I just submitted a request to the calendar to reserve the Interactive Classroom for Science Committee to discuss important issues raised at the last Board meeting. I asked for the room from 5 P.M. to 6:29 P.M.
What were the important issues raised that you will be discussing?
3 Likes
Our existence as a committee is a big one. The last agenda item suggests that about half of all the committees (including Science) should be deprecated to special interest group (SIG) status. Although that item was tabled at the meeting last week, it will be discussed at the next Board meeting.
DMS is listed as an educational non-profit, and Science Committee was created, in part, to strengthen that position. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that education can be done out of a briefcase, that only ponderous tooling and work benches should have floor space. Those of us in Science Committee know a lot of really cool things that can be and are being done in the scientific community, that we would like to try for ourselves. Unfortunately, we are having to engage in these projects entirely with our personal possessions, as we have not been able to win funding approval. Several members of the Board have listened to me explain why I would like for us to obtain an optic rail, optic table, lens mounts, lasers and other teaching aids, only to ask me, “But, who else would use these things?”
Science Committee does have some equipment it needs to obtain or put in working order. We are close to getting the vacuum freeze-dryer operational; I think it just needs an oil change at this point. The Committee agreed months ago that much of our future experiments require significant vacuum equipment, beyond anything DMS currently owns. We also want to investigate high-voltage phenomena. So, equipment is another item we need to discuss.
1 Like
As I have told you multiple times, this is incorrect. On the August, 2015 Budget Report there was $737.85 in the Science Committee fund; I believe you now have $1,137.85 available. To continually proclaim that you are not being funded is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
4 Likes
The Freeze Dryer is only to be used for Food Safe freeze drying and Vacuum.
The difference between what I state and you claim is that it is Science Committee that is raising these funds on its own; the funds are not coming from the Board.
So, we need another vacuum system.
Honorarium requests are individually approved by the board, you’re splitting hairs.
4 Likes
The Honorarium requests are for instructors. The only way a committee gets an honorarium is if the instructor requests an honorarium for the committee. This requires the instructors choice. I don’t think that is splitting hairs.
1 Like
You misunderstand, please read the honorarium rules. The sponsoring committee gets $50 regardless of the instructor’s choice, they can get $100 if the instructor donates their portion.
Andrew, I believe you misunderstood what Russell was saying.
Under the current rules, the instructor decides which committee is the sponser. So, if someone decided to teach a class on say neural interfacing, they could decide creative arts is the sponsor when they fill out the honorarium request.
On the other hand, I for one am glad the board has denied sciences funding request for things like their own building…
First. I would point out that while the mission of the space is education. it is a very specific form of education - learning by making. Teaching, in and of itself, is not the goal. Teaching by doing, by making, is the goal. I don’t think the goal of the Space is, or should be, to duplicate educational opportunities offered elsewhere, through structured learning at local school districts or colleges.
More than 1000 people have joined, because the Space provides certain tools that allow them to make. In the process, they meet other people with an interest in making similar things, and form groups oriented around their specific interest set. AKA, special interest groups.
On the other hand, the Space, acting through its elected Board, collects money, and invests in items to facillitate its mission - making. Wisely, they choose items which can facillitate the most making, and focus their largest investments there. 3d printers, for example, can be used across a whole host of disciplines to make stuff. So can knee mills, cnc routers, machines to shape wood and metal, While all these tools can and do attract special interest groups (like Woodworking for example) the tool’s usefulness extends across multiple areas. In order to more effectively manage it’s inventory of such tools, the Board might arbitrarily create groups dedicated to maintaining and administering these tools, lets call them, Shops. Or inventory centers. Whatever.
As to funding, I’ll leap out there, and say that it’s probably a sensible policy for the Space, to invest in tools that benefit the most making. Likewise, it’s probably a poor idea, to invest in individual projects of the members.
4 Likes
@Gimli’s point is valid, but my point was that the Board has rejected most of Science Committee’s equipment requests (with only the exceptions of laser safety goggles and surge suppressors). You keep pointing to Science Committee’s budget, as if the Board were treating us like, say Wood Shop, which has been granted thousands of dollars for capital expenditures and also gets a monthly allocation, in addition to any honorarium or donations it might get, and then you complain that we aren’t spending any money.
How about our request for a solid work bench? Do you think it’s OK for committees to buy a good work bench? I ask, because the Board has repeatedly declined that request, too.
