I would have expected most research groups with an idea like that to buy a multi-thousand-dollar 3-D printer and manufacture something functionally similar for hundreds of times the cost.
>> used recycled milk or juice containers
Only if it were the Department of Recycling.
I didn't see that, or the Department of Common Sense in the authors' affiliations.
it's not that bad an article for an online, "open source journal". In fact, it's the best such article I've stumbled onto. Mostly I see trashy politicized nonsense in those, perhaps because I mostly hear about online "open source" papers in the context of GMO-bashing or climate-related science denying.
Other than touting an idea that seems hugely impractical, this article was totally sane and I didn't notice it concluding much that was not supported by their experiment or by common sense.
Maybe they really do know their own field, and it truly IS convenient for some ag experimenters to have flexible building blocks for root/soil experiments. I think I would try to design around standardized sizes of pop bottles or soda cans, but they have the experience.
Certainly they are honest. They said:
"Individual LEGO bricks cost between $0.10 and $1.00 "
I think that when I buy one to ten tray of inserts (12 x 6-packs, 72 cells per tray) the cost is a little more than 1 cent each. How many LEGO bricks would it take to make a cell? 10-20? Hence $1 to $20 PER CELL?
If their idea is that they found an INEXPENSIVE way to grow seedlings for experiments, they are the most honest guys since George Washington. They came right out and SAID that one LEGO brick costs as much as 10-1400 times more than buying traditional inserts.
Admittedly, they might have special requirements for their experiments, and clear LEGO bricks might be faster for the researcher than gluing a clear plastic patch onto a 1-cent cell.
But mostly it reminds me that online "journals" often prove the old saying: "You get what you pay for."
Free, but was it worth it?
