Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.


Hi, gang!

For two particle systems, the application of quantum mechanics and a change of
variable allow the separation of the problem into "one concerning only the
centre of mass of the system, and another which describes the behavior of a
particle of mass mu under a potential V(r)." (Alistair I. M. Rae, Quantum
Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 189.

If you have a small machine shop with two lathes, two mills, two surface
grinders, two cylindrical grinders, and two of every other machine tool needed,
and duplicate tooling, than taken as a system of 2v machine tools, the system
is capable of self-replication. (The foundry is a separate thing. Don't worry
about it.)

This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of
self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the machinist,
an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a nutrient
"sea", is self-replicating (alive).

I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate such
an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living,
self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of self-replication
may help. It may take generations to acheive it if it is done one machine part
at a time, but a theoretical solution might be achieved in one machinist's
lifetime, and a computer calculation might be a matrix operation that would
complete in seconds, or days. Once stated, the theoretical basis can be taught,
in context, to students at the appropriate level of instruction in mere
minutes.

v is finite and may be 2, for a small shop, or up to around 7.

If n is 1, we have a pair of self-replicating machine tools and then can
consider a growing population of them. This idea of growth doesn't work in an
array very well because it's constrained to pairs of machine tools. Multiple
pairs of machines. It's rather over constrained. In particular, cross pairings
start to get all, well, complicated.

If we start with an large enough array of pairs of machine tools ( a fully
equipped shop) then the array is "universal", able to construct any product of
industry, and in theory, can be reduced to a single pair of identical,
universal self-replicating machine tools: the Holy Grail of Mechanical
Engineering.

Goncz's Postulate is : "You Need Two of Everything"

If and only if you start with a pair of universal self-replicating machine
tools, then each tool in the growing population is indistinguishible from
(functionally identical to) its fellow, so every possible pairing in a
population is a valid pairing in which one machine may reproduce a part of the
other and there are no cross pairings to get in the way. In other words, the
population gets busy, starts growing faster, and we get more and more of the
little devils. And then exclusion principles, entanglement, and other
interesting properties will probably start showing up.

If we can accomplish this, the cost of guns, if not butter, should fall,
producing new wealth for all to share.

For a system of two particles with position vectors r1 and r2, and with mass
m1= m2, we form the center of mass of the system, bold R, and the relative
position bold r:

bold R = ( m1*r1 + m2*r2 ) / ( m1 + m2 ) and
bold r = r1 - r2


The center of mass of a circular machine tool array in full assembly is fixed,
the position vector magnitudes are constant, but the mass of each machine tool
is distinct, and it may vary as one only of each pair is disassembled to relase
an internal part for replication by the array.

So the wave function of this system will in general be a function of the masses
of the particles. That is, if a machine tool's current mass is m.r, and its
fully assembled mass is m.t, then m.r = m.t, and by reference to a chart, m.r
indicates the state of disassembly.

So what I have done is to ignore spin (or a hiden variable) like Rae does on p.
188, and instead of

psi (r1, r2, r3, ..., rn, t)

I write

psi (m1, m2, m3, ... mn, t)

to describe the state of an array of n = 2*v machine tools, one pair of each
of v types, and

| psi (m1, m2, t) | ^ 2 d (something)

to describe the probabilities related to transistion between states of
disassembly in a pair of self-reproducing universal machine tools, or the
probability that the array will be in a particular state at a particular time.
I guess you could go with dm where d (something) is written, because m is
multiple and analogous to r. Then dm would be something like the "sloppiness"
of disassembly, relating to the probability that pair could self-replicate in a
messy shop. That seems reasonable.

In a circular array in polar coordinates, the position vector magnitures ri are
constant relative to the center of position, while in a multiparticle system,
and in particular, systems of _indistinguishible_ particles, the masses mi are
constant, all equal.

I find this similarity striking and have attempted to form new variables for
use in describing the state of an circular array of indistinguishible
(functionally interchangeable) machine tools by transposing the roles of m and
r, forming a new variable.

Let's look at a two machine system with one machine in partical disassembly.
The first analogy is to the relative position bold r.

bold m = m1 - m2

This is the mass difference, directly related to the amount of work needed to
achieve bold m = 0, which would seem to be associated with the most stable
states Usually bold m = 0 is associated with m1 = m2 = mt. If we impose the
rule that only one of the pair may be disassembled at a time, then bold m = 0
is the most stable state, the state in which universal construction is
available for use.

Now, bold M is a bit tricky. The moments above the virgule seem reasonable and
add OK, but putting the sum of the positions below them gives:

bold M = (r1*m1 + r2*m2) / (r1 + r2)

Moment divided by distance is mass. What I'd like here, by analogy to the
center of mass above, bold R, is still like the location of the center of mass,
something like the location of the center of imbalance, that is, the point
around which the system, while imbalanced, is centered.

The analogy is breaking down.

Should I just keep bold R and deal with the center of mass or is there
something I've missed?

The moments above the virgule, while listed in the other order, still sum to a
moment. And there's really only two choices for the denominator: the sum of the
masses, or the sum of the positions.

Help!


Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #3   Report Post  
John Flanagan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:20:34 GMT, Bert wrote:

( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

snip
This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of
self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the machinist,
an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a nutrient
"sea", is self-replicating (alive).

I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate such
an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living,
self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of self-replication
may help.

snip

Just curious what your definition of "self-replicating" is, and where
that definition came from. Is anything other than the machines you
mentioned here included in the self-replicating entity that you
envision? How much assistance or work by an external agent, and what
degree of pre-processing of raw materials and energy sources, can be
utilized while still meeting the qualifications for self-replication?


Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed
this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.
Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.
  #4   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

rom: Bert

( Doug Goncz ) wrote:


I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate
such
an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living,
self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of

self-replication
may help.


Just curious what your definition of "self-replicating" is, and where
that definition came from. Is anything other than the machines you
mentioned here included in the self-replicating entity that you
envision?


Yes, and thanks for asking!

The vision came to me during the intense self-examination typical of the first
two years in college, right after high school. I postulated "I am this body" in
defiance of those who would have me "be" an engineering, a student (although I
was and remain one), or, in particular, a salesman.

During my summer selling high school level study aids (a two volume dictionary
set) I became strongly identified with the sales company, due to the usual cult
like experience of door-to-door sales. After all, I said, "Hi! I'm Doug Goncz,
and I'm just another one of those XXXX BOOK salesman. Y'all don't shoot 'em out
here, do ya?" more than 1000 times, with enthusiasm. But when I came back to
MIT, there was trouble, so I rebelled. I became a pip, an unknown.

During that rather adolescent phase, I did latch on to the idea that the
individuals in any organization identify with the group. Like being all you can
be in the Army. So when I learned that machine tools already were capable of
self-replication, but that they were still mass-produced (partly, and in any
case a product of industry), I theorized that if identity meant what I though
it meant, it would be important for the machinist to identify with the machine,
to be close to it, to feel it and know it, in order for self-replication to
proceed.

I'd learned about the power of exponential growth. We have only about 2^32
people on this planet, so if a machine could be replicated in a month, in 32
months, everyone could have one. And a fork, a bowl, and something to eat. It
was a very idealistic notion.

But all of us here know our machines well, and I think it's not too far out to
say that a team assigned with reducing a set of pairs of machine tools to their
most compact configuration has to be tightly knit.

Why would anyone want to do it. Well, due to transportation costs, and now that
we have learned how to make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, and extract
minerals from rock with supercritical CO2, we're almost ready to colonize Mars,
and we will HAVE to bring a "fully equipped machine shop" with us. It'll be
expensive enough just to transport the people!

It's the only place we can reach where SRMTs are required. And so that is where
I am bound, and have been since 1979.

Thus the experiments with cross vise, drill press, collet indexer, and four jaw
chuck in 1995, in pairs.

How much assistance or work by an external agent, and what
degree of pre-processing of raw materials and energy sources, can be
utilized while still meeting the qualifications for self-replication?


The only source possible, since the energy requirements for synthesis are
extreme, is nuclear. I can't go NUPOC. I'm too old to serve 20 years before the
age of 55. So I have to go NASA. Solar cells actually do not self-replicate.
Solarex tried it at their Rockville plant, near here. It wouldn't come off.

Electronics technology is self-designing, and thus Moore's Law, but it is not
self-replicating.

The only thing I've left out of the QM analysis is the foundry. With unlimited
available power, the foundry is not a problem.

Just as they leave out "spin" in QM in order to build a foundation for
multiparticle systems which includes spin later in the analysis, I am leaving
out the foundry for now, but will include it later.

The bookeeping of self-reproduction is the same as taking an order for a
typewriter that comes with two free ribbons, an additional paid ribbon, a space
bar, and a spare backspace key. It's done with an invertible quantity matrix,
lower triangular, in technological order, inverted, and multiplied by the
demand vector. I've seen the power of Mathcad doing this sort of thing, and it
truly is amazing, so much faster than Excel on the same data....

I'm the guy who likes to bang out the lowest and highest notes on the piano
just to see what they sound like together.

Wigner's paper analyzed exactly what Bert has asked, considering a machine or
rather configuration of matter floating in a "nutrient sea" of components,
which could be fundamental ingredients or parts ready to be final-assembled,
and concluded it was impossible for the configuration to replicate in finite
time with available ambient thermal energy. But Wigner himself was SR. So by
identifying the machine with the operator, we transfer the SR property of the
operator to the machine. Transisivity is a powerful theoretical tool that can
do things like prove FLT. Or prove simply that if a=b and b=c, then a=c.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #5   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: (John Flanagan)

(Same question as Bert)

I think Doug and I might have discussed
this once before.


Probably did, right here, during the drill press days.

I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.


The finite problem of this class is the work envelope problem: If a BP mill
table is 5 feet long, and it slides back and forth 4 feet 4 inches, how the
hell do you replicate it? Answer: By self-guiding the rough work through the
mill without moving the table, feeding it like a table saw. How do you make the
jig to guide the work? With a lathe, mill, and whatever else is needed, which
you assume you have.

The indentification I have mentioned prevents the SRMT from running away
uncontrolled. The machine has no initiative and is manually controlled. It
can't run away unless the operator goes mad.

nterestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.


I think in this case, I am the RNA or transcriptase, and the machine is the
DNA. Ambient thermal energy and enzyme reactions drive DNA replication. A
continuous flow of reliable nuclear electric energy drives the reproduction of
the SRMTs, but only as they are needed by the growing and increasing colony
population.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"


  #6   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: "Wayne Bengtsson"

(snip a very good post, most of which I was only able to scan without my
head imploding)


Yeah, I hate when that happens, don't you?

The effect of size, and the machinery/effort needed to move parts
from A to B to C. Even just setting up a system for tracking complex
machined parts, and making sure the right parts are in the right place
requires considerable effort, and not a little human intervention at times.


The theoretical understanding reduces this problem to general principles
guiding "what to do first" and "what to do next" that are subject to
insufficient analysis and bookkeeping errors in the finite solution by finite
methods. So the inventorying can self-check and self-repair by comparing a
description of what's going on with the "wave function" that describes
everything that can be known about what's going on, without actually knowing
the wave function at every point in time.

Another factor missing from your equations is the tendancy to "stretch"
tools, or use them on parts larger than what they were designed for.


Answered in my reply to John.

You see, it's the difference between a woodworking shop and a machine shop.

The jig guides the tool;
The jig guides the tool;
Hi, ho, the Derry, Oh,
The jig guides the tool.

In woodworking the work is fed into and THROUGH the power tool by hand, mostly,
and in any case can be larger than the tool. Mostly a linear process. But
what's going on is feature projection of an unusual kind.