[quote=“Tapper, post:11, topic:6042”]
First. I would point out that while the mission of the space is education. it is a very specific form of education - learning by making. [/quote]
That sounds like lab work, to me. The members of Science Committee do, indeed, want to learn by doing; but, the things we want to do rely more on craftsmanship and knowledge than on tooling. We aren’t about tools; we are about exploration.
[quote=“Tapper, post:11, topic:6042”]
Teaching, in and of itself, is not the goal. Teaching by doing, by making, is the goal. I don’t think the goal of the Space is, or should be, to duplicate educational opportunities offered elsewhere, through structured learning at local school districts or colleges.[/quote]
Everything we teach at DMS is taught elsewhere, often at no charge. DMS has the very slim advantage of offering large industrial equipment and a place to work on one’s own projects. DFW has scores of wood working clubs and schools, many of them far more sophisticated than our own. Many libraries have 3D printers. My local library even teaches free classes in making objects with 3D printers, besides robotics and several other topics.
[quote=“Tapper, post:11, topic:6042”]
More than 1000 people have joined, because the Space provides certain tools that allow them to make. [/quote]
Yes, this place does make new people have stars in their eyes. I see it every week. But, 3/4 of them won’t ever use any of the tools in this place, and we just learned that most of them will drop their membership in two or three months.
[quote=“Tapper, post:11, topic:6042”]
In the process, they meet other people with an interest in making similar things, and form groups oriented around their specific interest set. AKA, special interest groups.
On the other hand, the Space, acting through its elected Board, collects money, and invests in items to facillitate its mission - making. Wisely, they choose items which can facillitate the most making, and focus their largest investments there. [/quote]
It takes more than a shop full of fancy tools to make good products. Someone has to know what they are doing with those tools.
Making is individual projects. These people aren’t joining to make your projects; they are joining in hopes of making their own.
You make many good points, and your argument is well-structured and well-tempered. However, your argument has some flaws in it that I hope I’ve pointed out.
I am curious how you think that a group like Science would be applicable, by your definition, across multiple disciplines in the Space?
Not really true. The first time you requested a solid work bench, the board discussion ranged through several alternatives (which you participated in), and you agreed that repurposing an existing table would meet your need.
The next month, you came back with another request to buy a table, which ultimately was denied because funds were limited and you had just been given a table the prior month.
The next month (may have been two months later) you requested another table with a chemical resistant top. In that meeting a member offered a top that would need a leg structure made. You agreed, but nothing ever came from it.
So, it really isn’t as clear as you are trying to make it. Are you being purchased new shiny items from the Carolina Scientifics catalog? No, but the board has been attempting to provide solutions to your reasonable requests (unlike your request for your own building).
2 Likes
Isn’t this exactly the point @Tapper and others have made/are making? Maybe someone should create another 401(c)(3) organization and call it the ExplorerSpace?
I am naturally a skinflint, and have trouble spending money. Period. However, something which I have finally learned and struggle with when working with or for non-profits, is that you need to spend the money you have to get more. I agree that Science has not been allocated funding by the Board, but their point stands that none has been spent, too.
It is very easy to let big dreams spoil small rewards, and that appears to me to be what is happening in Science at the moment. Purchasing things has been discussed, but usually it balloons into a bigger dream than the funding available and gets back-burnered to death. Thermal camera comes to mind.
It started out as a $250.00 add-on for and Android device:
Now, even though several people have offered to pitch in, and Science has $1000+ in their account, nothing has been bought (for a variety of perfectly valid reasons). That is fine, but you could have already been using the $250 FLIR solution AND showing off how much you NEED the board to fund something better.
I hope that example is helpful to Science committee, and successfully illustrates the larger point: when working with non-profits (or government), sometimes you need to go broke to get richer.
2 Likes
A reasonable question, though I’ll warrant you may not appreciate the sorts of answers it generates.
Let me preface my answer by pointing out that I am a scientist. I have been one since I was a small boy, and continue to be one to this day. My training is as an Engineer - the discipline of applying knowledge gained through Science to the real world. I still spend loads of time reading about the latest research results, applications of new materials and means to various ends.
But Science is not a thing. It is not a grouping of knowledge, nor a description of any particular category of anything. Science, is a methodology for producing a verifiable fact, and a means by which to quantify, evaluate, and validate descriptions of the physical world.
Science is a method applied by folks studying something, and those somethings usually get grouped into fields - like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc etc.
