I think you're absolutely right about that. I don't see any reason to use a DC jack anymore. In fact I was thinking about USB-C for power. Haven't actually looked into USB 3.0 and 3.1. I'm not even sure exactly what they are. I am already looking to move beyond the 2012 technologies used in the open machines so far. I'm also thinking about IoT or control using a mobile app. Not sure if that makes much sense going forward. Will be figuring it out as I go.
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:21:30 AM UTC+5:30, Jonathan Cline wrote:
-- On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:21:30 AM UTC+5:30, Jonathan Cline wrote:
Future lab devices will be USB 3.0 powered by 12V, no external power supply. 60W is enough for an efficient PCR machine aka thermocycler. Build for the future, have it hit the streets in 2017 as fully powered by USB only. [But monitor market acceptance of the standard while developing the design.] Check out this summary:USB 3.1: Released in July 26, 2013, USB 3.1 doubles the speed of USB 3.0 to 10Gbps (now called SuperSpeed+ or SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps), making it as fast as the original Thunderbolt standard. USB 3.1 is backward-compatible with USB 3.0 and USB 2.0. USB 3.1 has three power profiles (according to USB Power Delivery Specification), and allows larger devices to draw power from a host: up to 2A at 5V (for a power consumption of up to 10W), and optionally up to 5A at either 12V (60W) or 20V (100W). The first USB 3.1 products are expected to be available in 2016, and will mostly use USB Type-C design.
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 12:40:19 AM UTC-8, Ujjwal Thaakar wrote:Forget this thread. I just received a message from Josh Preffeto that I am trying to cheat him by subverting Indian customs and making a personal profit. That just makes me sad.
Too frequently in open designs, when a branch occurs (that is what you are trying to do), the project originators get angry. In some cases the branch far surpasses the original, and in some cases, the original subsumes innovations on the branch. The originators should not get angry but that's beside the point. Only by re-engineering human nature will that difficulty be eliminated. OpenPCR was not cost optimized as concluded in previous discussions (even though it is marketed as a low cost PCR machine). However consumable costs for experiments will far surpass the cost of the PCR machine so if you can't afford the current price, you're already in trouble aren't you? This is not to say it's not a good project, this is to say, there may be better projects to focus effort on, especially, reducing the cost of the consumables [reagents] or optimizing a workflow which uses smaller quantities of consumables [such as sub-2 uL].
## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################
-- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/c7281099-e4f5-4205-9a82-82b8fa42cf21%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment