Fab

Cory R writes "Neil Gershenfeld is an MIT professor and the director of MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms where he teaches a course called "How to Make (almost) Anything." In his book FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication, Gershenfeld describes the current state of personal fabrication tools and the surprising impact that these tools have when made available to everybody from MIT students to villagers in India in the form of Fab Labs. Lots of fabrication techniques and some technologies are discussed including those that are still only in development today. The pace of development seems to be accelerating and as the capabilities of the tools advance, Gershenfeld predicts one day he will be able to drop the word "almost" from the title of his course." Read on for the rest of Cory R's review. FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication author Neil Gershenfeld pages 278 publisher Basic Books rating 8/10 reviewer Cory R ISBN 0465027458 summary Personal fabrication may do for the real world what personal computers have done for the virtual world- let you have what you want when you want it.

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

All of these tools are available to some degree but most are very expensive and all are quite complicated 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.

Comments

Almost?

[NoseBag]

"Gershenfeld predicts one day he will be able to drop the word "almost" from the title of his course."

Not until I can replicate the replicator.

Automated Fabrication

[randall_burns]

A few years I read Automated Fabrication by Marshall Burns. The point that he made was that these machines are very similar to fax machines in the early 60's-they exist, and are being used, but are clunky and unreliable compared to where they will be in a few decades.

Piracy

[Poromenos1]

Imagine what proportions piracy will take when everyone can copy their favorite car instead of buying it. That doesn't mean that it won't cost anything, but there probably will be a few objects that will cost more to buy than copy...

Re:Piracy

[TigerNut]

I (used to) occasionally make mountainbike widgets on my milling machine, such as disc brake caliper adapters, rim brake booster arches, chainring bash guards, handlebar stems, and derailleur hangers, on my milling machine. I tried to focus on parts or sizes that weren't available in the general market or that someone needed but wasn't available on short notice, because in low volume, ANYTHING costs more to make than to buy, especially when you figure in the cost of tools (on top of your time - even at minimum wage). This fact disappointed a lot of people that figured that I should be able to make anything they could also buy at the local bike store, for 1/10 the price, because hey, you only have to pay for the metal, right?
The main convenience of home fab will be (or is) flexibility - you can effectively build good custom parts in low volumes. There is no economic viability to copying stuff you can already buy in the mass market, where the manufacturer has huge pressure to build it for the lowest possible cost.

Re:Piracy

[roman_mir]

Not for a long long long time.

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 strengthenning metals - reheating it, heating it, cooling it in a cycle and other methods.

Re:Piracy

[cowscows]

Right on. I had a friend's woodshop that I could use free of cost, and I built myself a number of pieces of furniture. Even when I assigned my time a value of $0/hour, I can't make a desk cheaper than some of the stuff you can get at office max. Basically, just buying the materials for myself costs as much as the whole desk does from a big store, because I'm not getting any sort of bulk discount. You can bet that ikea gets a sheet of OSB for a whole lot cheaper when they order it by the truckload. Hell, they probably have their own factory where they manufacture their materials themselves. Not to mention the fact that I don't have a machine to edge laminate, nor do I have a CNC router to cut out shapes in just a few quick minutes.

Now, the upside is, I can make totally custom stuff, completely suited to my needs. I also get a lot of enjoyment out of designing and building this stuff, so that's good too. But yeah, I've had friends ask me to make them stuff, but unless it's something creative and fun, I generally point them to overstock.com or something. I can't make a boring bookshelf any cheaper than a huge factory full of robots and machines.

nice hobby

[cahiha]

It doesn't take an MIT scientists to do those things. Go and look at hobbyist magazines on woodworking and metalworking: they are full of these kinds of computer-controlled tools. It's kind of ironic that good old American hobbies are being sold by futurists and scientists as the next great thing.

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

[NickFusion]

I've had the opportunity to use the Fab Lab in Boston, and it has been a wonderful experience, but it has some drawbacks too.

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.

I should have some more pictures of finished projects up soon, and those I'll post on the Fab Lab site, SETC.

Re:I don't know

[shawb]

# "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- 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.

Re:Except how to make an atom bomb

[rossifer]

The link provides a lot of garbage data.

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 a single spherical subcritical mass of Pu-238 at the center of a set of explosive charges.

The exact size, shape, and location of the explosive charges surrounding the core of the "Fat Man" design are essential as they must create an enormous inward pressure evenly around the entire spherical core. The writers of "The Manhattan Project" guessed at a soccer-ball arrangement of truncated "prismatic cones", but there's almost certainly more to it than that. After all, they were allowed to make the movie... Those of us without security clearances and a need to know don't get to know how to set up these explosives. Because of the complexity of the explosives in the "Fat Man" approach, it's usually set aside as impractical by everyone except for those trying to build a thermonuclear device (for which getting the explosives right is critical).

The bomb design that could most easily be built by a terrorist group is the "push two subcritical masses together" type of "thin man" and "little boy" fame. Now, they'd still need to actually get their hands on a lot of fissionable material (not 50lbs, more like 6-10lbs of high purity Pu-238) and we can hope that too many Soviet and/or Pakistani warheads don't get lost here and there.

The author jokes about the hazards of plutonium dust, which is fairly funny as we're all in on the joke. Just don't get any plutonium inside your body (this means breathing in the same airspace where plutonium has been machined) wash yourself thoroughly after being near fissionable materials, wear your safety gear in the places where the signs look scary (especially the lead-lined jock strap), and chances are you and your children will be just fine.

That's what I learned from Hollywood, a few books from the public library, and a summer internship working at Fermilab (the radiation safety class was a blast :)

Regards,
Ross