DIYbanter - View Single Post - Self-Reproduction of a Universal Machine Tool

Curt Welch

wrote:
Starting with a universal wood/metal working machine tool like a
Smithy Super Shop, for instance, with the goal of reproducing the
tool, I see a few ways open for progress:

One, starting with raw metal stock, reverse engineer blueprints for
the machine tool and then build a copy from the blueprints.

Two, Starting with two of the machine tool, disassemble one copy,
using each piece as a model, and then copy each piece.

Three, Order all the parts as replacement parts from the manufacturer,
and assemble a copy.

Four, Order all the parts as replacement parts, and set about
reproducing each part to build a copy.

Five, If the machine has N parts, order N machines and assign to each
machine an operator capable of reproducing one of the N parts on their
machine, then assemble a copy. Seems simple enough: you need to pick a
machine, hire N operators, order N machines, and just have at it.

The reason I say wood/metal working machine tool is that I am pretty
sure any universal self-reproducing machine tool has to have this
character: Woodworking operations usually let the part guide itself
through the machine under operator control, and this means such a
machine has a work envelope that is potentially of infinite size; it
certainly isn't closed or of fixed size. Metal working operations such
as millling usually hold the work in a fixture of finite size and
capacity, and so have a closed work envelope. Best of both worlds?

I have an email out to sales at Smithy asking for a part count and
pricing for the set of replacement parts needed to assemble a copy of
my Super Shop.

Why would you waste their time with that? Are you actually going to buy an
entire set of replacement parts?

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Your Smithy can't reproduce itself. Only a Smithy/Human combination "tool"
could reproduce it. And since the "combo tool" doesn't reproduce the human
half at the same time, the tool has failed to reproduce the whole thing.
So even as an intellectual exercise, it has failed.

If you allow a human to be part of the loop but then "pretend" the human
isn't part of the solution, then you might as well just cheat and let the
human build something twice, and call the second one the work of the first
one reproducing itself. For example, bake a cake and then eat it. Then
bake a second cake (driven by the energy from the first), and just say the
it was the first cake that was making the second cake.

I'm not aware of anyone building a machine that could reproduce itself, but
It could be done. It's really a question of what raw material you are
willing to make available for it to work with. Does it have to go out and
mine and refine iron ore, cut down trees for the wood, and drill for oil to
make the plastic, etc? Or it is fare to just give it a pile or steel,
wood, coper, etc to work with? If you allow the second, I'm sure it would
be very possible to design and build a machine that could reproduce itself.
If you want it to work with the raw materials that exist on earth or
elsewhere in the universe, you have to give it far more intelligence than
we currently know how to build into a machine.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
http://NewsReader.Com/