[Open Manufacturing] Will Products Ever Roam the Web Like MP3s - v1.1
Bryan Bishop
"""
Previously I specified a structure like:
Product Name/
bin/
bom/
src/
tmp/
usr/
assembly/
make/
use/
After a sleepless night I realised that it should be:
Product Name/
bin/
software/
fabrication/
bom/
src/
software/
design_files/
tmp/
usr/
assembly/
make/
use/
Product Name/bin/software
An optional compilation of embedded device code.
Product Name/bin/fabrication
An optional translation of the design files into CNC code such as
G-Code or SBP code. Some CNC type code is more efficient than others -
so there is value in being able to distribute 'binary' versions of the
cutting or disposition instructions.
Product Name/src/software
Source code for embedded devices.
Product Name/src/design_files
The design files for the product.
This is to account for products that have a software component.
Imagine you were specifying an Arduino powered device such as this
'game boy'.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm.
"""
That was a blog post by David ten Have. You might remember him as the
CEO of Ponoko.
marc fawzi
you still need to 'buy' the raw materials if you wish to use with matter replicators, e.g. monomers (to make plastic from), powdered metal (to fuse into solid metal pieces), chipped wood (to make wood from), mixed-mode FPGA (I bet there is such a thing), PCB, copper, silver, gold, screws, etc, all of which can be produced (or mined) by robots
but I think all current formats will include manufactured parts (in bom) as opposed to raw materials that a matter replicator can use to make the parts...
Bryan Bishop
> this + matter replicators (general manufacturing machines) = digital matter
What is a matter replicator? And then, given that definition, how is a
lathe, mill, or press, or any other general manufacturing machines
going to qualify as a matter replicator? And then what's digital
matter, not some computronium, is it? I tried searching the archives
for "matter replicator" and got back zilch.
> you still need to 'buy' the raw materials if you wish to use with matter
Because you (and others) say so, I presume.
> replicators, e.g. monomers (to make plastic from), powdered metal (to fuse
> into solid metal pieces), chipped wood (to make wood from), mixed-mode FPGA
> (I bet there is such a thing), PCB, copper, silver, gold, screws, etc, all
> of which can be produced (or mined) by robots
Why did you elaborate? It doesn't reinforce the beginning of the sentence.
> but I think all current formats will include manufactured parts (in bom) as
> opposed to raw materials that a matter replicator can use to make the
> parts...
Disregarding that I don't know what a matter replicator is, those
parts that satisfy a BOM are made from raw materials. So there's no
"as opposed to" there .. it's the same thing, but different in the
"how it gets done". The trick is that some travel a greater distance
through a greater number of steps from humble origins as 'raw
material' while sometimes salt goes directly to your kitchen table, or
sometimes a manufacturing line incorporates more local processes
instead of overextending themselves to other, closed, proprietary and
perhaps dwindling external functionaries.
marc fawzi
> lathe, mill, or press, or any other general manufacturing machines
> going to qualify as a matter replicator? And then what's digital
> matter, not some computronium, is it? I tried searching the archives
> for "matter replicator" and got back zilch.
digital matter is a 'thing specification' that can be used by some
general purpose 'thing maker' to make the thing
If you couldn't find it mentioned elsewhere then i probably just
coined its meaning, yet I doubt no one has ever used the term
> > you still need to 'buy' the raw materials if you wish to use with matter
>
> Because you (and others) say so, I presume.
>
No, because you can't find land that has all the raw materials you
need (or can you?) so you need to trade with others and if you get and
give for free then that's fine but non-tokenized exchanges are
inefficient at best and unsustainable at worst
> > replicators, e.g. monomers (to make plastic from), powdered metal (to fuse
> > into solid metal pieces), chipped wood (to make wood from), mixed-mode FPGA
> > (I bet there is such a thing), PCB, copper, silver, gold, screws, etc, all
> > of which can be produced (or mined) by robots
>
> Why did you elaborate? It doesn't reinforce the beginning of the sentence.
>
Of course it does. The raw materials are part of the 'thing
specification' and they can be fed into some future 'thing maker' to
make the thing
> > but I think all current formats will include manufactured parts (in bom) as
> > opposed to raw materials that a matter replicator can use to make the
> > parts...
>
> Disregarding that I don't know what a matter replicator is, those
> parts that satisfy a BOM are made from raw materials. So there's no
> "as opposed to" there .. it's the same thing, but different in the
> "how it gets done". The trick is that some travel a greater distance
> through a greater number of steps from humble origins as 'raw
> material' while sometimes salt goes directly to your kitchen table, or
> sometimes a manufacturing line incorporates more local processes
> instead of overextending themselves to other, closed, proprietary and
> perhaps dwindling external functionaries.
>
I have not seen a bill of materials for say an MP3 Player that lists
the raw materials, as in precursors to the manufactured parts.
