uSupply Custom LCD

[KNSSoftware]

Is this not suppose to be an open source project though?  As much as I would love to follow the experience of getting a custom display designed and produced, does it not go against the point of this particular project, if we can't build our own one without buying one of your custom displays?

And the problem with that is..?
I'm sure Dave will (if only out of necessity/MOQ) have plenty of displays available
The cost of buying parts (whether from Dave or making your own batch) has no bearing on the open-sourceness or otherwise.
 

I agree 'cost' has no baring, that is not my 'issue'.  My 'issue' (a term grossly exaggerated, as I will not personally be affected, but do feel is worth mentioning), is that the part relies on purchasing a part only available via the designer of the 'open source' project.  Obviously other parts are also proprietary, but they are not affiliated with he designer. i.e you can only follow the free design by Dave, by purchasing the display from Dave.  It does seem a bit borderline to me.

[floobydust]

LCD character displays used to be expensive for lithography, glass - high NRE, high min. order quantities and long lead times. For a basic display like this, I don't see it worth it.
You'd always have a box of 10,000 displays lying around.

Had a product with similar custom LCD display from GPEG in UK and very low cost, no big MOQ, and their own graphic design software. Hit'em up and see. It was refreshing to not have to spend big bucks.


OP's LCD display has no innovation, it's just some numbers.
A power supply from 40 years ago has the same numbers, just on an analog panel meter. Yawn.

This small OLED meter I buy for $7 and put on my bench power supplies. Popular meter in china.
It has extra measurements I find useful, such as Ahr, run time, temperature from a STM32.

I do not know the project here but wonder if it's to be low cost or what the goal is.

[glarsson]

Example of a terrible UI.

[floobydust]

What's terrible about it?
One button, press and hold to reset integrators. Press again to do calibration.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Had a product with similar custom LCD display from GPEG in UK and very low cost, no big MOQ, and their own graphic design software. Hit'em up and see. It was refreshing to not have to spend big bucks.

Do you have any figures?

[glarsson]

What's terrible about it?

Too much information in a small area.
Placement of Ah and Wh has logical relation to placement of A, W and T. Just random.
Irrelevant information (temperature).
Seriously ugly font.
Typical UI designed by a software engineer.

[Howardlong]

A number of the responses on this thread remind me of why I rarely open source revenue earning projects.

o You end up having your entire project designed and redesigned by an unappointed committee of big mouths of indeterminant provenance.

o People who profess to have no interest can’t help being self-appointed project managers.

o You waste valuable time second guessing your own judgement on every minutiae of your project.

o You lose focus during the design and manufacturing cycle going off on unnecessary tangents.

o Of course, a good dose of opinionated time wasting of what is - and is not - open source is unlikely to get a product to market any quicker, quite the opposite in fact.

This is all hugely unproductive and time wasting.

Remember, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

If you don’t like the way someone else’s project is going, and are not a stakeholder, but you feel the need to try to make a fundamental design change from afar to fulfill your own utopian agenda, then you should reconsider and instead invest your effort more productively on your own designs.

Be careful what you wish for, because these kinds of distractions take away from the open source community, and they certainly don’t encourage it or show it in a good light.

[ataradov]

Apart from open-source ramblings, I feel like the proposed design change is for the better. Whether Dave ends up using any of this is up to him, of course, but I'd say this thread was productive.

[Howardlong]

Apart from open-source ramblings, I feel like the proposed design change is for the better. Whether Dave ends up using any of this is up to him, of course, but I'd say this thread was productive.

I agree with the concept around redesigning the display layout, after all that is the point of the OP, it’s all the other nonsense about whether or not it constitutes open source, that adds no value, it’s divisive and a net complete waste of everyone’s time.

[KNSSoftware]

Apart from open-source ramblings, I feel like the proposed design change is for the better. Whether Dave ends up using any of this is up to him, of course, but I'd say this thread was productive.

I agree with the concept around redesigning the display layout, after all that is the point of the OP, it’s all the other nonsense about whether or not it constitutes open source, that adds no value, it’s divisive and a net complete waste of everyone’s time.

Why is it nonsense.? I have one opinion, and you don't share it.  Fair enough, but it doesn't make it nonsense.  In terms of your complete waste of time, no one asked you to express your disagreement.  It took you a couple seconds to read, and you decided to waste your own time to comment your disapproval.   You don't have to go on record, if you don't agree with everything.

Just for the record, I want to see Dave do it.  I and many others will learn loads.  But I don't think it invalidates my opinion.

[TimNJ]

Here's what my rendition would look like in CC mode (backlight turns red). Also changed the heading. Just some ideas! (Can't help myself.)

[glarsson]

What is the logic behind having the CV and CC indicators under the "Set" label? The user doesn't set CV and CC, so shouldn't they be under "Measured"?

[TimNJ]

I agree. I put them there because I wanted to use the empty created by the lack of Watts set. ON, CV, and CC are just indicators. Haven't thought of a way to separate them from the rest of the display without being awkward. Perhaps another separator line.

[ataradov]

Leave an empty space in the set part (may be add preset indicators there?). And move CC, CV and ON/OFF to the right vertically, where they are located virtually on any power supply.

I also don't like too bright units, I know that voltage is measured in volts, no need to yell. Yet I'd like to be yelled at about CC/CV stuff.

[TimNJ]

Leave an empty space in the set part (may be add preset indicators there?). And move CC, CV and ON/OFF to the right vertically, where they are located virtually on any power supply.

I also don't like too bright units, I know that voltage is measured in volts, no need to yell. Yet I'd like to be yelled at about CC/CV stuff.

Great input! Thanks. Yes, 3 presets under 'Set' and then another column with CV, CC, and ON would definitely make more sense. Will render one up soon.

[EEVblog]

Is this not suppose to be an open source project though?  As much as I would love to follow the experience of getting a custom display designed and produced, does it not go against the point of this particular project, if we can't build our own one without buying one of your custom displays?

No, the "point" of this project is for me to produce a commercial quality and commercial looking product I can sell, and have fun doing it.
Yes it may well be "open source" in many respects, but it would be silly to strictly design it around having the ability from a few people (and it is literally a few people, like 0.01% of customers) to be able to make it themselves using all off-the-shelf parts and use that as the driving design factor. That is almost zero on my priority list which is (in rough order):
1) Design a product that I want for myself (and close to my original concept for the uSupply)
2) Design a good looking and well engineered product
3) Design a product that is commercially viable (David2 who is doing a bulk of this work is a full time employee on real professional engineering Australian wages, and this will cost me a lot to design and I want a return on that investment), that means BOM cost matters. I cannot live on advertising money forever so I'm also moving into commercially viable niche products, and that is basically why I hired David full time.
4) Design something that makes for some good video content (custom LCD would make for a good how-to video).
and right down the bottom:
5) Think about were OSHW comes into it.

But ultimately why a custom LCD? Because I think they look better and that's what I want.
Trust me, we have debated for many hours and endless google searching for LCD solutions that might be suitable, and ultimately we think that custom LCD is just nicer, as well as being potentially cheaper and more suited to the case design we have.

You can design a good looking commercial product using all Digikey off-the-shelf parts, but it's ultimately not going to be as nicely polished as what you can do with some custom stuff.
Yeah I can use a nice Newhaven graphic LCD, and have standard Digikey PCB mount tactile buttons through holes in a front panel off-the-shelf box etc etc, the kind of projects you get in Silicon Chip magazine etc, but that's not going to give a nice polished well engineered niche commercial product.

The goal of open hardware should be about learning and sharing of designs and ideas, not making sure every product can be built 100% identical by just anyone.

If you have not seen my video, there are many aspects to OSHW, it's not just some ideal uptopian thing of everything is free and readily available:

[KNSSoftware]

Is this not suppose to be an open source project though?  As much as I would love to follow the experience of getting a custom display designed and produced, does it not go against the point of this particular project, if we can't build our own one without buying one of your custom displays?

No, the "point" of this project is for me to produce a commercial quality and commercial looking product I can sell, and have fun doing it.
Yes it may well be "open source" in many respects, but it would be silly to strictly design it around having the ability from a few people (and it is literally a few people, like 0.01% of customers) to be able to make it themselves using all off-the-shelf parts and use that as the driving design factor. That is almost zero on my priority list which is (in rough order):
1) Design a product that I want for myself (and close to my original concept for the uSupply)
2) Design a good looking and well engineered product
3) Design a product that is commercially viable (David2 who is doing a bulk of this work is a full time employee on real professional engineering Australian wages, and this will cost me a lot to design and I want a return on that investment), that means BOM cost matters. I cannot live on advertising money forever so I'm also moving into commercially viable niche products, and that is basically why I hired David full time.
4) Design something that makes for some good video content (custom LCD would make for a good how-to video).
and right down the bottom:
5) Think about were OSHW comes into it.

But ultimately why a custom LCD? Because I think they look better and that's what I want.
Trust me, we have debated for many hours and endless google searching for LCD solutions that might be suitable, and ultimately we think that custom LCD is just nicer, as well as being potentially cheaper and more suited to the case design we have.

You can design a good looking commercial product using all Digikey off-the-shelf parts, but it's ultimately not going to be as nicely polished as what you can do with some custom stuff.

The goal of open hardware should be about learning and sharing of designs and ideas, not making sure every product can be built 100% identical by just anyone.

If you have not seen my video, there are many aspects to OSHW, it's not just some ideal uptopian thing of everything is free and readily available:

Dave thanks for your considered reply.

While I hope that it doesn't set a fashion for members of the open source community to rush out and start adding custom components into designs; my biggest oversight and acceptance is that you rightly have commercial drivers, and this turns out to be a commercial product, which is appreciable; you have to pay the bills.  You are just sharing the ins and outs.  I must have missed that bit.

I am not trying to blow smoke up your clacker, but i am genuinely enjoying seeing this baby grow - albeit the long haul.

