Slashdot Log In
Fab
from the ulous dept.
I first heard of Gershenfeld and this book after listening to a podcast of a discussion he participated in at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference. I'm a programmer by day but in my pre-parenthood days, I played with a bunch of microcontrollers and simple robotics-related hardware (mostly motors and sensors). The idea of being able to fabricate anything I could think of appealed to me instantly.
Gershenfeld asserts that personal fabrication tools are developing along a path very similar to the one taken by computers. Computers were once large, expensive, complicated machines accessible only to skilled operators. Now they are much more accessible and have evolved to the point that most people can make use of them to some degree. Machine tools, at best, are still at the mainframe-stage of evolution but that is changing rapidly. What happens when machine-building machines, which can manipulate atoms and molecules, are as accessible as computers are today?
Well, it turns out that machines already on the market can give you a pretty good sense of what's in store. While not quite at the level of Star Trek replicators or Nutri-Matic dispensers from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (both, oddly enough, seem to be mostly used to make tea or something almost, but not entirely, unlike tea), fabrication machines are getting smaller, and cheaper. Some of the tools discussed in the book include:
- desktop milling machines : affordable
- sign cutters : novel uses including cutting copper sheets into traces for circuit boards
- laser cutters : very expensive
- waterjet cutters : very expensive but extremely useful
- 3D printers : expensive and slow, but very cool
- functional material printers : print resistors and capacitors into circuits a layer at a time
- microcontrollers : powerful and cheap
- CAD software : difficult to use
- CNC machines : expensive, difficult to use
The longest section of the book is called "The Present". The section is about the current state-of-the-art and it alternates between a chapter of anecdotes and project descriptions and a chapter on some aspect of fabrication (e.g. cutting tools, CAD software, electronics, etc...). By keeping the practical or social discussion next to the technical discussion, Gershenfeld makes what could be dry technical details accessible and engaging. It makes the book and the central ideas accessible even to (or perhaps especially to) non-technical readers.
In fact, the author has been very careful to not include too much technical detail in the text of the book. There are notes at the end with slightly more info, and a pointer to a website with some of the actual schematics and Python source code, but it is still very frustrating for a technically inclined reader who immediately wants to dial in on some of the details. The book will age better because of this, but it will send many Slashdotters running to their favorite search engine looking for more information.
The book includes a lot of illustrations and diagrams. They are all in black and white but have an inconsistent presentation. Sometimes the photos are presented on a weird background that looks like a network of circles and squares while others have no background. There are several photographs of circuits that do not add anything other than to show you how simple the circuit is (often just a microcontroller and a couple of other components). You usually cannot even make out what the individual components are or how anything is wired up. There are many photos of the people at the center of the stories and those pictures do manage to convey a sense of the awesome impact the tools have.
So, what's missing from the book? Personally I would have liked to see the technical appendix greatly expanded. I understand that this information doesn't age well and I'm guessing the author (or wise editor) didn't want to elaborate on the technical details for that reason. Fab is written for a very general and broad audience. Enough technical details are presented to keep the geeks reading, but it mostly wouldn't discourage a non-technical reader with the possible exception of the chapter on electronics. For a lot of Slashdot readers, the book definitely leaves you wanting more.
The chapters are generally under 20 pages each and the writing is fluid and simple. The book has a table of contents and a comprehensive index and even though Gershenfeld doesn't cite other publications in the text, I would have loved to see a bibliography or other list of materials that expand on the topic of personal fabrication. A few pointers from the author to complementary material would have been appreciated. The book definitely piqued my interest and fortunately, a little research has shown this to be a very active subject.
The book ends with a rather defensive look forward. There are many who feel self-reproducing machines could basically take over the planet. Gershenfeld acknowledges this and answers with his belief that any negative technologies that emerge will be fought with countermeasures, like the virus-antivirus battle on modern PC's. It's pretty much inevitable that evildoers will acquire this technology, but Gershenfeld is optimistic that fab labs can help address the root causes for conflict, largely assuaging any threat.
In summary, if the idea of having your own replicator is appealing (hello tea lovers!) or if you are interested in a new approach to giving people around the globe the tools they need to help themselves, then you will enjoy and likely be inspired by this book. Just be prepared to look elsewhere for the minutiae. I rate this book an 8/10.
