Fwd: How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 1:12:58 PM4/18/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Southwell <da...@vizion2000.net>
Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Subject: [reprap-dev] How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?
To: repra...@lists.reprap.org


Adrian originally posted to the Developers forum on this topic. It has
interested because I have some experience in dealing with topics of this
nature.

 I feel Adrian's challenge is so important that the widest possible views
should be canvassed - hence my posting to this list.


Adrian's Original post:

When I set RepRap up, I wanted it to mutate as people adapted the design. And
I wanted those mutations to be made available to all. That's why I used the
GPL licence.

But there's a downside to having lots of ideas and lots of versions of things:
the core team is dedicated, but also few in number. I want to keep it few,
too, for the time being, as increasing numbers makes more administration than
it supplies useful work.

So - what's the best way to square the circle of encouraging lots of variation
for natural selection to work on, and actually knowing what _we're_ working
on? :-)

best wishes

Adrian

I would like to suggest that we start to think in terms of modules rather than
models.

Currently there is a tendency for us to have models e.g. Prusa which refer to
specific whole reprap machine configurations.

The alternative notion of modules offers a more flexible structure which would
improve the opportunities for mutations.

For example
We have multiple solutions for the design of extruder heads and there are
calls for additional heads for alternative purposes. A Modular design approach
would incorporate a module we could call "Carriage" which could be designed to
comply with a minimum modular standard for Carriages.
e.g.
(a) Data-in connection socket
(b) Data-out connection socket
(c) Head connection bolt hole configuration

This illustrates the need for specifying upstream , downstream and parrallel
module interfaces for connections, logic and mechanical devices. This approach
is successfully used in the software industry and could, with substantial
benefit, be applied in our own field. USB is a clssic illustration of the
concept. We have a mechanical device standard, a logic standard & a connection
standard which enables multiple devices to be used on computers incorporately
vastly different design standards.

This approach would by way of example offer the designers of extruder devices
to be able to offer a design which they know would be usable by any rerapper
who has a system built in accordance with common modularity standards. Such an
approach would encourage designers to offer adapters to facilititate the
connection of any current design to modules. This gives us a structure which
would, in theory, enable any module to dynamically ascertain the Mechanical,
Logical and Connection [MLC Data] for all other modules in the system.

There is of course a major challenge for design and implementation but if we
can do it the long term benefits for design, build, configuration and operation
are outstanding for an open source system.

I believe this would be most easily achieved by an incremental method which
slices and dices Reprap into large scale modules. Each module irrespective of
type, could have a usb connector which would lay the groundwork for
configuration master system which could then recognise the modules used to
build any particular reprap machine. This would mean the MLC Data could be
used to assist rapid configuration and testing of the whole system.

I could go on but I feel this is a good place to stop and seek out reactions.

David


This is a very good idea. I particularly like the idea of combining the
specification of standard mechanical and electrical interfaces. Of course, we'd
have to try to make those as future-proof as possible, without making them
over-complicated. For example, one could imagine an extruder with about five
controls and as many sensors, all requiring electrical signals. But it would
be a bad idea to specify a big multi-way extruder connector as standard, as
that would hamper simple small designs. Clearly local intelligence would
always allow a three or four wire connection to anything, but might again be
inhibiting to small simple designs that just need a motor and a way to turn it
on and off.

I think it would be most interesting and useful if people started wiki pages
with draft specifications for these, which could then be discussed here or on
the reprap-dev mailing list.

best wishes

Adrian


Adrian Bowyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a very good idea. I particularly like the
> idea of combining the specification of standard
> mechanical and electrical interfaces. Of course,
> we'd have to try to make those as future-proof as
> possible, without making them over-complicated.
> For example, one could imagine an extruder with
> about five controls and as many sensors, all
> requiring electrical signals. But it would be a
> bad idea to specify a big multi-way extruder
> connector as standard, as that would hamper simple
> small designs. Clearly local intelligence would
> always allow a three or four wire connection to
> anything, but might again be inhibiting to small
> simple designs that just need a motor and a way to
> turn it on and off.
>
> I think it would be most interesting and useful if
> people started wiki pages with draft
> specifications for these, which could then be
> discussed here or on the reprap-dev mailing list.

IMHO we should start by designing a standard communications interface.This is
the most significant module around which a viable system would be built. IMHO
this would be best achieved using usb3. So every connector is the same and all
intermodule connectors are the same. The high speed of USB combined with ease
of sourcing, economy and availability of chipsets makes this a natural. I know
it may need a few more wires for very simple devices (but wires can be
available in standardised lengths) the economy of implementation and the
benefits of the discipline and off the shelf standardisation are very strong
arguments in its favour.

