JoeQSmith:https://www.ni.com/en-us/shop/labview/select-edition/labview-community-edition.htmlhttps://www.ni.com/en-us/support/documentation/supplemental/20/labview-community-edition-usage-details.html
In general, non-commercial and non-industrial references any use case that is not intended to make a profit. The LabVIEW Community Edition is intended for personal projects. Here are some examples:
Home hobbyist projects
Making free, open-source projects or add-ons for the community to reuse
Using LabVIEW to study for an upcoming certification
Using LabVIEW at home to keep skills sharp or try out new ideas outside of work
[/b]
I'm not particularly sure how restricted (if at all) the community edition is, but you certainly do fit at least one of those. 'add-ons for community use'. I'm one of those weird people who reads through the whole EULA, and it doesn't have anything about redistribution of software, but based on what's
specifically stricted by the EULA, you're definitely fine on that end. I'd feel safe using it if I were in your position.
But other than that, you should start doing things along the lines of "Marco Reps" but someone with +25 years. The content is technical yet diverse, funny delivery and good content. He manages to make the concept of guarding against current loops on test equipment funny. A feat most people would think impossible. He made his own milling machine and got like 10 videos out of that-- testing different controller setups and things like their acceleration profiles, different ballscrews to see how linear they are, spindles and their run-out, and then finally showing the project & it's performance.
I think he got reliability works down to the mid-nanometers. Sure, Edmunds would build you something with the same numbers but enjoy paying a few million for it. He got way past metal machining numbers, competing with optical numbers (where you break out optical test flats under HeNe(600ish nm?) with eh, 8 interference fringe patterns gets you into the double digit nanometers. (He obviously can't *do* optical because it's not equipped with the necessary spindles, vibration damping, tooling to avoid subsurface fracturing, etc, and he was definitely hitting those numbers against standard cold rolled steel.)
Wow that went off topic.
Again, for 22000 subs (crazy), you've tested like...them all. Except the Euro version of the UT61E. I forgot where I heard this mentioned, but they're supposed to be hardened up. I think using an actual HRC fuse and some such? If you do test it, and it turns out to be a good buy, PM me 24 hours before you post the video, so I can buy one before the rush hits.
Testing components too would be really interesting. Get a bag of GDTs from different manufacturers, and compare them. Maybe from different lots, and see how much conservative they play with their spec sheet numbers. There are some vendors (TDK? Epcos? Vishay almost certainly..) that have the MOV/PTC in one package and see what they can handle, their failure modes etc. Educational for the community and blowing things up is always fun.
And to test them, maybe design a unit that will meet the official UL test standards. That'd probably be one of the most interesting series you could possibly do. Have an 8 part series where 10 minutes of the content is the theory injected at arbitrary spots in the dialogue, with the remainder being "most people would do this, but they're idiots: do this instead". Or the famous issue of: One or two people put out an app note, everyone reads that app note, then 20 years down the line people are talking about 45 degrees at DC. "they're idiots, ..." Or just mentioning shit that most people don't really think about. The first chapter of Hall, Hall and McCall did this really well. with dispelling the rumors on where the energy is actually passing through (the dielectric, not ON), along with how the EM fields develop and *why*. Though I'd be reluctant to walk through something like that on YouTube. Judging by the emails you seem to get...well...
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
