On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Cline <jcline@ieee.org> wrote:
-- Touch screen: how's that work with gloves on? Better make it resistive. Except, no one likes those because they're really annoying to use (pressure, precision), especially now that we're all spoiled by capacitive displays. Worse case you've got a membrane keypad (again, no one likes those) and a non-
Doesn't the iPhone/iPad/Android phone work ok for you with gloves on? I agree anything less than capacitive is not desirable.
touch display. Either way you'll have to compromise on display resolution and size, when you really want to graph something onscreen in a really large format. Meanwhile one of the most successful equipment stories is still Nanodrop, which doesn't have a display at all, as I suggested: it sends all data to the nearby computer.
Yes, this is why I wanted to have really good IP connectivity so it could be controlled from any computer, and data analyzed in a convenient way. There were other use cases I wanted to support though, especially someone doing the same assay continuously, like in a food testing application. It may be easier to select the assay, enter a sample identifier, and hit go in the lab, without fussing with a computer.
Re: Wireless again. Measuring very low voltages with sensitive electronics while beaming a bunch of RF energy all around right next to the amplifiers will cause trouble.
That is a really good point, I am glad you raised it. I had not thought about that or tested it specifically. I will try to see what impact it has but I think you are right. Perhaps the radio can be depowered when measurements are taken.
Cheaper than competitive equipment? Why not kill off the competing equipment with either a retail price so low that their margins are destroyed, or alternatively keep the "higher low" price as you suggest and keep more margin yourself? Either way the cost of building the device should be lower, not higher.
Well that is kindof what I think being an order of magnitude cheaper does, except that I am not trying to compete directly with the existing equipment. The specs of this device (16 wells, single channel) certainly don't match most existing equipment, so it will not be a substitute for many existing users. But I think there are many people who currently don't do qPCR, who could use this machine despite those limitations, if the price point was much lower.
-Josh
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2BL%3DET29bDH36EnFb-aJ%2B4rhRKcdeVK1GmR%3Du2XhrLKUOPMtAw%40mail.gmail.com?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment