Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Towards Self-Replicating Rapid Prototypers

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Mar 17, 2005 09:03 PM
from the tea-earl-grey-hot dept.
Neil Halelamien writes "Researchers at the University of Bath are developing a rapid prototyping machine capable of making copies of itself and other products, reminiscent of the Universal Constructor proposed by von Neumann. The so-called Replicating Rapid-Prototyper (or RepRap) would produce items from raw materials and small components like microchips. If successful, this could make rapid prototyping cheap enough for regular in-home usage, especially since the project's lead, Dr. Adrian Bowyer, will be releasing his project's designs under the GNU GPL. It's previously been proposed that a similar system would be useful for space exploration and industrialization."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The RIAA has finally met their match...
  • Great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:05PM (#11971705)
    Black holes mentioned earlier, now self-replicating robots. We're screwed.
  • Is anybody else thinking of the replicators from Stargate SG-1? But assuming we find the weapon of the ancients in time, then yes, this sounds awesome.
  • This is interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Koiu Lpoi (632570) <koiulpoi AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:09PM (#11971728)
    Such a machine would have a number of interesting characteristics, such as being subject to Darwinian evolution, I have always been interested in applying evolution to computer chips - the randomness and efficiency of evolution is going to find better ways of doing things than our current methods, and is also just damn cool to know your computer chip is analogous to a living 'species'.
    • Bah, buy an FPGA, those can already do this for the most part since their hardware interactions are software driven...
    • Ok, randomness, maybe, but efficiency? I don't think so - according to most scientists, it took 11 billion years to get as far as we are today! I certainly hope that the human mind is a little bit smarter than blind randomness. If we're going to hop in chance for scientific discovery, technological breakthroughs are going to come to a screeching halt.
      • it's html, crippled html
      • It's slashcode. If you just want to type text, you can turn off the HTML formatting.

        Newlines aren't considered significant in HTML, except for <pre> elements and maybe <code> or <ecode>

        I typed this message using the extrans (html tags to text) and keyed in newlines where you see them.
        • Sorry for the formatting of the following paragraph, but it is to prove a point.

          Slashcode has been behaving interestingly for a few years now.
          Using only Plain Old Text you can insert

          any of the

          allowed

          HTML tags.

          • Allow

          me

          1. to show

          you.
          If you will.

          Note

          how

          these last two spaces happened without any formatting tags.

          Showing that this is, indeed, Plain Old Text mode.

          Sorry for the formatting of the following paragraph, but it is to prove a point.

          Slashcode has been behaving <i>interestingly</i

        • by ncohen (847816) on Friday March 18 2005, @02:02AM (#11973317)
          Yeah I read about this in The Science of Discworld which is a really great read overall. I remembered enough for google to provide the rest. Here is a link to the homepage of the guy who ran the experiment
          http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adria nth/ade.html

          Cheers.
      • I don't have the time to wait around for evolution to work its course.
        Ahh...but nature had the time to bring you into being. It took a few billion years but here you are now.
        Ponder this! Your very attitude of impatience is a product of evolution in of itself. So naturally, your just a tool of evolution through your own means of inovation and progress deamed worthwhile at YOUR own pace.
  • by iminplaya (723125) <.iminplaya. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:09PM (#11971730) Journal
    This will be GPL'd. I don't know how the copyright cartels would react if a machine could make illegal copies of itself.
    • I don't know how the copyright cartels would react if a machine could make illegal copies of itself.

      Creaming their pants, most likely... just imagine... 1) plant in "customer" network, 2) wait and watch it "grow", 3)then send in the BSA goons for some profit^H^H^H^H^H^H liscence violations... it'd be like money that grew on trees.

      And that's not mentioning all the money to be made for the liscence compliance software "White Blood Cell" that seeks out and destroys these illegally spawned copies on the custom

    • Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Saeger (456549) <farrellj@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:47PM (#11972317) Homepage
      I don't know how the copyright cartels would react if a machine could make illegal copies of itself.

      As molecular manufacturing(1) matures, I'd venture to guess that the new artificial scarcity cartels that emerge will be MUCH nastier. Something scary, like the MANWO (Manufacturers Association of the New World Order) :-)

      Right now the means of digital [re]production is available to all, and it's got a few copyright-extending control-freaks pissed about losing their empire. When you get to thinking about the implications of the means of physical [re]production being democratized, then you start getting dizzy wondering how society and the scarcity-based trade economy will reorganize itself (hopefully without much chaos).

      ((1)Note that this ultimate goal is now called "molecular manufacturing", since the previous general term of "nanotechology" has been co-opted by buzzword PR people to mean whatever they want it to mean.)

  • by YamadaJiro (596154) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:12PM (#11971751)
    If the good doctor were to suddenly die in the next four years, I'd start lining my baseball caps.
  • by FleaPlus (6935) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:14PM (#11971761) Homepage Journal
    Oh darn... the editors cut out my link to the Wikipedia article on von Neumann's Universal Constructor (i.e. clanking replicator). Here it is:

    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Constructor [wikipedia.org]

    From the article:

    A clanking replicator is an artificial self-replicating system that relies on conventional large-scale technology and automation. The term evolved to distinguish such systems from the microscopic "assemblers" that nanotechnology may make possible. ...

    Such a machine violates no physical laws, and we already possess the basic technologies necessary for some of the more detailed proposed designs.

    A self-replicating machine would need to have the capacity to gather energy and raw materials, process the raw materials into finished components, and then assemble them into a copy of itself. It is unlikely that this would all be contained within a single monolithic structure, but would rather be a group of cooperating machines or an automated factory that is capable of manufacturing all of the machines that make it up. The factory could produce mining robots to collect raw materials, construction robots to put new machines together, and repair robots to maintain itself against wear and tear, all without human intervention or direction. The advantage of such a system lies in its ability to expand its own capacity rapidly and without additional human effort; in essence, the initial investment required to construct the first clanking replicator would have an arbitrarily large payoff with no additional cost.


    On a completely different note, does anyone else remember the Slylandro probes [classicgaming.com] from Star Control 2?
    • by flyingsquid (813711) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:28PM (#11971855)
      A self-replicating machine would need to have the capacity to gather energy and raw materials, process the raw materials into finished components, and then assemble them into a copy of itself.

      Apparently there already is a self-replicating system out there; the system is capable of manufacturing virtually any kind of tool, machine or technology known. To make new copies of itself, it uses only common materials from the environment- water, oxygen, vegetable matter, protein, and that kind of thing. Unfortunately, top computer scientists and engineers are having trouble figuring out the self-replication process. Apparently, it involves some mysterious mechanism known as "sex", which takes place with a "woman". Anyone else know any more about this?

  • by simrook (548769) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:16PM (#11971770)
    Unless it can make me tea, I can't say I'm interested... then again... think about the new abilities to piss the RIAA/MPAA/USGOV off with this? It would make downloading music seem like childs play next to making an all plastic car **cough** **cough** saturn **cough** **cough** that I downloaded the blue prints from alt.binaries.replicator.cars.

    Really though, I find the adoption timeline to bit a little bit optomistic... 5 to 10 years for it to become common place in homes? It's taken 5 to 10 years for the internet to catch on, and that doesn't require bulky equipment. Perhaps in the next 50 years before I'm gone, but not in 5 to 10.

    My 2cents...

    But man, I'd live a childhood fantsay to order my tea from a replicator.
  • The only thing that worries me about self replicating machines is the "grey goo" problem. This is pretty much only an issue with nanotech replicators, I don't see it happening with this approach. For those not familiar with the term, the grey goo issue is when self replicating machines go out of control and turn everything into copies of themselves, rather than the target material. Altho the approach described in the article won't work with all metal alloys or glass, it's very likely that this type of ma
  • Huge economic change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:18PM (#11971790)
    A rapid prototyping machine that can reproduce itself is a kind of holy grail. When we get that, we have something that can bootstrap itself. This would be the Santa Claus machine that we have long dreamed of. One of the major proponents of this has been Don Lancaster. His site is the link below.

    www.tinaja.com/santa01.html

    Once everyone has a machine in their basement, the economy of the world will be turned on its ear. Consumer goods will cost only the price of their materials. The cheap labor advantage of India and China will vanish. The nature of products will change. Right now, it makes no sense to make something repairable. It is cheaper to build something that can't be fixed and throw it away. When we get very distributed manufacturing however, things will be built with only one or two raw materials. Things will be built so they are easy to assemble. It would make sense to build a new heating element for your coffee pot. Waste would go down. Recycling would become much more immediate and local. People would share designs the way we now share open source software. Quite a different world would result.
    • by Atario (673917) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:42PM (#11972285) Homepage

      Right now, it makes no sense to make something repairable. It is cheaper to build something that can't be fixed and throw it away. When we get very distributed manufacturing however, things will be built with only one or two raw materials. Things will be built so they are easy to assemble. It would make sense to build a new heating element for your coffee pot.

      I think you have that exactly backwards. It is only the high cost of manufacturing a new instance of something (above a certain price limit) that lets us repair anything at all now. If we had make-anything machines, we would not repair anything. We would simply feed the broken thing into the machine's materials hopper (perhaps with a lil' something extra in case of lost parts) and tell it to make a new one. New lamps for old -- literally.

      N.B.: If the make-anything machine uses a high enough amount of energy, this could still be uneconomical and your repair scenario might make more sense. Alternately, you could consider the re-creation process to be a kind of ultimate repair.

      Waste would go down.

      You got that much right. In fact, garbage dumps might become valuable mines of material.

      • If the make-anything machine uses a high enough amount of energy ...

        How much energy does it take nature to grow a potato using only sunlight and the available nutrients in soil and air? How much energy for it to be broken down in some animals stomach and eventually return to Earth? Ideally a make-anything replicator shouldn't be that much less efficient except for objects with molecular bonds that take much more energy to make and break, and even then, it only makes sense to break the object down into reu

  • will be releasing his project's designs under the GNU GPL

    The GPL is not for matter, it's for bits.

    This is aweomse, now the farmer can just replicate anything he need, and doesnt have to waste all his time growing me food to eat! Woohoo! Not that I'll be able to pay for food anyway, since noone will have any need to bu yanything I make either.

    That said, this is still decades away :)
  • From the project homepage cited in the item:

    Such a machine would have a number of interesting characteristics, such as being subject to Darwinian evolution, increasing in number exponentially, and being extremely low-cost.

    Exponentially? Theyre going to need materials and energy for that. And where is all that material and energy going to come from? Hmm... in the competition between machine life and organic life, who will win? Will the machines ever believe their ancestors were made of meat [terrybisson.com]?

  • by G4from128k (686170) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:44PM (#11971952)
    I think self-replicating machines might be further in the future that this article suggests. I notice, for example, that the little robot contains several crucial non-self-replicated components such as the chips, motors, rubber tires, and batteries. This leads to thoughts of a complete list of the materials needed for a true self-replicator. These materials, and the self-replicating systems to handle them, must provide capabilties that include:
    1. Structure: The core parts of the device need a strong, stable material that can hold everything together.
    2. Motion: The device needs materials that convert energy into mechanical motion. These materials might include electromagnetics, electrostatics, piezoelectrics, shape-memory alloys, chemo-dynamic protein muscles, thermodynamic cycle systems, etc. Each of these types of motion-creating materials has special needs/chemicals that might require special handling devices that, in turn, must be made out of the materials in the self-replicating device. Motion is often tricky because it requires specialized assemblies of materials (think of the complexity of a simple DC electric motor or the gears and linkages in a robotic arm).
    3. Control: The device needs some form of logic that can read some analog of a blue-print, ROM, DNA, etc. and direct the fabrication process. If based on standard electronics, this would include materials that act as insulators, conductors, and semiconductors.
    4. Power: This may be the trickiest because creating sufficient power requires purified, highly engineered materials. Self-replicating a modern alkaline battery would be quite a feat. Perhaps the semiconductor technology of the control materials could be leveraged for solar panels.
    I suspect that one of the trickiest part of all this is in handling and converting bulk materials (usually a liquid, powder, or solid ingot) into a shaped and controlled component or assembly. The replicator must interface with raw materials supplies, move bulk materials to a fabrication point, and convert the bulk material into a usable component in its offspring. Space exploring self-replicators face an even greater challenge of processing raw space materials (moon rock, asteroidal metals, etc.) into refined feed-stocks for replication.

    Its a tricky problem, but one that we will eventually solve.
    • First generation self-replicating machines will simply consider electronic components (or DC motors) "natural ressources".