Do we have a USB "guru" willing and able to offer comments & support? I can see
us needing a USB design group!

On another tack I would see a board dedicated to collecting, processing and
distributing MLC data and possibly handling system configuration.

David Southwell


At this point a number of users expressed concerns that a standards proposal
would add expense and this might well not be welcomed by those who are looking
for the lowest possible start up cost.

Another issue was about a perception that there would be some requirement to
comply with standards (this is not what I would envisage).  So the following
dialogue took place:

Adrian Bowyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I say - personally I am against a standard that
> will require all devices in the machine to have
> their own electronics. Before you know where you
> are, you start requiring every axis endstop to
> have a microcontroller attached :-)
>
> The other thing to think about on the electronics
> side is current. Heated beds need about 100 W.
> That has to be accommodated by any standard.
To which I replied:

OK -- I think I may have not been careful enough in my description to make
sure everyone understands the concept of modularity with which I am familar. I
am going to make a brief response because I have a busy day coming up but see
a reply is needed before everyone runs away the notion that I am describing an
authoritarian system from hell!!

Effective standards do not imply a requirement for a total system to adopt
them. Think about personal computers, laptops, cell phones & kindles. All of
them use the USB standard as a module to improve the functionality of the
device. There is a whole host of other standards dealing with all sorts of
modules which are incorporated within aany one particular system configuration.
There is nothing that says any module is "required". Each time a "Standard" is
adopted by the designer of a device as a module it has only been included
because the designer sees there is value in doing so. Each inclusion happens
on merit.

Laptops use USB because users can easily connect their mobile computers to
devices (e.g a device on someone's desk), cell phones use them so they can
connect to speakers or be recharged etc etc. There is no obligation on the
manufacturers of such devices to offer USB but who would want to buy devices of
this type that do not comply with USB standards? Standard compatible moduiles
are incorporated in systems where their inclusion adds value.

IMHO the challenge Adrian gave us by starting this thread is very real. The
growth and success of the PC and related systems offers us a model for managing
RepRap mutations. Imagine the computer world without standards which can be
adopted by any designer. Imagine in ten years time a world with ten thousand
RepRap designs without interchangeable modules and no standards! That is where
I believe we are heading without offering modularity.

My original posting envisages the [MLC Data] "Standard" as a model for defining
the kind of standards we need for a RepRap world. A modular system (and
accompanying standards) has to earn its spurs not be imposed. When it is seen
to be appropriate a designer can apply a relevant standard to assist the
design process. That is exactly what happened with usb. Modularity also leads
to a reduction in design and build costs due to any need to meet arbitrary
differences in MLC configurations. These occur when mutations are whimsical and
have no modular standard references. Imagine what would happen if there were
no standards for a PC mouse! Standards are therefore adopted to the extent
designers/builders & users appreciate their added value.

I propose a modular standards approach because my experience leads me to
conclude it is the most logical way to answer Adrian's question "How do we
encourage RepRap Mutations and stay focussed". The adoption of modularity can,
if the standards are well designed, facilitate that process.
Designers/Builders & Users will only add MLC modules where there is a clear
benefit in doing so and where the cost:benefit ratio is attractive. On the other
hand Designers/Builders who, for commercial or other reasons, do not favour an
open system (where modules made by anyone can compete on equal terms for
adoption within any Reprap system configuration) are most likely to object.

The systems benefits of modularity and open standards accord with the RepRap
open system goals.

For example carriages will only adopt a mechanical design standard if there is
benefit in so doing. Such a benefit might be the ability to attach alternative
heads with a mechanical connection that accords with the M (Mechanical)
portion of the relevant MLC standard. It would also be able to offer a
signalling connection if the carriage meets the C (connection) portion of the
relevant MLC Standard. The head would be able to take advantage of the C
portion if the head also meets the C portion of the relevant standard. The
same comments apply to the L (Logic) portions of the relevant standards.
Standards do not have to be inflexible e.g. think of the different connectors
used for USB. They all comply with the standards and modules (adapters) are
made which make it possible to match all differing connector variants.

