Didn't someone try (or at least propose) this a while back?
If the curve is a problem for plate mounted switches, why do a smooth curve at all?
Do a "rough curve" were each row is flat using a sheetmetal bending brake.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RRS4NsN.jpg)
Artist depiction of a three row keyboard done in this manner:
|
__/
Didn't someone try (or at least propose) this a while back?
If the curve is a problem for plate mounted switches, why do a smooth curve at all?
Do a "rough curve" were each row is flat using a sheetmetal bending brake.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RRS4NsN.jpg)
Artist depiction of a three row keyboard done in this manner:
|
__/
We would also need completely custom uniform profile keycaps for it.I suspect that someone has Signature Plastics' DSA profile in mind... which is quite common in group buys by now.
Anyway... I am not convinced that curved backplanes are better than flat from an ergonomic standpoint. With a curved backplane, the further a row of keys is from the wrist, the more the key-pressing motion would be pressing away rather than down/towards you.I agree.
I'm convinced curved plates are better than flat for one simple reason.[...] For the curved plate, the plane of the key surface is perpendicular to the travel of the key. You press in the direction the key is moving.This seems incorrect to me. When you move your finger to find the new key, you’re extending your two distal joints outward/upward, but when you actually press the key down, the main motion is still to flex the whole finger at the first knuckle (metacarpal-phalangeal joint), and the direction of force is fairly close to straight down, not outward. (At least, that’s what it seems to me from observing my own hands’ movement.)
For the straight plate, the plane of the surface is angled off the perpendicular. You press in a way that's not in line with the key travel.
What would be the advantage of a plate like this? I just don't think there would be one. We would also need completely custom uniform profile keycaps for it.
As far as keypress direction - it makes sense to me that you would want to push the cap in the direction of travel of the switch.That’s correct. But in general, that direction is pretty close to straight down.
Model Ms are like this, and many folks seem to like them.The angle of Model M switches is suboptimal. Just like the layout. But it works okay, because the angle is actually quite slight.
The angle of Model M switches is suboptimal. Just like the layout. But it works okay, because the angle is actually quite slight.
A Model M where you tilted the near side of the keyboard upward by about 5 degrees would probably be a bit better to type on.
PCB won't be a problem with the Enablers.
PCB won't be a problem with the Enablers.
Was thinking the same, or even doing individual PCB's for each row.
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
curved PCBs are _really_ expensive. you have to lay down the fiberglass mat in a curved mold and then shoot the resin binder to make curved FR4. it's a huge tooling investment just to make pcbs. jd's solution is _much_ better
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
I would vote small stitches with TIG vs spot welds. The two plates would have to touch to spot weld and I am not sure how well that works right on the edge of the part.
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
I would vote small stitches with TIG vs spot welds. The two plates would have to touch to spot weld and I am not sure how well that works right on the edge of the part.
I defer to the expert on this one. You know WAY more about welding et cetera than I.
What if you extended those plate edges to have lips so you could form a proper butt joint to weld instead of tacking it?
What if the plates are designed with removable bosses which can hold standoffs? Think of how the Model M barrels are removable. Instead of holding a switch, it accepts a standoff.
And then lap joint it 'cause I was silly and tried to sneak butt joints past you.
I can't sketch at work. I will post something later.
Edit: Someone PM me a reminder if they would be so kind. I am insanely forgetful.
What's a break? And even if I sketched something, I can get fired for taking pictures on my phone here.
I was given a very stern talk the last time I took pictures at work. Not risking it again.
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
Would probably have to prototype both a plate that was originally flat, then bent along the rows and a plate that was cut rows that were stitch welded together.
Would imagine it would be easier to get a consistent bend angle between the rows using a brake (with likely more chance of hole distortion), where a welded plate would be hard to get a consistent angle without a jig (but also very little chance of hole distortion).
That's why i was suggesting extra material. You could get the bend in those plate strips and then if would help with some of the distortion.
