Categories
Maker

Assembling my first 3D printer

After holding out for years, just recently made up my mind to buy a 3D printer. Before all the “affordable” models were US$2000+ or so, and even if I was really interested in them, I couldn’t make up my mind about such a big expenditure. The factors that changed my mind recently  were: hearing about Portabee, a sub-US$500 printer (that is as a kit); all the interesting things happening at Taipei Hackerspace where I wanted us to have an interesting new tool; and having acquired a brand new credit card (oops).

I ordered it in the beginning of may, from a Singaporean store called Romscraj, that seems to be somewhat affiliated with the original makers of the printer, and had better rate for shipping over here to Taiwan. (At the time of this writing, the store’s website is redirecting to a static image, though, I wonder what’s up).

The package had 3 weeks lead time. Now, having tried how long does it take to make a single print, and seeing how many self-printed parts the kit has, I’m much less surprised about that. The DHL delivery was pretty darn quick afterwards, apparently it helps to have a distribution centre over here.

Then one fine Friday noon about two weeks ago I got to open the box and unpack.

Contents of the box
Unpacking the parts of Portabee

Little packages for the different screw sizes (M3/M4/M5 and their nuts and washers), the electronics neatly packed, metal pieces that looked sturdy at first, the heated bed for the print, a bunch of tool, spools of printing materials (I ordered a few extra spools, one can never know).

I liked the included instant coffee, that felt like a nice touch, and that there were enough tools included for about 90% of the tasks I encountered later (for the screws, leveling mainly, that’s what a 3D printer assembly is mostly).

The rest of the contents of the box
More parts, mostly the printed sections and electronics

There was of course the big bag of printed parts, in nice green (still like that colour a lot, though the original website’s red prints are not bad either). Big bunch motors (or let’s count them: 5), and more electronics. It all made a happy pile, and I have also started to appreciate the task ahead of me.

I brought up their assembly manual on the screen, turned on some DJ Krush, and got to it.

Since this supposed to be a portable printer (the name alluded to that already), it has somewhat different design than the other ones I’ve seen.

Starting off with the base, it has already some fun alignment tasks and screw tightening. The latter is almost like an art: how much you tighten that you don’t break the (not totally, but still plenty) fragile plastic, but don’t let it loosen by itself either. This is something I’m still learning and I am convinced that it comes from experience, from the problems one finds doing it one way or another.

The base and the cross section assembly step
Assembly starting with the base

So far so good, making the base, then starting on the horizontal bars, and more motor mounts. All X, Y, and Z directions had these switches that would tell the controller that “please don’t come closer” and lets the machine find its home easily, and (more importantly) quite safely. The first puzzle I hit was that these switch circuits were soldered in a mirror arrangement, compared to the manual and instructions. The circuit board apparently lends itself to both directions, still it is mighty confusing. I wrote an email to the store I got my kit from, and they just told me what I have found in the manual later, that these switches can indeed be made in either direction.

Assembling the stop trigger part
One of the stop triggers

Not a big deal in the end, though I had to change a few things around and mount them differently. When the white connector is not in the way in the original design, it can be very much in the mirrored one if I don’t move it somewhere else. It was especially a problem with the X-movement (the table back and forth). Just a bit of awareness and adjustment is fine.

Got to some of the motors already. There were two different types, one with the cogs on top (2 pieces), and another without (the other 3). So far so good, those are easy to distinguish. On the other hand, I should have read the manual better (first mistake), or actually took a look at the motors (compounded mistake), in either case I would have been certain which one goes where. As it was, I kinda guessed, and while the guess worked out relatively fine, I just had to exchange one pair of motors in the end (because of the insufficient length of cabling for one). Just a bit of extra assembly in that case, but could have been worse if I had to exchange other ones.

Base motor assembly
Base motor assembly

Some of the rods were actually slightly differently sized as in the manual, and it was hard to see sometimes when they were insisting accurate measurements of some parts, down to a millimeter, that how things are going to fit together further along the assembly. For example the “250mm rod” I received was more like 265, thus they didn’t really put the kit together to the same accuracy as the original design.

The extruder head had its own separate manual, and I’m not surprised. The most sensitive part of the whole thing, but all in all it is not too bad. The manual in general does a good job, but in this case I did find some deficiencies in their graphics, not really knowing where to lead the cables for a good assembly. The cooling fan had a funny case of being oriented by the location of its sticker – while the one I had didn’t have such a sticker really, so I had to guess a bit which way does its wind blow (spoiler: I was wrong, had to reverse it later).