Turning to power. IMHO the MLC standards could be designed to assist
designers/builder/users determine the power requirements for each module and
determine whether a subsidiary power unit would be required to meet the power
requirements in the event that the sum of the powers required by all modules
exceeds the power from a central power unit. This implies offering standards
for power modules and power distribution which designers/builders could match.
A power module could interface with MLC modules to gather information about
the system power requirements. This does imply separating standards for for
"signal" power from "drive" power. The practical advantage of implementing
this division is a reduction in chip frying opportunities!

In effect I am proposing we think of creating MLC standards on an incremental
basis starting with key RepRap Building blocks and include in our standards
development provision for sub-modules or even sub-sub-modules. Signal Power
and Drive power are examples of building blocks. The possibility of modules
offer combined functionality has to be considered e.g both signal power and
drive power. A particular Drive power design might offer the facility for
attaching/communicating with a sub-module to monitor drive power sub-units.A
Standard for such functionality might be included in an MLC standard for Drive
Power Modules.

I see designers/builders offering the MLC as an optional extra modules for
include in builds. This satisfies the need for minimal cost along with
simultaneous provision of upgrade paths. The problem with our current total
system design approach is the implicit lack of interchangeability without
redesign or re-engineering. This leads to a waste of design skills and wheel
reinventions. The modular approach means that each element which has a MLC
system is a module available to any mutation originally built to MLC Standards
or for which an MLC adapter or upgrade is available.

What modularity does is to encourage designers to focus on making improvements
to the modules they are designing/building/improving with the knowledge that
modularity will make it much easier for diversely designed systems to make use
of those modules. It also means that the scope of design requirements is
reduced to the barest minimum especially when that module can be supported by
functions fulfilled by other modules with which it can interface.

That is how the PC world met the challenges which came from massive growth and
developmental mutations. The demand for upgrade paths (either adapters or
replacement modules) is also easily met in a similar way to the PC. This means
the combination of modularity and standards facilitates organic growth path to
meet the mutational challenge Adrian identified.

Standards are not prescriptions to be enforced but voluntarily adoptable tools
to facilitate design, build & operation for diverse and mutated systems. This
will, in turn, lead to lower costs, easier configuration, cheaper systems,
greater competitiveness, simpler adoption procedures and facilitate
standardised documentation for users.

My two pennorth

Cheers

David Southwell

 Systems Adminstrator for the vizion2000.net network

_______________________________________________
reprap-dev mailing list
repra...@lists.reprap.org
http://reprap.org/mailman/listinfo/reprap-dev



--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 6:50:39 PM4/18/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
holy crap versioning! revolutionary.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andy Ross <an...@plausible.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [reprap-dev] How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?
To: repra...@lists.reprap.org


On 04/18/2011 10:05 AM, David Southwell wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we start to think in terms of modules
> rather than models.

I'd argue exactly the opposite, actually.  First time builders (Hi!)
don't have the option to assemble fine-grained modules -- there isn't
the time available to assemble opinions about, say, particular X
carriage designs, and the tiny market for printed parts just can't
support that anyway.  Even the existing market for extruders (which I
guess is historically separate) is dominated by the Wade's design*;
you don't see much else out there.

The choices available are, uniformly, kits: I could build a Sells or
Prusa Mendel, or a Clonedel, etc...

What I think is missing isn't the lack of compartmentalization, it's
actually the lack of centralization of decision making.  One of the
reason new ideas seem to languish is because they don't get folded
into a "official" printer in any meaningful way.

What's really needed is, say, a "Prusa Committee" that audits and
tests submissions and integrates them into the "official" design
regularly (as opposed to a "dev team" that just works on and releases
new stuff).  This is the model used in the open source software world,
for example.

So then the goal for a new hack isn't to try selling it to the world
in the blind hope that someone uses it, but just selling it to the
official folks as better than what's available.  Then it pops out in
the next version, users in the market can go to ebay and buy "Prusa
3.2" parts to know what they're getting, and everyone is happy.

Andy

* As a good example, what about this thing: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6713
 It certainly *looks* better than the original Wade's.  But it's hard
 to tell, because the number of users is small, and it's hard to know
 who to trust.  If it had been submitted to an official project, we'd
 either be using it by default or be able to look at the review and
 see why it was rejected.


_______________________________________________
reprap-dev mailing list
repra...@lists.reprap.org
http://reprap.org/mailman/listinfo/reprap-dev

CubeSpawn

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 7:19:59 PM4/18/11
to Open Manufacturing
uh, hate to beat the same dead horse again (well thats a lie - I
actually enjoy it!) has anyone looked at cubespawn lately?
bunch of standard frames with different drop in modules... standard
power connection, standard data connections - no limitations on
flexible designs within the framework, inherent modularity, inherent
interoperability... yadda yadda yadda http://www.cubespawn.com
> ...
>
> read more »

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Apr 18, 2011, 7:57:43 PM4/18/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, CubeSpawn wrote:
uh, hate to beat the same dead horse again (well thats a lie - I
actually enjoy it!) has anyone looked at cubespawn lately?
bunch of standard frames with different drop in modules... standard
power connection, standard data connections - no limitations on
flexible designs within the framework, inherent modularity, inherent
interoperability... yadda yadda yadda  http://www.cubespawn.com

Please, don't lie to us. All I see there are sketchup files. Those aren't particularly modular.

second, cubespawn isn't reprap, so I don't see why you are pushing for cubespawn in this thread? It's been clear that there have been community/architecture issues with RepRap for a while now.

Marcus Wolschon

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 12:12:59 AM4/19/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 00:50, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

in the blind hope that someone uses it, but just selling it to the
official folks as better than what's available.  Then it pops out in
the next version, users in the market can go to ebay and buy "Prusa
3.2" parts to know what they're getting, and everyone is happy.

Andy


I definitely agree,

there is so much  cloning going on
and simply no maintainer in this project.
No one is organizing an official line of
designs, a version history, a user can orient
itself on.
With so many designs floating around
and not even an overview of what design
is supposed to be an improved version
of what else no one knows what to build
anymore.
The release cycle between Darwin and
Mendel  was way too long and there is
no changelog for the past and no
timeline for the future.
So if someone is new and wants to build
a printer, he can't tell if it's okay to build
a Mendel now or if there is a next
official version coming out in 2 month
or if any of the dozens of clones that
improve on other clones would be better.
And if it's better, then what aspect is better?
Is it better documented? Or uses less plastic?
Or is more reliable? Or just a derivative because
someone had better access to say imperial
then metric parts?

Total confusion because of simple lack
or maintainership.


Regards,
Marcus

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Apr 19, 2011, 12:41:45 PM4/19/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alain Mouette <amlis...@fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [reprap-dev] How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?
To: RepRap-dev <repra...@lists.reprap.org>



Em 19-04-2011 12:43, Andy Ross escreveu:


My point was that the existing rock stars need to see their role not
just as creative but integrative.  It's important to make great stuff,
but it's equally important to use your role to promote (or demote) the
stuff other people are making.  This is the role played by the people
at the top of the kernel community, for example: Linus and Greg and
Alan and co. review far more code than they write these days, and the
world is better for it.

That is also my opinion, someone has to take care of the integration. This is more important in software, medium important for electronics (because it is SW dependent) and not so much (imho) for mechanics.

I can give 2 examples:

1) There seems to be a profusion of "new generation" electronics. None is realy good, some miss important parts and all are a noise headache. It is just like everyone is trying to make a better one "mine is better" but no colaborative effort...

2) The PC<>Motherboard comunication is a problem, someone started a thread about making a new lib. I do these stuff for a few decades, so I suggested a new API to be defined before start coding... no replies and the subject just died away. I will surely not do something like that to be unused!

IMHO, RepRap is needing leadership. There are lots of creative initiatives around, but without an active leadership it will become "the great-dad of all RepRaps" but not useable anymore :(

Alain


_______________________________________________
reprap-dev mailing list
repra...@lists.reprap.org
http://reprap.org/mailman/listinfo/reprap-dev



--

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Apr 20, 2011, 8:57:16 PM4/20/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Sadusk <j...@sadusk.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [reprap-dev] How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?
To: repra...@lists.reprap.org


Hi, I should introduce myself as well as comment on this.  My name is
Joe Sadusk, I've been tinkering with reprap for about a year, and
following reprap-dev for a few months but didn't feel like I knew enough
about the project to contribute until recently.

I'm a software engineer on a large project that has many high level
decoupled modules similar to what was originally proposed in this
thread, and we have a similar issue.  To allow flexible development
inside the company, the interfaces between the modules are designed to
be relatively stable so that versions of the quickly evolving modules
can be mixed and matched and freely.  For developers we don't think of
the whole system as having one version, only the different modules and
their many forks.  Sometimes one version of a module won't work with
another version of another module, but developers should know better
than to try those combinations, and should have enough background
knowledge to pick a set of modules to set up a base working system.  But
that's not acceptable to an end user.  An end user wants a system to
work and have been tested.  They might want to swap out a component
afterward, but only if they have a stable base to work off of.

So we have "releases" of the system.  Really these releases are just a
file that list a version tag for each module that are known to work
together.  Developers almost never pay attention to these releases
except to figure out what version of a module the customer was using
when we debug a problem.

When I started working on a Mendel, the guy printing parts for me asked
which extruder I wanted.  I had absolutely no idea, I'd never worked
with this machine before.  Now I want to swap out extruders to
experiment, but only because I have an otherwise working machine.  And
now, if someone was building a new machine and thought "oh, wade's
extruder looks cool, and adrian's hot end seems to work well" they
wouldn't realize that they don't fit together without modification.

I think some policy of someone testing the various part mutations out
there and posting on the wiki a current good configuration (not
necessarily *the* good configuration, no authority implied here), it
would go a long way toward helping new builders into the mix.  Having an
effective stable branch would also absolve people on the bleeding edge
of being able to shake things up.

Just a thought on a compromise that would help new users without holding
back the community.

Joe


> "But if the goal really is to promote these things to people other than the
> tinkerers (the "focused" part of the title of this thread), someone needs to
> do the  itegration and produce a product, not a printer."
>
> Like I tell people all the time.  RepRap will meet you where you are.  If
> you want a "product", we have those.  Go buy a BfB Rapman, Makerbot Cupcake,
> Botmill Glider, Mendel-Parts Sells Mendel, Makergear Prusa mendel etc.  They
> are a product, meaning that it's a controlled design, and they are
> controlled the way you said you want RepRap controlled, from above.
>
> RepRap is a bottom up design.  MOST people out there right now do a Prusa
> Mendel, Wades Extruder, one of the 3 popular current firmwares, and pushed
> by Repsnapper.  Now let's look at the locked page on the wiki, the front
> page.  You go to the front page of your wiki, which is committee controlled,
> you know what you get?
>
> [image: Mendel.jpg]
>
> Gen3 Electronics, hobbed nema 17 extruder, Sells Mendel, using RepRap host,
> and a belt configuration that will shred the belt. :)
>
> This is what you get when you let us Admins be in charge.  A confusing as
> heck picture. :)  The strength of RepRap is that no one is in charge.  It's
> confusing, you have to do a bit of research to find out what the current
> thing is, but it's evolving at a break neck pace.
>
> Do you really want the folks in charge of the front page in charge of what
> direction RepRap goes?
>
> I did a suggested build at
> http://blog.reprap.org/2011/04/sourcing-3d-printer.html.  But I would hate
> to do a wiki page for it because this page is going to be hilariously out of
> date in a few months as new extruder, electronics, cartesian evolve past it.
>
> 2 months from now it's entirely possible it's going to be a Mixtape Mendel
> by Tesla, Sangrilulolu electronics, Kliment's firmware, being pushed by a
> host that we have not even seen yet.


_______________________________________________
reprap-dev mailing list
repra...@lists.reprap.org
http://reprap.org/mailman/listinfo/reprap-dev

dumpa

unread,
May 9, 2011, 7:08:34 AM5/9/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop
Hi

I'm new here, Hello everyone!

I don't think that thinking in terms of modules would do any better. The same energy would disperse. 
By reading all these posts, I believe that what is missing is a selection mechanism. You already have reproduction and mutations and there is a need to decide what works better and what doesn't.

Why don't we start some kind of contest. Where RepRaps compete against each other. Some simple tasks, that evaluate performance in several aspects (which would have to be defined) and that anyone can upload a video to youtube in order to compete. That is a way in which the community can be aware of the advances of new mutations. 

It is good to have a diverse population. The contest can bring a stronger selection mechanism. After this blogs, wiki and the community would be in charged of reporting which work.

Hope you like the idea, I would be glad to listen to any comments.

see ya  

tinyenormous

unread,
May 9, 2011, 10:45:32 AM5/9/11
to Open Manufacturing
I think Marcus is on to something.

One way to differentiate between hardware (sells vs prusa, wades vs
adrians) would be to establish some hard specs and some soft specs
(more like features)

Off the top of my head some hard specs could be volume of plastic in
RP parts, time to print, time to build, min torque needed for
steppers, build area, and a very specific set of test prints and
times.

The "soft" specs could be things like difficulty in setting up /
tweaking, estimated part replacement schedule, ability to locally
source hardware, noise, and feature list.

