instead of a short request for a price. This checklist is intended for hardware teams, thermal engineers, product developers, and sourcing teams preparing a pure-copper or CuCrZr part for additive manufacturing.

1. Confirm why additive manufacturing is being used

Start with the feature that creates value:

internal cooling channels that cannot be drilled;
compact heat exchangers or cold plates;
integrated manifolds that reduce joints;
induction coils with controlled flow paths;
RF, vacuum, semiconductor, or power-electronics hardware;
low-volume parts where tooling would dominate cost.

If the part is a simple block, tube, or plate, conventional machining, extrusion, brazing, or a hybrid route may be more economical. LPBF is strongest when geometry, integration, or iteration speed matters.

2. Select the copper alloy around the operating requirement

Pure copper is usually the starting point when electrical or thermal conductivity dominates and the component is not heavily loaded.

CuCrZr is often preferable when the part also needs strength, fatigue resistance, dimensional stability, or repeated thermal-cycle performance. It gives up some conductivity in exchange for a more balanced mechanical profile.

Do not specify the alloy name alone. Include the property that drives the choice: thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, proof strength, hardness, maximum temperature, pressure, or cycle life. If a post-heat-treatment value is required, say so explicitly.

3. Mark the geometry that controls feasibility

A supplier should be able to identify these features directly from the model and drawing:

minimum wall and fin thickness;
channel diameter or hydraulic dimension;
unsupported spans and overhangs;
sealing surfaces;
threads, bores, datums, and mating interfaces;
areas that may receive support material;
machining stock;
internal surfaces that must be cleaned or inspected.

For channels, provide inlet and outlet sizes, required flow direction, pressure, media, cleanliness, and the acceptance method. A hidden passage is not just a geometric feature; it is also an inspection and post-processing problem.

4. Define the finishing route before quoting

Copper AM parts often need several linked operations:

LPBF build and support removal;
stress relief or alloy-specific heat treatment;
CNC machining of interfaces;
surface finishing or cleaning;
dimensional, pressure, leak, conductivity, or material inspection.

The sequence affects datums, distortion risk, machining allowance, and final delivery time. State which surfaces may remain as-built and which require a numerical roughness, flatness, or tolerance.

5. Turn the RFQ into structured data

A compact machine-readable summary helps internal teams and suppliers check completeness. For example:

part:
  name: liquid-cooled copper manifold
  alloy_preference: pure copper
  quantity: 6
  revision: C

operation:
  media: deionized water
  max_temperature_c: 80
  max_pressure_bar: 6
  leak_test_required: true

critical_features:
  min_wall_mm: 1.2
  smallest_channel_mm: 3.0
  machined_interfaces:
    - inlet face
    - outlet face
    - mounting datum A

inspection:
  dimensional_report: true
  pressure_test: true
  conductivity_report: requested
  material_certificate: requested

 delivery:
  destination_country: Germany
  target_date: 2026-09-15

The values above are only an example; the useful practice is to make assumptions visible. A drawing and 3D model remain essential.

6. Ask questions that expose risk early

Before accepting a quote, ask:

Which features drive build orientation?
Where will supports be attached?
How will internal powder and debris be removed?
Which surfaces need machining stock?
What heat treatment is planned?
How will channels be inspected or tested?
Which requirements are included in the quoted price?
Which assumptions could change lead time?

A good engineering review may recommend a geometry change, an alternate alloy, or a hybrid process. That is useful information, not a failure of the model.

A concise RFQ package

The minimum practical package is:

STEP or another manufacturing-ready 3D model;
dimensioned drawing with datums and critical tolerances;
alloy and property requirements;
quantity and revision;
operating temperature, pressure, media, and duty cycle;
post-processing and finish requirements;
inspection and documentation requirements;
delivery location and target date.

COPPER 3DP coordinates pure copper and CuCrZr LPBF production with heat treatment, CNC machining, finishing, inspection, and export support for industrial parts.

A longer design and RFQ guide is available here: Designing Pure Copper and CuCrZr Parts for Metal Additive Manufacturing.

The goal is not to make an RFQ longer. It is to make the decision-critical information explicit before build planning begins.