Slashdot Mirror
Fab
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.
That's a good issue. How is a home replicator going to build devices that take a complex clean-room fabrication plant with all sorts of expensive equipment (like modern CPUs)? I mean, the dream of manufacturing small, simple commodity items out of easily workable/affordable materials is one thing, but you shouldn't slap around words like "anything"
"This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
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?
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Gershenfeld is a true believer in technology, but unfortunately does not hold a very critical or insightful views. His book, When Things Start to Think, is a simplistic and excited jog through future visions of technology that merely repeats general myths and expectations about how computers can learn to understand human behavior and emotions. Also, Gershenfeld would be more convincing if he had not claimed in a conference presentation to have studied the "eskimo" herding reindeer in Norway and making good use of mobile phones. Fancy that. The people are called Sami, and make just as good with mobile phones as any other scandinavian person.
I can't help but think that a lot of this is bullshit. I mean, there's a lot to learn from his class and book for most people and that's great, but I think it's a ridiculous notion that most fabrication equipment will make it into home use. I mean sure, a lot of it's going to get cheaper in the future, especially a lot of the real high-end stuff (i.e. laser engravers) but it will never quite reach the point where a home user will have one. Even stuff that is affordable now like sign cutters is still expensive enough that most people wouldn't buy one unless they were using it to make money. Plus, while very cool, a sign cutter isn't actually that useful for making things, from what I've seen of the course it's mainly used for cutting out t-shirt transfer material and circuits. For both of those activities there are cheaper replacements -- kits for etching circuit boards can be bought for about $100 (some for less) and a basic screenprinting kit can be under $100, compared to a $500+ cutter (and that's if you cheap out, the ones they have in the lab are several thousand dollars).
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.
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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 machine tools into high school and college labs will help remove some mysteries of manufacturing and (I would hope) inspire more folks from all backgrounds to develop interest in technology.
There will still be room for mass production. Personal scale manufacturing will just make the ecology of manufacturing more rich and complex (complex in a good way).
Now, before we get all breathlessly excited about this emerging category of new tools, remember that in every city there are lots of small to medium machine shops that employ lots of talented folks. I know some (I'm not one) who have machine tools in their garage and basements. Smaller, cheaper, computer-controlled machine tools will give more folks access, and it will allow those who are already skilled to buy more toys^h^hols.
A friend of mine has the motto that "Any worthwhile project for the house should result in the acquisition of another tool" Do you think I could justify one of these or these to help finish that shelf in the basement?
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 site for the control software at SourceForge.
Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
I have a good sized CNC mill in my garage that I use practically every week to make various rocket parts. It is certainly cool, but the realities of tool reach, work holding, and chip removal make it more of a "super power tool", rather than a free-form-fab.
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
What if people in communities banded together to buy a super-expensive laser-design-type machine for cutting metal/plastic?
Just so you could make widgets for fairly cheap. Invention rates +1000%.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
It's a field in which the Open Source community are already active, and as with the software industry it's hard to get something in print before it gets out of date. As reported earlier on Slashdot, the RepRap Team (and I'm one of 'em) are going for the materials deposition route as per http://reprap.org/
:v)
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
In Hardwired, Walter Jon Williams talked about CNC machines spitting out custom firearms.
It is already the case that one can, with some skill and difficulty, make a reasonable firearm using desktop machine tools.
Sherline, maker of the preeminent hobbyist desktop lathe and mill, is already shipping turn-key desktop CNC machines, based around linux boxes.
Technical Video Rental rents out DVDs on how to build firearms from scratch.
All these trends are accelerating, and about to converge.
In 20 years, no matter what the politicians say, gun control is going to be DEAD.
A linux box + a $1k three axis desktop mill + some scraps of steel + HEAP.sourceforge.net = downloadable firearms.
My previous employer was Align Technology, Inc. ("those invisible plastic braces"). This guy sounds like he looked at what they were doing years ago and wrote a book about it. They can scan hundreds of molds a day, and probably output over 20,000 aligners a day, each a unique rigid 3D plastic shell that's accurate to less than 0.1mm in all three dimensions, then cut exactly along the gumline according to a precise algorithm, sanitized, and packaged.
Anyone interested in this stuff would probably get a kick out of the Quicktime manufacturing video they did a couple years ago. It briefly goes over being able to scan a 3D mold extremely accurately and quickly, model the dentition on 3D workstations and build a case, make the aligners, cut them out of the mold, and package them.
I believe I heard while I was there that, at the time, they had more 3D Stereolithography machines on-site than any other facility in the world. One of my jobs there was to help write the distributed computing system that processes the 3D data on a rack of servers to prepare them for manufacture. It's incredible how much data you can churn in a day.
Although the materials are as expensive as the machines these days, I agree with him that it's all becoming very accessible. There's no fundamental barriers, so far, anywhere near this technology... it's all down to getting people to come up with applications that will drive early adopters (like Align,) and getting people to write the software that will drive these machines to do EXACTLY what you want, which is tricky stuff.
E pluribus unum