Do we need a plastic shop committee

DMS General
#45

I see. Well, perhaps, as you say, the members of the Science committee are smarter than the rest of us, and perhaps not. Perhaps you’d like to share with us, your own education and training in “chemistry and Physics” or other Scientific disciplines, so that we might more fairly judge? Since you cite this as a reason for your argument, I think presentation of your bona fides for doing so are appropriate.

I myself am but a lowly Civil Engineer. It is my experience, that a fair number of folks running around at the Space, though lacking degrees or advanced training, are never the less smarter than I am.

4 Likes
#46

This discussion reminds me of “The Big Bang Theory” conflicts and antagonism between Sheldon (the theorist) and Howard (the pragmatist engineer). From my perspective both have value, but from a maker’s perspective I tend to view what an engineer does as more applicable to DMS. We don’t do a lot of theoretical work that I’m aware of. Perhaps some experimental work validating other’s theories is done, however. There is tremendous value in both disciplines.

As long as someone takes ownership responsibility and maintains and trains on the equipment how critical is it that one committee or the other gets the gear? Perhaps both committees should present their case and we should leave it to the board to decide.

I agree that no one committee should lay claim to having advanced degrees nor to having the requisite knowledge over another. Some of the greatest minds and most ingenious work was done by those without a degree. Some members with interests in multiple committees have made tremendous contributions to DMS. Many of us have diverse interests. It is perhaps one of the major reasons I joined DMS for access to so many great tools and people.
I have been most impressed by the many skilled, talented and intelligent people at DMS. It is what makes collaboration so much fun.

Regardless of who ends up with plastics it is essential that it be a vibrant and active committee like so many other committees at DMS.

4 Likes
#47

I don’t mind sharing my own education and training, but, inasmuch as I’m just one person in a committee of a dozen people who are far more educated and skilled than I am, my own credentials could only serve for amusement purposes. But, here’s a brief rundown (while I’m waiting in the airport for my flight):

I was a Nuclear Propulsion Candidate in the U.S. Navy (though, I only made it through conventional Machinist Mate training). I spent about three years as a conventional Machinist Mate, and attended several schools in steam propulsion theory and operation.

I took general College Chemistry, University Physics and various other associated classes to earn my AAS and certificate in Laser Electro-Optic Technology. I picked up a few engineering classes at LeTourneau University, where I was pursuing a degree in Computer Science and Engineering, but then had to go back through all the Texas Core requirements (University Physics, again) to earn my AS and certificate in Computer Science. I took a bunch of computer classes and also earned my AAS in Computer Systems/Information Systems.

My credentials are meager, especially against the various Masters and Ph.D.s we have in Science Committee. One of our members has taken nanotechnology classes and holds multiple degrees. Another is a medical doctor. Yet another has a degree in Biotechnology.

That’s the most sensible thing we could do, and, actually, the only real suggestion that merits much attention in this thread. It’s the Board’s decision to make, so that is where the appeal is made.

#49

The vacuformer doesn’t need extra power hook ups. It has a drop on the pillar behind it. Stan has been working to hook it up, I’m not going to post details because I don’t know what needs to be done on it.

It also has wheels and can be plugged into two different outlets in the space. Don’t drag the vacuformer into your petty science fight because it “doesn’t work” you just don’t know how to use it.

4 Likes
#50

Are you offering to put the vacuformer in a committee? Because, without a committee to sponsor it, and a lot more usage out of it, it needs to be thrown out. It’s right on the edge of that happening, now, from what I’ve been told.

As long as the vacuformer is getting power at the pillar, the vacuum freeze-dryer could, too.

#51

I would hate to see the vacuum former go, as it has a ton of potential uses for RC applications. I am only a chair candidate at the moment, but I would be willing to have the Aerospace/RC committee sponsor it. I’m not sure how that would work with floor space, but it’s an idea. I’ll talk with @David_Walker at the committee meeting this evening and get his input.

