1
|
Oellermann M, Jolles JW, Ortiz D, Seabra R, Wenzel T, Wilson H, Tanner RL. Open Hardware in Science: The Benefits of Open Electronics. Integr Comp Biol 2022; 62:1061-1075. [PMID: 35595471 PMCID: PMC9617215 DOI: 10.1093/icb/icac043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Revised: 04/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Openly shared low-cost electronic hardware applications, known as open electronics, have sparked a new open-source movement, with much untapped potential to advance scientific research. Initially designed to appeal to electronic hobbyists, open electronics have formed a global “maker” community and are increasingly used in science and industry. In this perspective article, we review the current costs and benefits of open electronics for use in scientific research ranging from the experimental to the theoretical sciences. We discuss how user-made electronic applications can help (I) individual researchers, by increasing the customization, efficiency, and scalability of experiments, while improving data quantity and quality; (II) scientific institutions, by improving access to customizable high-end technologies, sustainability, visibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration potential; and (III) the scientific community, by improving transparency and reproducibility, helping decouple research capacity from funding, increasing innovation, and improving collaboration potential among researchers and the public. We further discuss how current barriers like poor awareness, knowledge access, and time investments can be resolved by increased documentation and collaboration, and provide guidelines for academics to enter this emerging field. We highlight that open electronics are a promising and powerful tool to help scientific research to become more innovative and reproducible and offer a key practical solution to improve democratic access to science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Oellermann
- Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Life Sciences, Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Mühlenweg 22, D-85354 Freising, Germany.,University of Tasmania, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Fisheries and Aquaculture Centre, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
| | - Jolle W Jolles
- Centre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications (CREAF), Campus UAB, Edifici C. 08193 Bellaterra Barcelona, Spain
| | - Diego Ortiz
- INTA, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Manfredi, Ruta 9 Km 636, 5988, Manfredi, Córdoba, Argentina
| | - Rui Seabra
- CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal
| | - Tobias Wenzel
- Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Institute for Biological and Medical Engineering, Schools of Engineering (IIBM), Medicine and Biological Sciences, Santiago, Chile
| | - Hannah Wilson
- Utah State University, College of Science, Biology Department, 5305 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84321, USA
| | - Richelle L Tanner
- Chapman University, Environmental Science and Policy Program, 1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hamza V, Stopar B, Sterle O. Testing the Performance of Multi-Frequency Low-Cost GNSS Receivers and Antennas. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21:s21062029. [PMID: 33809368 PMCID: PMC7998556 DOI: 10.3390/s21062029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Revised: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) low-cost multi-frequency receivers are argued as an alternative to geodetic receivers for many applications. Calibrated low-cost antennas recently became available on the market making low-cost instruments more comparable with geodetic ones. The main goal of this research was to evaluate the noise of low-cost GNSS receivers, to compare the positioning quality from different types of low-cost antennas, and to analyze the positioning differences between low-cost and geodetic instruments. The results from a zero baseline test indicated that the u-blox multi-frequency receiver, namely, ZED-F9P, had low noise that was at the sub-millimeter level. To analyze the impact of the antennas in the obtained coordinates, a short baseline test was applied. Both tested uncalibrated antennas (Tallysman TW3882 and Survey) demonstrated satisfactory positioning performance. The Tallysman antenna was more accurate in the horizontal position determination, and the difference from the true value was only 0.1 mm; while, for the Survey antenna, the difference was 1.0 mm. For the ellipsoid height, the differences were 0.3 and 0.6 mm for the Survey and Tallysman antennas, respectively. The comparison of low-cost receivers with calibrated low-cost antennas (Survey Calibrated) and geodetic instruments proved better performance for the latter. The geodetic GNSS instruments were more accurate than the low-cost instruments, and the precision of the estimated coordinates from the geodetic network was also greater. Low-cost GNSS instruments were not at the same level as the geodetic ones; however, considering their cost, they demonstrated excellent performance that is sufficiently appropriate for various geodetic applications.
Collapse
|