      You as the user will buy 1 pack of plastic, one pack of metal and one pack of varied electronic components (expect many flavors to this kind of pack).

      Those pack will be extremely useful for other gpl-hardware writers (don't forget that anything that uses the code of the original machine is GPLed too!).

      As the system gets more evolved you might have to buy 7 different metals and then ma
  • by PxM (855264) on Thursday March 17 2005, @09:50PM (#11971988)
    While the idea of a 3D printer cheap enough for personal use /is/ going to revolutionize the world by making certain real items as cheap as software, the part about it being a von Neumann machine is overrated. The article just mentions it in passing and there is no evidence that he's actually figured out how to do that. That's been one of the holy grails of engineering since it was proposed. The article doesn't mention whether the materials used will be recyclable. Since everyone and their grandmother will start spitting out objects if they have this and since it would probably be cheaper to build a new object rather than repairing an old one, mass use of UCs will produce tons of waste. Imagine if you could never delete any file on your computer but could create more easily. You would run out of space very quickly.

    BTW, for a good book on the social implications of cheap universal constructors, I suggest the Stephenson's book Diamond Age.

    --
    Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof [wired.com]
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:02PM (#11972069) Homepage
    Basically, they spent some time playing with a rapid-prototyping machine that builds solids up from ABS. Then they made what's basically a printed circuit board. But they did it by making a blank board with slots for the "wires" and metal parts, then pouring in a low-melting-point metal to create "wiring".

    All this was done in a very crude way, as if they were developing a process for home use. Their metal casting technique is scary. They used "Wood's Metal", which is a solder-like alloy of tin, lead, cadmium, and bismuth. All of which are toxic. Lead and cadmium cause heavy-metal poisoning, and the body won't clear either of them. No serious precautions seem to have been taken against inhalation - they just used gloves. At one point they tried powdered metal, which is much more of an inhalation hazard than molten liquid. They need to run their people through the usual checks for heavy-metal poisoning.

    There are rapid prototyping machines that deposit metal [prometal.com], and that's probably a more useful direction.

    All this is a long, long way from self-replication.

    • >All of which are toxic

      Bismuth is in Pepto-Bismol and tin in in some toothpastes (look for "stannous fluoride"), though I think it's no longer in "tin cans".

      Back on topic, isn't the right way to do this to build an ecosystem of specialized assemblers? Adam Smith's famous pin factory showed the advantage of division of labor for an industrial process. In nature, we don't have any single life form that fixes nitrogen, photosythesizes, and aerates soil.

      It looks like they're on track for a build-most-thin
  • by jrieffel (868734) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:11PM (#11972117)
    I'm not sure what the big deal is about this particular rapid prototyping machine at Bath. Hod Lipson's lab [cornell.edu] at Cornell, for instance, has been able to create a solid freeform fabrication [cornell.edu] system which can print plastic, metal, circuits, actuators, and even batteries! They are, in my opinion, much further along than the referenced article. Other related projects of include Chrikjian's [jhu.edu] work at Johns Hopkins, and Jordan Pollack's DEMO Lab at Brandeis University.
  • by MikShapi (681808) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:13PM (#11972128) Journal
    1. You buy an appliance that can manufacture a hell of a lot of stuff you use on a daily basis.

    Plus it can manufacture itself, so if you really want to, you can make a couple more. Personally, I think it'll take a while before a commercial entity will offer a product that will compete with it. It makes no financial sense. They'd sooner make an appliance that can manufacture anything *but* itself. But let's skip to the point where someone built a self-replicating machine, and much like gmail accounts, sooner than not everybody's got one for himself and 6 or 50 to give out to his friends.

    2. You stop buying a major percentage of the stuff you use on a daily basis.

    3. Some companies, from many sectors, who make stuff that you've been using go out of business. Not a bad thing in itself. Many whip-makers went out of business when cars were invented and horses stopped being the preferred means of travel. It's the natural course of technology.

    4. People make more and more stuff that they need out of raw materials.

    5. Raw materials become more scarce. No more plastics in the bin. Plastic Recycling plants get no more plastic cuz nobody's throwing it away anymore. The price on anything made from materials useable at home rises dramatically.

    6. Things we cannot manufacture at home yet which we still buy and are made of said materials, say your car, go up in price due to higher material costs.

    So you pay less for your plates and but more for your car.

    7. New content market: Designs. Expect the DIAA (you heard it here first).
    We'll be pirating our dishwasher plans from P2P, paying for raw materials, making it at home. Designers will be watermarking (plasticmarking) their designs. Ripping groups will be removing the marks. Machines whose designs we steal and which we built will call home over the net to activate unless we download a hacked version.

    This time around, it won't be just the music industry clinging to their antiquated business model. Suddenly every company that sold you a plate, cup, PDA case or pen will want to sell you PENS (where you pay per item) rather than a design of a pen (where you pay once to get the design). First they'll laugh at you, then they'll fight you (and this time around will probbably have a humongous lobby compared to what the RIAA has today), and then you'll win of course, those of the companies that managed to strip off the bulk of the no longer neccesary manufacturing from the price of what you buy making it to the next round.
    Change indeed.
    Like software or music, all over again.

  • by blahplusplus (757119) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:20PM (#11972153)
    Already exists, it's called life. Took us ... a few million years but we finally got around to getting to what life has had since well... 3 point something billion year ago.
  • by Simonetta (207550) on Friday March 18 2005, @12:37AM (#11972968)
    I worked for five years for a company that made rapid prototyping milling machines for circuit boards.
    The circuit board rapid prototyping machine was basically an X-Y plotter with a Dremell tool motor that moved up and down. It cut lines on the surface of a copper-coated fiberglass board.
    The cheapest machine to do this still cost about $10,000. Plus you had to have the PCB all ready laid out and ready for manufacture. It was slow, loud, and difficult to calibrate. I did a rewrite of the manual in English in order to clarify lots of little details needed for efficient operation. My rewrite came to 40 pages. And this is just to make a simple circuit like an op-amp buffer.
    The machine 'ate' milling tools like gumdrops, at about $17 each. One tiny mistake, and your board was toast. Our fearless leader couldn't grasp that our primary competition wasn't the other circuit board milling machine maker, it was SPICE and the offshore inexpensive board houses where you could e-mail your Gerber files and get back finished professional PCBs by FedEx letter within a few days at much less cost than the materials alone would cost for the milling machine.
    A great idea and product turned into a dead-end job, a white-elephant product, and a brick wall of cement-head management.

    The point is, any 'rapid prototyping' machine will have a long way to go before it does anything relevant and productive. It will be many decades before any machine attempting to claim to be a 'general-purpose' rapid-prototyping machine will be anything more than a very expensive laboratory curiosity; the subject of speculative psuedo-scientific articles just this side of the science-fiction line.
    • You can get a bridgeport 2.5 dimensional vertical mill off ebay for about $1500. A kit to convert it to CNC will run you less than $5000. Using proper tooling, you can make thousands of PC boards without having to replace your bits, because copper is nothing to machine compared to steel.

      Granted, at the time you guys were doing this stuff, it might have been significantly more expensive, but it's not actually difficult today.

  • by Orne (144925) on Friday March 18 2005, @09:54AM (#11975209) Homepage
    I recall reading in my middle-school years (aka junior high) a rather unique story about replicating robots. The story was written in the 1960s-1970s

    Essentially, the premise is that a meteor falls out of the sky one night, where it is observed by a few people. When they arive at the site, it is bustling with miniature robots. They call the government, and the gov shows up to observe, but by then the robots have built little buildings. Some robots are strip-mining, and they eventually build a little refinery, then more robots, then a bigger refinery... and a launch pad. By the end of the story (and by the time anyone realized they were in danger), the robots had built themselves little rockets, and were now shooting their seeds of new robot colonies around the country, soon to dominate the world, totally dispassionate for whatever was there to begin with... it just wasn't in their programming.

    To boil the story down, some long forgotten alien race had created the ultimate automated factory, traveling from star system to star system to collect rare materials, and ship it back for the long ride home at sub-light speeds. Its a self propagating system, that as they spread from system to system, asteroid to moon to planet, the geometric growth would provide their civilization every material they would ever need...
    • Good point- I wonder if it does blow up dolls?

      Man- when I was a kid- it was so hard to get porn. There was one magazine that was handed down year after year. Soon- kids will be able to download and manufacture their own sex toys. Man- I grew up in the wrong era.