Edit: Now that I think about it...maybe that's why we want to tack. I don't have *that* much personal experience with welding so maybe Melvang can chime in.
My sheet metal guy advised me that in order to get a good bend without distorting the holes, there needs to be at least 0.25" clearance between the edge of the hole and the bend. That would mean 0.5" between rows, at minimum. :(
My sheet metal guy advised me that in order to get a good bend without distorting the holes, there needs to be at least 0.25" clearance between the edge of the hole and the bend. That would mean 0.5" between rows, at minimum. :(
How realistic is it to cut the holes after the bends are done?
My sheet metal guy advised me that in order to get a good bend without distorting the holes, there needs to be at least 0.25" clearance between the edge of the hole and the bend. That would mean 0.5" between rows, at minimum. :(
How realistic is it to cut the holes after the bends are done?
Probably not at all. The laser needs clearance to move, and basically wants a flat surface to cut. Plus clamping the plate down to get each row flat with the table for cutting would be nigh impossible as well.
Melvang, welds would survive a waterjet right? I never actually thought about that. Like if you welded first them water jet the holes out? You definitely can laser it but it's not easy.
For what it's worth I also know DSA caps are a tighter fit between caps but I don't have numbers for those. DCS caps single unit caps are .715"x.715" according to SP. Though I don't know how far from the plate the bottom of the skirt is.All standard keycaps are pretty much the same width at the bottom edge. The heights above the plate do vary though.
For what it's worth I also know DSA caps are a tighter fit between caps but I don't have numbers for those. DCS caps single unit caps are .715"x.715" according to SP. Though I don't know how far from the plate the bottom of the skirt is.All standard keycaps are pretty much the same width at the bottom edge. The heights above the plate do vary though.
Anyway... I am not convinced that curved backplanes are better than flat from an ergonomic standpoint. With a curved backplane, the further a row of keys is from the wrist, the more the key-pressing motion would be pressing away rather than down/towards you.I agree.I'm convinced curved plates are better than flat for one simple reason.[...] For the curved plate, the plane of the key surface is perpendicular to the travel of the key. You press in the direction the key is moving.This seems incorrect to me. When you move your finger to find the new key, you’re extending your two distal joints outward/upward, but when you actually press the key down, the main motion is still to flex the whole finger at the first knuckle (metacarpal-phalangeal joint), and the direction of force is fairly close to straight down, not outward. (At least, that’s what it seems to me from observing my own hands’ movement.)
For the straight plate, the plane of the surface is angled off the perpendicular. You press in a way that's not in line with the key travel.
This is one of the things I find to be problematic on the Kinesis Advantage: many of the keys travel in an axis that is not the same as the axis of finger pressing, and as a result they are less uncomfortable to press than they would be if rotated to be more straight up and down. The Maltron has an easier time getting this closer to right, because it uses hand wiring instead of a curved PCB.
I do agree though that there might be an advantage in raising the further-back keys up higher than current keycap profiles permit. So perhaps making "steps" of sheet metal (Or CNC'd metal/wood/plastic) could be nicer to type on than current flat designs. Also, the proximal keys (bottom row or two, nearest the body) could probably be angled a little bit, as I think they tend to get pressed a bit toward the body as well as down.
In general, my expectation is that you get a much bigger ergonomic advantage from splitting the two hands apart, tenting them, and putting thumb keys in a comfortable spot, than you get from curving the plate the finger keys sit on. If you feel a pressing need for height differences in the finger section, I’d recommend switching to a column-staggered layout and adjusting the height between columns pressed by different fingers, e.g. raising the pinky keys up a bit. (But don’t try to accomplish this with a curved plate/pcb, or you’ll get the same problem again, where the pinky/index finger keys are pressed by unnaturally pushing sideways.)
