I'm baack....

to some extent.

I had a brush with a steroid.

"nuff said.

Bert suggested a pantograph for self-replication. It's 2D usually. There must be a 3D version. Thanks, Bert.

I am working a similar problem. How would we set the pantograph? We assign integers to hole positions for pivot pins in a 2D pantograph; let's assume we have a 3D integer settings pantorgraph available and want to discuss its properties. We use finite math where all the numbers are fractions!

A / B or maybe.... just maybe ... wait for it...

A + i/B

maybe.

Assuming we cram all our data into fractions and that 5 inches == 127 mm extactly == 1 UNIT:

And threaded rod comes in UNIT bars, with describable threading,

How do we cut a pack of N bars of length L to make either 1 or 2 but not NONE or THREE or more self-reproducing machines operated by nonbackdriving leadsrews?

I need to write that utility.

One supplier I like, OnlineMetals.Com, offers 5/16-18 threaded stainless in packs of 10 at length 36/39 roughly, implying a yard of length, precisely a fraction 36 * 25.4 / 1000 where 36 Inches times 25.4 mm/in divided by 1000 mm/meter converts a yard to a meter. "Nuff said.

A = 36 * 254 B = 10000 L = some damn real we compute on the fly?

How to cut the pack of 10?

See where I am going with this?

If one supplier offers N1 at L1 for $1,
and another offers N2 at L2 for $2, and so on, comparing two suppliers or many,
you can make decisions.

"Nuff said.

Condensed the cut list is like

There's this stuff, see?
Yeah, cool.
It's 36 * 254 / 10000 one way, right, baby?
Yeah, cool.
Like, the other way, right?
Yeah, cool.
It's 5/16 blah de blah, dig?
Yeah, cool.
18 per.
Yep.
Get it?
Got it.
Good. We're gonna cut the stuff, ok babe?
Yeah, cool.
How, right?
Yeah.
Comes 10 up.
Cool, baby.
Can't break it but we'll fake it 'till we make it.
Of course we will.
10 up.
Right.
One or two cubes. That's the problem.
Cubes, baby?
12 up.
Dig.
10 up 12 up one or two, right?
Yep.

And the web form just has a dialog with the user to make this happen.

And the notation stays compact.

And all is well; I value my work more than smoking and will do without in order to continue.

Please see LinkedIn for more.

Right on, babies!

Doug



On Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 4:43:31 AM UTC-4, DGoncz wrote:
Bert are you interested in co-inventing the next wave of self-replicating machine technology?
You've made a contribution here. At the least, I must acknowledge it.

To do so, I append this tag, meaning only those parts of my writing you include below. The tag helps me find these contributions.

Doug


I claim and announce intent to register
Copyright (c) 2003 Douglas Dana Goncz

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research(ers)




On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 1:33:19 PM UTC-4, Bert wrote:
( Doug Goncz ) wrote:

From: Gary Coffman
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking

You're implicitly assuming that to replicate a part you need an identical
part on hand as a template. But that's not a requirement. All you really
need is a print.

Of course all you need is a non-self-replicating print, and a
non-self-replicating filing cabinet to keep it in. Do you want to use the lathe
to build a paper mill so you can make the print, and the mill to build a sheet
metal shear so you can file the print, or do you wan't to simplify, simplify,
without cheating.

The only self-replicating thing about a file cabinet full of prints is mildew.

The only thing needed to make it self-replicating under your
definition is a pantograph, which itself can be replicated using the
other machine tools. This assumes that the stock (in this case, paper
and ink) is readily available, which seems to be a general assumption
that you're already making. Of course, if you prefer you could do away
with the paper and ink and have the plans scribed on thin sheet stock.

For that matter, you could do away with the need to replicate the
plans by including the plans as part of the agent package rather than
part of the machine package. Your self-replicating machines cannot
replicate except through the actions of an external agent, and there
is apparently no requirement for that agent and its embodied knowledge
to be replicable; thus, you can significantly impact the difficulty of
the problem by your choice of how to distribute the information, work,
etc., between the machine and the agent, a choice which is essentially
arbitrary.

Consider, for example, that when you pull a part off a machine, you
have no way of knowing what the original dimensions of the part were
(unless the machine has never been used), what tolerances are
allowable, how much torque should be applied to threaded fasteners, or
even what the part's material specifications are (i.e., alloy
composition, heat treat, required hardness and strength, etc.), unless
you have a large suite of (non-destructive) testing equipment. So your
agent must embody that knowledge in one form or another (along with
knowledge of how to use the machines, how to assemble the replicated
parts, etc.), unless your definition of "replica" is "something
kinda-sorta similar" or "something that looks the same and may or may
not provide similar functional performance." And if your agent already
embodies that knowledge, then it doesn't take much of a shift in the
agent/machine boundary to include the complete part specifications
with the agent, so replication of the plans becomes unnecessary.

Bert