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.

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

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:

Follow the link in my sig to see a woodworking machine that can be used
to make nearly all of its own parts.

The electricals, nuts/screws/washers/couplers, and hardened shafting
were all purchased, but the aluminum parts could be reproduced on the
tool (they were done on another CNC router).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/

On Aug 18, 10:34*am, 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:
....
Doug Goncz

Last night on Sarah Conner Chronicles the good(?) terminator Cameron
was wandering around outside a computer chess match contemplating a
display of chess robots, one of which might be her direct ancestor.

(clip) 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since this is a conceptual exercise, how about this option: Order another
Supershop, and disassemble it. You will then have all the parts required to
assemble a Supershop. How is this different from disassembling your own
Supershop and then reassembling it? Since this is no different from
disassembling my car and then reassembling it, could I say that my car is
capable of reproducing itself?

In article ,
"Leo Lichtman" wrote:

(clip) 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since this is a conceptual exercise, how about this option: Order another
Supershop, and disassemble it. You will then have all the parts required to
assemble a Supershop. How is this different from disassembling your own
Supershop and then reassembling it? Since this is no different from
disassembling my car and then reassembling it, could I say that my car is
capable of reproducing itself?

The difference is that the sum of the parts costs MUCH more than the
same parts assembled.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Aug 18, 1:42*pm, nick hull wrote:
In article ,
*"Leo Lichtman" wrote:

(clip) 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since this is a conceptual exercise, how about this option: *Order another
Supershop, and disassemble it. *You will then have all the parts required to
assemble a Supershop. *How is this different from disassembling your own
Supershop and then reassembling it? *Since this is no different from
disassembling my car and then reassembling it, could I say that my car is
capable of reproducing itself?

The difference is that the sum of the parts costs MUCH more than the
same parts assembled.

Yes, and that establishes one of several metrics by which self-
reproducing machine tool designs can be compared: If there are N parts
in a machine tool, and they cost m times the assembled price when
purchased as a set, then m is relevant. Also, if there are M distinct
parts in the set of N parts, then the ratio M/N is relevant. I haven't
named these ratios. but they are relevant. I feel like M/N should be
called the "distinctness fraction", with a value of 1 for an assembly
of distinct parts, and lower non-zero values for more evolved designs.
m might be called the "assembly disincentive".

Widespread adoption of a self-reproducing machine tool design seems
like it will have the effect of reducing m. On site, at the shop
floor, at the factory that builds the machien tool the way we do
things now, m 1. Out in the consumer market, m 1. Kinda makes me
want to be where m=1. Where would that be?

Probably in my home shop, or yours.

Doug (who is just tickled to drop by here again)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:14:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Aug 18, 1:42*pm, nick hull wrote:
In article ,
*"Leo Lichtman" wrote:

(clip) 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since this is a conceptual exercise, how about this option: *Order another
Supershop, and disassemble it. *You will then have all the parts required to
assemble a Supershop. *How is this different from disassembling your own
Supershop and then reassembling it? *Since this is no different from
disassembling my car and then reassembling it, could I say that my car is
capable of reproducing itself?

The difference is that the sum of the parts costs MUCH more than the
same parts assembled.

Yes, and that establishes one of several metrics by which self-
reproducing machine tool designs can be compared: If there are N parts
in a machine tool, and they cost m times the assembled price when
purchased as a set, then m is relevant. Also, if there are M distinct
parts in the set of N parts, then the ratio M/N is relevant. I haven't
named these ratios. but they are relevant. I feel like M/N should be
called the "distinctness fraction", with a value of 1 for an assembly
of distinct parts, and lower non-zero values for more evolved designs.
m might be called the "assembly disincentive".

Widespread adoption of a self-reproducing machine tool design seems
like it will have the effect of reducing m. On site, at the shop
floor, at the factory that builds the machien tool the way we do
things now, m 1. Out in the consumer market, m 1. Kinda makes me
want to be where m=1. Where would that be?

Probably in my home shop, or yours.

Doug (who is just tickled to drop by here again)


von Neumann Machine?

Sounds like my cats......


The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

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/

As Samuel Butler pointed out in his novel "Erewhon" more than a
century ago, machines can and do reproduce themselves with human
assistance. Frietas and Merkle call this auxilioproductive replication
in their review of the field, "Kinetic Self-Replicating Machines". The
whole point of the 5 exercises listed below is to collect information
on and devlop understanding of what is required to achieve such a
task.

I will intersperse a few comments below in the quoted material.

