2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

In Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12. I am
wondering if 4-stroke, 2-stroke, or turbine engines would make the best
prime movers for a self-powered self-reproducing machine tool (SPSRMT).
You see, we distribute power with electric wires now, to various types
of tools: machine tools, power hand tools, stationary power tools. If,
as these authors propose, certain design changes can be made to produce
a universal tool, it would only require a single prime mover. Now,
electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools, but
engines are not.

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

A few random thoughts:

It seems like complex turbine blades are out of reach. So that's why I
titled this post with IC. Turbine engines are technically EC. But hey,
if it's in the machine capability, turbines could be an option.

Jet A and other purified kerosenes constituting rocket fuels might be
appropriate as a fuel base because the whole field of SRMT technology
is related to the colonization of space. Only in the extreme case of a
seed ship carrying SRMTs to a destination colony would the nature of
this technology be required. It can't compete here on Earth; it's too
costly compared to mass production of machine tools. I don't see a use
for LOX in the shop unless it's in a compact welding unit. Kinda
dangerous stuff. Powering machine tools on H2; any thoughts on that?

The authors above do not mention the utter primacy of the
anneal/machine/harden/temper sequence as it applies to carbon steel and
a few other materials in shop operations. It is the lever by which the
Industrial Revolution was lifted from its base. I'd like to hear more
on this. Does anyone here remember carbon steel lathe bits, or are we
all too young for that?

I have learned from that two cylinders are optimal
for self-repair of a motorcycle; when one goes bad, you have one left
to either limp home on or provide motive power and battery energy with
which you can debug the other. My latest bike has Direct Injection
Technology in a 2-stroke. However this is controlled by semiconductors.
What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine; a diesel?
Some design already on road or in use?

Compressed air has uses in the shop; is there an integrated
engine/compressor design capable of enough pressure to form liquid air,
from which LOX and LN can be separated? Maybe one that can run on four
cylinders at full power, or two at half power, or on two driving and
two compressing cylinders, with little useful mechanical power output.
Is there some ratio to be had, assuming modular cylinders, between the
work of compressing air and the work available from an engine cylinder,
something in the low integers? I just proposed that this ratio be 1:1.
Should it be 4:1? 8:1?

My apologies for any spelling errors.

The Dougster
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394
email

wrote:

What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine;

A 2-stroke.
And who will that self-replicating machine build spark plugs? Build an
ignition? Build radial sealings? Build ball bearings, or even worse
needle bearings? Cast aluminium and steel?


a diesel?

That will be the most complicated. The smaller the worse.


Some design already on road or in use?

IC engines on the road? Never seen that, sorry. ;-)


Nick
--
Motor Modelle // Engine Models
http://www.motor-manufaktur.de
DIY-DRO - YADRO - Eigenbau-Digitalanzeige

wrote in message
oups.com...
2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

Glad to hear it, Doug. 'Hope you enjoyed the day.

Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12. I am
wondering if 4-stroke, 2-stroke, or turbine engines would make the best
prime movers for a self-powered self-reproducing machine tool (SPSRMT).

First, make sure you have an "off" switch on those things, or we could wind
up paving the whole country with little Chinese mill/turn machines. g

snip

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

It sounds like one hell of a show. But why would you want this advanced
technology to run on old fossil-fuel power?

--
Ed Huntress

I have seen micromachined electric motors, air turbines, and gas
turbines. Most folks I know consider gas turbines IC, because the
"engine" they consider includes the compressor, burner cans, and
turbines together, hence IC.

I have yet to see a micromachined piston engine, either 2 or 4 stroke.

One reason for turbines is that the small size allows VERY high rpm
without excessive inertia loads. Also, the very tiny valves for a 4
stroke would be more of a problem than for a turbine.

The blades on the air turbine and gas turbines I have seen are NOT a
very complex shape. How complex they need to be depends a lot on the
operating conditions, particularly the ratio of blade chord to mean free
path, which is of course a function of temperature and density.

wrote:
2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

In Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12. I am
wondering if 4-stroke, 2-stroke, or turbine engines would make the best
prime movers for a self-powered self-reproducing machine tool (SPSRMT).
You see, we distribute power with electric wires now, to various types
of tools: machine tools, power hand tools, stationary power tools. If,
as these authors propose, certain design changes can be made to produce
a universal tool, it would only require a single prime mover. Now,
electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools, but
engines are not.

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

A few random thoughts:

It seems like complex turbine blades are out of reach. So that's why I
titled this post with IC. Turbine engines are technically EC. But hey,
if it's in the machine capability, turbines could be an option.

Jet A and other purified kerosenes constituting rocket fuels might be
appropriate as a fuel base because the whole field of SRMT technology
is related to the colonization of space. Only in the extreme case of a
seed ship carrying SRMTs to a destination colony would the nature of
this technology be required. It can't compete here on Earth; it's too
costly compared to mass production of machine tools. I don't see a use
for LOX in the shop unless it's in a compact welding unit. Kinda
dangerous stuff. Powering machine tools on H2; any thoughts on that?

The authors above do not mention the utter primacy of the
anneal/machine/harden/temper sequence as it applies to carbon steel and
a few other materials in shop operations. It is the lever by which the
Industrial Revolution was lifted from its base. I'd like to hear more
on this. Does anyone here remember carbon steel lathe bits, or are we
all too young for that?

I have learned from that two cylinders are optimal
for self-repair of a motorcycle; when one goes bad, you have one left
to either limp home on or provide motive power and battery energy with
which you can debug the other. My latest bike has Direct Injection
Technology in a 2-stroke. However this is controlled by semiconductors.
What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine; a diesel?
Some design already on road or in use?

Compressed air has uses in the shop; is there an integrated
engine/compressor design capable of enough pressure to form liquid air,
from which LOX and LN can be separated? Maybe one that can run on four
cylinders at full power, or two at half power, or on two driving and
two compressing cylinders, with little useful mechanical power output.
Is there some ratio to be had, assuming modular cylinders, between the
work of compressing air and the work available from an engine cylinder,
something in the low integers? I just proposed that this ratio be 1:1.
Should it be 4:1? 8:1?

My apologies for any spelling errors.

The Dougster
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394
email

Don Stauffer wrote:

I have yet to see a micromachined piston engine, either 2 or 4 stroke.


Harris has made one, coupled to a generator. It was designed to be a
power source to replace batteries. Runs on ethanol. Fits in a 4mm cube.


Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

(snip greetings)

Yeah, I have tried some web boards. Usenet's my thing. I am back.

Erk. I had too much espresso Yesterday.

First, make sure you have an "off" switch on those things, or we could
wind
up paving the whole country with little Chinese mill/turn machines. g

g Paving the country with them? Or paving their country with us?
Brrrr....

No actually, since no "factory worker robot" exists, duplicating human
abilities,
there is no "grey goo" problem with MTSR. The whole thing is
rate-limited by our puny
ability to transfer expertise to each other, since the only truly
universal constructor in
the proposal is us.

snip

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

It sounds like one hell of a show. But why would you want this advanced
technology to run on old fossil-fuel power?

Because MTSR is actually centuries old technology. I'm a revivalist.
It's been, like, nearly ten generations since the Industrial
Revolution. Much has been lost. Self-upgrade was how machine tools were
*born*.

To repeat, machine tools usually use electric motors as prime movers
because we have the infrastructure. There's no infrastructure on Mars
and beyond. Nowhere to plug in.

So, do we build an engine for a lathe, one for a mill, etc. or a line
shaft? No. We build a single universal machine that can make parts for
its own engine. Or maybe a series of engine, rotary, and slide modules.
It seems the most efficient thing to do. And we hold the keys to the
pump, not that a machine tool could take them from us....

Doug


It's an interesting concept. But before you do machine tools, try doing
Jessica Simpson. You'll have a much bigger market.

--
Ed Huntress

Rack and pinions are neat - and naturally the mirror that is controlled to create
pixels... I don't know - but suspect (as it was planned at one time) that the new
Sony super duper - double density HDTV twice the pixels - uses that technology.

Life member - Electron Device Society IEEE
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Don Stauffer wrote:
I have seen micromachined electric motors, air turbines, and gas
turbines. Most folks I know consider gas turbines IC, because the
"engine" they consider includes the compressor, burner cans, and
turbines together, hence IC.

I have yet to see a micromachined piston engine, either 2 or 4 stroke.

One reason for turbines is that the small size allows VERY high rpm
without excessive inertia loads. Also, the very tiny valves for a 4
stroke would be more of a problem than for a turbine.

The blades on the air turbine and gas turbines I have seen are NOT a
very complex shape. How complex they need to be depends a lot on the
operating conditions, particularly the ratio of blade chord to mean free
path, which is of course a function of temperature and density.

wrote:

2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

In Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12. I am
wondering if 4-stroke, 2-stroke, or turbine engines would make the best
prime movers for a self-powered self-reproducing machine tool (SPSRMT).
You see, we distribute power with electric wires now, to various types
of tools: machine tools, power hand tools, stationary power tools. If,
as these authors propose, certain design changes can be made to produce
a universal tool, it would only require a single prime mover. Now,
electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools, but
engines are not.

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

A few random thoughts:

It seems like complex turbine blades are out of reach. So that's why I
titled this post with IC. Turbine engines are technically EC. But hey,
if it's in the machine capability, turbines could be an option.

Jet A and other purified kerosenes constituting rocket fuels might be
appropriate as a fuel base because the whole field of SRMT technology
is related to the colonization of space. Only in the extreme case of a
seed ship carrying SRMTs to a destination colony would the nature of
this technology be required. It can't compete here on Earth; it's too
costly compared to mass production of machine tools. I don't see a use
for LOX in the shop unless it's in a compact welding unit. Kinda
dangerous stuff. Powering machine tools on H2; any thoughts on that?

The authors above do not mention the utter primacy of the
anneal/machine/harden/temper sequence as it applies to carbon steel and
a few other materials in shop operations. It is the lever by which the
Industrial Revolution was lifted from its base. I'd like to hear more
on this. Does anyone here remember carbon steel lathe bits, or are we
all too young for that?

I have learned from that two cylinders are optimal
for self-repair of a motorcycle; when one goes bad, you have one left
to either limp home on or provide motive power and battery energy with
which you can debug the other. My latest bike has Direct Injection
Technology in a 2-stroke. However this is controlled by semiconductors.
What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine; a diesel?
Some design already on road or in use?

Compressed air has uses in the shop; is there an integrated
engine/compressor design capable of enough pressure to form liquid air,
from which LOX and LN can be separated? Maybe one that can run on four
cylinders at full power, or two at half power, or on two driving and
two compressing cylinders, with little useful mechanical power output.
Is there some ratio to be had, assuming modular cylinders, between the
work of compressing air and the work available from an engine cylinder,
something in the low integers? I just proposed that this ratio be 1:1.
Should it be 4:1? 8:1?

My apologies for any spelling errors.

The Dougster
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394
email


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article .com,
wrote:

I have learned from that two cylinders are optimal
for self-repair of a motorcycle; when one goes bad, you have one left
to either limp home on or provide motive power and battery energy with
which you can debug the other. My latest bike has Direct Injection
Technology in a 2-stroke. However this is controlled by semiconductors.
What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine; a diesel?
Some design already on road or in use?

Go research model aircraft 2-stroke diesel engines. Some are
literally a piston, a crank, and a cylinder with a carb. No plugs,
injectors, valves, linkage, timing, or anything else. Just have to spin
the crap out of it to get started. You could couple that to an air
motor for starting, then the air motor could act as a vane-style
compressor once the engine started. But I think that style of engine is
limited in displacement.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

I wrote:
2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

In Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12.

This massive tome is now available on the web:

http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm


The Dougster

B.B. wrote:
Go research model aircraft 2-stroke diesel engines. Some are
literally a piston, a crank, and a cylinder with a carb. No plugs,
injectors, valves, linkage, timing, or anything else. Just have to spin
the crap out of it to get started. You could couple that to an air
motor for starting, then the air motor could act as a vane-style
compressor once the engine started. But I think that style of engine is
limited in displacement.

Yes, the vane style is good for high speed, good power density, and a
high pressure input, but performs miserable as a compressor. An IC vane
style motor has been constructed, I believe. I forget what it is
called. Ericsson Cycle? I don't think that is right.

The 2-stroke diesels might be a good choice. The Army is going all
diesel, I believe. Do 2-stroke diesels scavenge with air/fuel or do
they use an injector? I know the little ones do, but how about larger
ones? .49 cu in is enough for my Unimat One, or a small machine, not
much more. Scale is still an issue here.

It's nice to see some traffic on this thread! Were you all napping
after that big Thanksgiving dinner?

Doug

Hm. Thank you, Don.

Freitas is heavily into nanofabrication. But he concentrates on
molecular assembly, not micromachining. And in the MA field, power
generation is a long way off.

Gotta love that surface to volume ratio and other scale effects. High
RPM without a lot of stress makes for a reliable engine.

Doug

In article .com,
wrote:

B.B. wrote:
Go research model aircraft 2-stroke diesel engines. Some are
literally a piston, a crank, and a cylinder with a carb. No plugs,
injectors, valves, linkage, timing, or anything else. Just have to spin
the crap out of it to get started. You could couple that to an air
motor for starting, then the air motor could act as a vane-style
compressor once the engine started. But I think that style of engine is
limited in displacement.

Yes, the vane style is good for high speed, good power density, and a
high pressure input, but performs miserable as a compressor. An IC vane
style motor has been constructed, I believe. I forget what it is
called. Ericsson Cycle? I don't think that is right.

The 2-stroke diesels might be a good choice. The Army is going all
diesel, I believe. Do 2-stroke diesels scavenge with air/fuel or do
they use an injector? I know the little ones do, but how about larger
ones? .49 cu in is enough for my Unimat One, or a small machine, not
much more. Scale is still an issue here.

The little ones I was alluding to depend a great deal on momentum.
The momentum of the flywheel to force 'em through a complete cycle, and
the momentum of the column of air entering/exhaust leaving to scavenge.
Carburated, so air/fuel mix. Like I said, these are small
displacement--as in fractions of a CC. If you go into larger sizes
you'll likely need to go with injection.
Many of the Military's HET trucks run from Detroit Diesel two
strokes. These are often V8 engines with a blower mounted on top,
between the banks of cylinders. Air is inducted through ports, with the
exhaust valved at the top. Fuel is injected with unit injectors, which
seem to be a lot less touchy than centralized high pressure systems.
For a critter like that to replicate, it needs to be able to cast a
rather complex engine block, machine a blower with a helix shape and
tight tolerances, plus make ball bearings, gears, rubber seals, and
ported cast iron liners. May not be doable.
Could be more practical to use sterling engines and settle for the
low horsepower.

It's nice to see some traffic on this thread! Were you all napping
after that big Thanksgiving dinner?

I've been rebuilding my apartment after a failed move.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

wrote:

Now, electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools, but
engines are not.

Why do you say that?

I say electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools
because an intermediate step, fabrication of a stamping die, is
required to make the many laminations, although I suppose they could be
laser cut, but a laser is not a machine, it's a device. Heck, I guess
an electric motor is not a machine; it's a device, too.

Including other technologies makes self-reproduction more difficult.

Doug

delurk

I think you're making the same common mistake most people make, and
omitting the things that will kill your idea dead.

a/ raw materials to work ready alloys and castings

This is a bitch, you need a geologist, a miner, a metallurgist, a
chemist, and a handful of labourers, and a bunch of time....

b/ lathe bed, piece of cast iron with parallel sides, brunel made one
by rubbing three sheets of iron together with grinding compound, took
him ___months___

This is a bitch, those labourers are in for more back breaking work

c/ precision screw threads, make and repair taps and dies.

This is a bitch, any fule can cut a thread of dimensions and
proportions of their own choosing, making one that works for different
materials and is good enough so __any__ size x nut will fit ___any___
size x bolt and stays torqued until you put a spanner on it is tough

e/ ball bearings

This is a bitch on heat, you want a REAL modelling challenge make two
identical roller bearings from stock metal that have 10% of the
performance envelope of shop bought ones

f/ lubricants

This is tougher than it sounds, 1920s lube oil won't keep a modern high
performance engine alive

--------------------

My answer to you question is this.

3 x identical 40 containers, each a complete identical shop, each
powered by an identical petter CS type compression ignition motor
powering identical ac alternators, dc dynamo and compressors, with a
backup prime moves as steam engine

3 x more identical containers containing every conceivable spare for
the above
(don't forget mundane stuff like gasket paper)

3 x more identical containers containing a variety of fuels and lubes

3 x more identical containers containing identical smelting and foundry
shops

30 x more identical containers containing raw materials

----------------------

yeah, what you want can be done, but think coastal shipping size
"base", not something you can load in the back of a pick up.

Thanks, Guy, for your comments on scale. I am not afraid to think big.

Neither is NASA. They are talking about heavy lifters, and they started
this whole self-reproducing machine shop thing back in the 1960's.

A recent proposal for a space elevator could make a lot of difference.

The Dougster

wrote:
Thanks, Guy, for your comments on scale. I am not afraid to think big.

Neither is NASA. They are talking about heavy lifters, and they started
this whole self-reproducing machine shop thing back in the 1960's.

A recent proposal for a space elevator could make a lot of difference.

The Dougster

NASA is funny

was it NCSA before?

anyway, USA were the speed kings, X1 etc, but the military ICBMs came
along and NASA went heavy lifter, not winged scramjet, and the rest of
the planet followed.

I'm intrigued that the japanese and chinese and everyone else is
following the "stick it on top of a big rocket" approach to orbit.

Well the Chinese got the hardware and software from the us (violations)
from a company that was putting up a bird and they didn't want crashes like
the Chinese were getting...

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Guy Fawkes wrote:
wrote:

Thanks, Guy, for your comments on scale. I am not afraid to think big.

Neither is NASA. They are talking about heavy lifters, and they started
this whole self-reproducing machine shop thing back in the 1960's.

A recent proposal for a space elevator could make a lot of difference.