Extruder assembled
Extruder head assembly

Mounting it all on the top it starts to feel more solid and sturdy. Had some funs trying to insert the printing material first in the alignment stage, I am sure it gets easier in practice.

The cogwheels to drive the plastic
Cogwheel extruder assembly

For the rest of the parts I had to find a good file (the tool “file”) to make some of the holes larger, where the printing was too tight. The tool street is just next to the Hackerspace, though, so it wasn’t a big deal and was back in business in no time. Still the tight parts ment that once some of them were on, there wasn’t really any way to take them off, short of braking them.

In the end, after about 10 hours of assembly (distributed in two days), I got the whole thing up. When I realized that it took this much, the ~US$150 extra for an assembled kit starts to look much more attractive. Still, I like that I did it myself, because now when it breaks (as it so does it will break a lot) I will know more or less what to fix.

The printer put together
Completed assembly

After the hardware setup and testing, had to figure out the software to breathe some life into it. Given that I’m a Linux user, maybe I should have done it earlier, preferably before actually ordering it, otherwise I’ll end up the same way as I did with Galago – having a tool but not having a way to use it.

Fortunately the manual was very helpful, and pointed me to Cura and Pronterface to use. Strangely, Cura didn’t install well onto the Hackerspace’s Xubuntu, but it worked pretty darn well on my laptop’s ArchLinux, so used that afterwards.

One part of the software control that should put people on the edge at first for sure (and probably for a while) that it’s actually a pretty high temperature tool. The base is around 60°C, the printhead goes up to 185-225°C (depending on the material). The fan on the extruder supposed to be very important, and that can only be enabled manually in Pronterface, by sending the command “M106” to the printer. It can be tricky since sometimes the printer has to be plugged in and out to respond to commands again if I switch programs, and that would make the fan not run for a while. Might not be a big problem, but will not know until something breaks.

Another problem is the temperature stability, and in the safety point of view, even before the print quality is taken into account. The temperature is stabilized by feeding back a temperature measurement of some glass bead thermistors. So far so good, that’s similar thing to all the other temperature stabilization I had in the laser physics labs before. The part that you don’t want, though, is to have the thermistor separated from the thing it measures. Then the heating would just go up and up, since the electronics thinks it is not hot enough, while it just measures the air somewhere else. Not the mother of thermal runaways, but would still make me a sad bunny.

The thermistor here is mounted like on this picture, with a piece of silicon washer behind the brass screw.

The little pieces of the head
Extruder head with heater and thermistor

The problem is that as soon as I try to secure the thing with the screw, the turning almost inevitably throws the bead out. Even when it stays in, the increased temperature popped it out a few times that I had to initiate an emergency shut-down.

The screw hole is actually a through hole, so if I can figure out a good thermal contact inside, it would worth dropping a screw altogether and run the bead through the whole the next time.

Now, ready to print, try it first with a relatively simple model, a Make robot. Takes a few minutes to heat up and stabilize the temperature, but it’s pretty automatic.

The 3D printer software window
Cura, the software for printing

Everything is prepared, and even if it’s a bit of a mess, it made sense. Got a nice heavy flat wooden chopping block as a base. Looks pretty flat and almost 2cm thick, should be sturdy enough. It is also from the neighbouring tool street, there’s a pretty good kitchenware store I frequent.

Complete assembly with plastic source
Ready to print, just a bit of a mess

After the heating up time, everything kicks off pretty quickly. The head runs over to the middle of the board and start laying down the structure. I was actually quite surprised that it worked for the first time, but that’s just my own (non-) trust of assembling abilities. The structure felt relatively sturdy, with the exception of one of the Z-screws that lifts and lowers the head is wobbling visibly, though so far I cannot see how much effect that will have on the print quality (might need to take that one out and balance it back again.

The printer head beginning to do its work
First try, on the road to print

Well, the first finished piece is nothing to be really proud of. I actually rescaled it to 50% so it finished quicker, and also I wasn’t sure how high I could print. It is a total mess but still kinda recognizable.

Finished robot print
The finished print

No problem, however, this just means that I will have to adjust the parameters of the printer to find the right values for half a dozen to a dozen variables. Head traveling speed while printing and while not, pullback distance and pullback speed, flow rate, head temperature, these sort of things. Looking at the default settings in Cura is not really helpful, on the contrary, they are for a well calibrated Ultimaker, that feels more sturdy, eg. the recommended printing speed is almost 4 times the one in the Portabee wiki. Some experimenting times ahead.

Comparison to the original model
Comparison to the original model

Or actually it would have been experimenting times ahead, if a few hours later I haven’t had broken the printer. The main extruder motor’s cogwheel was pretty much shaved clean by the large cogwheel, thus disabling the whole extruder. This is not that much of a surprise upon closer inspection: while the large cogwheel is totally solid, the small one’s cogs are just one layer of “plastic wiggle”, barely touching the actual cog centre. I will have to print a new one, most likely making the design sturdier, and maybe even printing it in a different material.

Also, the clips that hold the table on the horizontal bars broke too, too think for the pressure they had to endure by the clipping. That needs some better solution as well.

For the time being, the printer is taking a rest, and I can reflect on “so what have we learned“.

Lessons learned

If I were to order a bunch of 3D printers, maybe I would get an assembled version. In Portabee’s case, the difference is about $150, which divided by the 10 hours of assembly time is not a bad deal. On the other hand, in retrospect the assembly was interesting and definitely required exercise to be able to fix whatever goes wrong. And feels more like the “hackerspace way”, if there’s such a thing.

It felt like as if some of the design choices were mere wishful thinking, and don’t work that well, even if at first look they are pretty clever. For example many of the hex nuts are held in place by depressions in the shape of the nut. It works well for M4 and larger, for M3 it works “usually”, and I wouldn’t really rely on it, unless the printer doing the piece is very well set up. Same verdict of “so-so” for the heater block thermistor’s assembly, the print table’s clip on, the electronics board holder. There are plenty to learn though about mechanical design through the choices, like the Z-lift screws, the translation belts, some of the smaller stuff.

Maybe the biggest lesson is to read the manual beforehand. I remember one of my friends actually asking me when I have started, “Greg, have you read the manual?” “Oh, I’ll just follow it up as I go along” was my line back (more or less). Not a good idea. No matter how good the manual looks, there are always non-obvious differences that had to be fixed, and unless one knows the outcome, it’s hard to make the required trade-offs.

I have tried some prints I got off Thingiverse while the machine was still working, and it seems to me that many of them don’t work well when rescaled, while they still should. Feels like I want to get out some 3D modeling software and make some alternate designs, filling some holes here, making things sturdier there. Google Sketchup is the most popular one I keep hearing about, though that does not really work for me in Linux. Fortunately I found that FreeCAD, that I have used for other projects and wanted to find more use for as well, can very nicely prepare the required files as well. And it’s scripted in Python, paving the way for some algorithmic design ideas.

Categories
Thinking

An entrepreneurial curriculum

The influence of the last few years kept pushing me more and more towards entrepreneurship, and learning more about startups, innovation, creativity, independence, creating value. Recently I found myself reading more and more about them, and ending up with an ever-increasing reading list as well. Never before I had so many non-fiction book waiting for me, and i want to make some notes of the ones I have read.

Books on my Taipei Hackerspace bookself
A very varied bookshelf I got

This post will be most likely a constantly updated book review collection, where I list what have I read and what have I learned from them, with special focus on research & innovation, since that’s the area where I’m most likely headed.

I know of course that reading is not substitute to action. I can still learn from other people’s successes and failures, though.

The books so far

♣ The Art of Innovation

It was an interesting collection of anecdotes. In retrospect, the title would suggest that it contain some guidelines that can be replicated to some extent by other teams and companies. The book however feels more like just storytelling how much fun people have at IDEO, with the breakthroughs and failures they had with particular projects.

Some ideas stand out nevertheless. The importance of prototyping: do things as soon as possible, try ideas out and make educated guesses based on actual experience, move fast and make things. The importance of inspiration: when there’s an ideation project, just go out and get a big bunch of items that are connected to it in any way (eg. figuring out a new bottle cap? Go out and get every possible way of closing containers, and more…). The importance of keeping discarded projects: today’s discarded project can be the main inspiration for tomorrow’s success, thus really worth keeping a log of everything. The importance of play: indirect exploration and team morale are awesome things to have on your side, and they are signs of a long term strategic thinking.

♣ Winning at Innovation: The A-to-F model

This one is much-much drier than the Art of Innovation, but also very thorough. So many intuitive things from the previous book was made completely clear because of this systematic approach. It’s good have a better understanding for the things that stick around in one’s mind.

