Doug, thanks for responding. I thought my post got lost in the noise.

Sorry, the thread went off my list at 43, total 48 in Google. I recommended the
thread, including your final post, to sci.physics.research and there was at
least one reader who read and enjoyed the whole thread here, an replied in spr.

The final operation need not always be on the same class machine,

can reduce the problem to pairs but no farther.


It just simplifies the analysis to assume two of everything is available. It's
not an absolute requirement for implementation, although it looks like one of
the very first tasks will be to make a single, say M6x1x20 socket head cap
screw, which, properly equipped, shouldn't take more than a bloody WEEK! It's
not easy.

I still don't accept your assertion that two of every tool is the minimum
requirement.

I only meant to reply that one of everything isn't enough and two of everything
is enough, not that two of everything is required.

I accept that two of some things establish a convenient
baseline for replication and repair (a broken lathe may not be able to
manufacture its own repair part).

Yes, and for the simplest part copying process one machine goes down and one
machine goes to work. They may be different-class for any one and likely most
tasks, but E a task | a pair of identical machine tools are required.

But "two of every tool" can not be a
universal minimum, especially when applied to tools like hex key sets and
collets.

Bending hex stock is a machine shop operation. I can conceive of a situation in
which one might hold a collet closer WITH a collet closer symmetrically, but
yes, you don't use a hex key to bend a hex key and you can't hold a collet
blank with the same range collet unless there's a "splicer" or something like
that.

The order presented to the manufacturer asserts Goncz's Postulate. Reducing the
order when rejected and submitting a revised order is a reasonable compromise.
But implementation is to prove Goncz's Postulate and identify all the items not
required in dupe. I say, get two of everything, open everything as needed, and
when finished, return unopened what may be a lot of stuff, generating an
investment cost figure and rather than an overrun, a list and a return credit
figure, the financial landmarks for the first such project. Simplify!

I also assert that one shouldn't work a problem in one's head. So editing a
dupe order down could concievable cause an error, and thus, an error chasing
project, which is never a good thing.

Funding is effectively unlimited. If they're sending us two of each machine
tool at enormous substantial risk and expense, why not get two of every hand
tool and return one of each non-dupe-required, and two of each
oops-we-didn't-even-need-it? Tools have a long shelf life. Receipts get filed,
and are pulled up easily.

As an example, the still functional 1/2" collet does not participate in the
replication of another 1/2" collet to replace the damaged one.

Yes, this particular possibility is slim.
The same
situation exists with hex keys.

Uh, no. One can slip a bit of stock with a through hole, or some tube, over the
long arm section of some hex stock, and use its buddy as a lever to turn the
stock into a key. This bit of tube can be much smaller than the hey key if it
fits well, and such a selection of adapters can be made on a lathe and a boxed
set presented to the manufacturer on completion.

Yes, of course you could use a long bit of stock with a through hole as a tommy
bar handle, but the whole point is to turn each small problem back on itself in
the way most consistent with the self-replication that is the main focus.

Eight tommy bars in scrap, or a boxed set of eight hex key self-reproduction
adapters? The entire array is supposed to be have universality, that is, it can
make anything in its range, and such a solution becomes a new salable product,
rather than a collection of scrap bits. Or maybe that is the way to go.

Drill a bit of stock through, bend the smallest key stock into a key, enlarge
the hole, and complete the set, ending with one piece of used-up scrap and the
need to write down something that the English language isn't particularly good
for: a process specification or flowchart. Doing that takes us way back to
1956.

Von Neumann showed us that a universal constructor and a unversal computer,
plus a certain kind of program, are capable of reproduction, and provided a
specific design that was never built.

I'm talking about building an archive, a museum display that the curators can
figure out, rather than a pile of paper or a computer disk. When it's over,
there's an interview to identify each bit of evidence.

Another example that illustrates "fewer than two" being sufficient is folks
building the "Gingery lathe" - self generation through successive
approximation.

Yes, I am aware of this technique but it doesn't make a pretty display.
Self-upgrade was one of the first properties I identified in my 1995
experiments. I'm not the first one to notice it.

As an example, you mention that at least one part of a
surface grinder is built using a surface grinder. If that part were to fail
on the solitary surface grinder and make the machine inoperative, one could
build several replacement parts using the lathe and mill.

Yes, one could.

Install the first
crudely made part to restore limited operational capacity to the surface
grinder and grind the second replacement part.

Yes. Takes longer. Don't be cheap. Always request full funding. It actually
increases the chance of acceptance and thereby success, rather than making the
funding source think "This looks incomplete". Ginger has already done it an
left a book behind for us to enjoy.

I'm just doing it in some other way, possibily the only other way. Are you
saying the group should complete Gingery's series before attempting a
reproduction of existing machines? Not a bad idea at all. Proof of capacity to
complete the new project. Not bad at all.

Now replace the first
generation crudely built part with the slightly improved part. Repeat this
successive approximation approach until the surface grinder is completely
restored.

Yes, but we have two grinders, so we mill the ways, grind them, and add them to
grinder #3, and check off one task for that day.

If you have two lathes and both are in routine service, there is a possible
although improbable situation where both lathes could fail at the same time
through failure of identical lathe-built parts.

As long as we admit this remote possibility, we are ready to get on with it. I
originally saw several pairs of machines and a single non-multi-tasking
operator. Probabilty zero in that case.

In this situation, one would
need to rely on successive approximation or perhaps outside assistance.

Verboten! Heretic! Off with his head!

Successive approximation is fine. Subcontracting ruins the whole thing.

Two
of every tool is not a perfect guarantee by itself.

It's enough, though. Maybe more than enough.



Yours,

Doug Goncz (at aol dot com)
Replikon Research

Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at
http://www.riaa.org/
I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.