You can purchase FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Except how to make an atom bomb (Score:4, Funny)
Are they even allowed to publish this kind of information? Or is it withheld under the PATRIOT act with the rest of our civil liberties?
--
NoVA Underground: Arlington, Alexandria, Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax County forums and chat [novaunderground.com]
Re:Except how to make an atom bomb (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, the author mentions that you've got a thermonuclear bomb after a piss-poor description of a fission bomb.
Secondly, in his description of a fission bomb, the author mixes up two different designs. In the one design ("Thin Man" and "Little Boy" approach), you impact two subcritical masses of Pu-238 together. The total mass/density of the combined material is supercritical, fission happens quickly, bang. In the second design ("Fat Man" approach), you have
Almost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not until I can replicate the replicator.
Re:Almost? (Score:3, Interesting)
Automated Fabrication (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Automated Fabrication (Score:3, Informative)
Weird Science (Score:4, Funny)
Anybody have the source code for Kelly LeBrock?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/ [imdb.com]
Breaking Vegas (Score:2)
Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Piracy (Score:4, Informative)
Building parts/objects for yourself doesn't benefit from mass production, and thus would tend to cost more. Perhaps some car components would have such a small margin in terms of mass production cost and personal production cost that it would outweigh transportation costs and profit margins for the auto manufacturers, but I doubt that most would.
Parent
Re:Piracy (Score:4, Informative)
1: Tooling. Lots of things usually require specialized tooling to manufacture quickly and efficiently. The cost of tooling can only be effectivly amortized when you use it a lot. This doesn't necessarily hold true when you can get same result with cheaper, more flexible tools.
2: Time. When you want to build a whole lot of something it makes sense to split up the job and assign people to different parallel tasks. This allows you to make more efficient use of labor. But the cost of the hobbyist's time is nil. They do it for fun.
Parent
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
The point I'm circuitously trying to reach? That manufacturing will become cheaper for your average enthusiast at a fas
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
That bread machine?
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
There will be no way for a very long time to use the fabrication methods that are discussed here to make various types of metals and metal parts that are needed for cars. Various metal parts require special mechanical processes to be applied to them to get the necessary physical properties - ellasticity, toughness etc. Of-course if cars will end up being made from composite carbon materials, then maybe it would me more possible, but not before we stop using old methods of st
Re:Piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, of course, that mass production is all about economies of scale. But distributed, personal-scale manufacturing has the potential to fuel innovation in a way that complements the centralized creation of manufactured goods. Specifically, folks who previously might not have been able to see their ideas turn into real hardware will be able to build stuff. In addition, putting small scale
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
On a pointles side note, since you mention Mennonites, I spent a summer working on a ranch out in the jungle in Belize. While there, just through a weird combination of events, I ended up watching South Park on my powerbook with a mennonite in the back of a pickup truck. He seemed fascinated by it.
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
If you want IKEA junk you are cheaper to buy from them. Want quality furniture made of real wood, something that will fetch high dollars 100 years from now in a antique store, then you can make it yourself for less.
IKEA is cheaper because they don't make the desk fit exactly where you want it. You have to settle for MDF (which is good for some things, but won't hold beauty like real wood). Eventully you scratch it, and the IKEA stuff is tossed, while the real wood is refinished again and again.
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
Most of what I make is done with a finish grade plywood (birch/maple), and pretty straight forwards. Rarely do I use more expensive woods, and I don't have any skills in carving and the like. I'm not even that good at staining.
Making good "antique store" quality furniture takes a whole lot of skill
Re: Copying Classic Car Parts (Score:2)
Yes, this is very interesting if you think about classic car parts for example. If there were a cost effective way to create the various doors, quarterpanels, trim, etc for that 57 bel air you always wanted then some very interesting things could happen.
Then mix in simplified
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
I can't see myself spending a whole weekend milling 50 different gaskets and the next weekend milling out 300 little plastic clips to hold the bodywork on and the next weekend
You'd still have to buy hoses, springs, seats, pipes, filters...
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I disagree. I am actually building a homebrew CNC router. Does it take time and some skill? Yes. Is it expensive? Depends, all the components for mine have cost ~$2,000USD.
