Double tapping in Cherry MX Brown

[Chobopants]

I can double tap easier on a Cherry Brown than a rubber dome even if the physics say it should be different. I listen to my fingers and they tell me Browns are the best.

Theory does nothing for the reality of how our muscle memory actually applies to how we use the keys.

[mich]

I don't own any "pure" RB and my only scissor switch board turned out to actually be slower than my finger - I double tap it and it registers only once. The problem with RDs is that they actuate at the bottom, where the dome's force is very weak.

[theferenc]

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, they are often radically different.

[skwan]

I see where we differ, i do disagree with your premise that there is no need to rebound.  Apologize in advance for stating the obvious, but but as a matter of completeness i present my argument as follows:-
If there is no rebound, you wouldn't even have the few micros of distance to turn off the switch.  I think you can agree with that.
Now i know you are saying i am picking at your words, but from your other posts, I understand like me being correct is a matter of utmost importance no matter how stupid/small the difference.  I do believe what you are saying is that at such short distance micros as you suggested the force of the rebound matters very little (TBH humans cannot control our movements at that scale, so i am not sure whether that is the length scale we would want to argue in, but as it does not currently affect both our arguments i adopt your premise) there is still distance traveled, and that distance does require force/work (ie spring/flex) to be moved/displaced, you have not raise a point as far as i can see why a shorter length do away with the need of rebound.

Now if i understand most membrane switches correctly (and i am just talking about the sample size of all the logitech and microsoft DR i have cut up for fun when they die) the mechanism is just 3 sheets of thin plastics with the top layer and bottom later containing the matrix/contacts, separated by a sheet with holes in them, which leads me to believe that the rebound in the micron level you suggest is dictated actually by the flex of the sheets! not even the dome!  As a person who have done undergraduate level E&M and a few courses on material science, i do believe the difference between the distance the two sheets need to be away from each other for the switch to turn off, and the distance needed for the two metal leads in a mech switch to turn off is of such a small degree that other factors would make it irrelevant (ie spring rebound).  I understand that this put outs BS and blues etc. switches out, but if my understanding is correct if you ride the actuation point correctly nothing prevent the same level amplitude of the motion need to trigger a RD to trigger switches such as red and black on and off.  And of course even if you are talking in the small distance a spring would have more rebound that the flex of just a plastic sheet.

And yes, that aside, i do "feel" that the fact that the actuation being in the middle of travel assists greatly in being able to DT, despite not being able to formulate a clear logical justification for it.  A layman way of putting why i feel that way is because i can DT in the middle of travel by muscle memory alone, I require no feed back from the keys, so basically i am capped by the physical capability of my fingers to go through a precise motion as quickly a possible (go down 2 mm, back up smallest of fraction, and down again) with training it can be very precise and limited by the precision of muscle control only.  In the case of a RD i feel i need to always over press to hit the bottom, recover the smallest of margin and then hit the bottom.  the last two motion are about the same speed but its the need to have a physical trigger from my finger for the next motion on the first bottoming out that slows it down.  I understand that one can argue i can just as well train it into muscle memory to move down 4 mm, up tiniest of margin, down again, no need for feed back, but even with that it just brings RD to equal footing with some switch, with a higher learning curve (at least to me).  Preferable don't focus too hard on my second explanation why mech is better for RD, my explanation like i said is by feel, and is by no mean rigorous, i have looked at it and can already identify many upon many places that needs to be patched up before it could even be called a justification for anything, which i have tried and havn't yet done so.

TL DR:
1: Solutor: Rebound must be assumed, without rebound the contacts would not separate.  Do not see argument why at short distance the force that is pushing the contacts apart does not make difference.
2:I do "feel" that actuation at middle of travel assist with DT, as i can train muscle memory to DT quickly without need of feed back from keyboard, and speed is caped by precision of muscle control, For RD, the wait for feedback from bottom out slows down DT

[Evil_Spork]

I've absolutely loved my Cherry reds for SC2 gaming. I'm not sure if the Filco board is just superb, or if the switches are ideal. I'm not even sure why I like it so much for gaming! haha

[The Solutor]

1: Solutor: Rebound must be assumed, without rebound the contacts would not separate. Do not see argument why at short distance the force that is pushing the contacts apart does not make difference.

I just suggest you to look better to the rd dynamics.

When you type normally you do the full travel until you reach the bottom point, this  makes typing, usually, more pleasurable and less fatiguing on a mech key.

But when we go to DT matter you have to take in account that after 4mm of travel just the last few 1/10 of mm matters.

There's absolutely no need to release the key, and there's no need to do 8mm of travel to open and close again the membrane's contact,and any experienced gamer is aware of it.

