Talk:J Head Nozzle

From RepRap
Revision as of 08:08, 2 September 2016 by Reifsnyderb (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Very careful crafting of text, pictures and construction. Excellent! --Traumflug 05:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The following links were removed because they are not selling the genuine article nor is what they are selling constructed to drawings specified by the developer ,what they are selling is a variant and have not released drawings , if they would like to be re-added as jhead suppliers they either need to be selling the genuine article or making what they sell according to the specifications released for the Jhead. if they would like to sell a variant it needs to be at least renamed and not sold implying it is a Jhead. thejollygrimreaper

Noticed that all useful page content (BOM, replication instructions, etc.) has been slowly deleted and replaced by spam, apparently by the original designer in a fit of jealousy over people being inconsiderate with the design and possibly in violation of the licences. I motion that, since this appears to be a widely-used and necessary component of many printers, we revert it to the version as of 08:03, 2 September 2015, or somewhere thereabout. However, I'm unfamilliar with wiki operations, and the culture around this wiki, so I'm both unsure how to do so or if it would be considered constructive. Matz05 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (PST)

I have removed the useful information and take full responsibility for it's removal. "Jealousy" is not the work I would use to define my attitude. To me, the best word would be "disgust". I spent considerable time, effort, and money developing a top of the line hot-end, the J-Head. Then, I released a huge amount of information about it's design to the world. MakerFarm duplicated the J-Head Mk IV-B or had it duplicated. They did a nice job with it and I never complained about that. The MakerFarm J-Head Mk IV-B is built to such a high standard that it is a true J-Head hot-end.

The chinese made a poor, rough, copy and spammed it all over the online markets. People bought the cheap knock-offs and those hot-ends failed. The result was that all J-Head hot-ends got blamed for this failure even though the cheap chinese knock-offs were (and are) very different from the real J-Head hot-end. Most of these people now buy other hot-end designs.

The closest open-source analogy that I can think of is this example: Imagine if somebody took FreeBSD, introduced a couple hundred bugs, then released it as a new Linux distribution. Because of this, people begin to dislike Linux. In my opinion, this is what happened to the J-Head hot-ends. (Please note that this is not meant to say anything negative about FreeBSD, it is just an example.)

The concept of open-source design is to take a product and improve it then release the source code or blueprints. It is not to take a product, break it, then not release any information.

Because of this, I have stopped all research and development work towards better J-Head hot-ends. I absolutely refuse to create new designs given what has already happened. I have also noticed that a lot of Reprap-related R&D has stopped in other areas as well. This makes me wonder if the other developers have left due to similar reasons.

I would also like to add that you get what you pay for. Quality products and new research and development cost money and a company that sells both will have to charge a higher price. A cheap, poorly made, knock-off will be cheap in both price and in quality.

-- Brian E. Reifsnyder (reifsnyderb)

That may be, and I feel for your frustration, but the deletion of vital replication information for a component widely used by the Project goes against the spirit of Open Source Hardware. Was this information released under a copyleft license (the disclaimer under this edit box implies it was), or wasn't it? If it was, as this information is important to the community, I'm going to spend some time figuring out how to revert the page or through what channels I can officially request such a thing. It's valuable information the community needs, and you can't just un-Free something. If it wasn't open-source, it didn't really belong on the Wiki in the first place. Again, it's terrible what happened, but attacking the community isn't the answer. Discuss retaliation against bad actors, if any such options exist (Is there a licence compliance organization for OSH stuff?). Don't feel like you have to destroy everything you've participated in building out of spite against a few idiots not playing fair. It's not fair to the community (or even in your rights under the licences the Project uses here), and it's not fair to yourself as a creator. Matz05 (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (PST)

Please feel free to find a J-Head that is really a J-head on e-bay. ( Even the J-Head knock-offs that are similar are not made to the proper specifications. That is why they are not reliable. The wiki specification is completely ignored and many "J-heads" are really E3D knock-offs. Not many people really know what a J-Head is and most people do not care. In short, the specifications no longer matter.

-- Brian E. Reifsnyder (reifsnyderb)

It's not about purchase links. It's not about what 'people out there' are doing. People want to use the technology you designed, and a lot of them are willing to fabricate it themselves. If 'just buying things' was important to people, they wouldn't be on this wiki! What's FAR more important to people here IS the specification. People here want to understand technology, to create collaboratively and make it better. This is supposed to be OSHW. You need to provide the 'source code' required to create things, or they don't belong in the Project at all. Because people are acting in bad faith and mislabelling things, you go and attempt to destroy what good already exists? You don't have to create more variants if you don't want to; but throwing a temper tantrum and trying to bring the whole chain down with you is wrong. This community exists because people build on top of pre-existing technology and standards. Just because you don't like what bad actors have done (which IS bad, I agree) DOESN'T give you the right to try to 'turn back the clock' and somehow 'uncreate' technology that is already a standard of sorts. People love J-heads and use them heavily. Can't you see that you're harming everyone who DOES want a proper J-head and every project using it as a standard by this pointless act of sabotage? I will be attempting to restore the fabrication instructions, though without much skill with wiki software the formatting might be bad. I believe that your actions constitute wiki vandalism, even though you have been legitimately wronged, you are NOT within your rights to try to make other people as miserable as you and you CAN'T just 'disappear' important technology from the Project. Matz05 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2016 (PDT)

I think I did it. The (excellent) article is back up and the spam is removed. I agree that we need to police against people cashing in on OSHW without following the terms and confusing everybody with false advertising, but committing suicide as a OSHW project is not the answer. That just means the bad actors won. With the article restored, people can, if they like, continue to make and improve upon the standards-compliant J-head hot ends which are standard for a several actively supported printers beloved by this community. Matz05 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2016 (PDT)

The bad actors have won. But, do as you like. --- Brian E. Reifsnyder (reifsnyderb)