Now, the ability to mfg anything that pops into my head is truly amazing! Many products I were thinking of buying, I am now designing my own versions - and planning on selling them too!
I think that is the big thing. Who needs to pay some Giant Mega-Corp when I can make the product myself?
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Question. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Fab is the first step (Score:5, Funny)
Neil is excitable, but not a very rigorous thinker (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know (Score:3, Interesting)
I own a thermal printer and sign cutter, it cost more than the car I brought it home in and it's relatively cheap for what it is. I would have never considered buying it if I didn't intend to make money with it.
Re:I don't know (Score:3, Insightful)
- Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone in the right state of mind will want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, President of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977.
Not unless they fab brainwashing nanomachines... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid that's a pretty materialistic analysis - assuming scarcity of goods is the root of all conflict - and it misses at least two other root causes that are not easily addressed by improved production.
The first is psychopathy. About 1% of the human race has a mental defect that amounts to having no conscience. Think "color blindness", but with moral behavior / internalizing others' pain, rather than color. (Another couple percent learn to act as if they have no conscience, but that's a social/upbringing issue.)
A large fraction of these people don't learn how to compensate, and a lot of those don't think ahead to long-term consequences to themselves from their actions. Such people will do whatever pleases them, which includes such things as creating a new virus (computer style or molecular, depending on available technology) just to see how much havoc it can cause.
Improving production won't address this root cause. Indeed, to address it directly may require brain surgery or its nanotechnological equivalent. This may be within the scope of the fabrication technology. But deploying technology to rewrite peoples' brains in order to suppress a class of destructive behavior starts down a very slippery slope.
A second is ideological: Adherence to a belief system (especially a political and/or religious belief system) allowing, or even prescribing, the initiation of deadly force in response in various situations.
If such a situation is perceived, the adherent with access to such technology may utilize it to create the deadly force. And in a classic case of asymmetric warfare, empowering individuals simply increases the ability of small numbers of people to create large amounts of damage. (Examples: Adherents to a confused splinter of such an ideology, mainstreamers who have perceived a threat where none existed, or mainstreamers who perceived an ACTUAL threat and overreacted).
"Addressing" this "root cause" would again involve attempting to modify peoples' mindsets. And most such ideologies include, at the top of the list of situations where deadly force is mandated, attempts to suppress the ideology. "Addressing the root cause" creates the very apocalypse you're trying to prevent.
This is not to say that the technology should be suppressed: On the contrary. It holds enormous promist for actually eliminating the root causes of many sorts of conflict. And it may be enabling for real solutions that would demotivate some of these hard cases. Cheaper resources are generally good for problem solving, making more solutions accessable.
But counting on it to "address", or even "help address", ALL the "root causes of conflict", IMHO, expects too much from it. Some of these will need solutions that don't come out of fabrication technology.
Re:Not unless they fab brainwashing nanomachines.. (Score:2)
There can be no paradise on earth as long as the nastier bits of our evolutionary psychology are still holding us back. Egomaniacal, power-hungry, sociopaths (many of whom are now CEOs and politicians) may have been genetically successful in the past, but with increasing technological power, that mi
nice hobby (Score:4, Insightful)
However, all of those devices are still far from being "desktop fabs": they cannot create complex machinery, they require manual intervention, they require expertise to operate, they require expensive manufactured manufactured materials, and they certainly cannot replicate themselves. It will take a lot of engineering to address those problems, and that kind of engineering will not come from a bunch of publicity-hungry futurists.
At the Fab Lab (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest source of dissapointment is that, due to litigation concerns, the Boston Fab doesn't have access to the same breadth of equipment as some of the labs abroad. That being said, there is a lot of interesting stuff to be done there. So no TIG welder for me (or the plasma cutter. Damn!)
The biggest challenge is ditching preconceptions of what can and can't be accomplished with the current technology, and learning to work with the available materials. Bring on the plexiglass, cardboard, wood and PCBs. And machining wax, for making molds.
I have a few pictures up from my first session (he cringed): Fab Lab Pics [chromecow.com].
I should have some more pictures of finished projects up soon, and those I'll post on the Fab Lab site, SETC [mit.edu].
My homebuilt router (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a subject that has interested me for quite a while now. The biggest limitation at the moment seems to be the software that is needed in order to make complex objects.