Ultimately the only thing that separates a good design from a bad one
is the userbase and the documentation. There seem to be a large number
of lever-style extruders out on thingiverse right now. I cant tell if
they are all spontaneous invention or copycatting. Regardless, they
aren't significantly better or worse than each other. One could really
stand out from the crowd by filling out the above specs, making a wiki
page, and actually engaging the community by taking feedback and
answering questions.


On another rant altogether, the structure of the wiki is really
awkward right now. From the first time I saw the wiki I have been
thinking that a forum would be a much better venue for this info.
Perhaps both, but right now the way the info is spread out over google
groups, the wiki, people's private blogs, a large number of github
forks, and all over thingiverse is really unfortunate. I get 95% of my
reprap "news" from the aggregate rss feed. That simply can't be the
best way to communicate as a community.

_Ross

Paul D. Fernhout

unread,
May 9, 2011, 7:37:55 PM5/9/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, dumpa, Bryan Bishop
On 5/9/11 7:08 AM, dumpa wrote:
> Why don't we start some kind of contest. Where RepRaps compete against each
> other. Some simple tasks, that evaluate performance in several aspects
> (which would have to be defined) and that anyone can upload a video to
> youtube in order to compete. That is a way in which the community can be
> aware of the advances of new mutations.

See: "No contest: the case against competition"
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Alfie Kohn, ... argues that competition is essentially detrimental to
every important aspect of human experience; our relationships,
self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be
improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless
competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is
anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the
primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves
assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn's book will
be an invaluable resource. ...
One place where competition cannot exist, according to Kohn, is
within oneself. Such striving to better one's own standing is an
individual, not interactive matter; it does not involve MEGA. Of course
some people cannot imagine pushing themselves without the possibility of
'winning' or the threat of 'losing', but this by no means implies that
all motivation is dependent upon competitive frameworks. Throughout
history countless large and small accomplishments have been achieved
simply out of an individual's desire to do better without any thought of
beating others. Such striving for mastery cannot be confused with
competition. ..."

However, I feel it is a good idea along the lines of what you suggest to
have detailed reporting on what different systems can do so people can
decide what suite of features best fits their particular needs, where
one could have perhaps some common table of data for comparison.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.

Bryan Bishop

unread,
May 9, 2011, 7:48:57 PM5/9/11
to Paul D. Fernhout, Bryan Bishop, openmanu...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
However, I feel it is a good idea along the lines of what you suggest to have detailed reporting on what different systems can do so people can decide what suite of features best fits their particular needs, where one could have perhaps some common table of data for comparison.

I'm surprised, Paul; most of the time you seem to go for standard version strings and bumping up versions. Why different in this case?

(The competition idea doesn't make sense, in the context of the other posts.)

Paul D. Fernhout

unread,
May 10, 2011, 1:50:11 PM5/10/11
to Open Manufacturing

I'm not completely sure I follow either what you or dumpa are really
talking about, but if you look at the natural world, there is a vast
amount of diversity for different niches. Even if certain basic forms
tend to become dominant after a period of broad experiments, although
even then you can not easily see in the fossil record genetic
co-evolution at the level of enzymes and cellular structure. Every
particular combination of capacity has its strengths and weaknesses in
different situations (different niches). That's one reason we see so
much variety in the world.

Anyway, what one person does working on one project or a small number of
related ones is not the same as what an open source community does with
everyone with their own interests and own different resources. For
example, for someone who has a lot of threaded rod lying around, they
are going to be interested in different designs than someone who has a
lot of wood lying around. Someone who wants to print food is going to
have different interests than someone who wants to cut metal, and so on.

==

By the way, I just moved the server that openmanufacturing.net is on for
reasons mentioned on the OpenVirgle list, but hopefully no one will
notice any issues with that.
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/browse_thread/thread/9aefdb53376a1ffb#
I still really like that graphic you put together there.

Marcus Wolschon

unread,
May 10, 2011, 2:26:07 PM5/10/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
Paul:

Evolution has the luxury that it's acceptable to take millions of years.
Here the effectiveness of the style a project is managed is determined
by the progress it makes in improving the quality of it's product.
And the Reprap-project rates extremely poor on this metric compared
to what it COULD achieve with more involvement of it's maintainer.
We could have advanced so much more it not everyone was reintegrating
the improvements others have already made and half the people trying
to find out what all the dead ends are.

