Gada Prize Still Alive?

Is the Gada Prize still alive? According to the guidelines document, which is linked from the Printrbot page, Interim Prize judging began yesterday. The wiki page has been pretty quiet for a while.

Is anyone actually working on this?

Maybe you're a bit early there. Had a quick look at the pdf, seems like we still got 3 years to go :

Quote
The guidelines document
Judging will begin 90 days (2015-10-02) before the listed award date of the prize (2015-12-31).

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

The Grand Prize looks to be awarded in 2015.
The Interim Prize looks to be scheduled for 2012.

From the guidelines:

2012-10-02 - Interim Prize entry submission deadline & judging begins
2012-12-31 - Interim Prize award date
2013-01-30 - deadline for post-prize work (publication of all remaining unpublished entries, etc.)
2015-10-02 - Grand Prize entry submission deadline & judging begins
2015-12-31 - Grand Prize award date
2016-01-30 - deadline for post-prize work (publication of all remaining unpublished entries, etc.)

Ah oops sorry, did not pay enough attention, thanks for the correction.

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

The Gada Prize competition has always seemed a bit opaque to me. I am not clear on even the official way to make an entry. The entries on the Reprap wiki don't appear related to the Interim prize.

However, looking at the Interim Prize specification, I don't think anyone is anywhere close to producing a machine like that? I guess there are no entries.

Quote

The winner of this Gada prize will be the individual (or group) who can make a RepRap that meets the following specifications:

Ability to print at least three different materials, including one that is usefully electrically conductive.
Ability to print electronic circuit boards.
Print beds† must be of a material which may be reused with minimal refurbishment for at least 20 print cycles.
Maintain a total materials and parts cost under $200 and that 90% of the volume of the printer parts be printed.††
Demonstrate a build volume of the printer above 300x300x100mm in order to ensure that items of daily utility can be printed.
The capacity to print a full set of parts for a complete replica of itself within 10 days unattended save for clearing no more than one printer head jam.
Ability to print autonomously without a PC attached.
Uses no more than 60 watts of electrical power.

None of the requirements is out of reach by itself, but there's a ton of them and the combination is very challenging.

For example, the combination of the maximum power consumption and the large print area means that it must print on a cold print bed. As far as I know, PLA is the only material that can be usefully printed on a cold bed. So the first hurdle has been placed even before any of the actual printer design, the project team must find two other materials which can be printed on a cold bed.

I think the full prize is actually easier than the interim one. If I understood correctly, the full prize has only these three criteria:

Quote

That the cost of the material used for printing does not exceed $4/kilogram.
The capacity to print a full set of parts for a complete replica of itself within 7 days, including the time for reloading, and clearing of printer head jams.
Maintain a total materials and parts cost under $200 and that 90% of the volume of the printer parts be printed.

The parts cost and printable percentage requirements are the same, ability to print own parts almost the same, and the material cost requirement more or less dictates the ability to process granules, but I'm pretty sure that's an easier task than the combination of all the stuff in the interim prize.

The page also has this odd bit:

Quote

The judging committee envisions a variety of technologies which might be deployed to achieve this end including:

Software to drive and manage banks of RepRap printers
Hardware and software systems to automatically unload printed parts from RepRap printers
Hardware and software systems to sort, clean and package or assemble printed parts
Innovations in plastics recycling, and development of a suitable grinder and extruder

I understand the last line, but what do the previous three have to do with the prize criteria, at all? I don't see the connection...

Quote

As far as I know, PLA is the only material that can be usefully printed on a cold bed.

Not neccessarily. Strategies to print a shrinking material are thinkable. In welding, such things are done, too.


Regading the price: I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised it got forgotten. RepRap is almost all commercial these days.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Now the deadline is passed, does anyone know if anyone submitted an entry? Of course you could submit an entry even if you have little chance of winning (weren't even close to meeting the criteria) but I'm wondering if anyone bothered.

The fact there doesn't seem to have been anyone suggesting they feel they have meet the goals or are planning to enter and it's supposed to be something people are open about suggests to me that things aren't looking good for the prize.

I see that the Reprap wiki got updated with info on how to make an entry... an essential requirement for a competition!

Apart from that, I can't see other signs of life since the deadline passed about a month ago. I guess there were no entries?

I supposed if one really wanted to win the prize, you would need a team of many individuals each tackling one specific task. I see [bed use] "20 cycles without refurbishment" as a gray area, and in the strictest sense that's tough. I pile on several layers of pva glue mix before cleaning and starting over, but that still requires doing something between every print... A material that could be printed on untouched for 20 uses... I dunno it would have to be sticky and smooth at the same time. I see a few challenges here that even without the technical hurdles can still be hard to accomplish.

Kaptop tape seems to do the trick for pla at least and many people have great success printing straight on glass. That should solve that issue for at least a couple of materials.

I had a quick email to Forrest Higgs and he tells me there were indeed no entries. They are going to extend the deadline a bit.

Thanks for the update, bobc (and Forrest).

Is there any indication that extending the deadline will result in more than zero entries? Maybe the organizers of the prize could take this opportunity to change the rules a little.

Most of the rules, by themselves, seem sensible (to me anyway). But taken as a whole, the rule package always seemed pretty strange. Is the device supposed to be for humanitarian applications? Or is it meant to drive "cutting edge" manufacturing technology? It seems that the rules want both, but I'm not sure that rolling the requirements for both goals into one machine is the best way to solve either problem.

The rules seem highly specific to fused filament style machines. A lot of other technologies have become accessible since the prize was initiated. Maybe the rules could be made less specific in regard to the fabrication technology.

The new normal these days is people raising upwards of $100,000 on kickstarter with minor variations on existing machines (I'm not judging, I'm just saying). How can the prize be structured so that people get motivated to win a (paltry by comparison) $20,000? If a kickstarter project gets you more money for less work, sensible people will focus on their kickstarter projects.

Heck, here's an idea (I'm sure this is not an original idea). Maybe the prize organizers could use kickstarter (or some other crowdfunder) to fund a larger prize.

Quote

Maybe the organizers of the prize could take this opportunity to change the rules a little.

Yes, and IMHO they could start communication the price at all. Just putting a link on the front page might not be sufficient. You have valid questions, but this forum is unattended.

For my part I have pretty basic considerations about this price: if RepRap even tries to collaborate, is it wise to call out a single price in the tens of thousands dollar range? Ineviteably, the winning printer will be based 90% or more on the development of others, all of which won't even get a T-Shirt.

Perhaps it would be a better idea to describe a number of smaller prices, like best extruder, best frame, best electronics. And best working combination of these, of course.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Hello everyone,

Yes, the prize is still alive. Due to an insufficient number of serious entries by the Dec 31. deadline, we have revised the criteria to make them more flexible, with a new estimated award date of June 30, 2013.

Guidelines here :

[humanityplus.org]

Submissions for the new deadline can be made as per the directions in the link.

Thanks again. It is hard to create a prize that estimates just the right level of difficulty in criteria, as it is easy to make the prize too hard, or too easy. But the new broader criteria may encourage more entries this time.

I have to say that I am heavily disappointed in the gazda prizes.
I am not disappointed in them for what their goal is. I recognize their goal as altruistic.
I am disappointed at their criteria. It's really only two points in the criteria that I am disappointed in. They require the project be open source GPL, and they set price points.

There are two reasons this weakens ELIMINATES participation in their contest.
I am going to use their water filter prize as my example here.

Let's say I am an extremely talented chemist/engineer/biologist and I do manage to create a water filter and purifier that meets their criteria. It's magic. It never needs a replacement filter, It cranks water out like crazy, and best of all because of my intellect I have managed to make this thing CHEAP. Why would I settle for a 50 thousand dollar prize and make this breakthrough open source, when I could make BILLIONS in private industry.
Now you are thinking I am greedy. You are wrong. I am just as much of an altruist as humanityplus! I want to see this problem solved. I want that 40% of the child population of the world to have clean water! MY breakthrough with a patent backing it will get me the funding to put this technology in the hands of every impoverished person in the world. At three dollars a unit (for the charity units) after a year of sales (at prices that severely undercut the current competition, but still land me a hefty profit) commercially, I could probably put this item in the hands of half a billion people. Furthermore I will have created a sustainable company that allows me to continue to do this, and expand into other humanitarian fronts for the foreseeable future.

I think a better caveat would be that the technology have, as a provision of it’s ownership/patent, a clause stating that units will be provided to humanitarian non-profits at cost.

Now if this is patented doesn’t that mean that they can’t make them in that country, nor will they know how to do so? Yeah right! Any country that can’t even supply fresh water to it’s people probably has little regard for a US, or even international patent law. Also when that patent is filed, it states how the item is created and what it is. This is documentation of how to create the object.