I've designed and built a computer controled (CNC) 6-axis router using easily available parts. I estimate that the whole thing could be built for $500-$1500, depending upon how good you are at scrounging parts.
I have a gallery of photos at CNCZone, as well as a [cnczone.com] site for the control software [sourceforge.net] at SourceForge.
Open Source RepRap Project (Score:3, Informative)
http://reprap.org/ [reprap.org]
A universal constructor is a machine that can replicate itself and - in addition - make other industrial products. 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.
A rapid prototyper is a machine that can manufacture objects directly (usually, though not necessarily, in plastic) under the control of a computer.
The project described in these pages is working towards creating a universal constructor by using rapid prototyping, and then giving the results away free under the GNU General Public Licence to allow other investigators to work on the same idea. We are trying to prove the hypothesis: Rapid prototyping and direct writing technologies are sufficiently versatile to allow them to be used to make a von Neumann Universal Constructor.
CP / Diamond Age Weapons Fabs, Insurance (Score:2)
-people making weapon systems with these things.
Imagine if the Sunni/Baathist/aQ types could fab high quality gun tubes or missile parts- a lot more Strykers would be dead.
The chaos inherent in the release of unlimited fab powers was a major element in both these futures.
And of course there is the dark Ogre future in which the fabs are controlled by nuclear-armed AI tanks,
Re:CP / Diamond Age Weapons Fabs, Insurance (Score:2)
A rumor of course, but an interessting one nonetheless.
Rapid prototyping, etc (Score:4, Interesting)
The various technologies that essentially rasterize arbitrary parts are what excite the imagination, but I don't expect any radical changes in society any time soon from them. Stereolithography is pretty mature, and getting arbitrary parts rasterized in plastic is fairly common today. However, in 99% of the cases, these are still used as models / proof of concept / R&D, not actual manufacturing, because they are drastically more expensive than, say, injection molding, and more mechanically limited. There are a lot of technologies touted for rasterizing 3D metal parts, but I spent some time recently trying to find a place to fab modest sized rocket engines, and none of the companies I spoke with were able to handle it for various reasons.
I do expect this to become very exciting, but it is several years away. The excitement won't be about fabricating things that you currently buy (conventional mass production will retain significant cost benefits), but allowing low cost R&D. When you can send an arbitrary 3D CAD model over the net to a company with a metal rapid prototyping machine (they will remain expensive for quite some time) and get your part overnighted to you in a couple days with no setup fees, you will be able to iterate design cycles twice a week at quite low expense. You can do this today with plastic, and in some limited cases of small metal parts, but when you can start doing it in significant engineering materials that can be used in functional prototype machines, lots of new opportunities will arise.
John Carmack
Re:Rapid prototyping, etc (Score:2, Interesting)
Communities (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so you could make widgets for fairly cheap. Invention rates +1000%.
Open Source Fabricators (Score:3, Interesting)
We believe that this is the easiest to implement of the designs listed by Professor Gershenfeld, in a way that will be capable of producing the majority of its own parts. Open Source, shareable hardware. The sooner we get MkI out, the quicker others will be able to develop it - and the harder it is for anti-social types to patent what we're going to be doing.
We've devised a way to deposit a low melting point but durable plastic called Polymorph - it's recyclable - and have also deposited a low-temperature solder as an electrical conductor.
While the project may appear a simple affair, it really does need to be. It's about more than just re-inventing the glue gun; the RepRap will be capable of fabricating itself, and so the simpler the design the less work we have to do. Sometimes, simple is hard.
Vik
Real estate expense instead of product expense (Score:2)
It costs $4 for 1 sq ft of useful floorspace in U.S. every month, with power, allowable noise levels, acceptable environmental impact, and proximity to a day job to pay for these machines.
You'd need at least $4000 of floor space ever
Invisalign (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone interested in this stuff would probably get a kic
Taking over the planet (Score:2)
There are others who would say this has already happened.
Will cause violent death of patents (Score:2)
Nah (Score:2)
*brought to you by the Fists of Righteous Harmony*
Re:The end of Standardization = good? (Score:2)
Re:CAD software - I don't find it difficult to use (Score:2)
Vik
Re:Here's hoping... (Score:2)