Self-Reproducing Machine Tools

Responding to the last post in "Quantum Mechanics and Self-Reproducing Machine Tools", now off list in my reader:
Bruce wrote on the 9th of September:
-------------------------------------------quote Doug,
This is a kool idea, as many of your posts are (even drill press abuse). I have two comments - 1. you have not shown proof that "two of everything" or even "two of anything" is the smallest number required and 2. I think replication without evolution is undesirable.
Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have (good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to park your shuttle between the Bridgeports.
Now project that evolutionary capacity to a capability that may be available in ideal environments and simple replication of current technology may even be undesirable. Grow your lathe ways from a single diamond crystal - now your iron machine tools are as desirable as the barber's leeches. Evolve some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by chip REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing the displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is exposed.
Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them and therefore don't actually need to perform an actual task or build a particular device to know the cosmic truth. We think through the problems, then we know that we can build that 42-shot-simiautomattic-revolver with each part perfectly heat treated and accurate to a couple of milliangstroms. Now that we know, we don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you think about some old westerns, didn't it?)
Just some ideas to think about.
Bruce ---------------------------------------close quote
"Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them"
Oh, heck no. Von Neumann, who proved machine self-replication is possible, Wigner, who proved it isn't, and Drexler, who missed the point, are all philosophy exercises. They never provided THING. All they did was THINK.
I plan on actually accomplishing self-reproduction of a minimal complement of pairs of machine tools, hopefully all from one manufacturer. That manufacturer may support the project financially for advertising or patent rights.
Pairs are required if the technique of "copying" is to remove a part from a machine and, if the part is within capacity, installing it in the machine that does the final operation as a simulated workpiece, then moving backwards one operation at a time, to the first, at which point the stock is installed. As one machine _may_ be of the same class, pairs are required.
The final operation need not always be on the same class machine, but if, working backwards from the finished part, even _one_ operation on _one_ part requires a machine of the same class as the downed, part-removed machine, we can reduce the problem to pairs but no farther. And this would be a pair of bench grinders, a pair of hex key sets, pairs of all collets required, but not necessarily a full set, a pair of collet closers, etc.
I assert you'll always find at least one milled part in a mill, at least one lathed part in a lathe, at least one surface ground part in a surface grinder, and at least one cylindrically ground part in a cylindrical grinder, as the self-reproduction potential of all machine tools is well recognized. In fact, I am fairly but not sure that any machine tool must contain at least one part made with "itself", that is a machine of the same class.
"Evolve some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by chip REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing the displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is xposed. "
With six billion potential partners, I'd rather screw than jack off. You said so yourself above, and I in my answer. I am working ONLY with what we have and know. Not with grey goo and magic atom-by-atom assembly. Talk about wasting a cup of gas to buy a gallon of milk. How about 150 KWH to sharpen your razor?
"Now that we know, we don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you think about some old westerns, didn't it?)"
No, I insist that we do it, proving it can be done. Once done, it's addictive. I don't remember my old westerns.
"Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have (good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to park your shuttle between the Bridgeports."
My middle name is McGiver and a machine tool is a bicycle spoke. I have my own boot laces, thank you. I also use chewing gum as an adhesive because it linearizes the connection, eliminating the dead band in the mechanical fastener that supports it, simplifiying analysis and function."
The minimum number of anything is indeed close to zero. It is one in the case of certain weapons. For much of the rest, you start with two hands and use both. Thus, the minimum is two, and above I showed another reason why it must be two in this case. It's an exclusion principle. If one machine is down, you need a spare. I build almost everything by making the intermediate products self-upgrade, starting with a brick or a stick.
But such is stock, not a tool, and you only need one piece of stock to make something. But to make all your tools, using one of each as a model, the spare will usually be not just handy, but required. One down, the other up. And when we have two of everything, we can certainly make one of anything. Sometimes we don't need two, but the only case in which we never need two is stock, and stock is not self-replicating.
"I think replication without evolution is undesirable."
So do I and that's why there's no grey goo or unassisted replication in my thesis. God guided our evolution through his random mutation and selection. We guide the evolution of self-replicating machine tools after we construct the first one the hard way. They do not do it on their own, since there are too many scale discontinuities between Pentium and Clausing Colchester. Within Pentium, it just doesn't happen. Within Clausing, it could happen but we have to make it happen.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I must say that this is all very intriging Doug. I'd be happy to spend year or two with a selection of machines and stock, making duplicates, or even upgrades. Anyone with funding?

why
swarf, steam and wind
-- David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\ http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ / ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail > - - - - - - -> X If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \ PLEASE pretend you don't know me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm glad because until I get a reply, I don't even know if the post was readable, not to mention worth writing.

In theory some pairs of machines and one foundry are all that is required. But to replicate the jig that holds the stock that end up as a machine part, you sometimes need a second jig. That's what I've discovered in theory, a sort of parity law or exclusion principle. Goncz's Postulate: You Need Two of Everything to Be Able to Make One of Anything.

It has recently become clear that the best funding is available from a machine tool manufacturer. Once their brand is selected as representing an adequate range of machines and we select a mill model, lathe model, etc,, we write an order and ask that it be delivered for research free of charge.
No DARPA funding is required, and no university affiliation for anyone but me, as this is one of three B.S. projects, either a thesis.
And yes, each pair can be in a different location and may or may not include a foundry. Ideally, all pairs and a foundry, a stock supply, and a coffe pot in several thousand square feet of comfortable indoor shop, heated, cooled, and always dry.
Having each pair in a different location focuses, perhaps too closely, on in-class reproduction tasks, which could be useful, while all together, there are more jobs that can be done per day, selecting each from whatever looks achievable, always knowing that two of everything is / are available, so that no matter what is picked, work can proceed without delay.
With this, in contrast to a deadline job, we start with the easy stuff first. Or the lightest stuff in the mass based model.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03 Oct 2003 11:16:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com.bat.exe ( Doug Goncz ) pixelated:

Ain't dat de trufe? ;)

Yes! Grants are good.

You forgot "self-cleaning", Doug. Or do you have foundry-bots scouring the floors for kibbles and swarf, each one eating only its type of metal kibble? (preventing unauthorized alloys)

I like it! Then you can see that you've actually made some progress, with racks of parts piling up as you go. It's a self-fulfilling impetus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um, that's more like you need to have two of everything in your shop to make one of anything in your shop, and it's a good policy for making one of anything outside your shop.
It's like a set: If A1 is in the set and in use as a model, another A2 is needed to make A3.
Of course, many machine shops receive as customers inventors with one of what they've built and who want one or a hundred more. These are not just parts but assemblies. The blueprints at Aerophysics always represented what was produced, and usually represented what was to be produced, but we built what was needed and very little more, except for a few hundred meters of weld nugget (we should have used rivets and sealants but the drawing said weld) and nobody went home hurt except Francis that one day. We even got checks once in a while.
I had a ball there.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
oh yeah, what about combo machines like lathe/mills? still need 2?
also, I'm not sure exactly how many machines you're proposing to work with to begin your replication. are you saying 'I have 2 lathes so I can make another, despite not having any other machines' or are you saying, 'given a range of machine tools (grinder/drill/mill etc), and 2 lathes, I can make another lathe'
swarf, steam and wind
-- David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\ http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ / ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail > - - - - - - -> X If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \ PLEASE pretend you don't know me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The theory is simplified by assuming two of everything, and one's toolbox should be adequate to the task before any job, so two of each thing to be replicated, all accessories, but not necessarily two of each operator's tool unless it becomes appropriate to validate the universality by producing as output one of each machinist's tool.

No, I'm saying that inherently each machine tool is capable of partical self-replicating, a lathe capable of replicating all its turned parts, a mill capable of replicating all its milled parts. But for complete replication of any machine containing milled, lathed, and ground parts, a mill, lathe, and grinder are needed, but may not be enough if there's for instance, even one part made with a shaper.