This had some pretty good points too. Can’t innovate something while you are doing it: have to stop and look at things from the outside to see how to improve. That means it is really helpful to have some people doing the tasks, while others make it better. The importance of neighbouring industries: look at companies that serve the same target customers with different products, or serve different customers the same product as you. Mash up and create new combinations, learn from these neighbours.

♣ The Wide Lens

The premise of the book is worth an epiphany: it’s an age of ecosystems, have to think in broader terms than just your products. So often can miss critical ingredients of the the ecosystem and can fail really badly while doing the execution perfectly. Co-innovation and adoption chain risks are there quite often for quite simple teams, besides the execution risk which is the first thing that companies learn to conquer. It’s not enough to take care of the last one, have to manage the first two as well. Need to always be on top, who else is there to win besides you to make your stuff work.

Of course, the detailed look this needs can be much easier in hindsight. One of the final, big example of an enterprise that did things wiser than other was Better Place, an electric car company. I was thinking how the book’s models would apply to Tesla, while just this week I read about how Better Place just filed for bankruptcy.

♣ The Lean Startup

…coming soon

♣ Rework

…coming soon

On the reading list

There are always more books than I have time for, these are the ones that are shortlisted currently to be added to the reviews above.

If you have a suggestions what else I should include, please let me know!

Categories
Admin

Switched to SPDY and now Google’s confused

Out of interest, I recently switched this site to SPDY, party because I like to try out new things, and partly because I would want to make things be better and faster. So far it’s a mixed experience, with some puzzling changes, that I cannot make heads or tails of.

The first step for the switch was bringing everything onto HTTPS, which I have done with a free SSL certificate from StartSSL. Redirected everything from the HTTP to the secure connection, with the 301 http code so I thought Google will be able to follow it well and replace the addresses in their index. Then enabled the SPDY module in Nginx, and checking the result looked like I was in business.

Some time has passed, and a scary graph started to manifest itself in Google Analytics:

Google Analytics impression count, the site has changed around May 8.
Google Analytics impression count, the site has changed around May 8.

Right after I have made the changes, my impression count on Google dropped like a brick, now being exactly 0. That’s not really the change I wanted to see. Digging more into it, though, it looks like I still have a constant stream of visitors from Google Search:

Visitor numbers from Google Search, same time interval as the impression count.
Visitor numbers from Google Search, same time interval as the impression count.

How can I have zero impressions, but still a half a dozen visitors from Search? The results in the Webmaster Tools mirror things: dropping impression count, no crawl errors, same or even better indexed count, and relatively good stats:

Google Crawler stats, with a big spike when switched over HTTPS/SPDY when needed to reindex everything
Google Crawler stats, with a big spike when switched over HTTPS/SPDY when needed to reindex everything

The crawl seemed to have gotten a bit slower (the bottom plot of the three), but more consistent.

I wonder what could be the change, does the impression count depend on the method of access (http/https)? Or did I made some braking changes? If so, then why’s the conflicting information?

Being a scientist, my main concern is not actually the raw value of any visitor count, but understanding the reactions to my actions, and consistency of the “experimental results”.  I wonder what kind of technique I could use to debug all this?

Update 2013/May/28: 

Following some recommendations from the comments, it looks like that the https:// version of my URL has to added to the Webmaster Tools separately. Now there’s a http://gergely.imreh.net and a https://gergely.imreh.net section as well. In the latter section, I can see that there are some impressions reported. Some weird things still exist: the sum of impressions from both is less than how many visitors I reportedly get from Google Search; the crawl stats is shared between the two sections (ie. the https version reports a lot of crawl stats even from the time there wasn’t https enabled), while most other data is separate for the two sections (e.g. impression, search queries, sitemaps). Still probably this is on the right path.

The impression count after adding a https version of my site's records to the Webmaster  Tools
The impression count after adding a https version of my site’s records to the Webmaster Tools

After the Webmaster Tools changes, I have just switched the Google Analytics association from one WMT property to the other. Hopefully this will freak me out less, though it will likely take some days to see the changes in the result.

Categories
Computers Lab Programming

OSLO is a strange one

Experimental physicists have to be the jack-of-all-trades, even on a good day, but building a new laboratory, on a budget (for any definition of “budget”) and with a limited team, is an exercise that would test anyone.