#52

I agree that the vacuformer could be useful; that’s why Science Committee has offered to sponsor it. It’s right next to our area, too. We have several people interested in maintaining and improving it.

#53

Y’all have this items have to be sponsored all messed up. The vinyl cutter and screen press are still self funding tools regardless of committee sponsorship.

Its not a personal project requiring sponsorship like the freeze dryer.

And no the power on the pillar is apparently a different plug and breaker amperage from the freeze dryer

1 Like
#54

[quote=“PearceDunlap, post:53, topic:5679”]
The vinyl cutter and screen press are still self funding tools regardless of committee sponsorship.[/quote]

Grand-fathered in, because you are a founding member, and you set up a mechanism by which those tools can be self-funded. However, my understanding is that the Board doesn’t want any more orphaned tools; they want all tools to have a sponsoring committee.

I’m curious if anyone has set up a funding mechanism and repair oversight for the vacuformer in the absence of a committee? I’m not aware of any.

[quote=“PearceDunlap, post:53, topic:5679”]
Its not a personal project requiring sponsorship like the freeze dryer.[/quote]

The vacuum freeze-dryer is not a personal project, as it isn’t a project, at all. It’s another tool that happens to be owned by a member and on loan to the Space.

It’s three-phase, instead of one-phase, but Stan is working on that. It can be made compatible.

#55

What’s 3 phase? The freeze drier is single phase.

#56

The vacuformer is three-phase.

#57

Incorrect, we have no rules requiring that a committee “own” a tool, there is no “grand-fathering” or playing favorites. We want people to be champions for tools. Things like keeping them maintained, teaching classes on how to use them, etc. Oftentimes that is a committee, but it doesn’t have to be.

#58

OK, so where does vacuformer stand right now?

#59

The board (which only exists when we meet) has no official position on it at this time. Personally, I would love to see it stay at the space; it’s a tool that has been in demand for years. I’d like to see a solid plan for maintenance and classes, by someone who has actual operational knowledge of how to use and maintain the tool. As far as I’m aware there has only been one class, but the machine works and could be made to work better.

#60

How long has the vacuformer been there? Most of this year, though I don’t recall the number of months. I was among those who lobbied for its construction and operation from the beginning. I’m not the only one who has noticed that it isn’t getting a lot of use. I’ve seen posts on this forum asking for someone to take ownership of it. Now that we offer it, I’m getting resistance. That’s odd and seems counter-productive.

#61

Do you have operational knowledge on using it? If so, why not schedule a class?

#62

I don’t know a thing about vacuforming (not strictly true, but close enough). That’s why I’m not personally offering to take leadership or ownership of it. I’m just the spokesman for the group of people who are willing and profess to be able to improve the device and teach how to use it.

If you don’t find the current state of affairs regarding the use of the vacuformer satisfactory, you should look for a way to improve it. That probably means putting people in charge of it who will have a greater sense of urgency or leadership than we currently see.

#63

Then I suggest you encourage one or more of them to start teaching classes on it ASAP. Talk is cheap, what matters to me is getting people trained on using tools.

#64

One of our members would like to make modifications to the vacuformer. He believes he can reduce its size in half, then add additional features to it.

Is there a reason that Science Committee should not establish itself as a plastics fabrication resource?

#65

It’s better to have a working tool that people are trained on right now, then the possibility of a slightly better tool in the future. There is a pattern and an anti-pattern for tools at the makerspace. Successful tools work well enough for people to get by and start using immediately, then iteratively add features or jump to a better model once demand is solid. The anti-pattern is not teaching people to use a tool because “we want to add another feature”, what ends up happening is almost no one can use the tool and it eventually falls into disrepair.

Personally, instead of shoehorning a random tool into the committee, I think the Science Committee should be a SIG (Special Interest Group). Nothing it has done requires permanent, dedicated workspace, but that is a topic for another thread. Putting the vacuformer under “Science” makes about as much sense as having Civic Hacking take it on.

1 Like