Marcus

Paul D. Fernhout

unread,
May 11, 2011, 12:22:40 PM5/11/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com

Marcus-

I understand your frustration, only way too well. :-) Examples:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
http://www.pdfernhout.net/sunrise-sustainable-technology-ventures.html

For example, Bryan and fenn could have helped me make OSCOMAK really
work well, but instead both were focused on SKDB. Still, I could have
helped Bryan and fenn a lot with SKDB, but what did I do, although I did
encourage Bryan to keep working on it as friendly "coopetition". So,
just a typical example of the kind of thing that happening. And in the
end, the two are different concepts anyway, SKDB being more about
production (apt-get), but OSCOMAK being more about analysis (to the
extent it does anything, which it really doesn't). I can point to, even
three years ago, a dozen projects similar to OSCOMAK as far as being
about open manufacturing in some realm with a list I put here (a bit
messy looking now as a page served statically but not in media wiki):
http://www.oscomak.net/wiki/Main_Page

But, we also all have our limits. First off, anything done by people at
a university is limited by the fact that university people have all
sorts of obligations related to students and committees and so on
(beyond family). It's hard to do basic research things on your own,
whether you are an independent or at a university, because you are then
stressed out about money etc., and more and more research in academia is
driven based around short-term money issues.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html

What's amazing about RepRap, and Fab@Home, and FabLab, and so on, is
really that it is happening at all, not that it is not happening better. :-)

I was very disappointed in the Squeak core team a decade ago for similar
reason, where they cared more about their one vision of Squeak and did
not work to integrate community work, and project after project suffered
from bit rot, and core issues never got fixed, and so on. But in that
case, the issue was disagree with them about focus -- I was interested
in managing complexity but they were interested in showing really cool
stuff on a GUI. I might have tried to fix that, but the Squeak license
was broken, too, and people would not acknowledge that. About a decade
later, people were finally focusing on fixing the license and making it
more modular and so on, but social momentum had moved on (Java,
JavaScript, the Web, tons of other things).

What you are talking about all sounds sensible -- if you had a billion
dollars and could hire people so you or someone else could tell them to
do what you want or else they will be fired. But that seems to be the
kind of world we are trying to build beyond? :-) Related:
"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Open source just does not work the same way socially, with open projects
based around mostly volunteers or loose alliances of consultants or
companies with various motives being more like "herding cats". So, for
good or bad, one has to accept that projects will have a different
social dynamic, as frustrating as that can be.

Yes, there is a terrible amount of waste from a centralized point of
view. On the other hand, there is a large amount of search and
experiment and learning, and that is good. Eventually, projects that are
openly licensed can build on each other. And with an Open Source
approach, no central organization has to come up with a big chunk of
money to explore something, which is a big issue when what you are doing
is trying to create alternatives to centralization and big centralized
organizations are not too keen on funding that. :-)

A book on some of that:
"Producing Open Source Software"
http://producingoss.com/en/index.html

Still, it is clear that, yes, even within open source, leadership and
clear direction can make a difference. You're right to be frustrated
about that. So, despite what I said about a billion dollars, yes, for
charismatic or well-organized leaders, yes maybe they can accomplish
somewhat more on somewhat less, as far as getting a community to focus
on something. It's good when they can, but it's not easy, and also, what
happens when the charismatic well-organized leadership is wrong?
Research, especially basic research, can be fraught with dead ends,
stops and starts, things that sounded good but did not work out for
various reasons, or things someone thought was a dead end (cold fusion?)
but really worked, and so on.

For example, is this eCat cold fusion device by Rossi and Focardi for
real or was it a waste of time following up a dead end?
http://pesn.com/2011/05/07/9501828_Seven_Reasons_To_Embrace_Rossis_E-Cat/

But I'd suggest even that "Producing OSS" book may be a bit dated,
because it focuses more on the project idea, like running some project
at SourceForge or Google Code, and is advice to someone who wants to be
a project leader (good advice, but still from that perspective).

GitHub is maybe the best current big example of how evolution (via
stigmergic cooperation) is all working socially as far as herding cats.
Github is working because it allows people to easily fork code, and then
send pull request related to changes. No one need to get approval as a
"committer" before they can start hacking away on code. It's a new
social model in that sense. There are still gatekeepers in a social
sense, like the people who care most about a project (like they started
it) and publicize their repository a lot, but overall, the entire social
feel is very different.

Some links on a general theory of stigmergic collaboration that GitHub
really represents:
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/03-elliott.php
http://p2pfoundation.net/Stigmergy
http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Stigmergic_collaboration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy
http://stigmergiccollaboration.blogspot.com/
http://www.stigmergicsystems.com/

Socially, a group that relates to that, started by Dee Hock:
http://www.chaordic.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaordic

In the end, evolution, stigmergy, and chaordic processes are maybe all
intertwined as ideas?

