I agree entirely. For one-off or low volume stuff, the hardware costs
become much less important. Speed of development is key.
If a proof of concept works, it can be pushed into cheaper hardware for
mass consumption.
If software developer cost is $100/hr to produce a proof of concept,
does it matter if the initial hardware costs $50 or $500?
If you can't afford the $500 development hardware, then you certainly
will not be able to afford the developer!
Dave
On 11/3/2017 4:01 AM, Alexander Rössler wrote:
I have to disagree here.
A PocketBeagle might seem overkill for controlling an ice box - however,
keep in mind that it significantly reduces development cost.
Development cost is a factor of 10 to 1000 more expensive than hardware
costs, especially for one-off and low volume products.
Machinekit is really good for exactly this purpose, it makes it possible
to experiment and tinker in almost no time.
Btw. I have seen IoT hardware for higher prices with less functionality
- 100$ might seem a lot from the tinkerers perspective, but in
professional environment it's nothing compared to the time you are
working on the product.
Keep in mind that prototyping is an important aspect of modern product
development. Want to prove your boss/investors that an ice box can be
controlled with your phone? - use Machinekit.
John Morris writes:
[Putting back on list]
On 11/02/2017 12:21 PM, Chris Albertson wrote:
> The reason we don't see Machine Kit used for things like a thermostat is
> that would be silly waste of resources.
>
> If you want to show off Machine kit using it to do something that is 100
> time less complex then it's intended purpose is not "showing it off"
> Saing "hey look, this software can used to replace a thermostat is not
> interesting" If you want a non-machine tooldemo that shows off MK then
> build a robot with legs that can walk.
>
> MK makes an even worse IOT demo. The point of IOT is that you can build
> them for i=unde a couple dollars using $100 in parts would look bad.
>
> So, if the goal is to use MK then use it to control a machine that is
> more complex than an icebox. If the goal is to build an ice box keep
> the control budget under $10 or you look silly using so much over kill
>
> Perceptions matter. Using a 64-bit quad core ARM computer to control an
> ice box just has "bad optics"
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:25 AM, John Morris <j...@zultron.com
> <mailto:j...@zultron.com>> wrote:
>
> [Putting back on list]
>
> On 11/01/2017 02:30 PM, Chris Albertson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:50 AM, John Morris <j...@zultron.com
> <mailto:j...@zultron.com> <mailto:j...@zultron.com
> <mailto:j...@zultron.com>>> wrote:
>
> The value IMO is in the demonstration of a full integration
> from
> electronics to remote GUI, and in the overall simplicity for
> learners. Maybe it's the lesson that comes after Alex's
> AND-Demo.
>
>
> NO, this does NOT demo over all simplicity. It is very complex
> compared to that way this is typically done. This is a
> problem that has been solved 100 times already so we cam see
> how others have one it. OK assuming you want an Phone base
> point and click app to control and ice box and you want it to
> serve as a demo to show how it is done then at each step you
> really should use the "canonical solution". That is the
> cleanest and simplest design at each step. and use the simplest
> and easy to understand interfaces between the parts.
>
> Such a demo would have layers, each layer easy to understand and
> the connection between the layers using an simply interfaces.
> I'd d it this way
>
> 1) physical device. Ice box the Pelitier heat/cooler. This is
> just a Pelteir with a heat sink on both sides, on heat sink
> inside and one outside the box, possible with fans on each.
> Then a power supply and the H-bridge. You also need temperature
> sensor(s) inside the box, not mounted to the heat sink
>
> 2) controller. connect to temperature sensor(s) and h-bridge
> and to control device. It accepts the temperature set point
> from the user and reports internal temperature and maybe battery
> stays if this is battery powered. You PID controller loop
> runs soon this controller. This runs on a tiny micro
> controller. The modern equivalent to the Arduino. This
> controller work independently from the use interface because you
> don't want to have to runs a computer of cell phone app 24x7 for
> something so simple at a temperature controller.
>
> 3) user interface app. This runs on a phone or computer,
> connects to the above controller, can pull temperature log and
> change set point. It might have nice graphic and maybe can save
> data to the cloud. But then it terminates and lets yto use
> computer/phone for other purposes It would very seriously
> consider using a wireless interface from this to #2 above.
> Pickone that is already built into the phone and computer. WiFi
> or Blue Tooth
>
>
> What this ice box this really is, they call "The Internet of
> Things" (IOT). The concept is they are really simple but are
> CONNECTED. It theemoerging world IOT is everywhere. light
> switches, refrigerators and toaster ovens and cloths wasters and
> drying and your car and maybe even shoes (that tack steps)
> They make spelled chips for under $1 that can be used t make
> controllers like #2 above. I'd use one of those as they will
> have the required interfaces built-in and are made to use just
> mmecoamps of current and of course cost almost nothing.
>
> Seriously I've sen IOT light bulbs. An entire computer and WiFi
> cheap and small enough to go into a light bulb so you can
> program the color temperature and bightness without need to rip
> up walls and install cables.
>
> Your Goldilocks box is prime example if an IOT device. IOT
> devices are way-simple and do just one thing and link to a
> phone/computer using standard Internet Protocol. . Controlling
> a peltier heater/cooler is exactly this.
>
>
> Chris, you have a lot of good ideas about what constitutes a
> valuable demo. There are so few non-CNC examples of Machinekit HAL,
> HAL talk and QtQuickVCP that just work out of the box. Maybe you'd
> consider contributing a layered example of your own using Machinekit
> and friends, one that demonstrates how easy it is to take a
> canonical solution and build nifty IoT devices.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Chris Albertson
> Redondo Beach, California
--
website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github:
https://github.com/machinekit
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Machinekit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to machinekit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/machinekit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
