RepRapSurvey.org

Hi,

I need your help! Help me help the project we both love! Go to [RepRapSurvey.org]

Why? I can understand that you don't have time for just any survey. But this one is REALLY IMPORTANT:

We're trying to learn how open source software development differs from open hardware. Also, I'm learning how the RepRap community innovates and how this is different from commercial development of physical products. If helping me graduate isn't enough reason: you will help the RepRap project (results are used by me and Adrian Bowyer) and the field of open source research (as I'm directly working with the most cited scholar on this subject, Eric von Hippel from MIT).

Your input is essential! Many others have already filled in the [RepRapSurvey.org] but we need more respondents for statistical significance of the findings.

It will take about 15 minutes.

Thank you VERY much!

Erik

P.s. Everyone will be given access to what we learn from this study. If you have questions or remarks, don't hesitate to contact me.

[EDIT: I Made this thread "sticky" - Sebastien]
[EDIT2: This thread is no longer "sticky" - Sebastien]

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2010 06:33AM by SebastienBailard.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

Hi Erik,

... last year there were already some nearly identical surveys ... maybe you can compare with them too?

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

You probably mean Kerstin Balka's summary. One part of the survey is indeed similar, but these questions were not specific to the RepRap project. But we will be using those results too. Obviously, since data has been anonimized (as should be) we will only have the aggregate results from that study. So we can compare them overall, but it's hard/impossible to pair the results.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

I think this project is a lot more than open hardware or software. It is also open research.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Very true.

I took the survey and I have some comments about the questions. For example, as I am an engineering student, most of my time is spent in engineering classes. I wrote that in as "improving my skills", although I have no idea how much of my course work is relevant.

Since I recently got the Reprap working, almost all of my time up to now has been spent "getting the Reprap working". However, I doubt that much time from now on will, because we seem to have a fairly good solution going now. So my answers would be skewed in favor of "getting the Reprap working" when they probably ought not to be.

I was confused by the question "What motivated you to develop this hardware? Please distribute 100 points according to what motivated you most." Given the set responses, and my position as a student working on the Reprap for a project, I wasn't sure of how to accurately answer this. That is to say, I'm doing the project because I enjoy developing improvements; I enjoy developing improvements because I want to help other users; and I need to print specific objects (with wires) to satisfy my project goals. These are all presented answers and it's tough to distribute "points" between them, given their interconnectedness.

In general, I think multiple-choice surveys work best when there's a small optional comment box on each question, that allows the surveyee to explain in greater detail if necessary. Sometimes it's just difficult to guess the intent behind the questions, which is necessary if the surveyee's situation is unusual.

But anyway, good survey and I hope my answers helped =)

... my problem was the time-span reaching only back to 1990 - my first relevant activities started in 1983

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Nophead > I think this project is a lot more than open hardware or software. It is also open research.

That's true. We are not narrowly defining it in the research. It's a collaborative problem solving process (if that's broad enough), and some of the products are have software output and others are designs and manifestations of physical products. The fact that physical matter is needed to test the solutions has an impact on development and reproducibility (all having it, having the same thing), etc.

jbayless> I wrote that in as "improving my skills", although I have no idea how much of my course work is relevant.

This is why you're asked to estimate. I think most if engineering is applicable to RepRap, since it involves many engineering disciplines.

> Since I recently got the Reprap working, almost all of my time up to now has been spent "getting the Reprap working". However, I doubt that much time from now on will, because we seem to have a fairly good solution going now. So my answers would be skewed in favor of "getting the Reprap working" when they probably ought not to be.
Yes, but we are the ones to correct for that. Most people who have it operational for a longer time will indeed show a different distribution. This means that over time, the cohort that is now building the machine will/should start to show the distribution of the cohort that has finished it).

> I was confused by the question "What motivated you to develop this hardware?
> Please distribute 100 points according to what motivated you most." Given the set responses, and my position as a student working on the Reprap for a project,
> I wasn't sure of how to accurately answer this. That is to say, I'm doing the
> project because I enjoy developing improvements; I enjoy developing
> improvements because I want to help other users; and I need to print specific
> objects (with wires) to satisfy my project goals. These are all presented
> answers and it's tough to distribute "points" between them, given their
> interconnectedness.

Good point. This is indeed a drawback for the method of distributing points. Though not everyone will show the same pattern. You seem to think all are very important. Someone else might 'scratch his itches' and wants to solve his problems, others might mostly enjoy helping others.

> In general, I think multiple-choice surveys work best when there's a small
> optional comment box on each question, that allows the surveyee to explain in
> greater detail if necessary. Sometimes it's just difficult to guess the intent
> behind the questions, which is necessary if the surveyee's situation is unusual.

You're probably right. I got your feedback anyway
I will discuss it with my two research colleagues!

> But anyway, good survey and I hope my answers helped =)

Definitely!

Viktor > ... my problem was the time-span reaching only back to 1990 - my first relevant activities started in 1983

I'll discuss this too. What kind of machine were you building?

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

Hi Eric,

... my first "3D-fabbing" machine was a DIY-XY-plotter where i applied a CO2-tube with 1.5 Watts, mirrors and a focussing lens made from Germanium. I used this setup for laminating thin sheets of plastic or wood.

Then in 1986 i've got a CNC-mill ... but had to write the drivers and a 2,5D-CAD/CAM for my Atari ST prior to use it properly

After 1994 i built two more CO2-lasercutters for marking and engraving signs ... and made some more development with laminating (then already known as LOM-fabbing)

Around 2004 i developed microtech applications with a 20Watts-disk-laser and a tuned CNC-mill ...

2007 i've optimized two NdYAG-puls-lasers for welding and micro-engraving, then built a brazing/soldering toolhead with an 8Watt-diodelaser ...

And since 2008 i have a CNC-mill at home again, got last year a 50Watts-fibre-laser and are busy with developing 5Watt-diodelaser-toolheads for laser-cutting and -sintering ...

So most 3D-fabbing applications were defined around milling or LOM with laser-cutting. But with the right equipment at home i'm restarting with paste-fabbing and laser-sintering too ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

I think the survey glossed over the fascinating interdisciplinary nature of the reprap.

I've worked in prestigious engineering firms, and their main problem was specialisation. I was invaluable there because I comprehended on a profoundly fundamental level the mechanics, electronics, firmware and software and was able to see the whole as one system moving information and energy around through varied mere representations, which none of their highly qualified mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, or software engineers could do. I was also the only "unqualified" person there, with nothing but a high school pass and many years of self-teaching.

In the reprap project, we are gathering a massive worldwide network of the sort of people who are capable of (and excelling at) this interdisciplinary mindset. I would love to brainstorm how we can show this as profoundly different from (but not exclusive to) the result of a classical engineering education?

---

-----------------------------------------------
Wooden Mendel
Teacup Firmware

The survey has a problem, in that sometimes when validating replies it insists on answers when none are relevant. I forget exactly which question is was, but I got to a page which asked a question and gave me three options none of which were relevant - I could not proceed without giving a wrong answer.

David

@ Triffid
Indeed! Let's talk more later. Right now it would be best not to influence results by giving my opinion.

@ David
I will see if we can change this.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

Oh; right, one other thing - I downloaded an STL file from Thingiverse to run calibration test-prints, but since the were calibration prints, they came out quite ugly (so I didn't upload photos). Also, my first self-designed printed models were the company logos of SparkFun and Boreal Genomics, featured speakers at the project fair we're presenting at this week. The logos aren't our IP so I couldn't upload it to Thingiverse.

But in other cases, I definitely would upload photos and stl/CAD files