But how does “Science” apply to the Makerspace? On it’s own, I believe that it is simply too broad a brush to paint anything meaningful. There can be no question, that some of what is happening makes heavy use of knowledge learned through scientific research, and engineering runs rampant. Makers are, at their core, Practical Engineers. But establishing an Engineering Committee would amount to the same problem - if you can point to everything going on as engineering, then how does such a global group add value?
The answer is, it really doesn’t. And Engineering, like Science, is too generic a grouping to have value within a group like ours. To have meaning at the Space, you must be making. And making, means specializing somewhere.
Another way of looking at it, is that if nearly everything happening at the Space has a science component or origin, then it logically follows that every dollar spent by the Board is spent on science. So why double down, and throw money into a maybe/possibly/generic group with an undefined mission? Likewise, research isn’t our thing. Applying research and making something useful is our thing. Exploring is awesome, I love it myself. But exploring isn’t our thing. Making is our thing. We need tools to make, so as a member who makes, I want the board to focus there, and so do most other members. So they focus there.
5 Likes
[quote=“wandrson, post:13, topic:6042”]
Not really true. The first time you requested a solid work bench, the board discussion ranged through several alternatives (which you participated in), and you agreed that repurposing an existing table would meet your need.[/quote]
The first time, I provided a link to a work bench that I have continued to mention as my own preference. Other members of the Science Committee have their own preferences, generally revolving around us building our own tables. Instead of that, at the urging of the Board, Science Committee borrowed a table from Laser Committee, with the understanding that Laser Committee would want it back in a few months.
Incidentally, Science Committee needs more than one table replaced. We have made do with three tables of varying quality, but we could benefit from replacing all three of them with something better.
[quote=“wandrson, post:13, topic:6042”]
The next month (may have been two months later) you requested another table with a chemical resistant top. In that meeting a member offered a top that would need a leg structure made. You agreed, but nothing ever came from it.[/quote]
Yeah, it turns out that we aren’t carpenters, and someone eventually used the wood that Wood Shop said we could use.
Sooner or later, we are all going to get a new building; it isn’t an unreasonable request, just not its time, yet.
Again, a room full of tools is useless by itself. We aren’t a tool showroom. Tools are a means to an end, not the end, themselves.
[quote=“jast, post:15, topic:6042”]
Now, even though several people have offered to pitch in, and Science has $1000+ in their account, nothing has been bought (for a variety of perfectly valid reasons). That is fine, but you could have already been using the $250 FLIR solution AND showing off how much you NEED the board to fund something better.[/quote]
On the other hand, some people have already cautioned that we must not fall into the trap of constantly buying the next-better camera, as we would spend a lot of money that should have been put on the camera we need or want all along. My conclusion is, no matter what we do, we are going to be criticized for it; that’s human nature. I’d rather that we get something good-quality. Besides, FLIR offered us a camera at no charge, provided that we produce two lesson plans for them. That’s something else we need to discuss at this meeting; the status of those lesson plans.
Like Wood Shop!
Like, an electric death-trap on wheels, aka, Go Kart. Or, a 5-axis composite trimmer. Or, a TARDIS. Or, a grotesque plastic bust. Or, a giant, aluminum domino. Or, a tesla coil. Or, a nitrogen laser. Or, an aquarium. Or, a terrarium. Or, an aquaponics system. Or, a nuclear fusor.
Useful is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not knocking these projects, but I am pointing out that investigating esoteric phenomena and concepts is not less-valid than making a wooden plaque.
Richard, in that board meeting, the board balked at the expense for the commercial table you wanted to purchase and offered you options. YOU chose an option and then continue to complain that you didn’t get your shiny bench. You may have missed it, but @AlexRhodes also wanted to purchase some commercial benches (about the same cost as what you specified), but was also eventually overruled and we settled on DIY benches… And like you he ultimately agreed.
We could all benefit from replacing some things with something better, and given the lack of funding to do so, we all make do with less then the best…
Well I know that members, including myself have offered to assist with that construction, but were never taken up on it. But frankly, basic woodworking skills are pretty simple and if none of the members of science have such basic MAKING skills, perhaps the MAKERspace isn’t really their cup of tea?
You asked for science to have their own building… A very different thing from the space needing to relocate.
2 Likes
You seem to be overlooking the point that the option was for a BORROWED table. As in, we have to give it back. And, it was only one, when we need three.
If you want to work with us in obtaining three suitable work benches, I’d be happy to do so. I haven’t turned down any offers; I just haven’t had any that I could use.
BTW, work benches are only the beginning of tools we need. Trying to pull all the details together is like herding cats.