Right now I am deep in a project which I refer to mentally as the Keyback
Steno. It is a keyboard like this one http://stenoknight.com/demo.html
which has electromagnetically locking keys. As you can see in the photo of a
traditional stenotype keyboard, the keys are on levers. If it were possible
to hold one end of the lever with an electromagnet while the key was in its
down possition, then I would be able to controll the keys release
programatically. If all the keys were held down, than I could
programatically command some of the keys to pop up. This would allow the
keyboard to function not only as an input device, but also as a device for
displaying text. Since one can type on a stenotype keyboard at 250 WPM than
it is reasonable to assume that reading on such a keyboard could be
accomplished at a similar or higher rate of speed. Theoretically speaking,
this should allow me to create a low cost and useful haptic device which
could compete with the overpriced braille displays used by blind people
today.
Unfortunately, stenotype keyboards cost around $4000 a peice today. If I
were to approach design, development and production with the same mindset as
those companies which produce such costly stenotype keyboards, I would do
visually impaired individuals no good. But when you examine the parts
involved, it seems like an unreasonable price. One begins to think to
themselves "What parts really are involved in making such a keyboard?" "I
could do that cheeper."
Over the past months, I have spent a lot of time on youtube and I have
learned a lot about manufacturing. I have learned that one of the key
reasons that products like stenotype keyboards cost so much is that they are
designed by people who do not understand the costs involved with the various
manufacturing techniques. They use large injection molded plastic parts,
which are reasonable to use only in large production volumes, when it would
have been cheeper for them to use more expensive, higher quality (and
therefore easier to work) materials such as sheet metal, wireforms, lasercut
foam, and woods.
If I were to attack the problem of designing a keyback steno keyboard with
the mindset of most companies in the area, I would be interested in building
up a set of tools. The first thing I would do is I would purchase Solid
Works in order to model my keyboard. I don't know how much SolidWorks costs
because THEY DO NOT LIST A PRICE ON THEIR WEBSITE! I would need to purchase
a new computer and that would cost me around $700-1500, the computers I have
do not run SolidWorks. Howerver, I would tell myself that the purchase of
SolidWorks and the computer was a cost saving, because it would save me
money on prototyping. Afterall, with SolidWorks, one can model their
designs, measure mechanical forces, ect all without every having to build a
prototype.
I would also hire a number of engineers who were capable of telling me the
mechanical properties of the materials I was using, so that we would be able
to optimize the weight and cost of the materials. This would also be a cost
savings, because the engineer would prevent unecesary rounds of prototyping
and we would be able to design a product with overall lowered material cost.
I would also bring in outside consultants for designing the electromagnets,
as they are far from standard, an outside computer programming consultancy
to write firmware and drivers, as well as outside consultants to run me
through CE certification.
Going along with the "good tools" philosophy, I would buy the 10 000 EUR (I
had to ask, the price is not on their website) LPKF ProtoMat S43 http://www.
lpkf.com/products/rapid-pcb-prototyping/circuit-board-plotter/protomat-s43.
htm along with their 10 000 EUR mutlilayer press in order to prototype the
circuit boards which will have my special electromagnets printed on them. I
would also consider this to be a cost savings, because prototyping specialty
multilayer circuit boards is famously expensive.
<crossed out>Finally, I would end it all of with a tens of thousands of
dollar stratasys 3D printer in order to prototype the chassi and other
parts.</crossed out> Finally, I would purchase a high powered laser cutting
system (this is something that is surprisingly easy to find the price of, 40
thousand euros and up to cut metal), as well as a small manual sheet metal
bend press (10 000 euros, the full CNC ones are 100 thousand euros and up
and are actually more expensive than laser cutters). I would also need a
quality drill press with a high powered spindle (500 euros). And for all my
prototypes, I would need to source materials in low quantities, which would
end up costing me many hundreds of euros in shipping fees and sample pack
fees.
In the end, I would have invested hundreds of thousands of Euros in research
and development, I would have outside investors to please, and there would
be no way that my low cost haptic computer system would be anything like low
cost, and it certainly would not be open source.
HOWEVER:
While it is nowere near the quality of SolidWorks, there is a program called
FreeCAD which can replace it to some degree. FreeCAD is free and open
source, and it exists because some people chose not to pay up for SolidWorks
and decided to design an free open source cad project instead.
In place of an army of engineers, I have this recent invention called the
internet. It's not perfect, but it's WAY cheeper! In the end, I almost
certainly will pay someone with experience to look over my plans, but there
is a huge leap between a short consultation and employees. The open nature
of the hackerspace and the open source / free software comunity as a whole,
is on my side however. I can talk about my project to anyone, and I have
already received loads of valulable feedback, absolutely for free!
