HP Forum Archive 18

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

uwatch Message #1 Posted by Paul Dale on 25 May 2008, 11:16 p.m. My uwatch has arrived, and is assembled. Just waiting for the glue to set properly before I dig in... - Pauli

Re: uwatch Message #2 Posted by DaveJ on 26 May 2008, 12:17 a.m., in response to message #1 by Paul Dale Lucky first! Pays to live in Australia ;-) BTW, anyone who wants to "customise" (or update) their uWatch firmware can use the Microchip PICkit2 Programmer, only $35 from various sources, details on my web site. I just tried it and it worked perfectly, as good as my more expensive Microchip ICD2 programmer. Dave.

The uWatch: got it, assembled it --> Great! Message #3 Posted by Etienne Victoria on 29 May 2008, 4:56 p.m., in response to message #1 by Paul Dale Hi all, I've got the uWatch in my remote country "France"! Beautiful design!! After a few hours of careful assembly (I used 1:30 hr epoxy), the uWatch started immediately after inserting the 2 button cells!! The setup options are very straightforward and easy to understand. The Calculator is also very easy to use, key spacing is optimal and keyboard layout ideal for people like me, who prefer operation keys on the left!! Great device that I'll use and wear! I'll proceed with programming this weekend. Dave, congratulations for this superb work! I wish you a well deserved success!! Thanks also for delivering such a great product in the open without the need for an NDA ;-))) Etienne Edited: 29 May 2008, 4:58 p.m.

Re: The uWatch: got it, assembled it --> Great! Message #4 Posted by DaveJ on 29 May 2008, 6:55 p.m., in response to message #3 by Etienne Victoria Quote: Hi all, I've got the uWatch in my remote country "France"! Beautiful design!! After a few hours of careful assembly (I used 1:30 hr epoxy), the uWatch started immediately after inserting the 2 button cells!! The setup options are very straightforward and easy to understand. The Calculator is also very easy to use, key spacing is optimal and keyboard layout ideal for people like me, who prefer operation keys on the left!! Great device that I'll use and wear! I'll proceed with programming this weekend. Dave, congratulations for this superb work! I wish you a well deserved success!! Thanks also for delivering such a great product in the open without the need for an NDA ;-))) Etienne You are most welcome Etienne, and yes, no dreaded NDA! ;-> Glad to hear it all went smoothly. I've been meaning to get a "user manual" of sorts ready but time is short at the moment. Operation is generally fairly self explanatory though. Pauli has found a few minor issues in the software already so they'll get fixed up in the next software release. And the good news is that a programmer for it is only $35, so everyone can afford to play around with the software and modify it to suit their needs. Would this be the first delivered Open calculator hardware project? Dave.

Re: uwatch Message #5 Posted by Hubert Weikert on 31 May 2008, 3:07 p.m., in response to message #1 by Paul Dale Mine arrived (in Germany) six days after posting, and is now completely assembled and working. A funny observation: the square root of a negative number result in 42. Nice to honor Douglas Adams this way. ;-) Dave, thank you for this nice device! Hubert

Re: uwatch Message #6 Posted by DaveJ on 31 May 2008, 7:51 p.m., in response to message #5 by Hubert Weikert Quote: Mine arrived (in Germany) six days after posting, and is now completely assembled and working. A funny observation: the square root of a negative number result in 42. Nice to honor Douglas Adams this way. ;-) Nice work Hubert, you found the "easter egg"! Dave.

Re: uwatch Message #7 Posted by Paul Dale on 1 June 2008, 4:39 p.m., in response to message #6 by DaveJ I noticed this one from reading the source code last week :-) A fitting tribute I feel. - Pauli

Re: uwatch Message #8 Posted by Geoff Quickfall on 1 June 2008, 6:03 p.m., in response to message #7 by Paul Dale Still waiting for mine!!!!! Got to ask if the answer is '42' what again was the question, doesn't matter as I like fjiords. Cheers

Re: uwatch Message #9 Posted by David Ramsey on 2 June 2008, 12:32 a.m., in response to message #1 by Paul Dale What we need now is a nice, CNC aluminum or mild steel case...

Re: uwatch Message #10 Posted by DaveJ on 2 June 2008, 12:57 a.m., in response to message #9 by David Ramsey Quote: What we need now is a nice, CNC aluminum or mild steel case... I'd be keen to talk to anyone who thinks they can do just that... Dave.

Re: uwatch Message #11 Posted by Eric Smith on 2 June 2008, 1:28 a.m., in response to message #10 by DaveJ I can do either CNC or FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling, a form of 3-D printing with ABS plastic). I've used FDM for cases for the DIYRPN calculators Richard Ottosen and I have been working on. The DIYRPN circuit board was designed for a different type of case Richard invented, so the current FDM case is not as nice as I'd like it to be. (Also I don't have any training in industrial design.) Note that cases made by either CNC or FDM will be expensive. For the DIYRPN, each unit (two part case, and a bunch of keycaps) costs around $80. CNC would cost more, because it takes longer and is less automated.

