Slashdot Mirror
Machine Prints 3D Copies Of Itself
TaeKwonDood writes "Automated machines have been around for decades. They have basically been dumb devices that do simple assembly tasks. But RepRap takes that a step further because, instead of assembling pre-fabricated parts, it creates 3-D objects by printing them — squirting molten plastic in layers — and then building them up as the plastic solidifies. It works on coat hooks, door handles and now it can even make working copies ... of itself. The miracle of additive fabrication, coming soon to a robotic overlord near you."
This is take piracy to a whole new level. What fun.
Can it sniff out nearby objects/people, ingest them, shred/melt them down to create new raw materials for buildling copies of itself? Thought not. We're safe... for now...
I love the idea of the RepRap as much as the next geek. But it's been posted on Slashdot at least three times that I can recall, and the headline or summary has always claimed, as this one does also, the factually incorrect statement that the "Machine Prints 3D Copies Of Itself". It doesn't. It's cool and all, and it's getting there, but it doesn't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Perhaps this criticism is extremely common because someone keeps claiming that RepRap is self replicating, when in fact it is not?
First, I love the idea of the RepRap and am seriously thinking of building one.
But really, claiming self-replication here is only slightly less laughable than someone claiming their inkjet printer is "self-replicating" because it can print the manual that comes in the box.
What we need is *quantification* - numbers. For example, choose one of the following measures:
* part count
* part cost
* part mass
* part compexity (harder to measure, but this is what really counts)
and then find the value of X in this statement:
"RepRap is X% self-replicating by [measure]"
My guess is that even by the most favorable measure (probably mass), the number is well under 50%, and by other measures it's under 10%.
But progress will be made, the value of X will increase, and that's what matters. Publicizing new values of X will attract attention and pique interest. Making unquantified claims of "self-replication" mostly just invites the fussing you're complaining about.