Re: [DIYbio] Amazon unintentionally solves "low cost lab automation device" challenges

OpenPCR is great and everyone should buy one.  The initial cost of a lab device is still dwarfed over it's lifetime by typical running costs anyway.  And if discussing with typical lab buyers accustomed to $10,000 equipment price tags, in comparison it is a breakthrough.  With that said there have been many comments about it's cost. Including threads like this -

(2012) https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/diybio/openpcr/diybio/tlPUBoCTf-Q/DA44Xuk9-M0J
" OpenPCR is a cool thing. The only thing is, it's still quiet expensive
for a kit. .. I see that there are lots of parts. Can we build a simpler version,
just like we have simpler Arduinos available? .. Any ideas for simpler lid unit, cheaper heat-block, PSU, and MCU? "

(2014) https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/diybio/openpcr/diybio/t3nhq0az1es/vCV5o55FiGsJ
" All in all im not sold on the current "Low Cost" devices on the market. OpenPCR is tragic for the price range especially if it's a kit where results may vary greatly. "


Design is always worth discussing.  These items are fair game.  OpenPCR made history as a landmark project and yes, has been out for a while (but let's not revise history, there weren't any public discussions on designing down the materials costs in this group during it's development or initial release).  Open qPCR is a different animal in terms of benefits and capabilities[*], as you mention, and it is another breakthrough device compared to the competition.  I mentioned OpenPCR originally because it is a great example of a diybio device.  Although it isn't a great example in terms of percentages because a big chunk of the cost is the metal, transducers, and machining, which are going to cost what they cost.  Every so often I get queries from diy equipment hackers discussing how to build different devices, and tradeoffs to make.  Convergence has moved technology forward.  Laptops no longer have ethernet ports.  I wouldn't expect a bio customer to complain about a device feature such as "That hard-line networking is useless, isn't it?" because in many situations, the customer base is the last to know about the next step in technology - often only seeing the end result, rather than the design.   There's also differences in the customer base.  Simon mentions he prefers cutting the entire electronics design out of his devices, because 'everyone has a smartphone in their pocket to use as the interface'.  Perhaps that is true of Simon's diy homebrew/educational audience.  Most of my experience is of a project manager (granted, a non-bio environment) saying: "Uh, we don't use our personal devices for that.  In fact it's against company policy.  Here, let's acquisition you a [laptop or smartphone or tablet] from the IT dept.  And we'll have to wait for IT approval to get this device on the network."  Related to fluorescence detection, that's one good question isn't it, how good is the camera.  Fluorescence detection projects have been published using smartphones with add-on optics.  Wouldn't it be great if a mass-produced off-the-shelf $35 tablet could fit directly into designs to replace the custom components?

*  - Anyone unfamiliar with Open qPCR should read Biocoder Issue #6, "Open qPCR: Open Source Real-Time PCR and DNA Diagnostics"

## Jonathan Cline  ## jcline@ieee.org  ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223  ########################    

On 12/4/15 2:46 AM, Josh Perfetto wrote:

Jonathan,

The OpenPCR BOM was published years ago and is linked to from the website, and published in this forum several times.

Honestly no OpenPCR customer has ever complained about the cost of the USB port and wished to save a few bucks on SPI. Similarly no Open qPCR customer has ever complained about the cost of the ethernet port. 

These data interface technologies are very cheap. The OpenPCR is several years old, and the majority of its cost relates to thermocycling and its low volumes. The majority of the Open qPCR cost relates to its optics. When Amazon comes out with a $35 fluorescence detector it will be great.

-Josh

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jonathan Cline <jcline@ieee.org> wrote:

Over the years in this and related groups, those who are building lab devices rehash the same engineering tradeoffs of cost vs functionality vs ease of use.  The basic lab automation requirements come down to these major points: an electronic controller of some kind, some electronic sensors of some kind, a simple display, a simple touchscreen, flash memory for data logging, and a safe enclosure.  Various ways around these requirements are hashed & rehashed, such as offloading communication features to a laptop or web browser, either via USB or Bluetooth or Wifi, all of which add cost and reduce ease of use, while providing a few new computer networking benefits.