Doug

On Aug 24, 11:27*pm, (Curt Welch) wrote:
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?

I would "waste my time" on this because it's my life's work, and I
have made time to do it. Yes, I do plan to buy an entire set of
replacement parts. I plan on exploring all five options.



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.

Sometimes failed experiments bring new knowledge.


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 like that. May I use it?

I am not pretending humans aren't involved. Indeed, their involvment
is crucial.


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.

You and I have that intelligence.

For convenience, and since "auxilioproductive replicator" is such a
mouthful, we might call singly-closed self-reproducing machines tools
inentionally lacking energy and control closure "Butler machines".

On Aug 28, 9:19*am, wrote:

Personally I think you are wasting your time on an intellectual
exercise and if you do succeed Sarah Conner will come back and kick
your butt.

Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Aug 28, 9:19*am, wrote:

Personally I think you are wasting your time on an intellectual
exercise and if you do succeed Sarah Conner will come back and kick
your butt.

Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.


Hey Jim,

Not real fair. Doug has been dabbling with this concept for a long
long time, and brings up many a good engineering, machining,
mechanical, chemical, inventive and philosophical point from time to
time. It is at least as interesting to the RCM world outside the USA
as the spamming and slamming of any but died-in-the-wool neo-cons.

Keep up the good work Doug!!

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

ps Ummmmm....for us dummy's, or even just this one, who is Sarah
Connor, and where does she have to come back from?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:13:53 -0400, Brian Lawson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins ... wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:19Â*am, wrote:
....
Personally I think you are wasting your time on an intellectual exercise
and if you do succeed Sarah Conner will come back and kick your butt.

Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.
....
Not real fair. Doug has been dabbling with this concept for a long long
time, and brings up many a good engineering, machining, mechanical,
chemical, inventive and philosophical point from time to time. It is at
least as interesting to the RCM world outside the USA as the spamming
and slamming of any but died-in-the-wool neo-cons.
....
ps Ummmmm....for us dummy's, or even just this one, who is Sarah
Connor, and where does she have to come back from?

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Connor_(Terminator) , "Sarah
Jeanette Connor is a fictional character, the heroine of the first two
Terminator films and the television series Terminator: The Sarah Connor
Chronicles." But perhaps you're just pretending not to know? You
spelled her name correctly, and Jim Wilkins didn't.

-jiw

On Aug 28, 11:13 am, Brian Lawson wrote:
....
ps Ummmmm....for us dummy's, or even just this one, who is Sarah
Connor, and where does she have to come back from?

The concept of Terminator is that self-replicating robots take over
and kill the humans. The people whose work leads to them have good
intentions and don't see the abuse potential. Sarah Connor is the
mother of the future leader of the resistance who tries to protect him
from time-traveling robots that come back to kill him.

It's just fiction and not really first-class sci-fi at that, although
there's been some interesting acting in the series. It's why
Schwartzenegger is called "Governator".

I watch the TV version only to see what loopy stunts Summer Glau will
pull off. In the sci-fi TV series "Firefly" and its movie "Serenity"
her character was as crazy and dangerous as Hannibal Lector with
rabies. She plays the good(?) robot with the cold creepy stare like an
owl watching a mouse.

Maybe I'm just old and bitter but I've helped develop a lot of other
people's ideas and inventions and then watched many of them die
because they were too early for the technology or too late for the
market or more fun to do than practical, which is my impression of the
self-replicating machine tool concept. The Segway is one of them, it
certainly isn't dead but it didn't change the world as hoped either.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

big snip
The Segway is one of them, it
certainly isn't dead but it didn't change the world as hoped either.

Have you seen Toyota's Segway knock-off? The Winglet. See:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396261,00.html

http://www.vitalsignsreport.com/arti...hp?entry=24531

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/01/t...-we-dont-know/

I guess they figure it is worth emulating or something...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

wrote:

On Aug 24, 11:27=A0pm, (Curt Welch) wrote:

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. =A0For 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 like that. May I use it?

Sure.

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

On Aug 28, 2:20*pm, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

wrote:

big snip

The Segway is one of them, it
certainly isn't dead but it didn't change the world as hoped either.

Have you seen Toyota's Segway knock-off? The Winglet. See:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396261,00.html

http://www.vitalsignsreport.com/arti...hp?entry=24531

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/01/t...-to-usurp-segw...

I guess they figure it is worth emulating or something...

--
Leon Fisk

There was some bad stuff like a 2o7 cookie in that last link, and
Zonealarm blocked 12 intrusion attempts.

It isn't that hard to make a self-balancing machine, only hard to make
it safe.

On Aug 28, 9:32*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:19*am, wrote:

Personally I think ...

No rebuttal?

Much of the space program fits the impractical category although I'd
work on it for free.

I didn't, the [mumble] program paid for my house, cars and machine
tools.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

snip
There was some bad stuff like a 2o7 cookie in that last link, and
Zonealarm blocked 12 intrusion attempts.

If you are really concerned about "cookies" you best stay
off the Internet. You can't get anywhere much nowadays
without accepting them, BUT you don't have to keep them
around after you get what you wanted...

I've been messing with Google's cookies for years now. I'll
leave them for several days and then edit them a bit.
Nothing like feeding some bogus crap back into their system.
They always catch it and feed me a new set of numbers, but
it gives their techs something to do setting up validating
routines and such.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Aug 29, 2:51 pm, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
snip

There was some bad stuff like a 2o7 cookie in that last link, and
Zonealarm blocked 12 intrusion attempts.

If you are really concerned about "cookies" you best stay
off the Internet. You can't get anywhere much nowadays
without accepting them,...

IE6 is set to accept first party and session, prompt for third-party,
which I usually then add to the blocked list. Only Enco chokes on this
setting so they get to mail me the paper catalog. This is why I
usually use Harbor Freight to illustrate various tools.

I only noticed the 2o7 with a new user account with restricted
priviledges for browsing that hasn't build up a large blocked list
yet.

I've been messing with Google's cookies for years now. I'll
leave them for several days and then edit them a bit.
Leon Fisk

Good one!

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:19:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I would "waste my time" on this because it's my life's work, and I
have made time to do it. Yes, I do plan to buy an entire set of
replacement parts. I plan on exploring all five options.

In that case, the Hommel, or something like that, might interest you.
The way I figure it, the Hommel can make replicas of each part of
itself except the castings, which are cast, not machined, but some
slight design changes could allow you to use milled steel parts
instead of the castings. Also, the bed of the Hommel is too big to be
conveniently milled on the bed of the Hommel, at least it looks that
way to me. But if you have TWO Hommels, you might somehow stick their
beds together end-to-end to allow bigger work.

Here's a link to the Hommel:

http://www.lathes.co.uk/hommel/

Next, a page in German. Many pictures, and some dude shows a Hommel
converted to CNC:

http://www.enhydralutris.de/Hommel/index.html

Another very good page, but it seems to be broken at the moment:

http://www.uwg-hommel.de/

Perhaps this is not exactly what you're looking for, but I hope it
might at least provide some inspiration. It's a lovely machine.

Best wishes,
S.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Aug 28, 9:19*am, wrote:

Personally I think you are wasting your time on an intellectual
exercise and if you do succeed Sarah Conner will come back and kick
your butt.

Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.

Completely different set of skills needed, and you know that, so why
mention it? (Not that I wouldn't be happy to see such a battery, but I
wouldn't expect the OP to make one.)

S.

On Aug 30, 10:10*am, Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.

Completely different set of skills needed, and you know that, so why
mention it? (Not that I wouldn't be happy to see such a battery, but I
wouldn't expect the OP to make one.)
S.

I am impressed by the range of DG's skills and don't think it's an
unreasonable shift. I'd pick it up again but with EPA regulations
chemistry isn't a home project any more.

Have you considered pancake motors milled from circuit board material
for actuators? Maybe with those and interferometric or other remote
position sensors a mother machine with intelligence could make and
control daughter copies of its mechanical design. Perhaps it could
carve the parts from bar and rod stock with a die grinder.

On Aug 30, 10:06*am, Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:19:15 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:

I would "waste my time" on this because it's my life's work, and I
have made time to do it. Yes, I do plan to buy an entire set of
replacement parts. I plan on exploring all five options.

In that case, the Hommel, or something like that, might interest you.
The way I figure it, the Hommel can make replicas of each part of
itself except the castings, which are cast, not machined, but some
slight design changes could allow you to use milled steel parts
instead of the castings. Also, the bed of the Hommel is too big to be
conveniently milled on the bed of the Hommel, at least it looks that
way to me. But if you have TWO Hommels, you might somehow stick their
beds together end-to-end to allow bigger work.