GD&T teaches us that we need to screw a tap into a hole with a known fit and
"project" the hole outwards to where the coordinate measuring machine, or one
of us, can measure its location. The process of mathing a transmission and
engine that have never met, using a plate between, is feature projection: The
holes on the engine and the holes on the transmission are both projected onto
the plate so the plate can serve as an adapter.

So what's happening when you rip the edge off a board, or mill a BP x axis
table by sliding it through a custom fixture, is that the flat, linear surfaces
on the table saw or on the rough table are projected to and at time same time
averaged with the produced surface, which improves that surface. Then, that
improved surface becomes the guide and what was the guide surface is run
through, a little closer this time, to improve it. So progress is made and the
work envelope problem is solved by unconventional use of whatever's available,
which is what got us through WWII, with drill presses used as milling machines,
and milling machines used as lathes, three shifts.



If you have one shop merrily
self replicating, you soon need to build another 5 just to house all the
other self replicating machines. Can you say "grey goo"?


Yes, but that is a self-reproducing automaton, and I am only talking about
manually guided machine tools capable of assisted reproduction, not
autonomously reproducing machine tools proliferating with no antibiotics in
sight.

Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt?


Yes. It's my job.

In experimental machine work, we use both woodworking and metalworking machines
and principles, and the Smithy Super Shop is an experimentalists's dream tool,
though its potential for SR is unknown to me. In woodworking, you sometimes
make a fixture for just one use. In metalworking, usually a fixture is built
for mass production. Different paradigms. Same jig and fixture technology,
though. Kinematic contraint.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #7   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt?

QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun.


Hell, by the time NASA realizes they need me, I'll be on the payroll!

And what could be more fun than a paid trip to Mars?



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #8   Report Post  
ATP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Doug Goncz wrote:
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.


Hi, gang!

snip self replication

Interesting, but what would be the point in inefficiently producing machine
tools that there is no market for? Are you planning on colonizing some
distant planet with machinists?



  #9   Report Post  
DoN. Nichols
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

In article ,
John Flanagan wrote:

[ ... ]

Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed
this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.


But a combination of a human and a machine can create a greater
machine. In particular, things like the layout of a modern CPU chip,
and the generation of the masks is a task for which a human is poorly
suited, but a computer (another CPU) is ideally suited, as long as the
human sets some design parameters. Things like word size, number of
registers, the style of logic used in adders and multiply/divide
circuits, and similar parameters.

Even the early Motorola 68000 (one of the first serious
16/32-bit chips) had approximately 68000 devices fabricated in the chip.
I have no idea where today's crop is, but certainly well beyond that.
Just the time taken for a human to do all that layout, let alone to make
sure that it is error-free, boggles the mind.

Machine tools, of course, are much simpler (until you get into
CNC, where you need a CPU again). Where they stretch the envelope is in
the quest for greater accuracy.

Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.


Certainly the combination of a human and one or more machines
can do so.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #10   Report Post  
Statics
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

snip

In experimental machine work, we use both woodworking and metalworking

machines
and principles, and the Smithy Super Shop is an experimentalists's dream

tool,
though its potential for SR is unknown to me. In woodworking, you

sometimes
make a fixture for just one use. In metalworking, usually a fixture is

built
for mass production. Different paradigms. Same jig and fixture technology,
though. Kinematic contraint.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"


You might enjoy reading "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" by Wayne R.
Moore if you haven't already.

Excellent treatise on the production of accurate machines by simpler -
albeit more tedious - methods than self reproduction.

StaticsJason






  #11   Report Post  
Tim Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

"ATP" wrote in message
et...
Are you planning on colonizing some distant planet with machinists?


You sound awfully scpetical; this is the dream of 90% of the newsgroup! :^)

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms


  #12   Report Post  
Tim Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
I have no idea where today's crop is, but certainly well beyond that.


Well past 20 million I believe. Things have come a long way since your
Commodore 64

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms


  #13   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Reply-To: (Donald Nichols)

John Flanagan wrote:


I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.


But a combination of a human and a machine can create a greater
machine.


Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.


Certainly the combination of a human and one or more machines
can do so.


This is my first postulate: that the property of self-replication is transitive
when the machine tool and operator are considered as a working unit, together.
But:

In particular, things like the layout of a modern CPU chip,
and the generation of the masks is a task for which a human is poorly
suited, but a computer (another CPU) is ideally suited, as long as the
human sets some design parameters.


I call this the self-designing, self-upgrading ability of our existing digital
computers. However they do not actually self-reproduce. The machine tools we
have can be loaded by robots and produce parts, like they do in Japan,
automatically, but the generation of circuit lithography patterns, the
lithography itself, and the manufacture and use of integrated circuits in
appropriate (DIP, flip-chip) packaging, and the integration into the CNC
machine tools that make parts is all a scale-up process.

It means you have to outthink the work envelope limitation not just once or
twice, but dozens of times, in a cascading series of manifestations, bringing
the technology from nanoscale to human scale. Through that "filter" the "self"
which is being "replicated" becomes a hideously complex series of interlocking
technologies, not subject to theoretical analysis, AFAIK.

Just the time taken for a human to do all that layout, let alone to make
sure that it is error-free, boggles the mind.


Yes, computers do the complex finite tasks well, but this thread is about
theory. They are great for designing the geodesic domes on Mars, but we are
going to have to build them ourselves.

Machine tools, of course, are much simpler (until you get into
CNC, where you need a CPU again). Where they stretch the envelope is in
the quest for greater accuracy.


You mean circuitry can provide accuracy and precision? Yes, it can. So can care
and concentration.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #14   Report Post  
pete brooks
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Doug Goncz wrote:
Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt?


QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun.



Hell, by the time NASA realizes they need me, I'll be on the payroll!

And what could be more fun than a paid trip to Mars?