Re: uwatch Message #12 Posted by DaveJ on 2 June 2008, 2:43 a.m., in response to message #11 by Eric Smith Quote: I can do either CNC or FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling, a form of 3-D printing with ABS plastic). I've used FDM for cases for the DIYRPN calculators Richard Ottosen and I have been working on. The DIYRPN circuit board was designed for a different type of case Richard invented, so the current FDM case is not as nice as I'd like it to be. (Also I don't have any training in industrial design.) Note that cases made by either CNC or FDM will be expensive. For the DIYRPN, each unit (two part case, and a bunch of keycaps) costs around $80. CNC would cost more, because it takes longer and is less automated. Thanks Eric. The key is in the design, being able to design the case and model all the details in 3D ready for a 3D printer or machine shop to fabricate. I'm sure a few people have access to 3D printers these days, they seem to be very common. I have no such 3D design skills, that's why I did my best to design the uWatch with an off-the-shelf case back. I've been toying with the idea of doing the same thing for a pocket calc - i.e. using the uWatch principle of all off-the-shelf components and case. I'm fairly sure it's possible, just a matter of a lot of component research. Cost would be comparable to the uWatch I suspect. Hard to know if anyone would be interested in such a thing though. The uWatch is fairly popular because it's novel, unlike a pocket calc which is, well, not quite as unique. Dave.

Re: uwatch Message #13 Posted by Eric Smith on 2 June 2008, 6:40 p.m., in response to message #12 by DaveJ Quote: I have no such 3D design skills, I didn't have any before I bought Solidworks and started learning to use it. The hard part (IMHO) is not doing the 3D design, it's doing the conceptual design. If you could carve what you want out of wood or mold it out of modeling clay, then translating that into an equivalent 3D CAD design isn't difficult. My designs so far have just wound up looking like rectangular boxes or wedges. I can round the corners, but that's not enough to make them look "nice". My stuff looks more like an HP 38G (sans the cover), which is unfortunate as I think that was the second-worst industrial design to come out of Corvallis Division. I think I need to get together with someone who has more artistic talent.

Re: uwatch Message #14 Posted by DaveJ on 2 June 2008, 8:50 p.m., in response to message #13 by Eric Smith Quote: I didn't have any before I bought Solidworks and started learning to use it. The hard part (IMHO) is not doing the 3D design, it's doing the conceptual design. If you could carve what you want out of wood or mold it out of modeling clay, then translating that into an equivalent 3D CAD design isn't difficult. My designs so far have just wound up looking like rectangular boxes or wedges. I can round the corners, but that's not enough to make them look "nice". My stuff looks more like an HP 38G (sans the cover), which is unfortunate as I think that was the second-worst industrial design to come out of Corvallis Division. I think I need to get together with someone who has more artistic talent. The modeling clay is an interesting idea for conceptulisation, even I could do that! I tried designing a case for the uWatch using the free eMachineShop software, and that was surprisingly easy to use. But like you I ended with basically a boring wedge or box shape with rounded corners. I didn't like the idea of spending $200 on a prototype case that looked very amateurish. When I look at what the Industrial design guys at work come up with, and with such apparent ease, I realise there are lots of subtleties involved in this sort of design to make an attractive product. Dave.

(deleted post) Message #15 Posted by deleted on 3 June 2008, 1:24 a.m., in response to message #14 by DaveJ This Message was deleted. This empty message preserves the threading when a post with followup(s) is deleted. If all followups have been removed, the original poster may delete this post again to make this placeholder disappear.

Re: uwatch Message #16 Posted by DaveJ on 3 June 2008, 1:54 a.m., in response to message #15 by deleted Quote: Heh, heh. Let's quote the same author: "Photoshop sucks." It's always nice to observe learning processes in realtime ;) Appreciate it. I never ever said photoshop models suck, quite the opposite in fact. Apparently your memory has become a tad volatile! :-> Dave.

(deleted post) Message #17 Posted by deleted on 3 June 2008, 2:35 a.m., in response to message #16 by DaveJ This Message was deleted. This empty message preserves the threading when a post with followup(s) is deleted. If all followups have been removed, the original poster may delete this post again to make this placeholder disappear.

Re: uwatch Message #18 Posted by DaveJ on 3 June 2008, 2:52 a.m., in response to message #17 by deleted Quote: Let's look here in the non-volatile part ;) Show me where I said photoshop models suck, because my CTRL-F function for the word "suck" must not be working... In fact I said "A photoshop model does not a calculator make!" and I also said the photoshop models were "very cool". And that comment was in the context of the discussions on producing real practical calculator hardware at the time. I have given much praise for your and other photoshop models. Please keep things in context! BTW, if you really do have full 3D CAM ready models with real manufacturing detail behind those lovely photoshop models then we'd all be very happy to see it! Dave.

Re: uwatch Message #19 Posted by David Ramsey on 2 June 2008, 2:20 p.m., in response to message #11 by Eric Smith Quote: Note that cases made by either CNC or FDM will be expensive. For the DIYRPN, each unit (two part case, and a bunch of keycaps) costs around $80. CNC would cost more, because it takes longer and is less automated. I'd be willing to pay a fair amount for a nice case-- double or triple the current cost of the uWatch, total. Of course I'm a watch collector, too, so am probably not a representative buyer...

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall