Does RepRap Assemble Its Clone?

Does RepRap assemble its clone?

If a human must perform the steps on this page:
[reprap.org]

than RepRap is simply NOT SELF-REPLICATING.

In which case, you have not achieved your goal at all.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2011 12:25PM by johnyradio.

your absolutely right.

anyway, back to important topics

Why is that not important that the whole title and mission of this project is not achieved?
Why is that not important that the project claims that it nearly is achieved?

Because it is pretty obvious that people are not here with a single mindset and a single set of objectives.

Because there are many, many different kinds of approaches, benefits and interests you can get from such organic processes. The objectives could be seen as an initial pretext, a federating call, but then, by the nature of life itself, no one really controls the resulting processes.

The way I see it: It is as much an experiment about people and knowledge transfer than it is about a given technology, and much more rich that "let's make a a machine capable of reproducing itself". There are profound background questions: how do technology transfers self-evolve in groups of loosely connected people? what determines shapes and technological compromises in the absence of a techno-priestly cast hiding and hoarding the knowledge?

To summarize: the only real self-reproduction here is in the mental virus. But anyone interprets it following personal ways and inclinations. A breeder for different actions.

well you can make the argument that it doesn't replicate ad infinitum. Even if we were at the point where it printed it's own motors, does it make the alloys or plastics from constituent molecules? no? Then it's not self replicating.

It's really a moot argument, and dwelling on a single word in the mission statement is a waste of time.

Semantics have no place in engineering.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2011 04:51PM by Buback.

The Reprap also goes a step beyond "replication". It is not just trying to make a clone, it is trying to make something better. Each revolution must exhibit evolution. Otherwise you just end up with crap making more crap.

In the end we might all be like foraging bacteria.

Optimization of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) Process Parameters Using Bacterial Foraging Technique
[www.scirp.org]

And improved sets of parameters should emerge,

Not to be forgotten, the infinite monkey theorem.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Lanthan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> To summarize: the only real self-reproduction here
> is in the mental virus. But anyone interprets it
> following personal ways and inclinations. A
> breeder for different actions.


That's a really good point! To quote a concept developed by Richard Dawkins - the "meme" [en.wikipedia.org] of the home-built 3D printer (the RepRap) has truly evolved to the point of being fully self-replicating, and is now propagating around the world with exponential growth, just like an outbreak of a newly-evolved viral disease such as Bird Flue, Swine Flue, Hendra Virus, etc. (I know that I was infected only a couple of months ago, but I very quickly succumbed to all of the symptoms, and I have since infected quite a few of my colleagues!)

If you think of the "meme" as being the self-reproducing entity, and the physical RepRap is just the carrier agent / disease vector, then I think we can declare it "Mission Accomplished"!

It is only if you take a narrow view that you have to argue that it has to be the physical RepRap which must reproduce itself.

---

Follow my Mendel Prusa build here: [julianh72.blogspot.com]

Buback Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> does it make the alloys or plastics from constituent molecules?
-by your extrapolation, it would also have to make the constituent molecules. I don't agree. The self replication concerns replicating it's own structure, given the raw materials. That does not mean it must create it's raw materials and their constituent molecules . By your definition, humans are not self-replicating because we do not make the raw materials that make up the flesh and bone of our bodies, which in turn would require that we also constructed the universe that made those raw materials. Therefor, I think even a strict definition of self replication can exclude the generation of raw source materials.

> dwelling on a single word in the mission statement is a waste of time.

It's not any word-- its the single most-important word in the entire project.

> Semantics have no place in engineering.

If you mean, getting technical about language is not crucial in a grass-roots, hobby-based project, i agree. If this project is comfortable using language so loosely, thats up to the organizers.

But If you're saying precision in language is inappropriate in the context of engineering, then I do not agree. Engineering is pretty exacting about language-- you don't say capacitor when you mean diode, you dont say "input" when you mean "output".

But Does the title of a project count as "engineering" anyway? I do not think so. I think it counts as either public image, or summary of the mission statement.

Are semantics important if the title is just PR, meant to sound catchy and fun? Nope.

Are semantics important if its a summary of the mission statement? In any serious engineering project, for sure.

As a summary of the mission statement, that mission has not been achieved yet. As public relations, it sounds cool and gets people involved, so who cares?!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2011 11:55AM by johnyradio.

>If you think of the "meme" as being the self-reproducing entity, and the physical RepRap is just the carrier agent / disease vector, then I think we can declare it "Mission Accomplished"!
>
>It is only if you take a narrow view that you have to argue that it has to be the physical RepRap which must reproduce itself

Well, priests healers and medicine-men know the following since ages immemorial, and a bit less than a century ago, the first professional marketers started discovering it too, with significant effects: People's actions and attitudes towards objects are determined not by properties intrinsic to the objects themselves, but by what people believe that object to be associated with (for example: sheer happyness, wild freedom, lusty sexual gratification, grateful healing, profound wisdom...). A de-materialization long term trend followed, where objects have tended to become lighter, sales profits, increased, and people, fuller of beliefs.

julianh72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is only if you take a narrow view that you have
> to argue that it has to be the physical RepRap
> which must reproduce itself.

I dont think it's a "narrow view", it's simply an accurate interpretation of the project title, which I suspect was an intentional exaggeration by the organizers for the purpose of attracting participation, since they are clearly educated and technically precise people. Which is not a criticism, I think this project is fantastic. Perhaps someone will take up the challenge of automatic assembly.

"A self-replicating machine is an artificial construct that is theoretically capable of autonomously manufacturing a copy of itself using raw materials taken from its environment, thus exhibiting self-replication in a way analogous to that found in nature.
....RepRaps, are another class of machines sometimes mentioned in reference to NON-autonomous "self-replication". In contrast, machines that are truly (autonomously) self-replicating are [what is defined by this article]."
Wikipedia
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

I just discovered that article, so I'm not the first to make this obversation.

'if you think of the "meme" as being the self-reproducing entity, and the physical RepRap is just the carrier agent / disease vector, then I think we can declare it "Mission Accomplished"!'

Fair enough. By that token, innumerable hobby projects the world over are self-replicating. Even so, the project is not called "self-replicating hobby skills", or "self-replicating engineering knowledge in an open-source project". It's called "self-replicating machine".

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2011 08:15PM by johnyradio.

johnyradio Wrote:

> Fair enough. By that token, innumerable hobby
> projects the world over are self-replicating. Even
> so, the project is not called "self-replicating
> hobby skills", or "self-replicating engineering
> knowledge in an open-source project". It's called
> "self-replicating machine".

You seem unhappy with that particular point, and stuck on it.
In those cases, what people tend to do is called a project fork.

Johnyradio, what is your goal with this rant? it seams a bit confused. Are you wanting to point out that we have not reached that goal stated on the web page? Is it to point out the evils of possible self replication? All you seam to do is point out that we have not reached that one goal yet. No one has said that we have. I do not see what you are trying to get at.

johnyradio, chill out. Its a fun project people do in there garage. None is that strict or serious here. And we can all go wherever we want with it. That's whats fun about it.

---

Make your Mendel twice as accurate.
[www.thingiverse.com]

sarahsliefie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnyradio, what is your goal with this rant? it
> seams a bit confused. Are you wanting to point out
> that we have not reached that goal stated on the
> web page? Is it to point out the evils of possible
> self replication? All you seam to do is point out
> that we have not reached that one goal yet. No one
> has said that we have. I do not see what you are
> trying to get at.

The main page of the wiki boasts in the second sentence that the RepRap is a self-replicating machine and links to the wikipedia article which describes the real, hard kind of self-replication. It doesn't just describe goals, it gives the impression that RepRaps today are already real self-replicating machines. Some might consider this as false advertising.

also, another introductory page (which i cannot find at the moment), written i believe by the project leader, describes the goals of the project as having been achieved or nearly achieved.

i would say that even if we are not concerned with a strict definition of self-replicating, if the best machine only makes 50% to 70% of it's own parts, that does not, i think, count as achieved or even nearly achieved.

but not meaning to be negative about the project or the achievements of everyone involved, much incredible stuff has no doubt been achieved, for which the participants should be applauded! That includes the great achievement of creating enthusiastic participation around the world. Maybe that owes a little to the advertising skills of the organizers!

it's also clear that progress toward greater and greater fulfillment of true self-replication continues. It's only the claim of having achieved or nearly achieved that goal that i think is not accurate.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2011 11:51AM by johnyradio.