So, we need a plate set like this. Then you can spot weld the plates together. This is for a TKL, so no vertical key issues.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/RmvLleS.png)
curved PCBs are _really_ expensive. you have to lay down the fiberglass mat in a curved mold and then shoot the resin binder to make curved FR4. it's a huge tooling investment just to make pcbs. jd's solution is _much_ better
You could also try different types of bend reliefs such as the one below:Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/sAGZ5wp.png)
I made a picture to illustrate how a slot cut along the bend can decrease the stress on the hole during the bend. Not only does the bend get more exact if you have a line of slots and small tabs to guide it, but the holes does not get deformed and these slots are commonly used to prevent deformations at holes by using protecting reliefs. Just take a look in your average PC case and you are likely to find a few. If laser/water cut, the slot can be made relatively thin.
An additional note; The switch holes will be spaced further apart vertically than 19.05mm on the plate since the height of the switches and their caps will be angled towards each other.
Why not just do it the right way and buy a model F?
Why not just do it the right way and buy a model F?
Lack of options for custom layouts, caps, spring weights, options for tactility, lighting, replacement parts, and to be the really odd ball.
Edit: I believe the original purpose of this idea was to have the sculpted key tops (think M, F, DCS, Cherry, OEM) but in flat profile keys such as DSA or GB's with all row 3 SA.
Instead of tilting all the rows, I recommend tilting the row or two closer than the home row (possibly more than the buckling spring keyboards do), and then simply raising (without tilting) the rows further than the home row: first, every bit you tilt those further away rows, they get less natural to press (because the switch axis gets further out of alignment with the direction of finger motion); and second, tilting doesn’t actually get you as much height step as you ideally want for the further away rows.
The Model F is an answer to the question, “how do we make something that feels sorta like a beam spring (or selectric), cheaper”. The way IBM answered that question is by dramatically reducing the number of modular per-switch parts, to just barrels, flippies, and keycaps, so that most of the keyboard can be constructed/assembled by robots. Since they wanted to re-use parts, they needed to figure out some way of getting the customary height stagger and slight tilt from row to row, so they angled the keycaps a bit and curved the plate.
But this design only makes sense if you have a single big piece of metal that is easy to bend uniformly. If you have fully separate strips, you can do anything with them, and there’s no reason to copy suboptimal design elements.
I have a legitimate necro bump here.
(Attachment Link)
I designed this with using "C" channel sized 3/4" across the face with 3/4" legs (can be cut shorter very easy) with 1/16" thick for perfect use with MX switches. I took some measurements from an M plate and I did some number crunching and using the top face of the switch hole as a tangent from the bottom face of the M plate I get 11.46° difference between faces or 168.54° depending on which direction you are coming from. While I have no idea if caps will crash with the channels pushed in tight, that would be easily fixable once side plates are added into the equation.
As far as wiring, this would either need to be done with individual PCB (enabler), hand wire, or enabler style for the whole rows. I realize that there isn't any stab holes in the space bar but I didn't feel like digging up those numbers.
What do you guys think.
I have a legitimate necro bump here.
(Attachment Link)
I designed this with using "C" channel sized 3/4" across the face with 3/4" legs (can be cut shorter very easy) with 1/16" thick for perfect use with MX switches. I took some measurements from an M plate and I did some number crunching and using the top face of the switch hole as a tangent from the bottom face of the M plate I get 11.46° difference between faces or 168.54° depending on which direction you are coming from. While I have no idea if caps will crash with the channels pushed in tight, that would be easily fixable once side plates are added into the equation.
As far as wiring, this would either need to be done with individual PCB (enabler), hand wire, or enabler style for the whole rows. I realize that there isn't any stab holes in the space bar but I didn't feel like digging up those numbers.
What do you guys think.
Wow! Now there is something that looks like it would work. Would have to figure out how to cut the switch holes into the C channel (I don't know enough about laser or water cutters to know if you program in a height standoff).
Add some 'enabler' rows customized for each C channel row, wire the columns, add a controller - done!