For my field, atomic physics, one needs a lot of different expertise: vacuum systems, computers, electronics, machining, optics are among the ones first to my mind. Today I’m looking at one of the tools that we are using for the last topics: optics.

In some ways, optics is pretty straightforward (both geometrical and diffraction optics), many of the calculations one could write in Python/Numpy just as well, as any software can do it. They are just pretty tedious, and there are a lot of them, optics is not a new profession. Some optics design software is very useful then, and there are not that many of them, lots of work goes into the ones that exist, thus they can be extremely expensive. One of the industry standard seem to be Zemax, and many lens manufacturers provide the specs of their lenses in a Zemax format – though it is fortunately just a relatively simple text file. On the other hand, its cheapest edition is $2500, and goes up to $9500…

Another serious competitor is OSLO (Optics Software for Layout and Optimization) which is still very well known, and fortunately for us, has a dumbed down (limited number of surfaces, not all the functions available), EDU version, for free. It even runs on Linux with Wine.

I instinctively resist any software in science & research that is not free & open source, because I feel that it closes some people out, though had to use something, and in the meantime I have grown to OSLO quite a bit.

OSLO ray graph of an imaging system
One of our imaging system design

Using OSLO, I have found that one big advantage of these software is their catalog: the glasses (oh-very-important for optics) and stock optics of different companies. This alone makes everything much easier.

What does the lens designer software do? You enter the parameters of some lenses by defining different surfaces and materials & distances between those surfaces, give it some lightbeams, and see what comes out of it. Most of this happens in this window:

The window to enter the system parameters
Lens spreadsheet

After these settings, one can run a number of different analytics code, checking the performance and behaviour of the system by calculating a bunch of physics parameters, or can modify the system to optimize that performance one way or another.

This is where the number 1 strangeness – and big bonus – comes in: OSLO can be scripted in a language called Compiled Command Language (CCL), which is a subset of C; and not just scripted, but the whole program is written on top of the CCL compiler (as I understand)! The result of this is that:

  • Your scripting can be just as powerful as the entire program, since both sides have the same functions accessible
  • There are a bunch of scripts included in the main version and even if CCL itself feels poorly documented, there are plenty of examples to learn from
  • Once your script is compiled for OSLO, it can be totally part of the system, your own menuitems, options, defaults, everything
  • Scripting is not just bolted on later, but the whole software feels like a result of “eating your own dogfood“, resulting in a much better experience.

Optics design is tedious, so once I figured out how to do the scripting, everything just become nicer. Haven’t had time to do a lot of things, but the script I have so far is open source, and hope to add other things later.

From the programming point of view, there’s one more strangeness. Starts with that the output of numerical calculations looks like this:

Window showing numerical results of a lens' calculation
Looking at some numerical results

Those are all results from different functions, calculating spot sizes and wavefront distortions and what not, and those can be run from your own script – but the return variables are just printed. And they are a table. Those are table values that have to be accessed, so for example if I want to have the Strehl Ratio there, I would have to assign the value of something like “c1” to my internal variable – c for 3rd column, 1 for first row. Though to be this simple my code would have to clear the existing table before running the wavefront function correctly. This results in a lot of counting on the screen to see what row/column output of a function I want to actually use.

Internally, I think most of the calculations are following a finite number of rays. Finite but very high (~1000). The big problem, that could get the unsuspecting people (like I was), that what looks like a continuous calculation, is actually digital. For example if I set an aperture within the system that cuts into the incoming rays, and keep changing the aperture size (which is just a real number), the output results don’t really change unless I exclude or include some of the beams that OSLO is using for calculation – thus the result is changing in steps, and hard to trust. I guess there should be a setting somewhere to change the number of rays used, but still trying to find it.

It is one clever program though. The input and output parameters of a lightbeam are really connected by the system, since practically speaking, the optics are just transforming some parameters of the beam into other values, thus if I set the input parameters, the output is given. With OSLO they do this in a way, that the code just follows what parameters you have changed last time (input beam size? output image angles?…) and that will be a fixed variable, while everything else is adjusted. Some parameters disappear when others take certain values (set your object very far away? then we don’t have to let you set your object size, since it’s not important, instead give you a viewfield angle). It’s funky when I figured it out, but took a while…

I don’t know how much longer I’ll have to use it at work, but this looks something that really tickled my interest learning optical design much more, and once I have the hang of the quirks, it’s pretty neat. If anyone’s interested, there’s a pretty useful mailing list.