Usually, for an MP3 Player, e.g. iPod, the bom looks like this:
1. ARM cpu (whatever model)
2. ARM firmware
3. HD
4. Memory
None of these are "raw materials" Obviously, not expecting Silicon as
raw material for the ARM processor but for a universal thing maker
some kind of mixed-mode FPGA would be needed and that's more like "raw
material" or "raw architecture" in this case than an ARM chip
marc fawzi
make everything you need you still have the North Korea problem.
If you think of the flow of 'money <--> goods and services' as an
energy flow, if you sit outside this flow (i.e. isolated and
self-sufficient) you are a puddle. If you sit in the flow, you're a
river or a sea or both.
Bryan Bishop
>> What is a matter replicator? And then, given that definition, how is a
>> lathe, mill, or press, or any other general manufacturing machines
>> going to qualify as a matter replicator? And then what's digital
>> matter, not some computronium, is it? I tried searching the archives
>> for "matter replicator" and got back zilch.
>
> digital matter is a 'thing specification' that can be used by some
> general purpose 'thing maker' to make the thing
>
> If you couldn't find it mentioned elsewhere then i probably just
> coined its meaning, yet I doubt no one has ever used the term
>
>> > you still need to 'buy' the raw materials if you wish to use with matter
>>
>> Because you (and others) say so, I presume.
>
> No, because you can't find land that has all the raw materials you
And yet the raw materials exist, because there are these artifacts
around me. Please keep in mind the conservation of matter and energy.
It's possible though that you are claiming that I personally cannot
find raw materials, but then what superpowers do others supposedly
have that I lack or my software or hardware lacks that allowed them to
find those materials?
> need (or can you?)
So you're open to that possibility now or not?
> so you need to trade with others
When humanoids first roamed the earth upright, perhaps they traded
with the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky for the things they came
across. His noodly appendage will touch upon you, and so forth.
>> > replicators, e.g. monomers (to make plastic from), powdered metal (to fuse
>> > into solid metal pieces), chipped wood (to make wood from), mixed-mode FPGA
>> > (I bet there is such a thing), PCB, copper, silver, gold, screws, etc, all
>> > of which can be produced (or mined) by robots
>>
>> Why did you elaborate? It doesn't reinforce the beginning of the sentence.
>
> Of course it does. The raw materials are part of the 'thing
> specification' and they can be fed into some future 'thing maker' to
> make the thing
I still don't understand how that list of materials reinforces your
assertion that you must 'buy' (which was the beginning of the
sentence).
>> > but I think all current formats will include manufactured parts (in bom) as
>> > opposed to raw materials that a matter replicator can use to make the
>> > parts...
>>
>> Disregarding that I don't know what a matter replicator is, those
>> parts that satisfy a BOM are made from raw materials. So there's no
>> "as opposed to" there .. it's the same thing, but different in the
>> "how it gets done". The trick is that some travel a greater distance
>> through a greater number of steps from humble origins as 'raw
>> material' while sometimes salt goes directly to your kitchen table, or
>> sometimes a manufacturing line incorporates more local processes
>> instead of overextending themselves to other, closed, proprietary and
>> perhaps dwindling external functionaries.
>
> I have not seen a bill of materials for say an MP3 Player that lists
http://www.teuthis.com/mp3/Daisy_mp3/daisy_mp3.brd
http://www.teuthis.com/mp3/Daisy_mp3/daisy_mp3.sch
You can use gEDA to extract the BOMs, IIRC. Also, part of the reason
it's not included is because the daisy-mp3 player is a PCB, not with a
fancy plastic encasing and fancy screen or anything, so think of an
iPod shuffle going naked I guess.
> the raw materials, as in precursors to the manufactured parts.
That's because the PCB manufacturing operations aren't using open
source hardware at this point. Though there are some unorganized BOMs
for doing this with your own printer. But then you start wondering how
those chemicals are made, and the plastic molding for the printer,
converting pulp into paper, and so on.
> Usually, for an MP3 Player, e.g. iPod, the bom looks like this:
>
> 1. ARM cpu (whatever model)
> 2. ARM firmware
> 3. HD
> 4. Memory
From a very high level point of view, sure, I guess. But you could
even be a jerk and just say the BOM is "one iPod please". But all of
those can be broken down until you get to compounds and elements even.
> None of these are "raw materials"
Because you can only go so far down the rabbit hole of projects. i.e.,
there's a few layers there of multi billion dollar fabrication
companies that keep their IP quite secret. On the other hand, there
are many community colleges that have old IC fab equipment in their
shops, but yet we don't see replacement projects on the web as often
as we'd like, and certainly without the BOMs. But that's why we're
here. :-)
> Obviously, not expecting Silicon as
> raw material for the ARM processor but for a universal thing maker
> some kind of mixed-mode FPGA would be needed and that's more like "raw
> material" or "raw architecture" in this case than an ARM chip
What are you talking about? A semiconductor manufacturing toolchain is
probably not what you call a "universal thing maker", so what's the
big deal?