The Dougster


NASA is funny

was it NCSA before?

anyway, USA were the speed kings, X1 etc, but the military ICBMs came
along and NASA went heavy lifter, not winged scramjet, and the rest of
the planet followed.

I'm intrigued that the japanese and chinese and everyone else is
following the "stick it on top of a big rocket" approach to orbit.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:55:07 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Well the Chinese got the hardware and software from the us (violations)
from a company that was putting up a bird and they didn't want crashes like
the Chinese were getting...

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder




Hey, be nice!

The Chinese invented the rocket in 1232AD :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:55:07 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Well the Chinese got the hardware and software from the us (violations)
from a company that was putting up a bird and they didn't want crashes like
the Chinese were getting...

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


God curse Bill Clinton and the Loral Corp...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/24/cox.report.02/





Guy Fawkes wrote:
wrote:

Thanks, Guy, for your comments on scale. I am not afraid to think big.

Neither is NASA. They are talking about heavy lifters, and they started
this whole self-reproducing machine shop thing back in the 1960's.

A recent proposal for a space elevator could make a lot of difference.

The Dougster


NASA is funny

was it NCSA before?

anyway, USA were the speed kings, X1 etc, but the military ICBMs came
along and NASA went heavy lifter, not winged scramjet, and the rest of
the planet followed.

I'm intrigued that the japanese and chinese and everyone else is
following the "stick it on top of a big rocket" approach to orbit.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Those rockets just went in the air and burst into fire stars.
Just like the ones when they did their ICBM - err - space launching missiles.
Their IG wasn't worth the dirt it took to hide it.
Without a good IG - the bird gets flaky and tumbles.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Mark Rand wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:55:07 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:


Well the Chinese got the hardware and software from the us (violations)

from a company that was putting up a bird and they didn't want crashes like

the Chinese were getting...

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder





Hey, be nice!

The Chinese invented the rocket in 1232AD :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I claim and announce intent to register
Copyright (c) 2005 Douglas Dana Goncz

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research(ers)



On Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:26:27 AM UTC-5, The Dougster wrote:
2005-11-24

To: news:rec.crafts.metalworking

Hey, gang! Feeling better lately. Getting ready for Thanksgiving.

In Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines

© 2004 Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle

the authors mention actual machine tools in section 3.12. I am
wondering if 4-stroke, 2-stroke, or turbine engines would make the best
prime movers for a self-powered self-reproducing machine tool (SPSRMT).
You see, we distribute power with electric wires now, to various types
of tools: machine tools, power hand tools, stationary power tools. If,
as these authors propose, certain design changes can be made to produce
a universal tool, it would only require a single prime mover. Now,
electric machines are difficult to produce with machine tools, but
engines are not.

So I am now asking for any comments on internal combustion,
self-powered, self-reproducing universal machine tools.

A few random thoughts:

It seems like complex turbine blades are out of reach. So that's why I
titled this post with IC. Turbine engines are technically EC. But hey,
if it's in the machine capability, turbines could be an option.

Jet A and other purified kerosenes constituting rocket fuels might be
appropriate as a fuel base because the whole field of SRMT technology
is related to the colonization of space. Only in the extreme case of a
seed ship carrying SRMTs to a destination colony would the nature of
this technology be required. It can't compete here on Earth; it's too
costly compared to mass production of machine tools. I don't see a use
for LOX in the shop unless it's in a compact welding unit. Kinda
dangerous stuff. Powering machine tools on H2; any thoughts on that?

The authors above do not mention the utter primacy of the
anneal/machine/harden/temper sequence as it applies to carbon steel and
a few other materials in shop operations. It is the lever by which the
Industrial Revolution was lifted from its base. I'd like to hear more
on this. Does anyone here remember carbon steel lathe bits, or are we
all too young for that?

I have learned from that two cylinders are optimal
for self-repair of a motorcycle; when one goes bad, you have one left
to either limp home on or provide motive power and battery energy with
which you can debug the other. My latest bike has Direct Injection
Technology in a 2-stroke. However this is controlled by semiconductors.
What's a simple reliable, *easily built* 2-cylinder engine; a diesel?
Some design already on road or in use?

Compressed air has uses in the shop; is there an integrated
engine/compressor design capable of enough pressure to form liquid air,
from which LOX and LN can be separated? Maybe one that can run on four
cylinders at full power, or two at half power, or on two driving and
two compressing cylinders, with little useful mechanical power output.
Is there some ratio to be had, assuming modular cylinders, between the
work of compressing air and the work available from an engine cylinder,
something in the low integers? I just proposed that this ratio be 1:1.
Should it be 4:1? 8:1?

My apologies for any spelling errors.

The Dougster
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394
email