Now if only there was an open source solution… : )  (please drop me a line if there’s a good one)

Categories
Startups Thinking

Academia is failing but not for everyone

Recently I have some mounting problems and stress at work, and while it would be easy to write it off as unfortunate circumstances, I felt like I need to dig into the causes much more to understand and try to fix them. It seems that it’s not just me having problems, my entire “industry”, the Academia has some fundamental difficulties. Can hardly say things about other fiends, but I have some overview of the atomic physics research done around the world, and nothing indicates that the issues are confined to physics alone. These are the problems I try to explore here.

I’m a physicist, working still as such, in my 5th year as a post-doctoral researcher (this is my second post-doc position). Altogether I think I am in physics for about 14 years now (or 20 if we count the high school where I was already conquered by it, just wasn’t quite aware of it yet).

Usual lab scene
In the lab

At my lab I felt there are some things that could be done better, to have a better group and research quality. I tried to bring some ideas from my old lab, from the startup world, from computer science, and my ideas what research should be like. Most of those changes were shot down, and many of the changes experienced became very frustrating, I felt like I’m on the wrong track.

Recently I got to read Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, and while it is aimed mostly at the IT industry, plenty of things are completely general. It was one of those reads that I was on the verge of tears in the end, because recognized so many things that went wrong in my environment.

One of the most important thing I felt was that our lab should be a team, a consciously cultivated team to really achieve its potential. The upper level always indicated that they took the fact that we work in the same lab as a sign that we already have a team, and that’s just one of the problems.

From the book it feels that the entire success or failure of projects mostly depends on the people and their connection with each other. Looking at the Academia, it feels like almost everything is set against building a great team. Not consciously, many people have lofty goals of efficiency, productivity, and similar things, but they go around naively to achieve those, and in the same time they destroy the resources that would create efficiency and productivity and creativity.

Looking at Peopleware’s Chapter 20 about Teamicide, they list a number of things that inhibit team formation or crush working teams:

  • defensive management
  • bureaucracy
  • physical separation
  • fragmentation of people’s time
  • quality reduction of the product
  • phony deadlines
  • clique control

I have experienced pretty much all of this in the labs here. Defensive management, people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, because it reflects bad on you, so you have to make the choices for them and push it through, generally thinking that the people you got for the job are actually incapable of doing it. Bureaucratic, have plenty of stories about that, everyone has, even worse in Taiwan than general. Physical separation is less of an issue here, we are all in the same office. Fragmentation of people’s time, even when working on apparently “priority project that you need to drop everything else until it’s done”, it’s still “hope in the same time you can help out with X & Y”. Quality reduction, this is the worst one for people who believe in their abilities, having to work on something that I know it would be worse by far than other solutions I could bring, but it’s squarely ruled out, and now I’m feeling I’m spending my time building essentially waste. Phony deadlines, there are plenty of them, because people think that setting a deadline will make people work harder, which is missing the point – the hardest workers are those who are not pressured and have been given worthwhile goals”. Clique control, stopping efforts that would mainly be about knowing each other, effortless communication, and feeling that we work “together” instead of “in the same space”.

In later chapters they also point out a few more parts. High turnover poisons everything. Management don’t invest in training, people are not invested in their work, it’s just something “temporary”, why to give it all the effort (consciously or subconsciously)? Academia is almost designed for high turnover. Masters students for 6 months to 2 years max. PhD students from 3-8 years (though the long time is more problematic in terms of exploitation), postdocs from 1-2 years, and you are expected to move on and move up. Become a professor “somewhere else”, and start your own high turnover lab. The whole thing is quite often just milking the current place for results, or milking the new workers for their energy until they leave, because they are known to be leaving soon.

This also gives rise to thinking of people as building blocks. How often it is heard that “I need more masters students to do this project”, or “you should hire a post-doc for that”. Not ability, but function.

There’s often very little training about generally useful things, because of the high turnover is so etched into people’s mind: if my student will leave soon anyways, why teach him, or why teach the group in general something that is not immediately useful for their work? Why waste time with that?

There are lot of other problems as well, which mainly comes from how people get their jobs. To run a research group and become a professor, one needs to have: academic skills, teaching skills, management skills.