As for the software, there are already free open source libraries for
stenography, and there is already a driver framework (brltty) which will
alow me to complete everything without writting more than a few hundred
lines of code. If I were developing my product like the companies described
above, I would imediately reject this oportunity, however, as the libraries
in question are GPL and it would mean I would lose controll of my
"intelectual property".
The protomat router for making precice PCB prototypes is a more serious
problem for me. I have thought about purchasing it. It is VERY difficult to
achive the level of precision that they claim. However, there are a number
of open souce router projects, and these projects did not come to exist due
to people saying "well I can just buy the LPKF machine". They came to exist,
becuase they looked at the LPKF machine and said "it's 10 000 euros,
requires Windows, and it's not open source, I'll try to do it myself". And
if I go with one of these router projects, I will most likely be able to
both cut out sheet metal parts and mill circuit boards on the same machine
(though the curcuit boards will have a higher minimum trace size than on the
LPKF... ).
As for the 3D printer, yes, you can buy cheep 3D printers today. You can do
so BECAUSE the reprap project exists. Untill reprap came about, 3D printers
were so expensive that they were out of reach even of most comercial labs.
It is only thanks to the likes of Prusa and Ax that we can even have the
discussion about whether the fabtotum should be bought!
--------------------------------------------
All this said, free open source software like FreeCAD is written on
computers, and most of that silicon is closed as closed can be. It was only
thanks to tools like the closed sorce definitely not DIY processors by Intel
that FOSS like FreeCAD can exist. And Prusa printed the Prusa on a
definitely not DIY printer himself.
I agree with you generally that we need quality tools. But I also strongly
believe that throwing out the DIY mentality loses many of the positive
aspects of the hackerspace. It can even lead to ruin of sorts. The ruin I am
talking about, is when people start buying into comercial tools which are
imperfect (and believe me, comercial tools are imperfect too) then they
start developing those tools. This is what I call a captive comunity. A
captive comunity, is when a comunity of well meaning developers begin
building a comunity of free content on top of a close source/proprietary
base. A classic captive comunity is that of EagleCad. A significant portion
of EagleCad's value comes from the efforts of people in the EagleCad
community and not from the firm itself. If those efforts had all been
directed towards KiCad or some other open source alternative, the world
would be a much better place. Open source effort built attop proprietary
platforms helps those platforms for free while doing the DIY community a
great harm.
Even just using a product, without actively working on it, helps that
product, by increasing general knowlege of the product in a community and
providing ample oportunities for yourself to provide free technical support
to the users of that product. For example, on c-n-c.cz it is far easier to
get free technical support using the closed source software Mach3 than the
open source software LinuxCNC. By choosing the convenient an "quality" ready
built software solution, the c-n-c.cz community has promoted a less DIY
solution over a more DIY solution thus making it harder for the open source
solution to gain foothold.
I agree with you generally, that brmlab could use some more good tools.
However, I wory that if we invest too heavilly in proprietary soloutions,
brmlab will lose its value. Brmlab shouldn't exist to build captive
comunities for companies like EagleCad who wish to get free work done by
enthusiests. Brmlab should exist for its own purposes and for the purposes
of promoting the DIY and open source communities as a whole.
----------------------------
>From the open source standpoint, fabtotum is a rather concerning project.
They claim that they are open source, however they use a creative commons
NON COMERCIAL license for everything they publish. This means, that their
work cannot flow back to other open source projects. It also means that they
cannot legally accept patches without contributors signing a dead tree
contributors agreement. Though I bet they don't realise that aspect of their
licensing decision.
-----------------------------
In conclusion, I think that brmlab SHOULD invest in more quality tools. We
don't even have a full sized drill press, and throughout the reprap project
we have been cutting threaded rod with a rotary sander for want of a table
saw! However, I also agree with those who are sceptical of giving up our DIY
attitude for more complex equipment.
There's also another thing to consider. I thought for a little bit, about
maybe buying the LPKF router and putting it in BRMLAB. Afterall, I certainly
wouldn't find use for it 24 / 7. But I quickly set asside the idea. There is
no way in hell I'm ever going to bring a 10 000 euro peice of equipment to
brmlab and leave it lying around. It would almost instantly get destroyed or
stolen!