As is said here:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Admin
"RepRap as a technology is designed and developed as a set of careful
decisions by all of us, in an open developers mailing list (yay!).
It is also the result of "drive-by uploads" by dark-horse
maverick-iconoclasts which completely blow away our existing road map.
(If you have an idea for how to make RepRap better, please join our open
developers mailing list since you're a developer.)
Often, your ideas are better than anything we could come up with.
Which is why we've developed, adopted, support, and indeed, often
document a number of different softwares, electronics, firmwares,
positioning systems, and even fabrication methods (extrusion, laser
cutting, etc.) Call it "perverse polymorphism".
And none of this has anything to do with Administration.
Administration is not design, it is not development. Development is done
by developers, by you. In an open developers mailing list.
We would be honored if you join us."

Still, one can also think about using a billion dollars differently than
telling people what to do. One can set up a themed research lab and set
people loose who are interested in the theme. Willow Garage maybe has
aspects of that? But ultimately a basic income might lead to more of
that... And maybe we'll get a basic income when RepRap (or something
similar) finally is working well, after we don't need it so much. :-) As
is said in that RSA Animate youtube video on motivation, in our society,
it is important to take money off the table, by ensuring people have
enough money so it is not an issue, but then having an environment that
lets people focus on things like transcendent purpose, increasing
mastery, and a lot of self-direction.

Jon Moshier

unread,
May 11, 2011, 3:07:47 PM5/11/11
to Open Manufacturing
I'm new to RepRap. I've just recently found out about its existence.
I've also just recently joined this forum.

I do not own a RepRap or any other 3d printing technologies yet, I'm
committed to building one and I'm still in the information collection/
conceptualizing stages.

However, I think this is a game changing innovation. Since discovering
this movement for myself I've been thinking about personal or home
fabrication pretty extensively over the last few weeks.

I bring a fresh pair of eyes and here's my contribution to "How do we
both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focused?".

Start with the documentation. It isn't glamorous work but this
community would benefit from making it easy for newcomers to get
moving quickly. Perhaps a document or set of documents that help
newcomers get from zero to sixty in the shortest time possible. A very
well written, step by step approach to building a quality RepStrap
from scratch. Lots of "hand holding" would be nice.

Before anyone responds with "Read the Wiki!", I know, I am reading the
wiki. There's a lot there for a newbie to take in and digest and it's
not always in the prettiest of formats (typos, gaps in process,
language translation issues). It's a great body of information but for
the uninitiated it's not for the faint of heart.

Yes, there are other methods that must be employed to foster a core
community and stir innovation but as a beginner this seems like a
logical first step.

I'd like to write a 'RepStrap from Scratch' guide for beginners. If
anyone else is interested, please let me know. I'd appreciate your
feedback.

Thanks,

Jon Moshier

Paul D. Fernhout

unread,
May 12, 2011, 9:14:19 AM5/12/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
On 5/11/11 3:07 PM, Jon Moshier wrote:
> Yes, there are other methods that must be employed to foster a core
> community and stir innovation but as a beginner this seems like a
> logical first step.

It's not exactly the same, but MakerBot Industries built on RepRap ideas
and has a simplified system that is (supposedly) easier to put together
reliably, and they have related documentation etc..

http://wiki.makerbot.com/thingomatic-doc:thingomatic-assembly-instructions

But I guess it is a bit more expensive in some sense (but how much,
really?). And all their plans are free if you want to DIY. So, that is
an example of what some might call fragmentation and others might call
innovation.

So, you might want to compare and contrast the RepRap vs. Thing-O-Matic
approaches and documentation, and think about what all that means -- I'm
not sure what it means, I'm just suggesting to think about it. :-)

Yes, the Thing-O-Matic is not focused on self-replication, but it can
still do a lot in that direction, and the reality is that RepRap can't
replicate electronics yet, anyway. The value of being able to experiment
with making your own stuff can be very high even if you don't have a
true self-replicating system (for which I recommend gardening now that
Spring is here in the Northern Hemisphere. :-)

(I still have my Thing-O-Matic in the box as I've been working on other
hopefully-paying-eventually stuff and enjoying the insect-free weather
the past couple of weeks; but with the biting insects showing up, it
might be time to get it out and put it together to do more indoors stuff.)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages