Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #5362 > unrolled thread

I Built a Keyboard

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  I Built a Keyboard Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-10-19 13:50 +0000
    Re: I Built a Keyboard whiskers@sleepy.cat - 2014-10-19 15:28 +0000
      Re: I Built a Keyboard Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-10-19 14:38 -0400
    Re: I Built a Keyboard RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-10-20 18:53 +0000
      Re: I Built a Keyboard Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-10-20 16:09 -0400
        Re: I Built a Keyboard "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-21 00:42 +0100
          Re: I Built a Keyboard Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-10-20 22:13 -0400
            Re: I Built a Keyboard "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-21 10:43 +0100
          Re: I Built a Keyboard scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-10-21 17:07 +0000
            Re: I Built a Keyboard RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-10-21 17:42 +0000
            Re: I Built a Keyboard Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-10-21 23:20 +0000
          Re: I Built a Keyboard Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2014-10-22 14:23 +0100
            Re: I Built a Keyboard "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-23 14:22 +0100
              Re: I Built a Keyboard Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-10-23 14:03 -0400
              Re: I Built a Keyboard Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-10-23 22:03 +0200
                Re: I Built a Keyboard Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-10-24 15:44 -0400

#5362 — I Built a Keyboard

http://www.davecooper.org/blog/2014/10/15/i-built-a-keyboard/

   The most common questions/statements I got when telling people that I
   was building a keyboard from scratch were:

   "Why not just get a keyboard online or from a store locally?" "That's
   going to cost too much money." "You'll never be able to make a keyboard
   as good as something commercially manufactured." or just "Why?"

   There's a really simple answer to what motivated me to do this. I wanted
   to see if I was capable of doing it. I'd never designed anything before,
   dealt with manufacturing companies, sourced materials like the ones I
   used, or wired something like this up before. From a glance it seemed to
   me like I would be able to do it with a solid amount of effort so I
   decided to go for it. To me, this was a hobby project, and hobby
   projects can run some people up into the thousands (think high end RC
   cars or models) so this was financially feasible for me to pursue.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5365

>  I Built a Keyboard

Nice keyboard mate!  These could be a nice DIY soldering kit, though
perhaps not an inexpensive one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5366

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, whiskers@sleepy.cat wrote:

>>  I Built a Keyboard
>
> Nice keyboard mate!  These could be a nice DIY soldering kit, though
> perhaps not an inexpensive one.
>
If you open up a current keyboard, many or most have a tiny board with an 
epoxy blob over an actual chip, which then somehow mates with the mylar 
circuit board that connects the keys up. Kind of useful for those 
computers that need a keyboard in order to boot up (just grab one of thsoe 
tiny boards, and plug it in, the circuit board can be mounted on the back 
of the computer) but you don't want or need a keyboard for that computer.

But if they expected solid contact (and I'm not sure that's the case), you 
could extract that tiny keyboard and thus have the electronics.  Then all 
you need to do is dig through the junk pile till you find a decent 
keyboard that isn't "PC compatible" and wire it up in the proper matrix, 
then connect that to the tiny board.  There used to be plenty of surplus 
keyboards around, I once wired one up to use with my Radio Shack Color 
Computer (that didn't really have a good computer) but back then, just 
needed to wire the keys in the proper matrix, then use ribbon cable to 
plug it into the computer.

The IBM PC computers used to be more modifiable.  I have one clone from 
the eighties that came with an Apple II clone.  SOmeone had changed the 
rom in the keyboard so it would output ASCII for the Apple II, rather than 
the up/down codes that the PC expects.  But it even came with the original 
rom, so it could be used with an IBM PC, though I think it's old enough 
that's only good for the original.  The keyboard format changed a tad 
later, different keycodes if nothing else, so unless you have a keyboard 
that switches between PC and AT, those did exist in the transistion 
period, though on some keyboards the switch ws internal, you can't use it 
on the AT and later.  But it's all become so standardized that that blob 
of epoxy will not be connected to an external ROM, and so those tiny 
boards can't be modified.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5379

On 2014-10-19, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.davecooper.org/blog/2014/10/15/i-built-a-keyboard/
>    There's a really simple answer to what motivated me to do this. I
>    wanted to see if I was capable of doing it. I'd never designed
>    anything before, dealt with manufacturing companies, sourced
>    materials like the ones I used, or wired something like this up
>    before. From a glance it seemed to me like I would be able to do it
>    with a solid amount of effort so I decided to go for it. To me,
>    this was a hobby project, and hobby projects can run some people up
>    into the thousands (think high end RC cars or models) so this was
>    financially feasible for me to pursue.
>
This looks like it was a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and pretty
darned educational, too.  I'm impressed and a little bit jealous!  As
for the question, "why even bother?" any self-respecting nerd knows the
answer to that one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5380

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, RS Wood wrote:

> On 2014-10-19, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.davecooper.org/blog/2014/10/15/i-built-a-keyboard/
>>    There's a really simple answer to what motivated me to do this. I
>>    wanted to see if I was capable of doing it. I'd never designed
>>    anything before, dealt with manufacturing companies, sourced
>>    materials like the ones I used, or wired something like this up
>>    before. From a glance it seemed to me like I would be able to do it
>>    with a solid amount of effort so I decided to go for it. To me,
>>    this was a hobby project, and hobby projects can run some people up
>>    into the thousands (think high end RC cars or models) so this was
>>    financially feasible for me to pursue.
>>
> This looks like it was a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and pretty
> darned educational, too.  I'm impressed and a little bit jealous!  As
> for the question, "why even bother?" any self-respecting nerd knows the
> answer to that one.
>
Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches 
to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your 
keyboard.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5382

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, RS Wood wrote:
>
>> On 2014-10-19, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> http://www.davecooper.org/blog/2014/10/15/i-built-a-keyboard/
>>>    There's a really simple answer to what motivated me to do this. I
>>>    wanted to see if I was capable of doing it. I'd never designed
>>>    anything before, dealt with manufacturing companies, sourced
>>>    materials like the ones I used, or wired something like this up
>>>    before. From a glance it seemed to me like I would be able to do it
>>>    with a solid amount of effort so I decided to go for it. To me,
>>>    this was a hobby project, and hobby projects can run some people up
>>>    into the thousands (think high end RC cars or models) so this was
>>>    financially feasible for me to pursue.
>>>
>> This looks like it was a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and pretty
>> darned educational, too.  I'm impressed and a little bit jealous!  As
>> for the question, "why even bother?" any self-respecting nerd knows the
>> answer to that one.
>>
> Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches
> to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your
> keyboard.

A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively (such
as 'one' and 'zero'!).

Although it would have better than my first effort at building a keyboard,
by rewiring (and relabeling) the buttons an a Casio calculator to give
alphanumeric entry. (It was better than nothing until I could afford to buy 
a proper one, c. 1981.)

But the best 'feel' and best feedback I think was on an ASR33 teletype. Not
exactly quiet though.

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5385

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, BartC wrote:

>
>
> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, RS Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-10-19, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> http://www.davecooper.org/blog/2014/10/15/i-built-a-keyboard/
>>>>    There's a really simple answer to what motivated me to do this. I
>>>>    wanted to see if I was capable of doing it. I'd never designed
>>>>    anything before, dealt with manufacturing companies, sourced
>>>>    materials like the ones I used, or wired something like this up
>>>>    before. From a glance it seemed to me like I would be able to do it
>>>>    with a solid amount of effort so I decided to go for it. To me,
>>>>    this was a hobby project, and hobby projects can run some people up
>>>>    into the thousands (think high end RC cars or models) so this was
>>>>    financially feasible for me to pursue.
>>>> 
>>> This looks like it was a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and pretty
>>> darned educational, too.  I'm impressed and a little bit jealous!  As
>>> for the question, "why even bother?" any self-respecting nerd knows the
>>> answer to that one.
>>> 
>> Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches
>> to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your
>> keyboard.
>
> A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively (such
> as 'one' and 'zero'!).
>
> Although it would have better than my first effort at building a keyboard,
> by rewiring (and relabeling) the buttons an a Casio calculator to give
> alphanumeric entry. (It was better than nothing until I could afford to buy a 
> proper one, c. 1981.)
>
> But the best 'feel' and best feedback I think was on an ASR33 teletype. Not
> exactly quiet though.
>
Wasn't that Teletype machine's keyboard mechanical?  I had a baudot 
machine at one point, and you'd press a button which engaged gears or 
something that sent out the serial bits for that key.  SO there was a 
rhythm to it, you had to get used to the delay for it to send the 
character before you could press another key.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5386

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410202210300.3138@darkstar.example.org...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, BartC wrote:

>> But the best 'feel' and best feedback I think was on an ASR33 teletype. 
>> Not
>> exactly quiet though.
>>
> Wasn't that Teletype machine's keyboard mechanical?  I had a baudot 
> machine at one point, and you'd press a button which engaged gears or 
> something that sent out the serial bits for that key.  SO there was a 
> rhythm to it, you had to get used to the delay for it to send the 
> character before you could press another key.

I'm not sure how the mechanism worked. But as normally set up, after 
pressing a key, the code had to be sent to the computer, then echoed back 
for it to be printed. So there must have been a fractional delay, although 
it didn't stop you typing rapidly.

I found it quite pleasant, but I wasn't a touch typist and perhaps didn't 
depend on instant visual feedback so much.

My current keyboard by contrast is terrible to use. (Or maybe seems so 35 
years later!)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5393

In article <E6h1w.798572$Fy6.63030@fx25.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
>news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
>> Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches
>> to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your
>> keyboard.
>
>A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively (such
>as 'one' and 'zero'!).

Some typewriters had those.  Back in the day, I had one of the plastic kid's
typewriters, and it at least had a 1 key.  Then again, it didn't even do
lowercase:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/251682070140

Come to think of it, it only had three rows and you used the shift key for
numbers and symbols...kinda like today's smartphone keyboards.

I'm pretty sure the IBM Selectrics my high-school typing class used had full
keyboards as we know them now, but then they're a long way tech-wise from a
mechanical typewriter. :-) 

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5396

> Come to think of it, it only had three rows and you used the shift key for
> numbers and symbols...kinda like today's smartphone keyboards.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the IBM Selectrics my high-school typing class used had full
> keyboards as we know them now, but then they're a long way tech-wise from a
> mechanical typewriter. :-) 


My next keyboard may very seriously be this: it's too fun not to have, although I suspect the actual key properties (stiffness, tactile feedback, etc.) are not that good for the serious typist.  Still, nostalgia warrants:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/150436476/commodore-64-usb-keyboard

Instructions for making your own here, via Hackaday:
http://hackaday.com/2014/07/17/make-that-c64-keyboard-work-as-a-usb-keyboard/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5397

Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> In article <E6h1w.798572$Fy6.63030@fx25.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
> >news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
> >> Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches
> >> to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your
> >> keyboard.
> >
> >A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively (such
> >as 'one' and 'zero'!).

> Some typewriters had those.  Back in the day, I had one of the plastic kid's
> typewriters, and it at least had a 1 key.  Then again, it didn't even do
> lowercase:

> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251682070140

> Come to think of it, it only had three rows and you used the shift key for
> numbers and symbols...kinda like today's smartphone keyboards.

> I'm pretty sure the IBM Selectrics my high-school typing class used had full
> keyboards as we know them now, but then they're a long way tech-wise from a
> mechanical typewriter. :-) 

Not the best picture ever:
http://www.dvq.com/oldcomp/photos2/ibm_magcard_1.JPG
but you can (mostly) read the key-caps through the glare.  Yes, the
layout is quite similar.

I've heard it said that IBM based the Model 1 keyboard layout upon the
Selectric layout, presumably to ease the transition for Selectric
typists over to the PC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5409

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
> >>
> > Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add microswitches
> > to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to your
> > keyboard.
> 
> A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively (such
> as 'one' and 'zero'!).

Replace the paper with a pressure sensitive pad, then do OCR on the
shape that's been imprinted.

Not sure how to recreate the full correction fluid effect though...

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5419

"Theo Markettos" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:Q9m*1VEev@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
>> >>
>> > Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add 
>> > microswitches
>> > to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to 
>> > your
>> > keyboard.
>>
>> A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively 
>> (such
>> as 'one' and 'zero'!).
>
> Replace the paper with a pressure sensitive pad, then do OCR on the
> shape that's been imprinted.
>
> Not sure how to recreate the full correction fluid effect though...

You mean, as a way of machine-reading what has been typed?

Simpler (in concept at least!) might be to use a microphone, and make use of 
the differences in the noise made by the different keys. A bit like speech 
recognition. But it would need to be customised to each typewriter (and 
possibly to the typist, as well as likely to make use of probabilities when 
there is ambiguity between keys, so if T and Z sound similar, then 'cat' is 
more likely than 'caz').

Another way is to use a camera simply looking at which levers are moving. I 
think this might be a better idea...

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5420

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, BartC wrote:

>
>
> "Theo Markettos" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message 
> news:Q9m*1VEev@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410201608520.2911@darkstar.example.org...
>>> >>
>>> > Of course, the real trick is to take an old typewriter, add > 
>>> microswitches
>>> > to all the keys, and then you have a real manual typewriter feel to > 
>>> your
>>> > keyboard.
>>> 
>>> A  bit limited, as there are too many keys missing to use effectively 
>>> (such
>>> as 'one' and 'zero'!).
>> 
>> Replace the paper with a pressure sensitive pad, then do OCR on the
>> shape that's been imprinted.
>> 
>> Not sure how to recreate the full correction fluid effect though...
>
> You mean, as a way of machine-reading what has been typed?
>
> Simpler (in concept at least!) might be to use a microphone, and make use of 
> the differences in the noise made by the different keys. A bit like speech 
> recognition. But it would need to be customised to each typewriter (and 
> possibly to the typist, as well as likely to make use of probabilities when 
> there is ambiguity between keys, so if T and Z sound similar, then 'cat' is 
> more likely than 'caz').
>
> Another way is to use a camera simply looking at which levers are moving. I 
> think this might be a better idea...
>
Keep those Rube Goldberg projects coming.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5421

On 2014-10-23, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> You mean, as a way of machine-reading what has been typed?
>
> Simpler (in concept at least!) might be to use a microphone, and make use of 
> the differences in the noise made by the different keys. A bit like speech 
> recognition. But it would need to be customised to each typewriter (and 
> possibly to the typist, as well as likely to make use of probabilities when 
> there is ambiguity between keys, so if T and Z sound similar, then 'cat' is 
> more likely than 'caz').
>
> Another way is to use a camera simply looking at which levers are moving. I 
> think this might be a better idea...

That reminds me of a project I came across a few years ago where someone
built a floppy disk stacker to automate copying them onto modern disk
storage.

He incorporated a digital camera which took a photo of each floppy before
it was fed into floppy drive and thus acquire label images to match the
contents of each floppy.

-- 
Anyone who thinks editors are not needed for writting has never written.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5428

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Paul Sture wrote:

> On 2014-10-23, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> You mean, as a way of machine-reading what has been typed?
>>
>> Simpler (in concept at least!) might be to use a microphone, and make use of
>> the differences in the noise made by the different keys. A bit like speech
>> recognition. But it would need to be customised to each typewriter (and
>> possibly to the typist, as well as likely to make use of probabilities when
>> there is ambiguity between keys, so if T and Z sound similar, then 'cat' is
>> more likely than 'caz').
>>
>> Another way is to use a camera simply looking at which levers are moving. I
>> think this might be a better idea...
>
> That reminds me of a project I came across a few years ago where someone
> built a floppy disk stacker to automate copying them onto modern disk
> storage.
>
> He incorporated a digital camera which took a photo of each floppy before
> it was fed into floppy drive and thus acquire label images to match the
> contents of each floppy.
>
There must be some calculation somewhere to help determine at what point 
expending effort and money on side issues gives an improvement on the main 
project.

Obviously, the more repetitive work you have to do, the more "cost 
efficient" it is to figure out some scheme to automate the work.

It's not worth it at all for a single use.  A few uses might be faster by 
automation, so long as the automation doesn't take much time or effort. 
But if you've got a lot, the value goes way up.  People scanning endless 
books obviously can see the value in automating it, I waste so much time 
just scanning things I want to keep handy.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web