2 lathes, 2 mills, 2 cylindrical grinders, 2 surface grinders, and the ability to add another pair of machines each time an unsupported part is found in any machine in the system.

HTML email can be turned off in some versions of AOL and I think the server is the source of the box that says "This email contains a picture. Do you still want to open it?" Some versions of AOL don't even understand HTML email, just rich text.
I used to use 4, am using 6 now, and 9 is the latest system hogging crap. I'll probably go back to 4. It was safer.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug, thanks for responding. I thought my post got lost in the noise.
<The final operation need not always be on the same class machine, but if, working backwards from the finished part, even _one_ operation on _one_ part requires a machine of the same class as the downed, part-removed machine, we can reduce the problem to pairs but no farther.>
I still don't accept your assertion that two of every tool is the minimum requirement. I accept that two of some things establish a convenient baseline for replication and repair (a broken lathe may not be able to manufacture its own repair part). But "two of every tool" can not be a universal minimum, especially when applied to tools like hex key sets and collets.
<...And this would be a pair of bench grinders, a pair of hex key sets, pairs of all collets required, but not necessarily a full set, a pair of collet closers, etc.>
As an example, the still functional 1/2" collet does not participate in the replication of another 1/2" collet to replace the damaged one. The same situation exists with hex keys.
Another example that illustrates "fewer than two" being sufficient is folks building the "Gingery lathe" - self generation through successive approximation. The first spindle is used only until the second (improved) spindle is made. As an example, you mention that at least one part of a surface grinder is built using a surface grinder. If that part were to fail on the solitary surface grinder and make the machine inoperative, one could build several replacement parts using the lathe and mill. Install the first crudely made part to restore limited operational capacity to the surface grinder and grind the second replacement part. Now replace the first generation crudely built part with the slightly improved part. Repeat this successive approximation approach until the surface grinder is completely restored.
If you have two lathes and both are in routine service, there is a possible although improbable situation where both lathes could fail at the same time through failure of identical lathe-built parts. In this situation, one would need to rely on successive approximation or perhaps outside assistance. Two of every tool is not a perfect guarantee by itself.
Bruce
<snip>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, the thread went off my list at 43, total 48 in Google. I recommended the thread, including your final post, to sci.physics.research and there was at least one reader who read and enjoyed the whole thread here, an replied in spr.

It just simplifies the analysis to assume two of everything is available. It's not an absolute requirement for implementation, although it looks like one of the very first tasks will be to make a single, say M6x1x20 socket head cap screw, which, properly equipped, shouldn't take more than a bloody WEEK! It's not easy.

I only meant to reply that one of everything isn't enough and two of everything is enough, not that two of everything is required.

Yes, and for the simplest part copying process one machine goes down and one machine goes to work. They may be different-class for any one and likely most tasks, but E a task | a pair of identical machine tools are required.

Bending hex stock is a machine shop operation. I can conceive of a situation in which one might hold a collet closer WITH a collet closer symmetrically, but yes, you don't use a hex key to bend a hex key and you can't hold a collet blank with the same range collet unless there's a "splicer" or something like that.
The order presented to the manufacturer asserts Goncz's Postulate. Reducing the order when rejected and submitting a revised order is a reasonable compromise. But implementation is to prove Goncz's Postulate and identify all the items not required in dupe. I say, get two of everything, open everything as needed, and when finished, return unopened what may be a lot of stuff, generating an investment cost figure and rather than an overrun, a list and a return credit figure, the financial landmarks for the first such project. Simplify!
I also assert that one shouldn't work a problem in one's head. So editing a dupe order down could concievable cause an error, and thus, an error chasing project, which is never a good thing.
Funding is effectively unlimited. If they're sending us two of each machine tool at enormous substantial risk and expense, why not get two of every hand tool and return one of each non-dupe-required, and two of each oops-we-didn't-even-need-it? Tools have a long shelf life. Receipts get filed, and are pulled up easily.

Yes, this particular possibility is slim.