The first one people demonstrate through papers, passing exams and so on, so usually they have indeed good skills (don’t want to dispute that). The other two skills are on the other hand never tested, and just taken for granted, taken as the “easy” part. On the contrary, most people who think they can manage people (me included), are naive and make a lot of mistakes, even be completely counterproductive. Many professors are terrible teachers and managers, while they think they are doing okay or even great, so they don’t have to examine their level, nor improve on it.

Because of these things, that are so ingrained into the Academia, I’m even surprised that there’s so much success as there is. I would argue, many times the success is temporary and because of people’s skills to persevere against the odds. In some subset, actually, things fall into place. In my previous research group at Oxford, things were like that: professors let students to experiment and try things even if they don’t agree or see the point at the time (within limits, of course), people stayed on after their PhD, or spent their masters there as well, so much lower turnover, they took the bureaucracy out of the picture so if I needed something I just had it, no overtime because everyone knew that people need a life (and dinner at college starts at 5:30, so got to leave before that), and natural team building, like the tradition of whole departmental coffee (morning) & tea break (afternoon). We talked about everything, got to know each other, exchanged ideas, never got stuck in our work. And everyone was happy. I think I got spoiled by that, and took such environment for granted.

Of course, most of the things I mention here are not new nor original observation. To understand the situation, I started to read some books that supposed to guide new professors, for example New Faculty: A Practical Guide For Academic Beginners. I was wildly agreeing with the picture they paint of the problems in the preface, and starting to see some of the things a little better, while it still feels as if it falls short: most people trying to fix the problems by better assimilating themselves into the existing community, instead of shaking up the way “things are done here”.

That’s not necessarily bad, as another book I got recommended, the Orbiting the Giant Hairball showed me. There are a lot of resources that even a troublesome environment can provide. Still, how much one’s energy should be invested into fighting the system, and how much into the things we want to do to change the world?

Crossover Labs

Looking at the whole situation, my last 5 years were good lesson in life, while they left me almost nothing to go ahead in Academia. Joined labs that were stuck, or still building up, so I learned a lot, but haven’t got anything published, which is almost the single thing they need in the Taiwanese system to enter the professor level. Also, as I mentioned, most of the problems seems to be by design, so it feels I can do relatively little from the inside, if I want to change things. And I really do want.

I don’t want to leave physics behind either, research is what I’d like to do.

Instead, let’s think of something crazy: there were really successful non-academic research laboratories, let’s take Bell Labs. Unfortunately they have stopped fundamental physics research, but what if that tradition would be revived? If Bell Labs needed a powerful mother company to run it, how would we do a similar thing “21st Century Style”? Can we get some inspiration by non-conventional research and technology, learn from the old Bell, from SpaceX, from the HP garage, from the MIT Media Lab, from firms like IDEO, from Formula 1 teams, from Japanese innovation at Honda/Toyota/others, from IBM, from Sparkfun? These are all a bit wild examples, while I believe all of them have some insight that will or have changed me for the better.

Can I find a place where I can test my theories of research, how the 20% time would work in a lab; finish side projects that are right now dissuaded and covered up with just throwing grant money on it; see how people would probe the universe without the pressure to publish or perish; when people can change fields and become useful in research in a way they find fitting as well; when learning and training are priorities; when the quality of results is not been sacrificed…

I kinda think that I could do this in one obvious, but very scary way: I’d have to start it myself.

Thus it seems the path forward is taking my time at the current position till the contract runs out at the end of this year. Learn as much as I can. Do things as well as I can. Than based on all those experience, found a new laboratory, let’s give it a working title of Crossover Labs, and see what can be done on a shoestring.

Set up a laboratory that puts research first, based on the people. Make it so that it can fund itself from its byproducts in good Cambridge style where successful research is spin off into companies. Let’s have a place which doesn’t have to push people to do things, because they want to do, just get out of the way of them kicking ass. How to do this will need a lot more thinking and will definitely write about it more.

It is easier to say than to do, so if this vision is something that resonates with you as well, then let me know, that would be already helpful!

And I’m a bit sad that I got to the stage of “calling in well”, but it feels it has to be done:

Chances are you’ve heard of people calling in sick. You may have called in sick a few times yourself. But have you ever thought of calling in well?

It’d go like this: You’d get the boss on the line and say, “Listen, I’ve been sick ever since I started working here, but today I’m well and I won’t be in anymore.”

– Tim Robbins: Even Cowgirls Get The Blues (via Peopleware)

 Thanks David and Nathan for feedback before the publication of this post.