Of course let’s say it isn’t some breakthrough in technology that makes this possible. What if the solution is there and it is a huge, NO DUH, this is already known tried and practiced solution? What if this solution just can’t meet the price point? Why would you even submit it for consideration, if you haven’t met a criterion? What if someone out there has this solution for 4 dollars? They aren’t submitting because they are trying to break that price point to even be considered. If it really costs 500 dollars per person per year, why not just hand the prize out to whoever can come up with the LOWEST COST solution that meets the other criterion. What if the answer is there and it’s obtainable, sustainable, and made from easily gathered commercial products. Wouldn’t you want to know about that solution?
Did you pick such low price points because you KNOW they can’t be met? Is this because you enver want to worry about actually having to hand out the money?

In conclusion, I think the rules do need to be edited. I think this competition needs to be opened up in a way that will foster participation.

Thanks for the read,skim, or skip,

Andrew

Also why did they specifically name a nano membrane?

AndrewBuchinger,

Let me correct you.

The Water Prize is NOT open source. Never has been :

[humanityplus.org]

"Another expected prize in the pipeline is the Water Liberation Prize. At least 2 billion humans, or 30% of humanity, do not have access to clean drinking water. This includes 40% of the world’s children under the age of 15. A lack of access to clean water is the root cause of multiple problems, from fatal conditions like dehydration and diseases such as cholera and dysentery to the indirect costs of lost productivity. That this most basic of problems still affects such a large percentage of humanity demands a solution that can overcome traditionally existing obstacles, such as a lack of rainfall, irrigation, and access to electricity. An incentive-driven approach to the invention of such a self-reliance device at suitable cost targets would yield the maximum benefit.

A device available for under $3, that can produce enough drinking water for a single adult, would cause a net annual economic benefit of $500 for the recipient in the economy that they presently reside in. The $500 estimate is the sum total of disease reduction, death rate reduction, and productivity increase that access to this water would result in. These gains would be cumulative for each subsequent year as well. Lastly, such a device would enable human settlement at greater distances from traditional water sources, as long as atmospheric humidity was above a certain level. Clearly, the $3 water purification device is a very compelling product for a humanitarian organization to distribute en masse.

The winner of the Water Liberation Prize of up to $50,000 will be the first person to invent a device that is either solar powered, manually cranked, or otherwise not dependent on the existence of an electrical grid, can produce at least 4 liters of potable (drinkable) water per day, either condensed from the air (as measured in approximate 50% ambient humidity) or filtered through a nanomembrane, and can be mass-produced (as demonstrated by a pilot run of no less than 10 units) for a cost of less than $3 per unit. The filter should be washable and re-usable, without requiring a periodic supply of new filters, as the device may be used in areas without access to a suitable distribution channel.

The prize will be awarded on December 31, 2015, by a panel of judges.


Only the RepRap Prizes are open source, because the RepRap community was/is open source.

bring idea to china. we are best at ideas. god luck.

Actually, I do think Andrew does have a point here despite the example of the water purification (and not being open source) and a hefty debate.

I think anyone who can come anywhere near or nearest to the prize criteria should be able to win the Prize or at least have an encouragement prize. Then you have solved the issue of the challenge criteria being too hard or complex and no entries.

Maybe the organisers should break up the criteria into classes. So people who can solve only one class (i.e. warm extruder or cold plastification) can make a breakthrough for the entire community. A single person or team seldom solves all the issues but build on a previous solution and fix a hard problem.

Hope that turns the already awesome and fantastic initiative into a real opportunity and world changer!

Any news?

I got an email saying it would be a couple more days. (My blood pressure is going through the roof. My hands are shaking.)

same here...

All the applicants will have to share the prize to pay for medical expenses...

Hey, if anyone gets named the winner, let me know: michael.molitchhou@gmail.com

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 09:00PM by RealityIncCo.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Congrats to qharley for taking the gada prize!


[reprap.harleystudio.co.za]

Indeed. We're very proud of Quentin down in this neck of the woods. Nice to see he plans to use the money to refine Morgan further and bring down the BOM.

Hello all,

I sent the notification email to Adam Oxford, Michael Molitch-Hou, and Matt Moses on Wed, July 3, in case they wanted to break the story before I posted on the forum.