> And even if you find land that has all the raw materials you need to
> make everything you need you still have the North Korea problem.
Let's assume this happens:
(1) all materials are accessible
(2) all automation technologies are present and in operation
.. and then you claim "No! not true! you're a puddle! splash splash
goes the puddle". I don't get your argument any more :-).
> If you think of the flow of 'money <--> goods and services' as an
> energy flow, if you sit outside this flow (i.e. isolated and
> self-sufficient) you are a puddle. If you sit in the flow, you're a
> river or a sea or both.
I already commented on what you called "the North Korea problem":
> > It's a weird response because North Korea is a self sufficient, closed
> > economy (subgraph with complete cycles) yet they are starving.
>
> I doubt that. No part of our civilization has the informational
> representation and knowledge of the technology dependencies that I'm
> talking about. And if North Korea actually does, please point me to
> the download link.
I also later commented- in that same email- that you were the one
bringing up economies. Here I'm talking about technology, i.e. things
that are real and are happening. Overall, civilization globally has
this technology-- I see the artifacts around me and even have some
within me. So by your definition we're all as a civilization and
planet this silly little puddle because we're not praying to the FSM
for trade with his Holy Tentaclebudness I guess. But remember,
conservation of matter, conservation of tech, it's real and it's
there.
marc fawzi
I still don't understand how that list of materials reinforces your
assertion that you must 'buy' (which was the beginning of the
sentence).
>>
that you're not likely to have all of them sitting under your arse, so
you need to trade with others.
I did not see a comment on the North Korea problem from you other than
you have some "knowledge representation and tech tree" that they don't
have, which does not answer the question of how do you not be a puddle
when you isolate yourself from the stream.
Bryan Bishop
> <<
> I still don't understand how that list of materials reinforces your
> assertion that you must 'buy' (which was the beginning of the
> sentence).
>>>
>
> Because there are so many raw materials involved in making an iPod
> that you're not likely to have all of them sitting under your arse, so
> you need to trade with others.
Why would you put your arse in a spot where you don't have the
necessary materials, then? And even if the materials aren't
immediately under your arse, in a previous email today you were saying
you're ok with robotic mining, so what's wrong with robots mining
while you sit on your arse? And as a third discrepancy, that's like
saying we're not likely to have the materials sitting under us overall
the planet. And yet, wait, we do. And if we didn't, are we going to
expect the Easter Bunny to hand us the moon or something?
> I did not see a comment on the North Korea problem from you other than
> you have some "knowledge representation and tech tree" that they don't
> have, which does not answer the question of how do you not be a puddle
> when you isolate yourself from the stream.
If they don't have it then your example of North Korea was a bad
example originally. Problem solved. Recipe for confusion: come up with
a counterexample to an argument that fails to be a counterexample,
then bait and switch and claim that the original argument doesn't
satisfy something different about puddles and economics [which I've
been avoiding ever since you insisted in including money as a
'fundamental axiom' in these discussions, btw.].
Paul was heading that for a while-
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/140c05fe5947a976
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/tree/browse_frm/thread/e303c0cdd4b87181/e98232aecce97207?rnum=21&q=axioms&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fopenmanufacturing%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe303c0cdd4b87181%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Daxioms%26#doc_e98232aecce97207
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/tree/browse_frm/thread/e303c0cdd4b87181/e98232aecce97207?rnum=21&q=axioms&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fopenmanufacturing%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe303c0cdd4b87181%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Daxioms%26#doc_288de7e851cf0323
but your last reply in that (productive) thread just trailed off into
the abyss and ignoring the last of Paul's comments IIRC.
marc fawzi
Why would you put your arse in a spot where you don't have the
necessary materials, then? And even if the materials aren't
immediately under your arse, in a previous email today you were saying
you're ok with robotic mining, so what's wrong with robots mining
while you sit on your arse? And as a third discrepancy, that's like
saying we're not likely to have the materials sitting under us overall
the planet. And yet, wait, we do. And if we didn't, are we going to
expect the Easter Bunny to hand us the moon or something?
>>
raw materials.
Secondly, robotic mining is a given but you don't own any mining
rights, or do you? So what good is it having robots to mine a
non-existing land? Go get the land first and then we'll do a
geological survey of what it has in minerals and what kind of tech you
need to make an iPod out of dirt, which is to say "good luck with that
whole self-sufficient iPod making stuff" and "you'll never get there"
and "even if you get there in NN years, with unforseeable advances in
technology, you'll be in a miserable little puddle unless you're
sitting on the stream of global commerce"
The North Korea example is a good one.
They are a self-sufficient nation with almost no export or import.
They can make nukes from scratch but they're living in sub-third-world
conditions because they are a puddle, not connected to the global
economy.
;)