Re: ToolBook and The Missing Link
Eric Hunting
phrase at the end. That really sums up the goals here. Generally,
though, the more diversified community of Makers, coming from many
different hobby 'vectors', if that phrase seems appropriate, is
culturally less organized than the software/coder community. So
there's a bit of a challenge in cultivating a communal organization of
knowledge that I feel needs to be done with good examples and
forethought. Tested working examples will encourage imitation of and,
shall we say, capitulation to good communication and organization
models. We have a lot of models floating around. Not as much testing
of them. They may be waiting for the right culturing medium -the right
petri dish.
Eric Hunting
erich...@gmail.com
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> ======================================================================
> TOPIC: ToolBook and The Missing Link
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/4205d64009a98fce?hl=en
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> ======================================================================
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 5:11 pm
> From: ben lipkowitz
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Eric Hunting wrote:
>> something. There seem to be a number of re-occurring questions that
>> come up -openly or in the back of peoples minds- seeming to represent
>> key obstacles or stumbling blocks in the progress of open
>> manufacturing or Maker culture. And it seems that they share
>> something
>> in common. A 'missing link', if you will, in the mechanisms of
>> cultural development.
>
> several years ago I wrote a wiki page that was very similar in
> content to
> eric's message. copypasted here from http://fennetic.net/machines/
> foo for
> your convenience:
>
>
> I hate writing editorials. I am also very lazy. Therefore, I will
> present this article in an outline format. Please read it slowly and
> consider each point carefully. There are no layers of filler and is
> very
> rich in content. If you are very motivated and as excited about this
> project as I am, please chime in. Warning! Rambling follows, to some
> extent. Perpetually under construction, as is the rest of this site.
>
> First, the negatives.
> There are lots of people out there repeating the same mistakes
> over and
> over and over because either:
>
> they can't find the information they are looking for because:
>
> few people have distributed the data about their failures/
> successes
>
> it is buried in a mailing list or newsgroup archive
>
> it is buried under unrelated information on a webpage
>
> they don't know the information is available in the first place
> because:
>
> lack of cross-referencing and inter-group organization
>
> lack of self promotion
>
> intentionally keeping the info secret or charging a fee to
> access it
> (this means YOU plans-hoarders!!!)
>
> they think nobody has tried to do what they are doing before
>
> The broke-poor home machinist community has no direction, no common
> goals, little group cooperation, and not that many achievements
> under
> it's belt. Compare to the Linux developer community.
>
> HF, Homier etc will keep beating away at their slave laborers in
> chinese prisons, exporting cheap crap to the rest of the world while
> our industrial common sense and infrastructure dwindles
>
> shop classes are being shut down in most school districts, kids
> never
> ever get to see inside a real factory or a traditional crafts shop
> (least not where I'm from) old fogeys and hand techniques are looked
> down on by the modern mindset
>
> people thing you need a degree to know how to tie your shoelace.
> "self
> taught" means "high school dropout" to most employers.
>
> oil prices are rising and the big companies ain't doin sheeit
>
> gawd I'm starting to sound like a republican
>
>
> Now, the positives.
>
> You can give a man a fish, or you can teach a man how to fish, or
> you
> can teach five hundred men how to fish. That's what this wiki is
> for -
> giving people fish and teaching lots of people how to fish.
>
> Sick of getting ripped off? Hate cheap stuff that never works right?
> Want to invest your time in something educational, and also useful
> in
> its own right?
>
> Making your own tools yields a high quality product (the tool) for
> very little money, and it gets easier as you go along. The
> skills you
> learn apply to more than just toolmaking.
>
> Having the right set of tools (foundry, lathe, mill, CAD/CAM)
> allows
> you to make anything you could buy, and you can make it much
> better
> from scratch than what you could afford to buy in the first
> place. You
> can turn crappy items into very nice items with a few deft
> strokes on
> the lathe.
>
> You can afford to have more tools since they cost almost nothing
> to
> make. You can never have enough tools.
>
> When you make your own tools, you aren't afraid to modify them to
> suit
> the task at hand. You can do things that people who are stuck in the
> consumer mindset are unable to do. You can turn that old lathe
> into a
> shaper for an odd part, or add a nice little bracket here for your
> gizmo, or totally redo half the machine when it doesn't meet your
> expectations.
>
> When you have the right set of tools, and aren't afraid of
> modifying
> things, you begin to see everything as a tool. You are no longer
> afraid to modify your precious consumer item, since you know how
> to
> make a new one if you need it.
>
>
>
> Technical schools teach you how to obey orders, but forget to
> teach you
> how to think independently and be creative. Making your own tools
> exercises these long forgotten mental functions, and it is deeply
> satisfying.
>
> Creative people who keep their results to themselves are called
> crackpots, are greedy, and are boring. Creative people who share
> their
> results with others are known as scientists or artists, and become
> the
> backbone of a community.
>
>
>
> [[Dave_Gingery]] only takes you so far in the development of your
> machine shop. Many people want plans or at least ideas to help
> design
> more advanced machines. Dave started off with looking at reprints of
> old tool catalogs for inspiration for his designs. However, there
> is no
> reason we can't also use modern designs and materials for our
> inspiration.
>
> I hope this page can take people who have read Dave's books a bit
> deeper into the process of designing, refining, and evolving new and
> better machines. This will help them to think critically about how a
> design was engineered, what tradeoffs are present in the design, how
> they might do it better, etc..
>
> Most plans out there are not open to peer review, and suffer from
> the
> same mistakes every time a person builds to their specifications.
> This
> sad situation could be avoided if the design were open source and
> the
> plans could be modified by the people who acutally execute them.
>
> Any design will have errors, false assumptions, or sub-optimal
> comprimises built into it. No design is perfect, regardless what
> they
> say.
>
> The more people to critique and improve the design, the better.
> If a
> person uploaded a solution to a problem in an accessible,
> centralized
> database every time they encountered one, nobody would have to
> make
> that mistake again.
>
> This wiki was created to allow designs to be "open source" so
> that the
> builders and users of the designs could modify, critique, and
> improve
> upon them. By attempting to be a centralized database, I hope
> that we
> will share our mistakes with others so that they don't have to
> repeat
> them.
>
>
> Look at the Linux developer community - they've shown it's
> possible to
> beat "the man" at his own game. (Add "We should too" to the end of
> each
> subsection)
>
> Untold thousands strong, they have clear ideals and express their
> values openly, although not all of their values are the same by
> a long
> shot. They are actively working to manifest those ideals in the
> world
> via software, grassroots organizing, and ethical business
> practice.
> They help each other with little regard to the time or resources
> involved, share freely, and actively shun bad behavior. We
> should too.
>
> the Linux crew have a much more complicated task ahead of them. We
> have an advantage, since one man can understand foundry, bench
> work,
> machining, engineering, and electronics, and know most every
> nook and
> cranny of each subject. One person cannot hardly hope to
> understand
> and be up to date on the latest versions of the kernel, X, GCC,
> and
> Gnome, and proficient at coding for all of them. Well, no mere
> mortal
> can at least.
>
> Linux became a success because each programmer shared his
> results with
> the rest of the community. They didn't have to re-write everything
> from scratch each time someone wanted an alternative operating
> system.
> Any one mistake was progress for the whole community, since the
> fix
> was included in the next development release. The source code also
> served as a centralized repository for information about the
> particular project they were working on.
>
> Code forks are not allowed in the kernel, X, GCC, or Gnome.
> This is
> to keep the information and development efforts centralized, so
> people don't have to look in ten different places for a fix to
> their
> problem, or make the same mistake each time. Multiple versions
> of the
> same thing are bad for a collective, non-hierarchical effort.
> This is
> especially so when the design is difficult to develop.
>
> Later on in the development of Linux, the developers adopted an
> informal set of standards to make information exchange easier.
> (The
> changelog, automake, version numbering schemes, library naming
> conventions, distributions) Sometimes they even worked to industry
> standards described by standards organizations for the "final
> product"
> (POSIX compliance, X windows architecture, EMC complies with RS274
> G-codes.)
>
> The online machining community should adopt a set of standards to
> describe what we are doing. We need to give names to common devices
> that are being developed. It isn't practical to describe the
> construction of a machine every time you mention it. There's a
> reason
> they invented names.
>
> "CNC foam-cutting mill" means any one of twenty different designs.
> Some are made out of 2x4's and drawer slides. Some are made from
> iron
> pipe and aluminum castings. Some use routers, some use dremel
> tools,
> some use hot wire cutters.
>
> "Hexapod" is trademarked; "stewart platform" doesn't convey
> information about bearings, actuators, feedback electronics,
> general
> configuration, or even intended purpose.
>
> There's no direct way to compare two machines in the same class.
> Nobody
> ever advertises plans for "CNC mill- removes 3 pounds of mild
> steel a
> minute while holding tolerance of .001" but even if they did, such a
> performance description is still inadequate since it depends on
> workpiece geometry, cutter geometry and materials, overall machining
> setup, etc..
>
> Performance is usually judged based on prior experience or a
> manufacturer's reputation. There is no prior experience in the
> hobby
> field, and even if there were, it's usually for a new design
> with no
> reputation. (Or a bad one.)
>
> It's not our fault. Industry and government standards
> organizations
> have been ignoring this issue for a long time. Cars have miles per
> gallon and top speed ratings described up front. Shouldn't machine
> tools have chips per kilowatt-hour and top hogging speed ratings?
> Well, you get my point, I hope.
>
> Conclusion: Education should be free. Designs should be good.
> Standards
> should be standard. Hobbies should be fun. Everything should be easy.
>
> [[fenn]]