Here's a link to the Hommel:

http://www.lathes.co.uk/hommel/
.....
Yes, I asked the site's adminitrator, Tony Griffiths, to separate out
the universal machines with a header "Combination Machines", at
http://www.lathes.co.uk/index.html, and the Hommel is listed there,
abou t75% into the page as you scroll down. It is a candidate for self-
reproduction, and so are all the other universal machines listed
there. I gaze at those photos for hours thinking of configuring the
subject machine to make a part of itself. Ideally, I'd have a zillion
dollars and one of each of those universal machines to evaluate.
Practically, I have the Super Shop only, and Autocad Inventor LT 2009,
the demo edition. Big gap.

Doug

On Aug 30, 11:31*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:10*am, Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
Develop a rechargeable aluminum battery.

Completely different set of skills needed, and you know that, so why
mention it? (Not that I wouldn't be happy to see such a battery, but I
wouldn't expect the OP to make one.)
S.

I am impressed by the range of DG's skills and don't think it's an
unreasonable shift. I'd pick it up again but with EPA regulations
chemistry isn't a home project any more.

Have you considered pancake motors milled from circuit board material
for actuators? Maybe with those and interferometric or other remote
position sensors a mother machine with intelligence could make and
control daughter copies of its mechanical design. Perhaps it could
carve the parts from bar and rod stock with a die grinder.

You know, I have a lot of experience with Kollmorgen pancake motors.
I've disassembled and modified them for the MOEPED. And I knew you
could mill PC traces from stock, but I'd rejected computer control
because there's such a large gap between the scale on which
reproduction is done: great heavy lumps of cast iron, versus
lithographed integrated circuits. My vision is for machine tools
operated manually to reproduce after the fashion of those outlawed in
Samuel Butler's 1879 novel "Erewhon". So we're talking about
auxilioprodutive, subtractive, universal, self-reproducing machine
tool, making "one-off" copies of themselves.

A single pancake rotor made subtractively is a fine achievement and
adds depth to the universality of such a machine, but...well...how do
you wind a one-off armature? By hand, of course. That is included in
the scope of the term auxilioproductive. But then where do the
armature pieces come from? Ay, there's the rub!

Efficient motors usually use stamped and varnished armature pieces
stacked and then wound. Such pieces must be stamped to minimize the
hysteresis induced by machining. So we'd need to mill a copper board
to be a rotor, but then mill out hundreds of armature bits and live
with a little less efficiency. Chemical milling of such pieces is
strain-free, but the resultant torrent of chemical waste is entirely
antithetical to the zero-impact soul of the effort. I don't see a
compromise; do any of you here see one?

Doug

wrote:

....

Chemical milling of such pieces is
strain-free, but the resultant torrent of chemical waste is entirely
antithetical to the zero-impact soul of the effort. I don't see a
compromise; do any of you here see one?

EDM?

On Aug 31, 1:52*pm, wrote:

You know, I have a lot of experience with Kollmorgen pancake motors.

Doug

I thought of another one.

The mechanical part is two or more robot arms with the elbow upward
like a backhoe. The wrist is a hollow rotating flange you attach tools
or grabbers to.

Arms like this can be made from aluminum bar stock with brass tubing
bearings.

There is one or more upright posts or blocks on the base that serves
as the zero reference and a work support, so to cut off a bar one arm
holds the bar against the posts while the other one saws it, pulling
straight inward so flex doesn't change the cut line. This way it can
saw out all its links, tubing and shafts.

It drills pivot holes with a Dremel and carbide ball cutter. First it
roughs out the center of the hole, ignoring its positional errors,
then it spirals out, taking lighter cuts to reduce deflection. Finally
it asks you to ream the hole and insert a brass bushing that it cut
from tubing.

Pivot shafts are held by snap rings. It saws their grooves by holding
the shaft against the rest and rotating the wrist.

The actuators are water hydraulics. The cylinders are sawed fron
tubing, the pistons and ends are carved from thin brass sheet, stacked
and soldered. This gives the O ring grooves smooth sides. You also
solder the closed end on to avoid threads. The mother contains the
water pump and controls until you figure out how it can make its own
power source..

The wrist could be driven by purchased bevel gears on shafts it cuts
to length. It might be able to make a worm and a worm wheel with
square threads.

Initially the position feedback could be fishline winding off spools
with encoders. A later version could use sonar or optics controlled by
the mother machine with only a reflector etc on the daughters.

Using rod and soldered brass tubing reduces the turning to a minimum.
As far as possible the machining is only sawing stock to length and
drilling relatively rough holes. The mother machine learns to
compensate for play in the joints somewhat but the big help is resting
the work against a stop and using partially self-guiding cutters such
as saw blades.

You buy all the small hardware and standard metal shapes, and you
assemble the parts after it makes them. Assume that wire and all
electronics are too complicated to make and buy them.