[HN Gopher] If you can use open source, you can build hardware ___________________________________________________________________ If you can use open source, you can build hardware Author : gustavo_f Score : 119 points Date : 2023-09-05 17:33 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (redeem-tomorrow.com) (TXT) w3m dump (redeem-tomorrow.com) | akkartik wrote: | _" If you build modern software, you're well-versed in | composition: grab a handful of existing projects--a database | here, a UI framework there, an HTTP library to round it all out-- | and arrange them together. You write your custom logic--the stuff | unique to your project--and let other people's code do work | that's common across all projects."_ | | This approach certainly gets tried enough. I'd say it has some | issues, though. | petsfed wrote: | I'm going to complicate this a bit and say "If you can use open | source, you can _prototype_ hardware " | | Part of building hardware is making it robust enough to exist in | meat space long term. That means thinking about how the humidity | sensor is affected by ambient conditions (including the packaging | bag, that one has bit me in the past) and having a plan for re- | calibration if drift becomes too great. That means picking | connectors for your wire harnesses that can handle the number of | times you expect to connect/disconnect them over the course of | your things lifespan. That means tuning the length of that wire | harness so you can't damage it when you open the enclosure to | change the battery or whatever. It means thinking about how | ambient conditions affect the rest of the design, so you don't | have to clean the contacts on all the wire harnesses every so | often, because you didn't get gold contacts for both the | harnesses _and_ the connectors, and you live in a high humidity | environment. | | Don't get me wrong, I'm self-taught on virtually all of these | points, it _is_ achievable for the hobbyist. Just understand that | swapping out one smart relay controller for another is pretty far | from having a smart relay controller you 'd even give to your | sister-in-law for Christmas. | andyjohnson0 wrote: | I've breadboarded a number of projects, but always awem to hit | a wall when faced with the concerns you describe. Do you have | any pointers for how to gain the knowledge to get past this? | Right now I feel like I dont even know what I dont know. | petsfed wrote: | A lot of it comes down to being mindful of what you're | spending the most time on during assembly, but some of it is | just hard-won. But I've learned a lot from reading Hackaday. | | Some simple things that you shouldn't have to learn the hard | way (but most people do): | | Make sure your wiring contacts are electrochemically | compatible. Gold-to-gold is safe in almost every household | environment. | | Strain relieve every wire. Solder is not meant to be | structural. | | Every circuit component degrades over time. Heat, humidity, | and dust accelerates that process. Make a plan to mitigate | the ingress of each, and a plan to account for that | degradation. | | Learn to design simple breakout-board carrier boards. The | best breadboard layouts are still worse than a mediocre PCB, | because the PCB doesn't have flywires to catch on literally | everything. | | Make sure you include mechanical support points for your | designs, and pick the right size and material for your | mechanical supports. | | All of this to say, your hardware thing is a _thing_ first, | and an expression of your software /firmware design second. | If it cannot physically survive being that physical thing, | the elegance or resiliency of your code is meaningless. | andyjohnson0 wrote: | Thank you. | joshspankit wrote: | Please improve this (I have only dabbled), but I'll add a | couple points as well: | | - Don't run data lines and power lines right next to each | other (electric signals flow through a field surrounding | the trace/wire, not in or on the metal itself) | | - PCB pros avoid right angles for the same reason. Bevel | your corners. (You see examples of this on every board if | you're not sure what I mean) | | - Verify PCB traces with a multimeter before soldering | components to it (or if it's been assembled by the PCB | manufacturer, verify everything before powering it on for | the first time) | kbaker wrote: | Agreed. Also, the kinds of passive safety needed to not burn | your house down in the event of a code error or other design | issue. | | The hardware design is the last line of defense before you can | do real-world damage. | | Things like fuses, ESD and surge protection, watchdog timers, | often get overlooked in a hobbyist or even open-source | design... it takes (sometimes hard-won) experience to know when | these things are required. | munk-a wrote: | There are also some physical constraints as well. I have an | essential tremor - painting warhammer minis and doing | anything with a sodering gun are forever out of my reach. | | That all said - I have written firmware for things that other | people have wired and it's quite fun! | fanf2 wrote: | I have heard that using magnifying glasses or a microscope | can help suppress shaking in the hands: it has a weirdly | helpful interaction with the hand-eye feedback loop. Dunno | if it would work for you, but it might be worth trying? | munk-a wrote: | I'll have to give that a try - though it didn't seem to | help my father very much. He was a model railroader and | just got used to taking several dozen passes at painting | cars and locomotives. For me myself I've found that | stress tends to make it worse so it's a bit of a vicious | cycle where trying to suppress shaking can spur it on | more. Advice is never unappreciated though so thank you | for you consideration! | xnzakg wrote: | As much as I agree with this, buying off the shelf things, | especially on the extremes of "very niche" (ok this kinda | how's under your "hobbyist design" or "so general there are | hundreds of knockoff versions with various cost cutting | measures", there is no guarantee that they have thought of | all (or any) of the required safety measures... Check out Big | Clive on YouTube if you haven't already, and aren't afraid of | knowing about all the different ways products skimp on | safety. | imachine1980_ wrote: | Some things that are cheaper at a low scale is quite expensive | at scale, 3D printing is obvious here, your way to consume less | 3D printing may be opposite to the way that regular plastic | manufacturer does, so you need to adapt your process to the | process of your suppliers. | petsfed wrote: | I wasn't even touching manufacturing at scale, because | sometimes you really do need just the one. But it should not | be so fragile you can't carry it from the garage to | thermostat mounting position. | | I learned that the hard way when I automated the heat lamp | that I put in my chicken coop. Having to noodle around with | screw terminals while being pecked at by an angry rooster was | not a great time. | bytefactory wrote: | The rooster didn't approve of your soldering technique? | bonestamp2 wrote: | Rooster thought he should have used chicken wire. | eternityforest wrote: | And all of this together still doesn't solve the bigger problem | with DIY hardware, which is the DIY itself. | | It it goes wrong, you cannot buy a new one or hire repairperson | at a sane price. If it has a software side, it will probably | need maintainence. If you want one, there's a large chance you | might want another to expand your project. | | While yes, I am able to design a reliable hardware device, | unless you have a large budget it will not be immune to direct | baseball bat hits or spilling epoxy in the connector. So, in | practice, if you ask me to build something for you, I'll try to | find a way to do it with off the shelf parts as much as | possible. | | Which sucks, because electronics projects are super fun, but | the fun is dampened by the fact that in the end you have this | completely unique irreplaceable thing that becomes a liability | if you use it for anything important, which is generally tied | to one application and becomes junk if you no longer need it, | unlike the more general purpose off the shelf stuff. | | ESPHome and Amazon modules plus 3D printing gives a pretty good | balance for a lot of things. Reconfigurable, machine-soldered | reliability, a prefab software stack, but still enough | flexibility to build novel things. | KRAKRISMOTT wrote: | Just buy some spare tapeouts from digikey when building | -\\_(tsu)_/- | eternityforest wrote: | Doesn't solve the issue of nobody else knowing how to build | it, and the ones that do often somehow making 60$ an hour, | now you're stuck with this thing that could be your | responsibility at any time. | generj wrote: | I'm a big proponent of open source hardware but as your post | shows it often involves skills of many disciplines that | requires vigorous thought or trial and error. Electronics and | physics are unforgiving in a way processors are not. | | Even after reaching the prototype phase, the open source | hardware is probably only useful to one person: it's creator. | | There is a big difference between making a prototype and | detailing the build in sufficient detail other hobbyists can | replicate it / modify / use it. Documenting hardware is | substantially harder than documenting software. If the project | is cool a bunch of people will be excited to jump in; some of | these people have zero experience soldering or ordering laser | cut parts or whatever. Supporting them is hard. | | Then another step up to sell the design to other hobbyists, | even just a few extra copies on Tindie. | | And then a huge step up from that to selling to the general | public, where suddenly FCC interference certifications are | needed and the company is liable if the design burns down a few | houses. There's a reason firms making hardware have real | engineers on staff held to professional standards. Plus all the | cash flow and business concerns when the marginal cost per unit | isn't under 1 cent like software. | | Each of these steps often involves multiple iterations of | hardware and therefore lead time and cost. | eternityforest wrote: | There are a lot of OSHW projects I'd love to work on, but the | main thing that holds me back is knowing they'd basically go | nowhere. I can't post them online for others like with code. | | Nobody is going to build it, the physical building of it is | way harder than the design, anyone who could build it is too | busy building their own projects that will go in the junk | drawer in a week. | | I would love to work at a real OSHW company, making IoT | gadgets and stuff that for production and sale as polished | commercial products with a software ecosystem behind them... | but I lack a degree, live in Montana, and don't drive, and | there are not many companies like that(And most of them are | making expensive FOSS phones that don't run normal apps, | cryptocurrency stuff, or glorified dev boards kinda | pretending to be products) | xnzakg wrote: | Really depends on the specific pronect of course, but | there's definitely some "posted online like code" projects | out there. It's a more technical target audience of course, | but I've seen plenty of projects with design files included | ready to be sent to a PCB manufacturer. Two categories I | can easily think of are mechanical keyboards and modular | synthesizers. | eternityforest wrote: | Keyboards are an interesting case, people are so into | them, and also specifically _want_ them to be custom made | just for them, so people are willing to build or even | commission. | | I keep thinking that maybe high end flashlights could be | the same way, I can definitely think of a few features | that don't show up in your typical light, and that it | might be cool to try to make a few boutique lights to | sell, but my business knowledge isn't quite up to that, | and I don't exactly have much desire to do a whole lot of | independent work, I much prefer having an employer. | bsder wrote: | > Supporting them is hard. | | Ding! | | We had a bespoke wireless entry system for our hackerspace | which kinda sucked. Eventually the board switched it out for | OpenPath (which also sucks--to be fair). | | Why? | | Support. The board can now _call_ someone and say "We pay | you. Fix this." | | Support is the bane of consumer products. I really wish we | had some way to counter this. | notsurenymore wrote: | > "If you can use open source, you can prototype hardware" | | You can prototype _some hardware_. I've looked into trying to | build some stuff that goes beyond what a little prepackaged MCU | dev board can do, and I can't wrap my head around it. Too much | stuff involved that in no good at. | jacquesm wrote: | Compared to software skills those are relatively easy to | learn though and they have a longer best-before date than any | kind of language/framework kind of knowledge. | notsurenymore wrote: | I'm not so sure about that. Learning a programming language | for example is pretty easy, iterative, and had quick | feedback for me. Learning years worth of math makes my eyes | glaze over. I do agree on the latter half though, regarding | how they're useful for much longer. | jacquesm wrote: | You won't need 'years worth of math' to be able to | prototype hardware. There is plenty of tooling now that | will take the sting out of timing and other nasty little | details and there is plenty of hardware where those | details don't even matter all that much. | | Good starterpoint: and FPGA evaluation board, such as | Digilent's offerings. Those pack enormous power in a tiny | setup and will teach you a ton of very valuable skills. | | If that looks like a hit you can decide to deepen your | knowledge. | petsfed wrote: | Can you give an example? There may well be an easily accessed | IC for it. | notsurenymore wrote: | Mostly I was looking trying to do custom RF stuff, trying | to create custom hardware. Could have used an SDE, but I | think I still would need a solid handle on the math for | that. | fareesh wrote: | Hardware building is an expensive hobby, and often involves | aspects of engineering like heat, power, safety, etc. | | I don't trust myself to build something that I can leave | unattended and won't catch fire. How does one get over this? | fellowmartian wrote: | Outsource dangerous building blocks to qualified people, | overpay for quality components, learn proper wiring (ratings, | crimping, etc). | lnsru wrote: | Sounds like a typical content on today's internet: enough | buzzwords for search engine to find it and too abstract to be | useful. | the-printer wrote: | This is a valid criticism, but I don't think that it's | necessarily the author's fault. | 6D794163636F756 wrote: | I think it's a flaw inherent to the current system. You have | to make money to live and you do that, not by appeasing human | readers, but by appeasing an algorithm. The world is not | easily reduced into clear classifications but we're currently | forcing it into them | Takennickname wrote: | Is there anyone on earth not using open source in some capacity? | codetrotter wrote: | This group of people for one. | | > the Sentinelese appear to have consistently refused any | interaction with the outside world. They are hostile to | outsiders and have killed people who approached or landed on | the island. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese | | But more seriously I would say there is a difference between | intentionally and incidentally using open source software. | | I run Linux and FreeBSD on multiple machines. I use open source | software intentionally. | | My girlfriend runs Windows on her laptop. If we look closely I | am sure we will find open source libraries being used both | within the OS, and within other pieces of software that she | runs. But all of that is incidental. She is not interested in | software and that is fine. | | My mother and my grandfather both use LibreOffice. But only | because I installed it for them. So neither my grandfather nor | my mother really are intentional users of open source software. | It just happened to be the case that their grandson/son (me) | knew about LibreOffice and installed it for them, so that they | could use it to write documents and to open Word documents that | other people sent to them. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Depends what you mean by "using" open source. If we include | consumers of software that happens to have its source published | but who couldn't compile it even if they downloaded the source | (so, >90% of Chrome users, for example), then yes there are | lots of non-devs. Likewise, there are probably still some devs | using licensed libraries proprietary applications using | proprietary IDEs and compilers, though it's certainly getting | rarer. | buildsjets wrote: | Watching the penguin screen continuously reboot on Delta | airlines' janky in-flight entertainment system should not | count as "Using Open Source". | bonestamp2 wrote: | I would bet that every form of motorized transportation has | open source in the build or operating model somewhere. | certyfreak wrote: | A thing preventing people from going into hardware(prototyping) | is the cost. Software is cheaper than hardware. i.e. i | Berryu6 wrote: | [flagged] | dizzydes wrote: | How hard is it to remake and improve a random component on any | electronic device I own? eg the control panel on my microwave or | my entire TV remote. | | Would I need specific parts from the manufacturers? | | Would dissecting the existing component give enough detail for me | to remake without the (I assume proprietary/hidden) schematics? | ilaksh wrote: | That's not building hardware. It's connecting up and interfacing | existing hardware components. | | Which probably makes more sense than designing hardware | components for most applications. | | But it's not the same as designing circuits etc. and the title is | a bit misleading as far as that goes. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-05 23:00 UTC)