Uh, no. One can slip a bit of stock with a through hole, or some tube, over the long arm section of some hex stock, and use its buddy as a lever to turn the stock into a key. This bit of tube can be much smaller than the hey key if it fits well, and such a selection of adapters can be made on a lathe and a boxed set presented to the manufacturer on completion.
Yes, of course you could use a long bit of stock with a through hole as a tommy bar handle, but the whole point is to turn each small problem back on itself in the way most consistent with the self-replication that is the main focus.
Eight tommy bars in scrap, or a boxed set of eight hex key self-reproduction adapters? The entire array is supposed to be have universality, that is, it can make anything in its range, and such a solution becomes a new salable product, rather than a collection of scrap bits. Or maybe that is the way to go.
Drill a bit of stock through, bend the smallest key stock into a key, enlarge the hole, and complete the set, ending with one piece of used-up scrap and the need to write down something that the English language isn't particularly good for: a process specification or flowchart. Doing that takes us way back to 1956.
Von Neumann showed us that a universal constructor and a unversal computer, plus a certain kind of program, are capable of reproduction, and provided a specific design that was never built.
I'm talking about building an archive, a museum display that the curators can figure out, rather than a pile of paper or a computer disk. When it's over, there's an interview to identify each bit of evidence.

Yes, I am aware of this technique but it doesn't make a pretty display. Self-upgrade was one of the first properties I identified in my 1995 experiments. I'm not the first one to notice it.

Yes, one could.

Yes. Takes longer. Don't be cheap. Always request full funding. It actually increases the chance of acceptance and thereby success, rather than making the funding source think "This looks incomplete". Ginger has already done it an left a book behind for us to enjoy.
I'm just doing it in some other way, possibily the only other way. Are you saying the group should complete Gingery's series before attempting a reproduction of existing machines? Not a bad idea at all. Proof of capacity to complete the new project. Not bad at all.

Yes, but we have two grinders, so we mill the ways, grind them, and add them to grinder #3, and check off one task for that day.

As long as we admit this remote possibility, we are ready to get on with it. I originally saw several pairs of machines and a single non-multi-tasking operator. Probabilty zero in that case.

Verboten! Heretic! Off with his head!
Successive approximation is fine. Subcontracting ruins the whole thing.

It's enough, though. Maybe more than enough.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03 Oct 2003 11:56:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com.bat.exe ( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

You're implicitly assuming that to replicate a part you need an identical part on hand as a template. But that's not a requirement. All you really need is a print.
For your postulated Mars machine shop, the mass of prints (most likely CAD files) is a lot less than the mass of unnecessarily duplicated machines. Payload mass fraction is *the* critical limit on space flight.
Seems to me you should be trying to discover the fewest number of machines necessary to replicate a machine shop, given full sets of plans for all the machines to be produced. I don't think you'd find it necessary to have identical pairs of any machine tool in order to do that.
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course all you need is a non-self-replicating print, and a non-self-replicating filing cabinet to keep it in. Do you want to use the lathe to build a paper mill so you can make the print, and the mill to build a sheet metal shear so you can file the print, or do you wan't to simplify, simplify, without cheating.
The only self-replicating thing about a file cabinet full of prints is mildew.

I understand this but explorers are not computers. It takes five minutes to learn how to repair a bent feed screw and a lifetime to get it really right. It takes five months just to familarize yourself with the CAD system, the directory tree, and the contents.
Take out a working or broken part. Clamp it in the obvious way. See what's needed for the final cut that gives you what's in the chuck right now. Work backwards. Get stock. Perform first through final operations. Install repaired part or get on with building new machine.
?