I have posted the same here as a new topic thread a day later, with links to the first, second, and third places.

Thanks everyone,
Kartik

Quote
Paulusedtoorg
Actually, I do think Andrew does have a point here despite the example of the water purification (and not being open source) and a hefty debate.

I think anyone who can come anywhere near or nearest to the prize criteria should be able to win the Prize or at least have an encouragement prize. Then you have solved the issue of the challenge criteria being too hard or complex and no entries.

Maybe the organisers should break up the criteria into classes. So people who can solve only one class (i.e. warm extruder or cold plastification) can make a breakthrough for the entire community. A single person or team seldom solves all the issues but build on a previous solution and fix a hard problem.

Hope that turns the already awesome and fantastic initiative into a real opportunity and world changer!

I don't really see anything wrong with the way this was handled. Set a criteria and stick to it. If no one can meet it, reconsider and perhaps set a new criteria with an extended deadline. Perhaps the initial criteria were too high, but I don't see that it's a bad thing to not give an encouragement prize or allow the closest to win. That sort of thing may encourage frivilous enteries or, if there's no real competition, makes it more likely someone will just rest on their laurels rather than continuing development. Or for that matter, move development in to an area which is not what you want (which is not intrinsicly wrong, but if you've set a prize for someone to achieve something it's not what you want). There is a risk of this if someone is pretty sure they've met the goals and there's no real competition as well of course, but at least there they've done what you expected of them.

And it's not like it's uncommon for a prize to simply not be awarded if there's no one who managed to meet the criteria. In fact plenty of the scientific prizes are open ended with no set deadline simply waiting for someone to fulfill the criteria. And while the amount of money wasn't a large amount compared to some of the bigger prizes, but it's still a nice enough sum that it seems fair to reserve it until you feel some minimum level has been reached.

As for the open source issue, the water prize not being open source has already been mentioned. My memory of the history surrounding the prize is when initially annouced, this wasn't a clear part of the goals. However the desire to involve the RepRap community was there and as stated, we've always been open source. In fact there was IIRC some controversy/fear that it would encourage people to not share what they were working on i.e. lead to isolation and damage the community spirit, which would be a bad thing. Open source also fits in to the ethos of the manufacturing prize (which is somewhat similar to that of the RepRap).

Plus, there's also the fact the RepRap is intended to be copyleft, and while the concept doesn't always translate that well to hardware and some have suggested the licences used don't actually transfer that well, it's clearly intended that people who derive their work at least partially from the RepRap are supposed to share their work in a similar way which would lead to the sticky issue if a participant did not open source their work but it was alleged their work was somewhat derivative.

So on the whole, there are good reasons why it had the open source requirements.

As for breaking up the prize, well they already did that to some extent with the interim prize. Do remember the open source nature means that the work from the interim prize and other ongoing attempts can be expanded on by someone else to try and win the final prize.

And while the concept of breaking up the prize in to lots of smaller discrete goals is interesting, it makes management of the prize a lot more difficult and confusing and likely contentious, and may reduce the prizes to a level we're they're not a big enough encouragement. There's also the risk that you'll end up with somewhat incompatible ideas, or at least it will take just as much work to integrate the differing ideas as it was to develop them, yet the people who do this integration don't get any reward? (At the very least you're still going to need a final prize which is not broken up.)

Remember people can always work together to achieve the goals, likely managing more than they would individually. Plus presuming they share and open source their work even if they don't enter (and if they were planning to enter it can be expected they will have shared something), people can still learn from previous attempts. (I'm not sure from reading the guidelines but I presume any actual entry will have to be open sourced and completely published at least to the level that is required to win the prize, regardless of whether they win.)

In fact, that's one of the reasons why the prize had to be finely balanced between requiring sharing and recognising that as it's a prize, people will likely want to keep something secret until the deadline out of fear they will be used by someone else to win the prize. While it would be nice to think you could sort that out by giving each person a share of the prize in proportion to their contribution, as stated, management of such an idea is going horrendous and easily lead to perceptions of unfairness or recriminations, may be even people lying about where certain ideas came from. And it is ultimately a prize/competition so is expected to have winners and losers.

Note that the grand prize does have the provision for apportioning it if needed, it's just that it doesn't sound like they're going to go to the level of trying to give something for each possible innovation that contributed to it but rather only if it's clear major contributions to the winning entry came from different teams or people.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2013 01:02PM by Nil Einne.