Lanthan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, priests healers and medicine-men know the
> following since ages immemorial, and a bit less
> than a century ago, the first professional
> marketers started discovering it too, with
> significant effects: People's actions and
> attitudes towards objects are determined not by
> properties intrinsic to the objects themselves,
> but by what people believe that object to be
> associated with (for example: sheer happyness,
> wild freedom, lusty sexual gratification, grateful
> healing, profound wisdom...). A de-materialization
> long term trend followed, where objects have
> tended to become lighter, sales profits,
> increased, and people, fuller of beliefs.


very well said, indeed!

... interesting enough - if you look at the rising counts of repraps 'in the wild' - they seem to grew/multiply similar to bacteria

Maybe you shouldn't look at the reprap itself, but more on the 'associations' of particular repraps and their users

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Hi viktor.

Just imagine how much more rapidly a self-assembling machine would reproduce.

what do you mean 'associations'?

Jr

Well then, johnyradio, fire up your OpenSCAD and design this self assembling machine.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I have done some work on the assembly part of the self-replication problem. You can see some of the results here:

[www.youtube.com]
[www.thingiverse.com]

and here:

[www.youtube.com]
[www.thingiverse.com]

While the work I have done is preliminary, I think in the future we will certainly see machines that can fabricate their own components and assemble them.

Cool!

johnyradio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what do you mean 'associations'?

... see the human operator as the 'main vitamine' of the reprap

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

I think you're saying that the human operator is part of the machine, and therefor human assembly still counts as 'self-replication'. Is that what you mean? If so, that's clever, but invalid, I believe.

... not really - all our 'technology' is based on the people developing and enhancing their cpabilities for building new tools or technologies.

It's only a matter of time, until our tools will be capable enough for 'real self-replicating', as it's the most efficient way to maintain them ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Quote

I have done some work on the assembly part of the self-replication problem.

Looks good! With which software did you make the animations of the first video?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote

Looks good! With which software did you make the animations of the first video?

The solid model parts were created in Alibre Design, then exported as stl. A custom Matlab script was used to import the stls and generate the animation.

Interesting, I have thought the same for a while, almost to the point that I find it a little irritating to call it self-replicating machine, so glad to hear someone else point this out. A CNC mill that could mill out parts to build a clone of its self, is not a self-replicating mill, it’s just a milling machine

But with MattMoses endeavours, and VDX believing it is possible I’m more willing to believe it might be achieved. I certainly like the idea of a machine that can print and build a copy of its self, maybe implementing any upgrades at the same time.

At what point would you count it as being a self-replicating, I'm assuming it has to be able to print out the whole structure and put it all together, Is it required to build the motors, electronics, What would you count as acceptable Vitamins?

To me it seems like it would be a very distant dream to think that the electronics can be replicated, I mean for example the micro-controller.

Quote

To me it seems like it would be a very distant dream to think that the electronics can be replicated, I mean for example the micro-controller.

Distant, yes. But maybe not as distant as you might think. There are several projects related to "replicatable" electronics, for example Mr Kim's reprapped transistors,
[www.engadget.com]
[www.thingiverse.com]

Folks like Nyle Steiner and Jeri Ellsworth have done a lot of work on homebrew semiconductors,
Steiner: [www.sparkbangbuzz.com]
Ellsworth: [www.youtube.com]
and others: [blog.makezine.com]

A programmable controller does not even have to be electronic. There is a short list of alternatives here:
[www.reprap.org]

Another example is Harry Porter's Relay Computer: [web.cecs.pdx.edu]

Will Stevens has done a very detailed simulation of a self-replicating machine that builds its own controller from elementary logic gates,
video: [www.youtube.com]
Stevens' site: [www.srm.org.uk]

It's not about what's acceptable to ME, it's about the scientifically-accepted, and logical, definition of "self-replicating machine". See Wikipedia link above.

If a human has to plug it in, that would probably be ok. But solar power would make that unnecessary. A quick google search finds homemade solar collectors, so thats not impossible.

I also think if a human provides the raw materials, that's probably ok too (see post above about raw materials). But no doubt some clever human can figure out a way the machine can harvest it's own raw materials.

Those clever humans! Perhaps we'll let them stay around, once we droids take over. Beep.