And I think that trying yourself is way better than reading my poorly written messages

[skwan]

Neither do you need 8 mm of travel for a red switch is my point, that the 1/10 of mm movement can be done at the actuation point of some mech switch.  I just don't see what difference you are relying on that a RD have that mech switch (ie red black) don't have that makes RD better, as stated, the tiny motion needed to repeatedly actuate a RD can be done right at the actuation point of a mech switch to achieve the same result if not better.

 i don't know if this is what you are suggesting, but it seems to me that you are giving the scenario where the typer is holding the key down right above the bottom to DT.  Would your statement imply that a keyboard with 1/10 mm travel and actuate at the bottom actually be better in DT?  Even so i still don't see why the actuation needs to be at the bottom, wouldn't a key with actuation at 1/10 mm travel but still with a full 3.9 mm travel be just as good in DT?  I see your point that actuation and release needs to be as close together as posible, but i don't see justification for why it needs to coincides with bottoming out.

[The Solutor]

i don't know if this is what you are suggesting, but it seems to me that you are giving the scenario where the typer is holding the key down right above the bottom to DT. Would your statement imply that a keyboard with 1/10 mm travel and actuate at the bottom actually be better in DT?

More or less.

Is not better because at bottom, is better because you have e definite reference, you have basically to control your finger mainly in one direction, while on a red or black you have to figure where the activation point is, and you have to use way more muscles to keep the key in the narrow area around the activation point, which is obviously possible, but at the same time requires a way better control and a way longer training process

[Arcanius]

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, they are often radically different.

In practice, there is no difference between theory and practice.
If there is a difference, then the theory does not match the practice, and needs to be expanded, or (rarely) simplified.

[theferenc]

Tell that to someone that knows the theory of driving stick. Or, you know, anyone in the sciences. Don't forget kids, bumblebees can't fly, and baseballs don't curve.

[Chobopants]

In practice, there is no difference between theory and practice.
If there is a difference, then the theory does not match the practice, and needs to be expanded, or (rarely) simplified.

Theory almost never matches practice because practice is usually nearly infinitely complex. So yes, assuming a perfect theory it would match, but no theory is perfect.

[Arcanius]

Tell that to someone that knows the theory of driving stick. Or, you know, anyone in the sciences. Don't forget kids, bumblebees can't fly, and baseballs don't curve.

You do realize that theories are made from practical trials? Empirical data.... This is why perfect theories always match practice. Chobopants, my good sir, you are correct, very few theories match reality, this is why we establish "laboratory conditions" and standards like STP, to eliminate some variable. Undoubtedly, adding all these things back into some complex theories would greatly complicate said theories.
theferenc, look at the Ideal Gas Law, it's used often enough, even in University Thermodynamics, and yet it's known to be false, although predictably so. This theory, if/when expanded, may accurately predict the properties of gases.
Also, you should tell THAT to somebody in the sciences yourself, they'll tell you that baseballs do curve, due to the Magnus Effect.

[F u r u y á]

My 2 cents about the practice vs theory.

Theory is an abstraction of the "reality". Thus, practice will comply to theory only under certain conditions (the hypothesis of theory). Reality is too complex to be perfectly theorized.

When we see practice not matching theory, it's merely because we forgot to take into account something and thus we're not applying the correct model/theory.

[The Solutor]

More than reasonable definition.

[Lanx]

the plastic membranes of RD are just like the input panel of microwaves, you never have to take your finger off of it to make an input. you can spam the numbers without lift out. The RD is really only there to make the keycap bounceback up.

[F u r u y á]

well, if it's worth mentioning I've found an 105-key Brown Filco Majestouch NKR (keyboard company). It will cost me more than 200 USD, so if I don't like it I will blow up GH. :target:


BTW, what's the difference between Majestouch and Majestouch-2?

[The Solutor]

BTW, what's the difference between Majestouch and Majestouch-2?

Just hot Air, and maybe a ping.

[F u r u y á]

Just hot Air, and maybe a ping.

what?

what's hot Air? And which one pings more?

[The Solutor]

what's hot Air?

I mean almost nothing, just marketing (eg dual sided vetronite PCB that was a novelty in 1970 or so...)

And which one pings more?

AFAIK the v2

[F u r u y á]

I mean almost nothing, just marketing (eg dual sided vetronite PCB that was a novelty in 1970 or so...)



AFAIK the v2

Any other things besides the dual-layer PCB?

[The Solutor]

WHERE is the question.

 
In Japan i presume :playball:

[bpiphany]

Actually there might be benefits/troubles with having a double sided PCB. I de-soldered a tenkeyless Majestouch 2, and it was hell getting the solder sucker to clean out the solder. My guess is that this was due to the through-plated holes. Solder sticking to the wall all the way through the PCB. When I was de-soldering the switches from a full size Majestouch (1) I could easily suck all solder off the connectors and the PCB nearly fell off from the switches mounted in their plate when I had freed them all of their solder. I guess the through-plating also could mean the mechanical bond between the switches and the PCB is stronger/stiffer. Since the solder forms a solid cylinder between the switch connector and the hole wall.