Tim
---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Mario Lombardo <ma...@alienscience.com>
Komu: Brmlab: Hackerspace Prague, (main discussion) <brmlab@brmlab.cz>
Datum: 10. 3. 2015 19:25:50
Předmět: [Brmlab] Fabtotum
"
Dear BRMlab,
I have expressed interest many times, both publicly and privately, that it
is vital to have reliable and quality tools. At the time of the Fabtotum
crowd funding campaign, a year or so ago, the 3D printer we had in the lab
needed constant tuning, we didn't have an optical 3D scanner, nor a milling
machine. A member even said it goes against the spirits of a hackerspace to
buy such a tool. Yet back then, in my experience with using the 3D printer
it proved it wasn't a reliable tool nor a quality tool of its rank. Even so,
almost a year later, we still don't have an optical scanner nor milling
machine. Does our 3D equal in quality of the Fabtotum? If not, who will take
the time to improve it or make a new and better one? Will we approve such an
expense and time? As of now, we still have a down larger 3D printer, so what
of it?
The downfall of poor quality tools is that they slow progress and stifle
creativity. As hackers and makers, we have enough obstacles to overcome than
let a tool deceive or encumber vital steps in a process or discovery--
testing and measuring equipment at the top and prototyping equipment second-
-both vital nonetheless.
My idea was to help us. b00lean expressed interest in such vision and so did
a small minority, so a small pool of us gathered and helped purchase a
future unit.
Sadly, much time has passed, even more than anticipated, yet the question
remains, would BRMlab desire, care, and utilize such a tool? At this time, I
would like to hear more voting and financial support than voiced we, the
original party. For if not, then it can go with General Bytes because b00
lean seems to like it. If any members are bashing the tool, I would be
curious if they have firsthand experience? If not, part of the effort in
acquiring the Fabtotum was that "it could" do all of the proposed feats it
its capacity. We believed just as we might believe in something else, like
purchasing the SDR and finally much later a member is able to make an
incredible GSM device.
As a consensus, however BRMlab votes this evening, I will __abstain__ and
hope for this tool or some tool some BRMlab collective deem worthy of our
respect, care, and use. We need better tools, and I was hoping for this one.
Just think about us and not your ego--to build one as a hack project. That
has always been an option, but can you rely on what it makes? A good tool
will deliver. A hack will mostly deliver an accomplishment or proof-of-
concept that is itself. That's wonderful but wildly different from the mark
of a tool. Both have merit, but whether both should occupy the same
desktop?... Hmm.
I've made both, and the one thing that annoys me in making a tool, is that
I've got to be bitching accurate in every way, letting no computation be an
error or succumb to its duplicity tenfold. Otherwise, I'd keep a rubbish bin
nearby my knee and simply push the craft to its demise... "Do over!"
On Monday, March 9, 2015, b00lean <b00l...@b00lean.net> wrote:
"
Ahoj,
Minuly tyden v pondeli dorazil Fabtotum ( http://www.fabtotum.com/
(http://www.fabtotum.com/) ), ktery jsem objednal a zaplatil 10.10.2013
(celkem 21 463,67 CZK )
Zatim jsem ho nerozbalil.
V rijnu 2013 jsme se dohodli, ze se na fabtotum slozime a moje firma doplati
zbytek ( http://brmlab.cz/project/fabtotum
(http://brmlab.cz/project/fabtotum) )
K prispevku se prihlasili nasledujici:
mario 1000 CZK
pasky 1000 CZK
pborky 1000 CZK
JoHnY 1000 CZK
niekt0 1000 CZK
Ondrej Mikle 1000 CZK
Eliáš 1000 CZK
b00lean doplati zbytek.
Na zminovany ucet(na strance) dorazila pouze jedna platba ( 1 000 Kč - Ján
Teluch - nevim nick asi JoHnY)
Nekteri ze zminovanych mi dali penize hotove (vubec uz nevim kdo ale asi jen
2 lide) nebo je vubec neposlali.
Od doby objednani Fabtotum a jeho doruceni se zmenilo hodne predevsim vsak
to, ze jiz nejsem clenem brmlabu, nemam do neho pristup a je mi lito
zaplatit za fabtotum tolik ze sveho a nechat ho v brmlabu k "opotrebeni/
rozbiti" lidmi, kteri na nej neprispeli a tudiz k nemu ani nebudou
pristupovat s patricnou odpovednosti.
Navrhuji nasledujici reseni:
A. Fabtotum si ponecham a vyplatim ty, kteri prispeli.
B. Brmlab odkoupi Fabtotum za zbytkovou cenu ze svych penez (zaplati zbytek
me).
C. Najde se v radach brmlabu dostatek dalsich lidi, kteri na pristroj
prispeji tak aby brmlab nemusel nic odkupovat, nebo brmlab doplati mene.
Prosim o vase konstruktivni reakce a komentare,
b00lean
"
--
>>sent from mobile<<
_______________________________________________
Brmlab mailing list
Brmlab@brmlab.cz
https://brmlab.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/brmlab";
_______________________________________________
Brmlab mailing list
Brmlab@brmlab.cz
https://brmlab.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/brmlab