[EEVblog]

While I hope that it doesn't set a fashion for members of the open source community to rush out and start adding custom components into designs; my biggest oversight and acceptance is that you rightly have commercial drivers, and this turns out to be a commercial product, which is appreciable; you have to pay the bills.

The vast majority of OSHW products are not polished finished commercial products.
If you want a really good looking and feeling commercial (or even hobby) product then there is a very good chance that you will have to go custom on some things.
And BTW, the LCD will not be the only custom thing on this design, and once again there are design reasons for this.

[Monkeh]

And if it's open source, and people want to build one, and they don't want to try and get one of your custom LCDs.. well, it's open source. They can change the design, put a graphic LCD in, and change the display code to use it. Yay, open source.

It's about learning, sharing, and adapting, not outright copying.

[jaycee]

And if it's open source, and people want to build one, and they don't want to try and get one of your custom LCDs.. well, it's open source. They can change the design, put a graphic LCD in, and change the display code to use it. Yay, open source.

It's about learning, sharing, and adapting, not outright copying.

This. I'm glad someone else finally gets it.

If the project is open source there is absolutely NOTHING to stop someone committing code which can drive a regular graphic LCD, or 7 segment LED, or whatever you want. Dave's custom display makes no difference.

This is EXACTLY why designers dont open their designs. Too many entitled whiners.

[wilfred]

And if it's open source, and people want to build one, and they don't want to try and get one of your custom LCDs.. well, it's open source. They can change the design, put a graphic LCD in, and change the display code to use it. Yay, open source.

It's about learning, sharing, and adapting, not outright copying.

Some people might just want to make one themselves. That's why the design files (all of them) are made available on open source projects. People who make their own copy ought not be regarded as lesser members of the community than those who can, or want to make changes. Outright copying is perfectly valid. It certainly isn't an issue with software.

A custom component on what is claimed to be open source hardware may just be a way to hinder copying on a commercial scale and confine people to maybe only making firmware changes to single sourced commercial hardware.

I regard true open source as facilitating the copying of the device. That way those who want one can make it and those who see a way to make improvement or modifications can do that and share it. In that way the community can set in train a process of evolution that leads to a place the original make may not have envisaged. Successful open source projects share that in common. The ones that attempt to make sharing more difficult face a steeper hill to climb. That gradient may be custom components, binary-blobs, design files in proprietry formats or single language documentation.

[jaycee]

Some people might just want to make one themselves. That's why the design files (all of them) are made available on open source projects. People who make their own copy ought not be regarded as lesser members of the community than those who can, or want to make changes. Outright copying is perfectly valid. It certainly isn't an issue with software.

A custom component on what is claimed to be open source hardware may just be a way to hinder copying on a commercial scale and confine people to maybe only making firmware changes to single sourced commercial hardware.

I regard true open source as facilitating the copying of the device. That way those who want one can make it and those who see a way to make improvement or modifications can do that and share it. In that way the community can set in train a process of evolution that leads to a place the original make may not have envisaged. Successful open source projects share that in common. The ones that attempt to make sharing more difficult face a steeper hill to climb. That gradient may be custom components, binary-blobs, design files in proprietry formats or single language documentation.

Dave can quite easily provide you with the specs for the display, and you can go and have the display made yourself. Then it's still open source.

[wilfred]

Dave can quite easily provide you with the specs for the display, and you can go and have the display made yourself. Then it's still open source.

I'm not talking about this device. I read a few posts earlier where Dave categorically states his position  on making this an OSHW project.

He says.

 "and right down the bottom:
5) Think about were (sic) OSHW comes into it."

And if you read his first four items in the list it is pretty bloody clear.

So I was responding to another post which amongst other things is  either indirectly or intentionally confusing this projects aims and making a judgement I disagree with about the nature of OSHW.

Specifically that those who copy an OSHW design to make one for themselves are not entering in to the true spirit of OSHW. And secondly that claiming this project is open source when Dave has basically said right at the bottom of the list is considering OSHW aspects.

[EEVblog]

I regard true open source as facilitating the copying of the device.

That's a nice ideal, but not practical in many circumstances.

That way those who want one can make it and those who see a way to make improvement or modifications can do that and share it.

Which is in practice a fraction of a percent of people will will ever use/buy/build the product.

In that way the community can set in train a process of evolution that leads to a place the original make may not have envisaged.

Having custom parts does not prevent that. In the case of this PSU for example, people might take the circuit and use different case which might mean a different display choice anyway, or they might want to change the display as part of the project evolution etc

Successful open source projects share that in common.

Exclusively? Really? Got proof of that?

The ones that attempt to make sharing more difficult face a steeper hill to climb. That gradient may be custom components, binary-blobs, design files in proprietry formats or single language documentation.

Once again, got proof of that?, or is that just your opinion?

What if custom parts are the only way to make the product better? Do you forgo a better and more usable or cheaper or whatever product just because of some arbitrary open source hardware ideal using "off-the-shelf" parts?

Please go design a truly open source hardware (as you envisage it) handheld multimeter for example, and see what kind of usable product you get out it...

[Dubbie]

I really like what Whales came up with.

Good information hierarchy.