The proper tool for a task, Not every nail needs a hammer. Are we too fixated on Exotitech?
Oren Beck
about a hammer making all problems resemble a nail.
We have developed all this truly awe inspiring tech of solid object
"printing" and exotic processes like Laser sintering or Photopolymers
to list a triad. Yes, those toolsets are world changers to be
understating it a bit. We've still barely rethought the older lower
tech tool chains being used for truly OPEN innovation. As not every
problem is best solved by process or tool X being somehow "newer"
or more superficially enticing to designers.
I bluntly am saying- building better robotics to feed raw materials
into/take finished process steps objects from "whatever" machine it is
WILL be the bigger win. No deprecation of process or machine X
intended either. It's a case of being open in our process
evaluations.
Solar for example. We've got machines that can spit out truly huge
square footages of various flat films or foils suited to be layers of
PV systems. And, the current paths do not need to be restricted
design elements either. Conventional wires somehow bonded to/laminated
in the PV stack may be the best "for now" design. Which means wire
bonding automation able to handle oh- 4X8 edged sheet stack layers.
That's a non trivial jump from wire bond stuff for small modules like
ASIC or MCM.
The folksT who argue about displacing humans need to rethink their
premises too. OR go back to human pulled carts.
The teaser for thinking outside of boxes today is:
A new home could have it's roof made up of 4X8 panels screwed or
nailed to laminated trusses. The trusses have face surfaces of steel
studding. Steel's a "Good Enough" conductor for PV voltages/currents.
And the solar stuff is rolled then nailed on..Nails as conductors??
If we as my closing example- tooled up to make 4X8 foot PV rolls to
overlay standard construction panels? How fast would the cost drop if
we cranked the rolls out like a nail factory?
Paul D. Fernhout
> If we as my closing example- tooled up to make 4X8 foot PV rolls to
> overlay standard construction panels? How fast would the cost drop if
> we cranked the rolls out like a nail factory?
It's a good question, and obviously many solar cell manufacturers have
explored it to some degree, but they are not looking at it from a DIY
perspective, so the solutions they come up with might be different.
To begin to answer it, we need better tools to keep track of every time
and material (and other) cost in doing a project. I wonder if there is a
really detailed open source tool for doing that kind of analysis? I
wanted to do that with OSCOMAK (but so far, have not).
Some ideas on what information might be needed:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/prototype.htm
But the people at NIST are working towards that kind of stuff:
"Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing Program"
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
And there is a lot of software (proprietary) that relates to "supply
chains".
Anyway, I'm sure someone out there knows a lot about what tools there
are to start to answer your question...
--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.
Oren Beck
The paradigm shift from supplying "Every component" to supplying
feedstocks to fab gear sadly might be hobbled by just such things.
We'd have more luck avoiding that by SciFi tech like nanoassemblers.
Then again, Grey Goo is a lot more scaryscary than a 'bot supplier
giving us a B/O slip for that 3mm PLA some folks are still waiting
for :}
On May 14, 4:31 am, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
wrote:
>
> > If we as my closing example- tooled up to make 4X8 foot PV rolls to
> > overlay standard construction panels? How fast would the cost drop if
> > we cranked the rolls out like a nail factory?
>
> It's a good question, and obviously many solar cell manufacturers have
> explored it to some degree, but they are not looking at it from a DIY
> perspective, so the solutions they come up with might be different.
>
> To begin to answer it, we need better tools to keep track of every time
> and material (and other) cost in doing a project. I wonder if there is a
> really detailed open source tool for doing that kind of analysis? I
> wanted to do that with OSCOMAK (but so far, have not).
>
> Some ideas on what information might be needed:
> http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/prototype.htm
>
> But the people at NIST are working towards that kind of stuff:
> "Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing Program"
> http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
>
> And there is a lot of software (proprietary) that relates to "supply
> chains".
>
> Anyway, I'm sure someone out there knows a lot about what tools there
> are to start to answer your question...
>
Giovanni Lostumbo
how about solar "ink"jet printing?
On May 13, 3:31 pm, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
wrote:
>
> > If we as my closing example- tooled up to make 4X8 foot PV rolls to
> > overlay standard construction panels? How fast would the cost drop if
> > we cranked the rolls out like a nail factory?
>
> It's a good question, and obviously many solar cell manufacturers have
> explored it to some degree, but they are not looking at it from a DIY
> perspective, so the solutions they come up with might be different.
>
> To begin to answer it, we need better tools to keep track of every time
> and material (and other) cost in doing a project. I wonder if there is a
> really detailed open source tool for doing that kind of analysis? I
> wanted to do that with OSCOMAK (but so far, have not).
>
> Some ideas on what information might be needed:
> http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/prototype.htm
>
> But the people at NIST are working towards that kind of stuff:
> "Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing Program"
> http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
>
> And there is a lot of software (proprietary) that relates to "supply
> chains".
>
> Anyway, I'm sure someone out there knows a lot about what tools there
> are to start to answer your question...
>
Paul D. Fernhout
> "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Organic_solar_cell"
> how about solar "ink"jet printing?
Thanks. From there:
"An organic photovoltaic cell (OPVC) is a photovoltaic cell that uses
organic electronics--a branch of electronics that deals with conductive
organic polymers or small organic molecules[1] for light absorption and
charge transport. The plastic itself has low production costs in high
volumes. Combined with the flexibility of organic molecules, this makes
it potentially lucrative for photovoltaic applications. Molecular
engineering (e.g. changing the length and functional group of polymers)
can change the energy gap, which allows chemical change in these
materials. The optical absorption coefficient of organic molecules is
high, so a large amount of light can be absorbed with a small amount of
materials. The main disadvantages associated with organic photovoltaic
cells are low efficiency, low stability and low strength compared to
inorganic photovoltaic cells."
I met someone in a lab down the hall who was working on organic solar
cell related things at IBM Research a decade ago.
Yes, I could believe we will be even able to print useful solar cells on
paper perhaps (but they may not be as durable).
Related about paper-thin phones:
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/flexible-paper-phone-will-be-the-phone-of-the-future-2011056/
http://techland.time.com/2011/05/06/this-paper-thin-phone-will-soon-look-primitive/
"A team of researchers at The Queens University Human Media Lab put
together this flexible, ultra-thin phone out of electronic paper.
They're calling it � what else? � the PaperPhone, which does most of the
things phones do nowadays: it places calls, lets you scroll through
contacts, plays songs and even paginates text."
And there was this from a decade ago, but I don't know what happened to it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01/19/10_paper_mobile_phone/
"A US inventor plans to have a $10 paper mobile phone on the market
later this year. The disposable device is the brainchild of Randice-Lisa
Altschul, who has 22 patents on the technology. Called the
Phone-Card-Phone, it is the thickness of three credit cards and made
from recycled paper products. It comes with 60 minutes of calling time
and a hands-free attachment. Despite its name, there is no actual phone
card involved. When users are finished they can either chuck the phone
away, or charge extra time via their credit card."
Looks like it did not work out commercially as of 2004 as regular phones
dropped in price (I bought a regular cell phone myself for US$20 a few
years ago):
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/inventions/inventors/altschul.html
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/altschul.html
"Eventually competing companies latched on to Altschul�s idea and began
making disposable cell phones of their own. Thus, Altschul�s phone is
yet to be distributed. But she is known as the first to have conceived
of this novel idea. In 2002, the Phone-Card-Phone was named Product of
the Year by Frost and Sullivan. "
Ah, more on what happened, from 2009:
http://karynromeis.blogspot.com/2009/02/women-in-technology-randice-lisa.html
"The woman I have chosen is Randice Lisa Altschul, who patented the
disposable mobile phone in 1999. She is attributed with the quote "We've
printed a phone." The phone is about three times as thick as a credit
card and (and this is cool) made from recycled paper. ... She worked
with an engineer to develop the super-thin circuitry that was required,
but was unable to achieve this at an affordable price. She was therefore
forced to file for bankruptcy. As a consequence, competing companies
were able to take the realised concept to market before her.
Nevertheless, she is credited with the original idea. ... Altschul is
addressing the inventor gender gap, encouraging young women to explore
ways to turn their ideas into reality. "
And a comment on it by the inventor? "Randi said": "Thanks for the write
up, happened to come across it today but your information on what
happened is not correct. The backruptcy was because the company was
scammed by our financial consultant and the product is in development
today. see my book Financiers, Lawyers and Other Assorted Snakes. Have
been awarded 13 patents on the technology which ranges from the
dispoasable cell to the paper lap top. Randi"
And a reply: "@Randi Thanks so much for stopping by with your comment
and correction. I'm sorry to hear that you wer scammed. A sad - but
apparently not uncommon - story."
It's a tough life for inventors. Or, someone commenting/paraphrasing on
Machiavelli said:
http://www.angelfire.com/teoi143/philosophy/machiavelli/the_prince.html
"When one changes things too much one makes many enemies and gets only
mild support from those that enjoy the new changes. This support is mild
because they do not fully trust the changes yet themselves. Another
reason to me is that unless the old order was terribly oppressive, a
majority of people would prefer it to a change that a foreigner would
institute."
I saw some students of my undergrad advisor, James and Janet Baker, who
started Dragon Systems, essentially get scammed out of a billion
dollars, and decades of hard work, and the rights to continue to work on
their own software:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_NaturallySpeaking
Of course, the Bakers learned a lot about speech recognition from
working at IBM Research earlier (it's not clear to me though which way
most of the info flowed...) Anyway, I would speculate being cut off from
their own code might be what hurt the most? Maybe not. :-) But at least
doing open source stuff keeps open the chance to keep working on what
you love.
In general though, it's not clear to me that the same skills that make
you a good researcher or inventor will make you a good business person.
Sometimes they are totally opposite skills and mental paradigms it seems.
It's also not clear that even when you do win, and even keep the money,
that your life is much better off as an inventor, anyway, given a law of
diminishing returns. :-)
"Do We Need $75,000 a Year to Be Happy?"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2016291,00.html
We need something better than a lottery model for funding basic
scientific research, whether both the losers and the winners are not
that well off.
I guess people can get scammed in the gift economy but in different
ways? Attribution errors? Hoarders? Not sure if any of that really
matters in the long term?
Anyway, so, if you can print a cell phone, why not print paper solar
cells that are much simpler? Many types of trees renew their leaves
every year. Maybe every year you would need to print a new set of solar
cells for your roof, and then have the housebots put it up there? :-)
Or a self-repairing alternative?
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20110111/self-repairing-organic-solar-cells-use-dna-strands-work.htm
"A grand breakthrough in solar cell technology is attempted at the Birck
Nanotechnology and Bindley Bioscience centers at Purdue's Discovery
Park. It involves the creating of a brand new carbon nanotube enhanced
and DNA manipulated solar cell, capable of self-repair. This achievement
would increase the life expectancy of the cells and would greatly reduce
the maintenance cost. Though still in basic research stage, the process
of imitating natural photosynthetic systems found in plants is set to
ultimately achieve industrialization. ... Build your own solar panel at
home, with off-the-shelf components you can purchase cheaply. More
information is available here. ..."
Which links to:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2011/01/10/self-repairing-solar-cells-dna-choi/
"This technology would finally enable us to have a new type of
photo-electro-chemical cells which would operate at full capacity
indefinitely, without repair."
Maybe Oren is right to bring up gray goo though? :-)
I guess it comes down to the materials?
Or maybe some advance of DIY-Bio, since leaves and algae are solar
cells, though you mostly have to burn them or otherwise process them
into some sort of oil to get the power from them. But I keep seeing
stuff related to this, so maybe we will get there soon enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production
"Biological hydrogen production is a method of photobiological water
splitting which done in a closed photobioreactor based on the production
of hydrogen by algae. Algae produce hydrogen under certain conditions.
In 2000 it was discovered that if C. reinhardtii algae are deprived of
sulfur they will switch from the production of oxygen, as in normal
photosynthesis, to the production of hydrogen.[1][2]"
I think Oren has a good point about an economy shifting away from supply
chains and more to supplying feedstocks to end users who then do what
they want with them locally. I guess our economy was a lot more like
that 100 or 200 years ago, with more DIY? But it can be labor intensive.
The robotics doing the labor implicit in 3D printers, or the computers
doing process control in other settings, along with new machinery
designs that just require less babysitting, is what makes it more
reasonable. And we can thank all those people toiling away on those new
ideas (although if you like what you are doing, it is not so much
toiling...)
--Paul Fernhout