That's a good problem, but I already gave the specification for a universal machine shop: one that can make useful products, anything you'd like. Except usually this universality does not include the ability to make each part of everything in the shop, as one cannot sell such an unauthorized repair part at full price. So by extending the definition of universality to uneconomic production, we find among other things that this system is sefl-replicating.
When you're on Mars, you don't hire someone to dig a hole in the ground so you can take a poop. You cover your own tracks. There's no money planned for Mars, is there? This is an economy in which productivity is of survival value and explorers are highly productive people who can surve nearly anything.. Who cares who pays for what?
You're going to charge your trail buddy hospital rates for fixing his arm when you're the hospital and he can't make it to the next one without your help? And then bill him and work out a payment plan? A simple Thank You is enough for me. Then we move on.
We have about 168 currencies. Even four is too many. One, two, or ideally three is actually the definition of currency. A traingle is stable. A frame collapses. So does anything larger.
Now that money isn't backed by gold, we can go to three world currencies any time. Rather than business, government, and consumer money, we'll probably end up with Northern Money, Southern Money, Eastern and Western Money, which is already still too many. We tried for one and ended up with 168. I say stop trying for one. Try for two, and get 25, each of whom has a one or the other opinion. Try for three, and get three. Everyone in the industry knows why there's no point in trying for four. It's not as unstable as 168, but they do know it isn't stable. Three or fewer is stable.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research
Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at http://www.riaa.org / I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05 Oct 2003 09:18:30 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com.bat.exe ( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

A print is no more non-self-replicating than a machine tool. Both need human intervention and stock in order to be replicated. At least the print only needs a pencil and tracing paper, while your scheme requires a whole other machine tool being used as nothing more than a template. The mass penalty difference should be obvious.

The only self-replicating thing about a machine shop full of tools is rust.

Huh? Computers were originally people, with pencils and paper. Later, operations were mechanized, and finally machines that could be programmed were built. But it is all the same continuum. Any literate and numerate person can be a computer, or understand and operate a mechanized computer.
It might take an especially slow learner five months to familiarize himself with a CAD system's directory tree and contents. But a moderately intelligent person should be able to do so in far less time, certainly less than the lifetime you're assuming to gain competence making parts from templates with a machine tool. One would hope that explorers would be of at least moderate intelligence.
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net says...

Also consider, a proper print conveys information not inherent in an actual part, tolerances being the most obvious example. You could argue that this information can be inferred from the context of the part's use, but this puts the machinist in the position of properly interpreting the designer's intent and requires that he have access to all the information originally available to the designer.
A print will also not include spurious information. The part to be reproduced may have features that were necessary or convenient only for the production of the original. For example, a print may include a note to the effect, "TOOLING HOLE PERMISSIBLE". But if the part is to be produced by replication, once that hole is put in one part, every subsequent generation will have it as well, even though it has no functional purpose.
Perhaps some sort of "mechanical selection" is required to get rid of vestigial features <g>.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com.bat.exe ( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

The only thing needed to make it self-replicating under your definition is a pantograph, which itself can be replicated using the other machine tools. This assumes that the stock (in this case, paper and ink) is readily available, which seems to be a general assumption that you're already making. Of course, if you prefer you could do away with the paper and ink and have the plans scribed on thin sheet stock.
For that matter, you could do away with the need to replicate the plans by including the plans as part of the agent package rather than part of the machine package. Your self-replicating machines cannot replicate except through the actions of an external agent, and there is apparently no requirement for that agent and its embodied knowledge to be replicable; thus, you can significantly impact the difficulty of the problem by your choice of how to distribute the information, work, etc., between the machine and the agent, a choice which is essentially arbitrary.
Consider, for example, that when you pull a part off a machine, you have no way of knowing what the original dimensions of the part were (unless the machine has never been used), what tolerances are allowable, how much torque should be applied to threaded fasteners, or even what the part's material specifications are (i.e., alloy composition, heat treat, required hardness and strength, etc.), unless you have a large suite of (non-destructive) testing equipment. So your agent must embody that knowledge in one form or another (along with knowledge of how to use the machines, how to assemble the replicated parts, etc.), unless your definition of "replica" is "something kinda-sorta similar" or "something that looks the same and may or may not provide similar functional performance." And if your agent already embodies that knowledge, then it doesn't take much of a shift in the agent/machine boundary to include the complete part specifications with the agent, so replication of the plans becomes unnecessary.
Bert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow. That's really cool and a good application of Von Neumann's view. I'll have to give you credit for that at some time.
So the question on the floor, drawn to our attention by Gary, is:
Where can the agent/machine boundary be?
Just anywhere? I think not.
In my view, agent and machine are one. We ignore the agent, as each of us is one.
One idea that comes to mind is a self-documenting machine part: text engraved on the part specifying tolerances, torques, fits, etc. We do this in the experimental shop frequently, along with selective assembly and marking for disassembly. As bearings are numbered to a catalog, parts can be labeled for as-needed replication, the alternative being a very heavy inventory of otherwise useless parts.
Gary, Ned, and Bert, give me a moment to collect my thoughts on the rest.
I'm sorry about the sarcasm.
Yours,
Doug Goncz (at aol dot com) Replikon Research, Seven Corners, VA
1200+ original posts at: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_eq=intitle%3ARe&as_uauthors=dgoncz @
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bert are you interested in co-inventing the next wave of self-replicating machine technology? You've made a contribution here. At the least, I must acknowledge it.
To do so, I append this tag, meaning only those parts of my writing you include below. The tag helps me find these contributions.
Doug
I claim and announce intent to register Copyright (c) 2003 Douglas Dana Goncz
Doug Goncz Replikon Research(ers) snipped-for-privacy@Replikon.net
On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 1:33:19 PM UTC-4, Bert wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm baack....
to some extent.
I had a brush with a steroid.
"nuff said.
Bert suggested a pantograph for self-replication. It's 2D usually. There mu st be a 3D version. Thanks, Bert.
I am working a similar problem. How would we set the pantograph? We assign integers to hole positions for pivot pins in a 2D pantograph; let's assume we have a 3D integer settings pantorgraph available and want to discuss its properties. We use finite math where all the numbers are fractions!
A / B or maybe.... just maybe ... wait for it...
A + i/B
maybe.
Assuming we cram all our data into fractions and that 5 inches == 127 m m extactly == 1 UNIT:
And threaded rod comes in UNIT bars, with describable threading,
How do we cut a pack of N bars of length L to make either 1 or 2 but not NO NE or THREE or more self-reproducing machines operated by nonbackdriving le adsrews?
I need to write that utility.
One supplier I like, OnlineMetals.Com, offers 5/16-18 threaded stainless in packs of 10 at length 36/39 roughly, implying a yard of length, precisely a fraction 36 * 25.4 / 1000 where 36 Inches times 25.4 mm/in divided by 100 0 mm/meter converts a yard to a meter. "Nuff said.
A = 36 * 254 B = 10000 L = some damn real we compute on the fly?
How to cut the pack of 10?
See where I am going with this?
If one supplier offers N1 at L1 for $1, and another offers N2 at L2 for $2, and so on, comparing two suppliers or m any, you can make decisions.
"Nuff said.
Condensed the cut list is like
There's this stuff, see? Yeah, cool. It's 36 * 254 / 10000 one way, right, baby? Yeah, cool. Like, the other way, right? Yeah, cool. It's 5/16 blah de blah, dig? Yeah, cool. 18 per. Yep. Get it? Got it. Good. We're gonna cut the stuff, ok babe? Yeah, cool. How, right? Yeah. Comes 10 up. Cool, baby. Can't break it but we'll fake it 'till we make it. Of course we will. 10 up. Right. One or two cubes. That's the problem. Cubes, baby? 12 up. Dig. 10 up 12 up one or two, right? Yep.
And the web form just has a dialog with the user to make this happen.
And the notation stays compact.
And all is well; I value my work more than smoking and will do without in o rder to continue.
Please see LinkedIn for more.
Right on, babies!
Doug
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 4:43:31 AM UTC-4, DGoncz wrote:

machine technology?

nclude below. The tag helps me find these contributions.

ical

lly

the lathe

a sheet

mplify,

mildew.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gone to long and starting to think again! Martin
On 7/11/2017 3:47 AM, DGoncz wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.