Enjoying the rest after (successfully) returning *from* Mars. :-/

Pete (remembering Columbia) Brooks

  #15   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

In article , Gunner says...

Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt?

QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun.


Now be realistic Gunner.

You would eventually get tired of that job, after
some time. Say, maybe, five or ten years. Like
the old joke says, "...and it took the undertaker
four hours to get the smile off his face...."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================



  #16   Report Post  
Tim Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
I never had a Commodore. First 6800 system was an Altair 680b


Oh right, Altair. Couldn't think of it so threw in a generic old thing

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms


  #17   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: "Wayne Bengtsson"

An interesting solution to the scheduling problem of complex manufactured
parts has been found in something called "genitic algorithms".


Yes, I understand the difference between solving for the critical path using
exhaustive search and comparing 10,000 paths in the blink of an eye, selecting
the best 1000, and continuing for 1000 iterations. With the quantity matrix in
technological order, a finite problem not requiring exhausting search, you can
avoid exhaustive search and select candidate operations with a real good
initial population, adding the others with genetic selection.

The
result is NOT the ideal solution, but one that is plenty good enough, and
completed in a time frame quick enough to be useful.


Yes, that's all we need. I am not arguing for complete solution of the moment
to moment problem of which machine part to replicate next. Most frequently, you
just fix the one that's either broken, or the one that's worn out, and that
includes scraping ways. But what if the RS-232 level comparator on your CNC
goes out on Mars? Fabricate a new TTL gate? Stock the entire TTL inventory?

The nice people I work for manufacture,sell, and use machine tools that go
to the job.


I am familiar with running the work through the machine self-guided, dong the
work on the machine with controls or programs, and attaching the machine to the
work to produce a feature on the work which is too large.

For some items in metalworking, the only practical way to build even one off
is to build a jig or fixture.


Some. The process of replication starts with picking, from the existing
inventory of mills, lathes, drill presses, and various grinders, a pair of each
for study, determining which jigs and fixtures must be made to replicate each
and every part of those particular machines with themselves, and condensing the
resulting solution matrix into a specification for a pair of new machines,
building them, and knowing that each and every part on the new machine can be
reproduced by one of its interchangeable partners.

There's no CAD program that can solve that with a single click. And doing it
manually, or without a theoretical basis to guide progress and allocation of
resources, invites errors, budget overruns, and cancellation of the project,
never to be attempted again.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #18   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: "Wayne Bengtsson"

I would be interested in reading about the "unconventional use of whatever's
available". Links or book titles would be appreciated. The historical aspect
interests me.


It's no longer listed at Lindsay, at least not on:

http://www.lindsaybks.com/prod/index.html

but that's where I read about it. It is only in cases of extreme production
using every machine tool in every factory that we even approach the intensity
required of a self-replication project. Older machinists have explained to me
that they had to drill 1/16 inch holes with 5 HP drill presses because that's
what was available, or had to flame cut a hole in a 2 inch steel plate because
the mill with the ten by twenty foot bed was in use, even during non-wartime
three-shift production.

But I first read about it in Lindsay.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #19   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: Gary Coffman

People are the most expensive things to ship and support in space.
Information is the cheapest thing. The difference is several orders
of magnitude.


Yes, but people are the best place to put critical information, like that which
is necessary for a group's survival

..So you want people to remain back home, and ship
information back and forth.


That's fine, but even in earth orbit, there is a time lag. And to Mars, the
only place capable of accepting terraforming, it's what, four minutes?

So it is
cheaper to embed the information in a precision machine and ship
it to the location than it is to ship people there to construct the
machine on site.


Yes, I think it would be reasonable to bring two universal self-replicating
machine tools to Mars.

The
environments are hostile to human life. Bone mass loss, loss
of muscle tone, and loss of cardiovascular fitness, all due to
lowered gravity, makes long stays in space or on minor planets
a lingering death sentence.


I agree. I'll stay as long as I can stand up and work.

Oxygen,
food, water, etc must either be carried along or manufactured
on site, requiring *massive* mining and chemical refining
operations just to maintain survival levels.


With a reliable nuclear power source, these operations are less massive in
earth moving requirements. Pure sugar, water, air, and 6 months worth of
vitamins are all I need to survive. And not that sucrose stuff. If we're going
to make it, let's pick a good one.

And some little furry creatures for the occasional snack....

It is very very different from planting a colony on a distant part
of Earth.


Yes. Different in scale, different problems.

And there is nothing material, not even gold bars or
diamonds, that could be exported back to Earth to repay the
incredibly high costs of a colonization effort.


Other than the theoretical knowledge and practical application required to do
it, which will create massive spinoff industries.

There's only one body in this solar system where it is practical
to think about planting a human colony. That's Earth.


The one we have is getting a little dirty, stinky, and crowded for me, present
company excepted. I can barely stand living here and would prefer not to die
here, although I love it. We are killing this place.

Maybe the discussion should center on what to teach The Children of Mars: a
whole new thing, or just a few changes? Pick a language to teach in, first. The
math we have books for.

Maybe a little ecological responsibility and a new theory of money. I have
those, too.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"
  #20   Report Post  
Bert
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

OK, a few more questions and comments:

( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

rom: Bert


Just curious what your definition of "self-replicating" is, and where
that definition came from. Is anything other than the machines you
mentioned here included in the self-replicating entity that you
envision?


....snip of historical prelude and thoughts on identity

I'd learned about the power of exponential growth. We have only about 2^32
people on this planet, so if a machine could be replicated in a month, in 32
months, everyone could have one. And a fork, a bowl, and something to eat. It
was a very idealistic notion.


Yes, isn't idealism great? I'm guessing that at the time you weren't
too concerned with the concomitant exponential growths in the amount
of steel required for all those machines, the amount of associated
equipment and energy to mine and process the raw materials for that
steel, and the amount of energy consumed by the machines during
replication.

Unfortunately, even a sub-exponential growth in the population of us
"self-replicating" humans is beginning to create problems due to
resource scarcity. But that's a whole different topic.

But all of us here know our machines well, and I think it's not too far out to
say that a team assigned with reducing a set of pairs of machine tools to their
most compact configuration has to be tightly knit.

....
Thus the experiments with cross vise, drill press, collet indexer, and four jaw
chuck in 1995, in pairs.


I get the impression that, analogies to quantum mechanics
notwithstanding, the primary (or only?) requirement for having pairs
of machines is so that one machine can serve as a model or blueprint
while the other is actually being used for making parts. If that's the
case, why not add a pantograph (or other 2-D duplicating device) into
the mix and then replace one of each pair of machines with a set of
drawings or specifications? That would save you quite a bit of weight
(and expense) on your trip to Mars.

How much assistance or work by an external agent, and what
degree of pre-processing of raw materials and energy sources, can be
utilized while still meeting the qualifications for self-replication?


The only source possible, since the energy requirements for synthesis are
extreme, is nuclear. I can't go NUPOC. I'm too old to serve 20 years before the
age of 55. So I have to go NASA. Solar cells actually do not self-replicate.
Solarex tried it at their Rockville plant, near here. It wouldn't come off.

Electronics technology is self-designing, and thus Moore's Law, but it is not
self-replicating.


Why not combine electronics, machinery, and the requisite chemical
processing equipment into a system that is truly self-replicating, and
perhaps self-designing and self-evolving as well? That seems a much
more intriguing problem, though perhaps not as amenable to analysis or
near-term solution.

This seems as good a point as any to interject my personal bias
against the term "self"-replicating as you use it. To me, that term
suggests that the entity makes a replica OF itself BY itself (such as
in the reproduction by a simple asexual organism), whereas your
definition describes an entity that is employed to make a replica of
itself under the guidance and manipulation of an external agent. For
that matter, to the extent that your machine (or system of machines)
is involved, it is not making a replica of itself per se, but rather
is making a pile of replicas of its component parts, which must be
subsequently assembled and adjusted by an external agent to yield the
replica machine. Unfortunately, I can't at the moment think of a more
appropriate or palatable term for such a process.

The only thing I've left out of the QM analysis is the foundry. With unlimited
available power, the foundry is not a problem.


With unlimited available power, many problems go away!

Just as they leave out "spin" in QM in order to build a foundation for
multiparticle systems which includes spin later in the analysis, I am leaving
out the foundry for now, but will include it later.


Will you also include mining and other requisite operations, and the
equipment needed for those operations? How do you account for the
non-metallic components of the machines, such as the insulation on
wiring and motor windings, or grease, or rubber belts or bushings?

Wigner's paper analyzed exactly what Bert has asked, considering a machine or
rather configuration of matter floating in a "nutrient sea" of components,
which could be fundamental ingredients or parts ready to be final-assembled,
and concluded it was impossible for the configuration to replicate in finite
time with available ambient thermal energy.


I assume there are more constraints on the "nutrients" in this sea
than is implied here. Otherwise, instead of the solution being
impossible, it would be quite possible, and in fact trivial for
certain sets of machines and nutrients.

In any case, this is quite a different problem than accomplishing the
same end result with "unlimited available power" (and by extension,
unlimited energy).

But Wigner himself was SR.


How so? Sexual reproduction doesn't produce a replica, at least not
what I would think of as a replica. For that matter, neither does
cloning -- it produces at most an entity with a replica of one's DNA.
But the actual capabilities and attributes of a human "machine" are
determined by so much more than DNA that it would be a stretch, IMO,
even to say that mature identical twins are replicas of each other
(except in very unusual circumstances), let alone a human and a clone
that is 20 or 40 or 60 years younger.

So by
identifying the machine with the operator, we transfer the SR property of the
operator to the machine. Transisivity is a powerful theoretical tool that can
do things like prove FLT. Or prove simply that if a=b and b=c, then a=c.


Do you have any particular reason for believing that transitivity is a
property of self-replication?

Bert


  #21   Report Post  
pyotr filipivich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

And lo, it came about, that on Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:05:19 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Gunner was inspired to utter:


wrote:

Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt?

QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun.

Gunner


Hmmm, comparison shopper could be more fun. Or the guy who writes the
consumer reviews for the paper.

--
pyotr filipivich
What is normal?
"Two sigmas either side of mu.
You bring the cow." drieux.
  #22   Report Post  
Doug Goncz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

From: Larry Jaques

He is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that when there
are pairs of every machine in a shop, they are capable of
reproducing. "'Effin wunnerful!" sez I.


Thank you, Larry. Since the other replies have been long winded, and yours the
most enthusiastic, I though I'd take the time to acknowledge it here.

The reason for the pairs is, of course, in the abscence of computers, CAD
files, CAD systems, NC machines, and probably even writing paper,
self-reproduction of a shop full of machine tools is possible only when there
is two of everything. And your post indicates you understand this.

For those that do not, in the absence of a drawing or schedule, one might be
busy repairing things all day, but if more operators became available, it would
probably be most effective to work directly from each machine tool as if it
were broken.

That is, disassemble, extract one part, reassemble to be sure that nothing was
lost, then focus just on the one part, with calipers if need be, and duplicate
it.

A whole machine shop might have a lathe, mill, surface grinder, and cylindrical
grinder, all powered by some BIG theoretical power supply that I am not
including in my quantum mechanical scribblings. Assume unlimited power, limited
resources, limited time, and limited labor, but a steadily growing demand as
things wear out and new Mars colonists arrive.

So you pull the spindle out of the mill, put everything else back on it, hang
an Out of Order sign on it, UNPLUG IT AND LOCK IT OUT, and measure the spindle
with calipers. You pull some stock, or, having unlimited power, melt some rock,
refine some metal, pour a slug, and rough it out on the lathe, file or finish
turn, and head for the cylindrical grinder.

You grind it close, maybe using a long-since-worn out micrometer with no
graduations as a direct mesurement device, and you get it close enough. Then
you notice a problem.

It's of hardened steel, now, since you hardened it in between the lathe and the
cylindrical grinder. But you forgot to slot it! It's going to spin if you put
if back in the mill, so you put a narrow wheel on the grinder, a wheel that
happens to be made from Martian rock held together with synthesized
hydrocarbons, and, grossly overloading the tool, you grind a suitable slot, and
you are ready to disassemble.

Now, if you were an experienced machinst, and I am not saying I am, you'd have
thought BEFORE roughing the slug, finishing it, and hardening it, that you
could have slotted it efficiently on the mill.

But wait a second, the mill is OOO. So you have to have a second mill.

Now one of the first finite algorithms we have to apply to self-reproduction is
sort of a combination of old wisdom and something extremely specific. We "do
the hard part first", which is the old wisdom, and specifically, we take the
slug, center drill it, and then, on centers, on the mill, machine the slot
first, before even turning it.

Why? Because, by the old wisdom, if there's something that needs doing in
parts, and you do the hard part as soon as possible, not necessarily first,
you've got a little working room and you can avoid mistakes like hardening the
spindle, then grinding the slot.

Now this is easy to incorporate into a computer program, but to a person, it is
wisdom that cannot be taught unless they learn all about finite math and the
critical path method. (Gantt charts. Hate 'em) But an appropriate, sufficiently
deep theoretical understanding is the equivalent of wisdom, and usually costs
as much in tuition and labor as you'd earn learning it. And this theoretical
understanding can be taught without knowing anything about finite problems or
applications. Just a few simple things to learn, and you're ready to fly to
Mars, and if one of your fellow colonists has to take over when you drop that
spindle on your foot, no problem. Everyone is multi-trained without seventeen
lifetimes of apprenticeships.

Of course, I also believe in the innate animosity of inanimate
objects and I have the scars to prove it.


How's your foot?

Remember this is human-facilitated on-demand reproduction, so there's no grey
goo. You're probably the only person on this thread so far that gets that bit.

Gently-used Firestone tires for sale at discount!


On Mars we can synthesize the carbon and rubber from atmospheric CO2 and water,
draw up a couple thousand yards of wire, and make a tire in an appropriate
time. It all changes when you have access to energy, and that means nuclear.



Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Recent Original Posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?scoring=d&q=+-Re+dgoncz

(1,150 and counting)
  #23   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

On 02 Sep 2003 19:48:19 GMT, ( Doug Goncz )
pixelated:

From: Larry Jaques


He is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that when there
are pairs of every machine in a shop, they are capable of
reproducing. "'Effin wunnerful!" sez I.


Thank you, Larry. Since the other replies have been long winded, and yours the
most enthusiastic, I though I'd take the time to acknowledge it here.


Blame it on the engineers of the group. You know how THEY get.
(Huh? You're one? Oh, sorry.)


The reason for the pairs is, of course, in the abscence of computers, CAD
files, CAD systems, NC machines, and probably even writing paper,
self-reproduction of a shop full of machine tools is possible only when there
is two of everything. And your post indicates you understand this.


Y'mean "when there are two"? But it could be 2+ dissimilar models
as long as you have all the capabilities of both in both.


That is, disassemble, extract one part, reassemble to be sure that nothing was
lost, then focus just on the one part, with calipers if need be, and duplicate
it.


Hell's Bells, boy. I misunderstood that -entirely-. I thought that you
just put the pairs into a dark room and they did the metallic stiffy
stuffin' until they had reproduced themselves. Never mind.


Now this is easy to incorporate into a computer program, but to a person, it is
wisdom that cannot be taught unless they learn all about finite math and the
critical path method. (Gantt charts. Hate 'em) But an appropriate, sufficiently
deep theoretical understanding is the equivalent of wisdom, and usually costs
as much in tuition and labor as you'd earn learning it. And this theoretical
understanding can be taught without knowing anything about finite problems or
applications. Just a few simple things to learn, and you're ready to fly to
Mars, and if one of your fellow colonists has to take over when you drop that
spindle on your foot, no problem. Everyone is multi-trained without seventeen
lifetimes of apprenticeships.


Oh, you may say that this lifetime, but what about the others?
Shucks, I forgot #10. You HAVE read The 10 Rules for Being Human,
right? Well, in case you haven't, here they a

Rules for Being Human

1. You will receive a body: You may like it, or hate it, but it'll be
yours for the entire period this time around.

2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in an informal full-time
school called life. Each day in this school you will have the
opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons, or think they
are irrelevant and stupid.

3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial
and error. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process
as the experiment that ultimately works.

4. A lesson is repeated until it is learned. A lesson will be
presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you
have learned it you can go on to the next lesson.

5. Learning lessons do not end. There is no part of life that does not
contain lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned.

6. "There" is no better than "here". When your "there" becomes a
"here" you will simply obtain another "there" that will again look
better than "here".

7. Others are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something
about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or
hate about yourself.

8. What you make of life is up to you. You have all the tools and
resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is
yours.

9. Your answers lie inside you. The answers to life's questions lie
inside of you. All you need to do is to look, listen, and trust.

10. You will forget all of this.

- Source Unknown


Of course, I also believe in the innate animosity of inanimate
objects and I have the scars to prove it.


How's your foot?


Oh, they seldom bite me on the feet, but my legs, butt, hip, arms,
shoulders, back, neck, head, hands, and fingers get nibbled a lot.
I'm surrounded by machines.



Remember this is human-facilitated on-demand reproduction, so there's no grey
goo. You're probably the only person on this thread so far that gets that bit.


No goo? What fun is that?

P.S: I wonder what the robots think about all this...
------------------------------
REAL men don't need free plans
------------------------------
http://diversify.com REAL websites
  #24   Report Post  
larry g
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines


" Doug Goncz " wrote in message
...
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.

Huge snip
Having read this thread and understanding some of it all I can say is that
there are a few people here who need to get laid! Tim disregard the
previous statement.
lg
no neat sig line


  #25   Report Post  
Bruce C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Doug,

This is a kool idea, as many of your posts are (even drill press abuse). I
have two comments - 1. you have not shown proof that "two of everything" or
even "two of anything" is the smallest number required and 2. I think
replication without evolution is undesirable.

Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have
(good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that
the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars
with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot
laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to
park your shuttle between the Bridgeports.

Now project that evolutionary capacity to a capability that may be available
in ideal environments and simple replication of current technology may even
be undesirable. Grow your lathe ways from a single diamond crystal - now
your iron machine tools are as desirable as the barber's leeches. Evolve
some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING
molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by
chip REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing
the displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is exposed.

Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that
brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need
THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them and therefore don't
actually need to perform an actual task or build a particular device to know
the cosmic truth. We think through the problems, then we know that we can
build that 42-shot-simiautomattic-revolver with each part perfectly heat
treated and accurate to a couple of milliangstroms. Now that we know, we
don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you
think about some old westerns, didn't it?)

Just some ideas to think about.

Bruce

" Doug Goncz " wrote in message
...
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.


Hi, gang!

For two particle systems, the application of quantum mechanics and a

change of
variable allow the separation of the problem into "one concerning only the
centre of mass of the system, and another which describes the behavior of

a
particle of mass mu under a potential V(r)." (Alistair I. M. Rae, Quantum
Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 189.

If you have a small machine shop with two lathes, two mills, two surface
grinders, two cylindrical grinders, and two of every other machine tool

needed,
and duplicate tooling, than taken as a system of 2v machine tools, the

system
is capable of self-replication. (The foundry is a separate thing. Don't

worry
about it.)

This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of
self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the

machinist,
an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a

nutrient
"sea", is self-replicating (alive).

I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate

such
an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living,
self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of

self-replication
may help. It may take generations to acheive it if it is done one machine

part
at a time, but a theoretical solution might be achieved in one machinist's
lifetime, and a computer calculation might be a matrix operation that

would
complete in seconds, or days. Once stated, the theoretical basis can be

taught,
in context, to students at the appropriate level of instruction in mere
minutes.

v is finite and may be 2, for a small shop, or up to around 7.

If n is 1, we have a pair of self-replicating machine tools and then can
consider a growing population of them. This idea of growth doesn't work in

an
array very well because it's constrained to pairs of machine tools.

Multiple
pairs of machines. It's rather over constrained. In particular, cross

pairings
start to get all, well, complicated.

If we start with an large enough array of pairs of machine tools ( a fully
equipped shop) then the array is "universal", able to construct any

product of
industry, and in theory, can be reduced to a single pair of identical,
universal self-replicating machine tools: the Holy Grail of Mechanical
Engineering.

Goncz's Postulate is : "You Need Two of Everything"

If and only if you start with a pair of universal self-replicating machine
tools, then each tool in the growing population is indistinguishible from
(functionally identical to) its fellow, so every possible pairing in a
population is a valid pairing in which one machine may reproduce a part of

the
other and there are no cross pairings to get in the way. In other words,

the
population gets busy, starts growing faster, and we get more and more of

the
little devils. And then exclusion principles, entanglement, and other
interesting properties will probably start showing up.

If we can accomplish this, the cost of guns, if not butter, should fall,
producing new wealth for all to share.

For a system of two particles with position vectors r1 and r2, and with

mass
m1= m2, we form the center of mass of the system, bold R, and the

relative
position bold r:

bold R = ( m1*r1 + m2*r2 ) / ( m1 + m2 ) and
bold r = r1 - r2


The center of mass of a circular machine tool array in full assembly is

fixed,
the position vector magnitudes are constant, but the mass of each machine

tool
is distinct, and it may vary as one only of each pair is disassembled to

relase
an internal part for replication by the array.

So the wave function of this system will in general be a function of the

masses
of the particles. That is, if a machine tool's current mass is m.r, and

its
fully assembled mass is m.t, then m.r = m.t, and by reference to a chart,

m.r
indicates the state of disassembly.

So what I have done is to ignore spin (or a hiden variable) like Rae does

on p.
188, and instead of

psi (r1, r2, r3, ..., rn, t)

I write

psi (m1, m2, m3, ... mn, t)

to describe the state of an array of n = 2*v machine tools, one pair of

each
of v types, and

| psi (m1, m2, t) | ^ 2 d (something)

to describe the probabilities related to transistion between states of
disassembly in a pair of self-reproducing universal machine tools, or the
probability that the array will be in a particular state at a particular

time.
I guess you could go with dm where d (something) is written, because m is
multiple and analogous to r. Then dm would be something like the

"sloppiness"
of disassembly, relating to the probability that pair could self-replicate

in a
messy shop. That seems reasonable.

In a circular array in polar coordinates, the position vector magnitures

ri are
constant relative to the center of position, while in a multiparticle

system,
and in particular, systems of _indistinguishible_ particles, the masses mi

are
constant, all equal.

I find this similarity striking and have attempted to form new variables

for
use in describing the state of an circular array of indistinguishible
(functionally interchangeable) machine tools by transposing the roles of m

and
r, forming a new variable.

Let's look at a two machine system with one machine in partical

disassembly.
The first analogy is to the relative position bold r.

bold m = m1 - m2

This is the mass difference, directly related to the amount of work needed

to
achieve bold m = 0, which would seem to be associated with the most stable
states Usually bold m = 0 is associated with m1 = m2 = mt. If we impose

the
rule that only one of the pair may be disassembled at a time, then bold m

= 0
is the most stable state, the state in which universal construction is
available for use.

Now, bold M is a bit tricky. The moments above the virgule seem reasonable

and
add OK, but putting the sum of the positions below them gives:

bold M = (r1*m1 + r2*m2) / (r1 + r2)

Moment divided by distance is mass. What I'd like here, by analogy to the
center of mass above, bold R, is still like the location of the center of

mass,
something like the location of the center of imbalance, that is, the point
around which the system, while imbalanced, is centered.

The analogy is breaking down.

Should I just keep bold R and deal with the center of mass or is there
something I've missed?

The moments above the virgule, while listed in the other order, still sum

to a
moment. And there's really only two choices for the denominator: the sum

of the
masses, or the sum of the positions.

Help!


Yours,

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)

Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be
available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to
sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical"





  #26   Report Post  
DejaVU
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Doug Goncz scribed in
:

The jig guides the tool;


So what's happening when you rip the edge off a board, or mill a
BP x axis table by sliding it through a custom fixture, is that
the flat, linear surfaces on the table saw or on the rough table


Doug, you'll be interested to see my use of jigging to build a part
for my lathe....

http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/satrain/lat...ingsteady.html

using essentially woodworking techniques to make a metal travelling
steady for the lathe so that I can (eventually) make leadscrews for
the mill/surfacegrinder/whatever I get to next...
the CNC surface grinder is high on mylist, just for fun...

swarf, steam and wind

--
David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\
http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ /
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail - - - - - - - X
If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \
PLEASE pretend you don't know me.
  #27   Report Post  
DejaVU
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Wayne Bengtsson scribed in
:

In woodworking the work is fed into and THROUGH the power tool
by hand,

mostly,
and in any case can be larger than the tool. Mostly a linear
process. But what's going on is feature projection of an unusual
kind.


The nice people I work for manufacture,sell, and use machine tools
that go to the job. A lot of the stuff they get used on is too big
to fit on any machine. Email me if you want more info (for
discussion purposes, not a sales pitch).


Hey Doug, thought of a MAG DRILL lately? it processes things much
larger than itself and is self guiding after initial placement.
one coudl easily use one to drill the holes in the raw part of
another one, no matter how big it is...? maybe?

--
swarf, steam and wind

--
David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\
http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ /
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail - - - - - - - X
If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \
PLEASE pretend you don't know me.
  #30   Report Post  
James Waldby
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
....
The "F00F" floating-point error in some versions of the pentium
are an example of the kind of error which can't be prevented by computer
design of the chip layout. ( [...] Remember when the floating-point
processor was a separate chip? Easier to fix, then. :-)

And yes -- there are still some CPUs with the problem still in
service. My laptop (an IBM Thinkpad 760XD) shows the following on
bootup with OpenBSD as the OS:

================================================== ====================
OpenBSD 3.0 (NIBBLETS) #0: Sat May 11 22:20:07 EDT 2002
:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/NIBBLETS
cpu0: F00F bug workaround installed
================================================== ====================

....

A minor correction here -- the F00F bug was protection-related,*
nothing to do with FP, so a separate FP chip wouldn't have made
a difference.
-jiw

* " The F00F bug received its name from its instruction encoding
F0 0F C7 C8. This instruction encoding maps to a LOCK CMPXCHG8B EAX
instruction. CMPXCHG8B compares 64-bit memory contents with the
contents in EDX and EAX." "Instead, the Pentium processor locks up
and freezes the entire computer when it encounters this instruction."
- from a web page re F00F


  #31   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

Sounds like the mechanical version of a (software) virus...

"David Peterson" wrote in message
...

Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed
this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.
Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.


What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or
could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs.

Dave

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk

email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.




  #32   Report Post  
David Peterson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines


Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed
this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but
something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot
create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself.
Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as
DNA does.


What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or
could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs.

Dave

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.


  #33   Report Post  
David Peterson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines


The bookeeping of self-reproduction is the same as taking an order for a
typewriter that comes with two free ribbons, an additional paid ribbon, a space
bar, and a spare backspace key. It's done with an invertible quantity matrix,
lower triangular, in technological order, inverted, and multiplied by the
demand vector. I've seen the power of Mathcad doing this sort of thing, and it
truly is amazing, so much faster than Excel on the same data....

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research (via aol.com)



Mathcad is one of my favorite programs. I'm suprised people don't use
it more often, so much nicer than spreadsheets for so many things.

Dave
  #34   Report Post  
David Peterson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:04:42 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Doug Goncz wrote:
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.


Hi, gang!

snip self replication

Interesting, but what would be the point in inefficiently producing machine
tools that there is no market for? Are you planning on colonizing some
distant planet with machinists?



Or better yet, colonize it with machines.....

  #35   Report Post  
Alaric B Snell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines

David Peterson wrote:

What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or
could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs.


A compiler, for example...

More useful examples are things like learning systems; there are systems
that develop a program expressed as a series of rules. It runs tests
against past data in which each rule is assessed for how much it helped,
and bad rules removed, and good rules duplicated and variations tried.
Solutions evolve automatically.

A spectacular case in point... some group decided to use an FPGA
(programmable digital logic chip; you feed in setup instructions to tell
it what gates to wire to what, more or less), along with an evolving
engine like that above, to evolve a circuit to work out the frequency of
a train of pulses. The FPGA was too small (not enough gates) to contain
the circuit you'd get if you designed it by hand.

Sure enough, it soon came up with a working design... but the way it had
managed to do better than what was thought to be the theoretical
capacity of the chip was that it wasn't using them just as digital logic
gates any more. It had gates wired back into themselves in unstable
feedback loops, using their analogue characteristics (which you steer
clear of in digital design!). Which was fine - but as soon as the
temperature changed, the chip's analogue characteristics shifted and the
circuit stopped working :-) They'd trained it in a stable temperature
environment, so it had evolved to need that...


Dave


ABS

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"