Open Source Ecology Forums

gonzo

Alternative title: "Toys for Boys" or "changing the world as fast as possible" ?

In case we make a list with the machines that are most needed in the world right now, the machines that most of the people would buy, which ones would be?
If we make just the first three of those machines, that would sell a lot, making a lot of cash, and would make the project wildly popular. Everyone in the world would hear about OSE then.
And that will only accelerate the process of creating the GVCS machines.
Most of the families of this world need things like washing machines. In the impoverished world, life is suffocating without it. And many young families can't even dream to buy one very soon. And when they buy one and it breaks - that's it. They won't afford to repair it for years.
How many 3D printers can we sell, and how many washing machines can we sell? For each 3D Printer sold, we can sell 10,000 washing machines.
Make the list with the most desired machines and you will see that the first 10 or maybe 30 of them are not in the GVCS list.
If we delay to make those essential machines for 5 years, that means we delay with exactly 5 year for the project to sell machines in big volumes, we delay with 5 years having real publicity, we delay with exactly 5 years the fast change of the world and we delay with exactly 5 years the relief the machines will bring to the people in the impoverished nations.

I just made a comment on the wiki at the Rollout Plan discussion page where I expressed my point of view in detail.
My comment might be tough but it's done in the best good faith you can ever find. I love the OSE project, I am a big supporter of it, I am a true fan, and I made sizable donations to the project, and I am very proud of it. And I will keep supporting the project, because eventually we will get to making the most needed machines.

The project will change the world. But it's not really designed to do it fast and efficient. Why? Because it looks more like a project for people who want to play with machines, than a project for the people who really need machines.
Do you really want to make the GVCS machines and to change the world with doing that or you just to want to enjoy the process of making the GVCS machines and to "fight with difficulties" to get there?
Want to be efficient and to help the world or want to become legends?
If you really want the first option, then what's the point in refusing to make a lot of cash and to bring a lot of visibility to OSE, knowing that such a thing would only accelerate the project?

I stick to my opinion that home appliances are the most needed machines in the world as it is today. But if you just make the list with the machines that have the biggest demand for, then I would totally support the idea to create the first 3 of them before making the rest of the GVCS machines, even if those 3 machines are not home appliances. Because it would only make the project 1,000 times more efficient

Marcin told me that indeed Open Source everything is very good and that there already is a Kickstarter project for an Espresso Machine. I checked it and it has some issues: 1. First, the machine is not in the list of the most popular machines that the people would buy. How can I believe that a family in an impoverished nation will save 400 $ to buy an open source, (cheaper than proprietary) Espresso Machine when they need the same money to buy a washing machine they don't have yet? 2. Secondly, (and it's not a real issue tho), the machine is not totally open source - some of the components are proprietary, but that's not a real issue as long as the project owners will sell those components for a decent price.

Of course Open Source everything is very good, but the question is how fast we get there? Is it really the same thing if we get there in 2 years or 70 years?
If we start with the most needed machines now, then we can get to Open Source everything in just a few years. If we start with toys, then we might need decades to get there.

Here is my comment as I posted it on Talk:Rollout Plan wiki page:

I strongly believe that the plan is not conceived with efficiency in mind. There are very few people who can afford to start new villages and to re-create the civilization from scratch. But there are billions of people who need right now machines like: washing machine, refrigerator, dryer, stove, oven, microwave, coffeemaker, dust buster, and other essential machines like these. And they won't have the energy, time, money, freedom from their families, motivation, to buy land in a village and to start to make civilization from scratch, thinking that one day they will produce washing machines on their own. That would take way too long for them so it would be totally impractical for them to do it.

But the market is huge for home appliances. If we create just three or five such home appliances, they would be adopted around the world with light speed, it would generate tons of cash, and also would make everyone in the world to know who OSE and Marcin are. Creating just a few home appliance would bring more cash and publicity to the OSE project than it ever needs. Having such resources would only accelerate the creation of the GVCS machines.

I have to agree with the two people who said that GVCS look like a "Toys for Boys" project, at the Talk:Global Village Construction Set#Toys discussion page.
Indeed, the GVCS machines are very useful for the world and making them will change the world. But it's also impossible to deny that the world needs much more some other machines. For every one machine in the GVCS that OSE will seel, there is a potential to sell 10.000 open source washing machines. It's an enormous potential that is not used and it's wasted. How many families would buy a 3D Printer and how many would buy an Open Source Washing Machine?

Delaying to make the machines that the world needs right now means delaying to change the world. If we make Open Source Washing Machines (and other home appliances) only after 5 years, that means we delay the change of the world with exactly 5 years. Do you people have any idea how important is for families in the poor countries to have a washing machine and how radically it changes their lives? Do you people have any idea how suffocating their life is, knowing that they have to save money for years in order to buy just a common commodity like that? So what is our priority? Are we trying to be efficient, to change the world as fast as possible, to help the people of the world to have a life that is more bearable, or are we trying to make toys for boys? This is the most important question for the OSE project at this moment.

Matt_Maier

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around labeling an induction furnace a "toy" and a washing machine a "necessity."

gonzo

From 1,000 families, 1 or 2 would need an induction furnace and 950 would need a washing machine. Therefore the washing machine is a necessity.
How many families would buy an induction furnace just to make their own washing machine parts? Maybe one in 10,000. For the other 9,999, it's a toy.

How many families would buy all the GVCS machines in order to have their own independent civilization? Probably 1 in 100,000. The rest of them can't afford the money, space and time for that.

But the question remains: why you refuse to make big money and get instant publicity all around the world?

dorkmo

no ones stopping you gonzo

also peeps can share washing machines, perhaps a handful for each town.

gonzo

I don't have the resources to do that on my own. But at least I can support the OSE project.
Sharing washing machines is impractical and it's a mess.

Matt_Maier

Start a Kickstarter campaign. Partner with an existing aid organization. You don't need any engineering for cheap, easily replicated washing machines. You just need money to have them manufactured and people to distribute them.

gonzo

Yes you do need to be open source, cheap, easily replicated washing machines. Because then it's easy to recycle parts, easy for everyone to produce the machines and their parts. It will create a lot of job opportunities as everyone can start to make components. The solution will stay there forever. Also it would require (hundreds of) billions of dollars to supply non-open source washing machines to everyone in the world.
Once the design is available and someone is making them available, others will replicate the production process.

However, you still refuse to answer my main question: why not to make a lot of money and get instant publicity around the world by starting to make 1-3 or 5 most desired machines?

Matt_Maier

Well...

1) Personally, I'm not interested in appliances.

2) It's not OSE's charter.

3) The idea is questionable.

3a) Appliances aren't all that complicated, so it seems like they're already pretty "open"

3b) It seems like something one of the existing well-funded organizations would be doing if it was a good idea.

3c) The sort of people who need them don't have electricity to run them, or...

3d) ...don't have access to the infrastructure to make/repair them

3e) Even at a x10 reduction in price it seems like they would still be too expensive.

surfcam

I think appliances are in the milk cow stage. There's little profit, consolidation, and fewer manufactures of components. I believe there is only two compressor manufactures for refrigerators. A lot of the components would have to be certified (UL CSA etc.) before they could be used or buy some from a manufacturer. I think if you made a washing machine the whole thing would have to be certified. A friend of mine tried to get approval for a wood stove. $125,000 just to get them to look at the stove. It failed because it didn't have a insulated door handle. He couldn't just put a handle on it. He had to resubmit. Ya $125,000 more. This was 30 year ago dealing with CSA. I think it would be a big investment for a idem that would be hard to make much cheaper.

gonzo

@Matt_Maier:

1) I think we should try to make the OSE project as efficient as possible, even if it doesn't coincide 100% with our interests. I am not really interested in GVCS machines but I still support the project 100%. Because I know that making the GVCS machines will help the world a lot. And will only help making open source home appliances too.
2) The project can be adjusted a bit, to make it efficient. Is a 3D Scanner really such a necessity for farmers or for starting a civilization from scratch? I can't see the 3D Scanner more in the OSE charter than a washing machine.
3a) Yet if a component of your appliance breaks, you have to buy an entire new appliance. If the pot of your Coffeemaker breaks, then you have to buy another Coffeemaker. No one was really interested to make OS home appliances until now
3b) What the existing well-funded organizations are doing in reality is wasting people's time, energy, money, good will, and hopes. None of them have web forums to engage people into building solutions together. None of them want reliable, long-term solutions; they only come with temporary relief. They can do so many things to help the people but they don't care. They can simply give work to the poor people and give them in return a share of their work - that way they can help the people who are affected by the crisis, even in USA. But they never want solutions - they just seem to want to help the poor by making them to depend on the help from the rich. You give them money and they don't even answer to your e-mail with one single question. I can give you lots of examples.
3c) The people in Eastern Europe have electricity. Many people in Asia have electricity - but they can't buy a washing machine because it's too expensive and it's to expensive to repair them when a component breaks.
3d) The infrastructure will be much easier to create, as the people can start small production facilities to create components. And the GVCS machines will help a lot with that. To repair them will be much easier as any component can be replaced easy in an Open Source machine.
3e) A 10x reduction in price mean a washing machine that costs 400 $ will cost only 40 $. That's a lot more cheaper, and billions of people will afford to buy them. Also it will be much cheaper to repair them, exactly the same way as the OSE machines can be repaired.

gonzo

@surfcam:

It can't make less profit than selling any of the GVCS machines. If there are only two compressor manufactures for refrigerators, then the Open Source refrigerator might be designed in a way to be capable to use models from both manufacturers. If the washing machine has to be certified, then I think any of the GVCS machines have to be certified too. Certifying the washing machine can't cost more than certifying any of the GVCS machines. A machine that is created by an entire community, in a transparent way, has much more chances to pass the test the first time, because there are so many specialists taking care of it. The investment in making an open source washing machine can't be higher than the investing in any of the other GVCS machines.
Even if the open source washing machine will not be cheaper, it will still be attractive to the customers, because the maintenance and repairing is much cheaper for it.
However, if the CEB Press or the Tractor of the OSE project is much cheaper than the rest, then why an OSE washing machine can't be cheaper than the rest?

gonzo

@Matt_Maier:

"3e) Even at a x10 reduction in price it seems like they would still be too expensive."

Hmm, if you believe that a 40 $ washing machine is too expensive, then how about an open source tractor that costs 2,000 $ instead of 20,000 $ ?
Obviously, you believe that the open source tractor is too expensive.

And then, what are you doing in the OSE project? What is your purpose and belief? If you don't believe that the GVCS machines will sell good (and adopted on a large scale), then why are you participating in OSE?
Probably you have the time, energy, and money to make some (or all) of the GVCS machines and you have the space to keep them in your workshop. So you can play with them. Clearly, for you, the GVCS machines are just Toys.
Never mind changing the world, changing economy, reducing waste, improving recycling, being self-sufficient, bla bla. If others want to play with the toys, fine. If not - then whatever !

So we got back to the "Toys for Boys" concept.

Jason

Appliances are already as cheap as they can possibly get. There is no added benefit in trying to make your own.

The idea of the GVCS is tools that can make tools. It's about mechanization and production: what drove the industrial revolution. The people who will implement the GVCS are the richest people in town, not the poorest. They will invest in setting up the lab, then employ the poor people. The town's wealth and quality of life will improve once it has it's own economy, and doesn't have to rely on chasing dollars in a closed loop system.

For example, a farm owner who is doing relatively well may decide he wants to be able to fabricate machines in his garage. He invests $20k of his savings to set a lab up. Then he starts building machines to use on his farm and sell locally. He hires people to help him since it's profitable. He's now an entrepreneur and the town's people have a source of income - which they can use to buy the machines they produce! That's possible because essentially they're building their own equipment in a roundabout way.

The farmer also doesn't necessarily have to sell his machines to expand his production. He can buy more land and use the equipment to produce additional crops. He's hiring people to make equipment and farm it to grow food that wasn't previously available. He's expanding the local economy.

Matt_Maier

"
Hmm, if you believe that a 40 $ washing machine is too expensive, then how about an open source tractor that costs 2,000 $ instead of 20,000 $ ? Obviously, you believe that the open source tractor is too expensive."

>The tractor can make other things. The washing machine can only clean clothing. You might be able to sell the services of the washing machine, but you seem to be focusing on the money it would save over spending your time physically washing clothing. Of course, the time of people who have that issue isn't valuable, so they don't save much. The tractor, on the other hand, can build things that add value to an area. The washing machine and the clothes will only ever wear out. Tools that make tools are fundamentally more important, and more valuable, than appliances.

PaulP

> And then, what are you doing in the OSE project? What is your purpose and belief? If you don't believe that the GVCS machines will sell good (and adopted on a large scale), then why are you participating in OSE?

Some of us don't think OSE is going to make a profit. If you're looking at this - open source - project, thinking it's a great way to make a quick buck, you may want to reconsider. Profit margins will be very low and will get lower as more people start manufacturing them.

But like Jason said, tools to make tools. The more general purpose machinery that we make, the faster people are going to be able to replicate it. Each additional machine brings down the cost of each other machine as you have to purchase fewer parts from third parties when you make your own.

That said, I think you have a point re: the 3d scanner. I would be on board replacing it with a washing machine - as you mentioned, washing machines are one of the greatest labor saving tools ever. The 3d scanner on the other hand - I'm not sure how useful it will be for others once most of the machines have already been modeled the old fashioned way.

Matt_Maier

I will agree that I probably would not have included a 3D scanner.

Danial

I agree in most part with both sides of this discussion. As the OP says, the world is more in need of things that make life easier, freeing up time and energy to do other productive things, than it needs the GVCS. The appliance approach addresses the immediate needs of many of the people of the world. However I do not see room in the GVCS for appliances simply because they are two fundamentally different things. The construction set, in theory, creates the villages where as the appliances support them. Both are needed at the end of the day, but maybe it is not practical to focus on both at the same time with the same resources.

One thing to note about the GVCS is that it tends away from Global and more towards Industrial. It would be more accurate to call it the Industrialized Village Construction Set, as it is still very expensive for the majority of the planet. It is akin to me looking to buy a commercial airliner for several million dollars or an open source airlines for a million dollars. The difference in cost is negligible when I have no where near the funds to buy the least expensive option.

Things that can affect the whole world, regardless of cash on hand are those things which can be made from scrap and local resources. Such things like windmills/turbines for physical work and electricity, rain harvesting/storing systems, irrigation/aquaculture systems, cooking and washing appliances, and other smaller items that can easily be constructed.

gonzo

@Jason:

The home appliances are cheap only for those who live in the western world. In the developing world, they are too expensive. Making them open source will allow them to open factories to create them, at lower price, since the labor costs less there.
It's not about making home appliances on your own. It's about them being open source. So you can replace a component when it breaks, at a decent price, instead of having to buy another home appliance. That will save a lot of money.

"The idea of the GVCS is tools that can make tools."

Not really. You can already buy proprietary tools that can make tools, since a long time ago.

The idea of the GVCS is not only "tools that can make tools". The idea of GVCS is that the tools are open source, so the production of the tools can be replicated, that replacing parts will be very cheap, that it's improving recycling (you dispose only the component you replace, instead of the whole machine), that by replicating the production unnecessary transportation is reduced, that the tools will have the lowest price possible, as anyone can create them - which leads to healthy competition (no speculation, no monopoly).

"For example, a farm owner who is doing relatively well may decide he wants to be able to fabricate machines in his garage."

Not at all. That's not the idea in GVCS. A farm owner will be able to buy an open source tractor at a fraction of the cost of a proprietary tractor. The farmer will pay 20-50 $ for a vital component when it breaks, instead of paying another 3,000 $ to buy a new tractor (or instead of paying 500 $ for that component, which the proprietary makers sell at an inflated price).

The farmer .. can buy more land and use the equipment to produce additional crops. He's hiring people to make equipment and farm it to grow food that wasn't previously available. He's expanding the local economy.

So in your vision, the people in the village depend on the good will of the richest man in the village, and their survival depends on him ! Wow ! I am amazed how misunderstood the OSE project is !

And why would a farmer make his own tractor when he can buy an open source tractor at a decent price and he can repair it at very low cost? Why would he waste time and energy to create all the tools on his own? It looks like for you too, the project looks like "Toys" - "let's play with making the machines, since they are open source - never mind the efficiency."

The benefits of open source machines is that they are cheap, replacing parts is easy and cheap, improves recycling, reduces the energy consumed for transportation, makes the people more and more independent, as they can buy and repair the machines on their own, and it creates a lot of jobs, as millions (or hundreds of millions) of people can start small production facilities to make components for the machines.

The idea of GVCS is not that "every rich man can replicate the civilization based on open source machines, at lower costs".
But the idea of GVCS is to make the machines more affordable, so that more people can start to engage into the activities that are at the base of building a modern civilization - agriculture and industry, in this particular order. The idea is to help the people to have more freedom, not to make them to depend on the richest people in their community.

gonzo

@Danial:

I agree that home appliance might not fit into philosophy of GVCS, which is (engineering) tools that create tools and tools for most basic human activities.
But introducing 3 or even 1 of the most desired home appliances in the GVCS can't possibly derail the project. Those home appliances can only help the project, so they can perfectly fit in the GVCS as they will help the project a lot, and will accelerate it to make it at least 10 times faster.
It might not be practical to focus on both at the same time with the same resources, but making just three appliances can't consume so much energy and time. And making them really worths - for cash and publicity reasons.

Things that can affect the whole world, regardless of cash on hand are those things which can be made from scrap and local resources. Such things like windmills/turbines for physical work and electricity, rain harvesting/storing systems, irrigation/aquaculture systems, cooking and washing appliances, and other smaller items that can easily be constructed.

I totally agree. Another supporter made a list at Things This Village Is Missing That Make Me Cry. I suggest you add your ideas there. We can make a list of the most desired machines, hoping that the OSE will create them, at least after finishing the 50 GVCS machines.

gonzo

@Matt_Maier:

By the way, I have put two questions that are still unanswered, at http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Village_Construction_Set
About the Power Inverter and the Certification process. Maybe you know the answers. Thanks.

gonzo

Sorry but I have seen this answer only now:

The tractor can make other things. The washing machine can only clean clothing. You might be able to sell the services of the washing machine, but you seem to be focusing on the money it would save over spending your time physically washing clothing. Of course, the time of people who have that issue isn't valuable, so they don't save much. The tractor, on the other hand, can build things that add value to an area. The washing machine and the clothes will only ever wear out. Tools that make tools are fundamentally more important, and more valuable, than
appliances.

And having more money and publicity can only help making tools that make tools. It can only accelerate the process. That's the main question in this thread: "Is the plan really efficient?".
Refusing to make more money and to have more publicity really doesn't look like an efficient plan.
And by the way, my focus is not on the money people save to have a open source appliance. My main focus is to make the plan really efficient. Giving to the world the most desired (open source) appliances will not only help people to save money. It will create jobs, and it will make the much needed money and publicity to OSE so it will be more efficient.

gonzo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makerbot
"In August 2011, venture capital firm The Foundry Group invested $10 million in the company and joined its board."

And that's only for making a 3D Printer, which doesn't really sell in large numbers. Therefore, the OSE project can get investments of hundreds of millions of dollars just from supplying open source appliance like Washing Machines, Coffeemakers, Dryers, Dust Busters, etc. Those things sell in huge numbers, therefore they can get a lot of investors.

Matt_Maier

Lets see if I understand. Glossing over the obvious differences between the 3D printer market and the washing machine market, you are proposing that OSE manufacture open source appliances and supply them to the people in the world who want/need them prior to developing any of the manufacturing capacity which is currently OSE's focus.

So, that would mean OSE would have to HIRE an existing manufacturer (or several) to actually produce the parts for the open source appliances. Since, you know, OSE can't manufacture anything itself. Since the intellectual property is free and public, what would stop a competing organization from doing the exact same thing and cutting OSE out of the market? That would seem to choke off the revenue that would be the point of the plan, right?

On the other hand, if OSE builds up its own internal manufacturing capacity, then later it can make parts for open source appliances itself.

Metz

I am in the "developing world" and a washing machine here is about US$250 for a cheap one. People here are not going to buy a home built "jeepeny" washing machine when they can buy one from Sogo or Shoe Mart for $250 and get financing. The people who could benefit from a open source washing machine presently do not even have running water or electricity.

Matt_Maier

I was kind of assuming he meant, like, bicycle-powered appliances...or something like that.

aarnareddy10

Nice topic of discussed here .. Thanks a lot for sharing..

gonzo

Lets see if I understand. Glossing over the obvious differences between the 3D printer market and the washing machine market, you are proposing that OSE manufacture open source appliances and supply them to the people in the world who want/need them prior to developing any of the manufacturing capacity which is currently OSE's focus.

No, you haven't understand it at all. I haven't suggested that OSE should stop developing any of the manufacturing capacity. You are just interpreting my words as you please.
I said OSE should add to the GVCS three or at least one machine that is very popular (like for example washing machines) and to give it priority. That won't imply to stop developing the other GVCS machines.

So, that would mean OSE would have to HIRE an existing manufacturer (or several) to actually produce the parts for the open source appliances. Since, you know, OSE can't manufacture anything itself.

OSE is already developing manufacturing capacities and it can produce parts. Also, what's wrong to hire other manufacturers? The work is profitable so it's worth. That will bring cash for OSE for faster develop it's own manufacturing capacity.

Since the intellectual property is free and public, what would stop a competing organization from doing the exact same thing and cutting OSE out of the market?

Silly argument. Even with proprietary machines there is still a lot of competition. Also, the good news is: if a competing organization will cut OSE of the market that will be awesome. Because at that moment, the mission of changing the world is done: the people can get parts at the cheapest price and repair their machines. If OSE is only making designs and the people can't buy open source machines and parts, than the mission of OSE is a failure. The point is not only to make the designs, but to make sure that they become popular, that the people use them, and there are suppliers to provide the machines and parts.

That would seem to choke off the revenue that would be the point of the plan, right?

Acording to your logic, Makerbot should have never got their investments of 10 million dollars, since the competition can cut them off the market. Yet, they did!
Most companies don't want to get into making open source hardware exactly for the same reason you presented. So it's not very likely you will get so much competition for a while.
Also, the point is not just to make money. The point is to make money in order to make the machines popular. If others companies cut you off the market, that means the products already got popular. So the mission is accomplished. Competition is the most wonderful thing that you can get as an open source hardware manufacturer.

I was kind of assuming he meant, like, bicycle-powered appliances...or something like that.

Indeed, some bicycle-powered appliances would be nice too. But mainly I suggest making things like washing machines that run with electricity.
I have a friend who has a hotel. He has to replace a washing machine just because a handle or a door or another component broke. You can't find parts for some machines. And that's extremely costly and it's a mess.
The same with microwave ovens, coffeemakers, dryers, and other appliances. Not finding parts for machines can ruin your business when you are using those machines in numbers.

The bottom line is: if Makerbot got 10 million dollars in investments just for making a 3D printer, then obviously the OSE can get much more money for making more popular machines.

gonzo

@Metz

I am in the "developing world" and a washing machine here is about US$250 for a cheap one. People here are not going to buy a home built "jeepeny" washing machine when they can buy one from Sogo or Shoe Mart for $250 and get financing. The people who could benefit from a open source washing machine presently do not even have running water or electricity.

The people can buy a "Shoe Mart" washing machine for $250. And what happens when a handle or a button or a door or another basic component breaks? They can't replace it because the "Shoe Mart" company doesn't want to sell components. Then they have to buy another $250 "Shoe Mart" machine. That's not exactly cheap, isn't it?
So the people can make a much better deal to buy even a $300 OSE washing machine, and when they need to replace a door, they can buy it for $10 or $20. That's a much better deal, right?

Also, in the first world there are lots of businesses that use washing machines in big numbers. Do you have any idea how much money they waste because they have to buy new ones just for replacing basic components? They waste LOTS AND LOTS of money. Not supplying components is a form of speculation, and the speculation always hurts economy.

Matt_Maier

"Not supplying components is a form of speculation, and the speculation always hurts economy."

>>> Your understanding of economics is strange. It's not impossible to get repair/replacement parts for washing machines because I bought my washing machine from a place in town that only sells used washing machines they've repaired. While not impossible, it is difficult, because there isn't much room for making a profit from selling repair/replacement parts.

I agree that the design of most appliances is pretty much identical, so there's no technical reason they couldn't use standardized parts. A open source kit of appliance parts that can be used to construct a group of different appliances, would expand the opportunities for profit since it would become worthwhile to keep parts in stock. That might allow the open source approach to pay for itself.

I suppose that concept is worth exploring. If you want to work on it, I'll help. We can see whether or not it might actually be possible to build a bunch of different appliances out of the same parts. My intuition is that it's not a very practical idea, but I haven't spent much time analyzing it.

Jason

I think efficiency is the wrong metric to look at here. Efficiency is the thing that is focused on towards the end of a paradigm. For example, just before tractors came along, people had perfected the art of plowing fields with oxen. They had perfect plows, the perfect breed of animal, and most likely better knowlege on the subject than exists anywhere today.

In contrast, the tractor was very inefficient. Instead of a few lbs of grain to keep it powered, it required many times the energy in liquid fuel. It was super expensive. It didn't reproduce or repair itself. However as time went on, this new method became the method of choice for plowing land. The reason wasn't because it wasn't more efficient (calories in vs dirt moved). It's because it leveraged a natural resource (oil).

Now we're moving into a new paradigm again, and efficiency isn't the primary quality of the new direction. A washing machine built on an assembly line in the thousands at the lowest cost is already efficient. Incrementally improving on that won't drastically change things. We're instead leveraging the modern technology base to create resilient and industrious communities. Eventually it will be more efficient, but it will take time.

gonzo

@Matt_Maier
Your understanding of economics is strange. It's not impossible to get repair/replacement parts for washing machines because I bought my washing machine from a place in town that only sells used washing machines they've repaired. While not impossible, it is difficult because there isn't much room for making a profit from selling repair/replacement parts.

By the contrary, your understanding of economics is very incomplete. If you make less profit from selling parts then guess what? You need less money as you also don't have to spend lots of cash for repairing your machines. Also, don't forget that when you sell cheap parts, you can sell in enormous volumes. That will make much more profit than selling entire machines. That's why the PC industry works so well, because the producers are selling parts in huge quantities.
The question is not about how much money you make. The question is about how much value your money have. If you can buy/do more with less money, then it's better for you.
If you can't buy parts, then you will have to spend money you don't have in order to repair your machines. That can ruin your business. Capitalism can't work without control of speculation. That's why the govt of USA is constantly punishing companies for price fixing. Like for example here:
2005 - Samsung to Pay $300 Million Fine for DRAM Price Fixing - http://www.pcworld.com/article/123018/samsung_to_pay_300_million_fine_for_dram_price_fixing.html
And, of course, we have a fabricated economic crisis exactly because the governments didn't wanted to prevent house market speculation. But that's another story.

I agree that the design of most appliances is pretty much identical, so there's no technical reason they couldn't use standardized parts. A open source kit of appliance parts that can be used to construct a group of different appliances, would expand the opportunities for profit since it would become worthwhile to keep parts in stock. That might allow the open source approach to pay for itself.

See? You start to understand it. Indeed, that's a wonderful idea and it's a big tragedy it was not applied yet.
Also think about this: At a hotel they have tiles on the floor and one of the tiles breaks. But because the colors and designs of the tiles change every year, the hotel has to replace ALL the tiles on the floor, just because one tile broke. Instead of spending $50, the hotel has to spend $3,000 - money they simply don't have. Speculation always hurts economy. The hotel will have to provide poorer services because they simply can't afford to replace things (tiles, machines) with this (current) strange economic model. The governments can fix it very easy by forcing the suppliers to sell at least a small set of standard tiles. But of course it doesn't want to do it..

I suppose that concept is worth exploring. If you want to work on it, I'll help. We can see whether or not it might actually be possible to build a bunch of different appliances out of the same parts. My intuition is that it's not a very practical idea, but I haven't spent much time analyzing it.

Well, thanks a lot, you are very kind. I am not good in engineering, but the topic should be explored deeply. Even the screws of such appliances should be standard. Maybe we should make a separate thread where we invite everyone to come with ideas about how to achieve this goal. We have to collect as many ideas as possible, as the combinations are virtually infinite. However, maybe both a washing machine and a microwave oven can run with a standard device like Arduino - I don't know.

However, it's much more important to make designs of the most desired appliances, and to convince people to use them and to produce them. And in order to achieve that, OSE has to produce them and to supply parts to the people, until they get used with it. That will make the project very popular and will atract 10 times, 100 times or even 1000 times more donations and investments.

Even if it's expensive to keep some parts in stock, it will still be cheaper for the consumer to buy a door for it's washing machine instead of buying another washing machine.
Imagine the door should cost $10 but because of the costs of keeping it in stock, it will reach $20 or even $30. Even then, for the customer it's much more cheaper to buy the door instead of buying another $250 washing machine.

gonzo

@Jason
The reason wasn't because it wasn't more efficient (calories in vs dirt moved). It's because it leveraged a natural resource (oil).

You must be kidding, right? With modern agriculture you can be much more efficient. A tractor can work probably 10-100 times more land than an animal in the same time. That's why in developed countries you have about 5% of the people working in agriculture. A few centuries ago, the proportion was like 60-80%. That wasn't exactly efficient, you know..

A washing machine built on an assembly line in the thousands at the lowest cost is already efficient.

It is efficient - for the producer. And it's efficient for the client too but only when they buy their first machine. It's not efficient at all to spend another $250 for a new machine just because a handle or a door broke. The current economic model based on proprietary machines and parts is not efficient at all.
The current assembly lines can be used to produce parts, and by supplying parts we can achieve real efficiency.

Incrementally improving on that won't drastically change things. We're instead leveraging the modern technology base to create resilient and industrious communities.

I don't know if supplying parts is something that you consider "incremental improvement". But it's the big step forward that we have to do.
We can create those resilient and industrious communities by showing to the people how to do it and by teaching them how to do it, and by convincing them it's worth to start local production facilities. But until they learn it, someone has to show them how to do it. And the best candidate for doing that is, of course, OSE.

Eventually it will be more efficient, but it will take time.

Of course it will take time, as the OSE refuses to produce and to supply machines and parts. It will take a lot of time for the people in the world to hear about OSE and to dare to start their own local production facilities. It depends only on US, the OSE members, how much time it will take.

Matt_Maier

"By the contrary, your understanding of economics is very incomplete."

>>>Yeah, well, I'm rubber and you're glue.

"If you make less profit from selling parts then guess what? You need less money as you also don't have to spend lots of cash for repairing your machines."

>>>Is it possible you aren't using pronouns correctly? I think that you are using "you" and "your" way too often. Maybe you could start identifying the subjects of your sentences more clearly. For example, this quote doesn't make one lick of sense. The subject of the first sentence HAS to be a manufacturer or retailer, since they are the only ones who make profit from selling parts. The lack of a clear change in subject implies that the subject of the second sentence is also a manufacturer or retailer, but then the sentence makes no sense, so maybe the second sentence refers to the consumer?

Here's my understanding of economics: businesses move to the activity that produces the most profit. If stocking replacement parts is less profitable than the many other things a business could be doing, then the business won't stock replacement parts. There are organizations that do the things that aren't profitable...they're called non-profits. There aren't very many of them because they generally rely on charity. I think a non-profit that supplies replacement appliance parts below cost is going to have a hard time attracting sufficient donations.

"That's why the PC industry works so well, because the producers are selling parts in huge quantities."

>>>Ummm...you mean the component manufacturers? Plenty of companies in the "PC industry" sell fully assembled machines. So, you know, they're not selling parts. Also, most of the parts are sold to businesses, which then combine them into assemblies, not individuals.

"Indeed, that's a wonderful idea and it's a big tragedy it was not applied yet."

>>>I have a hard time applying the word "tragedy" to the fact that a lot of people don't have washing machines.

"Instead of spending $50, the hotel has to spend $3,000 - money they simply don't have. Speculation always hurts economy."

>>>I don't think we agree on what "speculation" means. In my mind, speculation is when investors drive up the price of a commodity simply because they can make money off of the fact that other investors will also drive up the price because they figure they can make money off of other investors driving up the price. I don't think it has anything to do with tile manufacturers making different tiles each year.

"The governments can fix it very easy by forcing the suppliers to sell at least a small set of standard tiles. But of course it doesn't want to do it."

>>>Yeah...centrally-controlled economies didn't work. Regulation helps the market when it enforces fairness, not when it enforces quotas.

"I am not good in engineering, but the topic should be explored deeply."

>>>Oops, you just lost me. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, so if you aren't going to take the lead on developing it I'm going to go do some of the many other things I'm interested in.

"Maybe we should make a separate thread where we invite everyone to come with ideas about how to achieve this goal. We have to collect as many ideas as possible..."

>>>LOL, there's like a dozen people on this board and they've all already seen the idea. I doubt they're holding out on you.

"...until they get used with it. That will make the project very popular..."

>>>That's a tautology. Of course it will be popular if you presuppose everyone's gotten used to it.

"Even then, for the customer it's much more cheaper to buy the door instead of buying another $250 washing machine."

>>>But in terms of the entire economy it is still less efficient because selling the door at a loss is financed by donations. The person who buys it might be getting a deal, but the scales are balanced by the person donating the money to keep the doors available at that artificially low price.

Figure out how to make all the appliances out of one small set of parts. Then it will be profitable to stock those parts. Then it will happen on its own, without the government forcing anyone to do anything.

gonzo

The subject of the first sentence HAS to be a manufacturer or retailer

Exactly. You, as the manufacturer (producer) make less money (per unit) from selling parts. But you (the producer) also need to buy things. And when you need to repair a machine, you pay less, because you will also buy parts. I have no idea why such a simple thing doesn't make sense for you.

If stocking replacement parts is less profitable than the many other things a business could be doing, then the business won't stock replacement parts. There are organizations that do the things that aren't profitable...they're called non-profits.

LOL! making less profit doesn't automatically mean you have to be non-profit! Do you think before you speak?

Plenty of companies in the "PC industry" sell fully assembled machines. So, you know, they're not selling parts. Also, most of the parts are sold to businesses, which then combine them into assemblies, not individuals.

Simply put: you lie. They are also selling parts to the consumer. Many people buy video cards, motherboards, memory, etc.

I have a hard time applying the word "tragedy" to the fact that a lot of people don't have washing machines.

Well that means you always had a washing machine or you could afford to use one of those with "insert coin". I personally experienced living without a washing machine and it's a very big mess.

I don't think we agree on what "speculation" means. In my mind, speculation is when investors drive up the price of a commodity simply because they can make money off of the fact that other investors will also drive up the price because they figure they can make money off of other investors driving up the price. I don't think it has anything to do with tile manufacturers making different tiles each year.

I don't think we agree on anything, by the way. I think I disagree with almost every single statement you make.
However, if you, the client, will have to pay more than you should, in order to get what you need, that means you are a victim of speculation.
If you have to replace all the tiles on the floor just because one tile is broken, then yes, the producers are taking advantage on you. That's just a different form of speculation. The producers all agree to change designs and colors every year, therefore forcing the consumer to pay more than he has to, when he (the consumer) wants to replace a broken tile.

Yeah...centrally-controlled economies didn't work. Regulation helps the market when it enforces fairness, not when it enforces quotas.

Haha, regulation is also a form of controlling economy from the center! You are misusing the word "quotas". I haven't suggested that the manufacturers should make a certain amount for all their products. I said they should supply a minimum quota for just a part of their products. If you have to buy 100 tiles just because 1 tile is broke, that's not exactly fair, you know..
You don't see the difference between "some" and "all". Some control doesn't mean total control.

But in terms of the entire economy it is still less efficient because selling the door at a loss is financed by donations.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Or, most probably, you deliberately lie.
Selling doors can make profit. Even if the profit (per unit) is less than selling washing machines. But in the end the profit can even get bigger - by selling in volumes.
Exactly like PC component producers - they sell parts to the consumers and they make profit.
So yeah, I'm the glue and you are the rubber - your understanding of economy is extremely poor.

The person who buys it might be getting a deal, but the scales are balanced by the person donating the money to keep the doors available at that artificially low price.

Then let me ask you this: how much does the price of a door has to be in order for the price not to be artificially low? $10? $20?
Even at $50 or more it will be a good deal for the client who only needs to replace the door
Or you think the producers will have to sell the door at $1,000 in order to make profit? :D

Figure out how to make all the appliances out of one small set of parts. Then it will be profitable to stock those parts. Then it will happen on its own, without the government forcing anyone to do anything.

You are simply just playing with words. You make statements that have no connection with reality. Making all appliances from a small set of parts is very good, but it's not required. Even without it, it can be profitable to sell parts.

Everything that you said until now proves that you believe the OSE project is going to be used by a small number of rich people who will afford to make their own workshops and to produce parts for themselves and, at best, they will produce parts for a small community.
However, according to your "logic", they will sell without profit, because they will need charities to support them in order to supply parts.
So in your mind, OSE is a project made to fail. You proved it beyond any doubt.
Sometimes I wonder if you are in the project with the purpose to convince people (or to make sure) that OSE will become a failure - no offense.

wormfarmman

I think having an open source washing machine would be a great product to have available, but I think that in order to have a competitive edge, OSE would have to mass produce all its own part, OSE just doesn't have the infrastructure set up to house this sort of operation. true, you could outsource the parts, but the company manufacturing the parts would be making most of the profit, and to get a descent quota on the supply, you would need orders, and OSE would be totally backed up in labour assembing all these machines.

Open source CNC machinery could manufacture the parts, and if the open source principle rains true, low purchasing cost, low maintenance, with reliable operation, then OSE could become extremely competetive in ANY product line.....

but we aren't just talking a couple torch tables, we're talking factory level infrastructure.... OSE would have to grow considerably to get to that point, and I just want to point out what a glorious time that would be and I hope it happens.

Untill then, I think OSE has to focus on its strong points. I think what OSE really has going for its products right now is innovative designs. The Tractor is a good example of a great innovative design. Its exactly what one would want in a tractor. Dirt simple, reliable, and super easy maintenance, and low purchasing cost. its simplicity keeps it cheap, using very basic materials, some of which are available from local construction supplies like the, like for the frame.

I think for ose to put its foot in the washing machine market they would have to do something that makes their washing machine totally unique somehow. Washing machines are pretty simple machines I couldnt imagine anything that would make them any better..... the only thing i could imagine was if when OSE sells their washing machine that it comes with a complete extra kit of important parts that might wear out sooner than others........

I have an idea of an appliance that could possiblty find a good niche in the open source market. Everyone knows about propane fridges right? and that they can be modified to run on natural gas? I propose the the open source biogas powered refridgerator. with a compressable biogas bag made of tough material that can be transported easilly.

This product does not exist on the market. It runs off grid, from an energy source freely available. People in third world countries would buy it. People in America would buy it. I think it would be a great OSE project.

wormfarmman

Everything that you said until now proves that you believe the OSE project is going to be used by a small number of rich people who will afford to make their own workshops and to produce parts for themselves and, at best, they will produce parts for a small community.
However, according to your "logic", they will sell without profit, because they will need charities to support them in order to supply parts.
So in your mind, OSE is a project made to fail. You proved it beyond any doubt.
Sometimes I wonder if you are in the project with the purpose to convince people (or to make sure) that OSE will become a failure - no offense."

obviously, a person couldnt buy an industrial machine with no money. Its just a fact of life. but OSE machines brings down the initial cost and maintenance significally. this potentially allows middle income families to get their foot into some different business models.

its about decentralisation. stop the wealth flowing to the people that are allready incredibly wealthy. keep it in your community, your town.

and low income families still benefit. people can follow the documentation and build their own equipment and save a ton of money.

But OSE deffinatley needs to be able to turn a profit, to fund their own infrastructure growth.

gonzo

I think having an open source washing machine would be a great product to have available, but I think that in order to have a competitive edge, OSE would have to mass produce all its own part, OSE just doesn't have the infrastructure set up to house this sort of operation. true, you could outsource the parts, but the company manufacturing the parts would be making most of the profit, and to get a descent quota on the supply, you would need orders, and OSE would be totally backed up in labour assembling all these machines.

OSE only needs money in order to make the machines popular and to continue the research/new designs. If others can sell machines and parts at better prices and quality and if they can make the machines (very) popular, then the job is done and OSE won't have to do it. OSE just has to teach others to do it. The purpose of OSE is not to maintain a commercial supremacy - by the contrary - it has to create a worldwide industry of open source machines. Exactly like IBM did - they created the Personal Computer with standard specifications, giving up monopoly - but they created a world wide PC industry.
Also, when the machines will be very popular, OSE will surely get more money for research from donations because there will be a lot of people thankful to and enthusiastic about the project. Also, other groups will start to do research on their own in order to improve open source designs. That's the natural consequences of a project becoming popular.

Untill then, I think OSE has to focus on its strong points. I think what OSE really has going for its products right now is innovative designs. The Tractor is a good example of a great innovative design.

That's true. But the problem is that washing machines, refrigerators, coffeemakers, dryers, etc would become wildly popular in an instant. By contrast, the tractors are not going to become very popular so easy. Therefore, changing the priority list (which designs to do first) can have an enormous impact on how fast the OSE project will become very popular. That's the main point that I made when I started this thread.
Even without supplying machines and parts, only by designing the machines in a different order can make a huge difference.

Washing machines are pretty simple machines I couldnt imagine anything that would make them any better..... the only thing i could imagine was if when OSE sells their washing machine that it comes with a complete extra kit of important parts that might wear out sooner than others........

Just by making sure that the clients can buy parts when they need is an enormous improvement. It's much cheaper to repair them in this case.
Also, an OSE washing machine can be constantly improved, a lot of user input can be used to better design parts. You can replace your video card in your computer without changing the computer.
Same thing with an OSE washing machine - you can add a new firmware or another door/front pannel/whatever_other_component that works better or that fits your aesthetics.
But it's extremely important for the consumer to pay only $10-$20 for replacing a handle or a door, instead of paying another $250 for replacing the whole washing machine.

I propose the the open source biogas powered refridgerator. with a compressable biogas bag made of tough material that can be transported easilly.

Refrigerators should be in the first 2-5 most priority machines to design. It should be an universal refrigerator, that can be powered by electricity or gas or solar power. Same refrigerator - different power sources. I incline to believe that refrigerators that use solar power or thermal power (heat from air) can become extremely popular.

obviously, a person couldnt buy an industrial machine with no money. Its just a fact of life. but OSE machines brings down the initial cost and
maintenance significally. this potentially allows middle income families to get their foot into some different business models.

Exactly like the PC industry :)
Instead of having 3-4 major players (Apple, Amiga, Atari, IBM), now we have a world-wide PC industry made of smaller scale production companies, thanks to IBM. So OSE has to be the new IBM :)

its about decentralization. stop the wealth flowing to the people that are already incredibly wealthy. keep it in your community, your town.

Exactly. Small factories can make machines or only parts, for profit. Even if their profit is not very big, they also need to buy things. And when they buy machines, they can also replace parts, therefore consuming less money.
So it's not all about how much money you have - it's also about the value of your money. If you can buy more (or the same) with less money than 10 years ago, then where is the problem?

and low income families still benefit. people can follow the documentation and build their own equipment and save a ton of money.

Exactly. A world-wide industry (decentralized, democratic) will be created. But OSE has to show to the people how to do it. That's why it should supply machines and parts, for a while.

But OSE definitely needs to be able to turn a profit, to fund their own infrastructure growth.

Sources of money that I can see:
* Selling machines and parts. There will be very few companies that want to enter into producing open source parts, at least for a while, therefore competition can't be a problem.
* When there will be competition, the products will become even more popular, therefore many other people will make donations and will improve designs
* If MakerBot could get $10 million in investments for doing just an open source 3D Printer (which sells in number of thousands/year), you can imagine how much investments OSE can get for making washing machines and refrigerators.

However, the main question is how to become popular as fast as possible. When that is achieved, money won't be a problem at all.

wormfarmman

Refrigerators should be in the first 2-5 most priority machines to design. It should be an universal refrigerator, that can be powered by electricity or gas or solar power. Same refrigerator - different power sources. I incline to believe that refrigerators that use solar power or thermal power (heat from air) can become extremely popular.

Washing machines are very important, but in my opinion fridges are more of a necessity. I live in Costa rica, most people have both fridge and washing machine, but the fridge comes first. Although usually if the families can't afford one they cant afford the other either.....

Also im no expert on fridges but i remember when i wanted a biogas fridge i was studying the propane ones a little and apparently it uses a totaly different mechanism to make cold, something about ammonia conversion. So I don't think that the components for electricity and propane could work as one. you could have both sets of components, or...... just had a thought, an easilly interchangable set of components for different power sources, like an interchangeable power cube.

I will point out that if you're going to make an open source washing machine targeted at third world country populations, It would have to be one of those small cheap manual ones. Cheaper, more efficient on water and electricity, less complicated.

gonzo

Refrigerators might be even more important than washing machines.
It can create cold using the heat in the air, using technology like this:
Generating 'Green' Electricity: Waste Heat Converted to Electricity Using New Alloy - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110622125706.htm

The washing machines and refrigerators don't have to be targeted to third world countries. In many countries where the people have electricity, $250 is a lot of money and the people can afford to buy one, but they can't afford to buy another one when just a component breaks. The open source washing machines and refrigerators have a big market in the first world, as people will prefer to repair them on a cheap. Especially hotels, where they buy in numbers. And there are so many hotels in this world..

wormfarmman

very interesting piece of technology but its very new and we have no idea what the numbers are for the conversion. I remember reading that the gas ammonnia conversion is 100% energy conversion. I think biogas fridges are the most promising alternative energy powered fridge. For other application in order for an appliance to be run off of biogas, you would need a generator running off biogas powering batteries (unless you run the ICE all the time which is really innefficient). With this, all you need are a bunch of pvc parts and a couple plastic barrels (which i get for 10$ each), and septic, and/or grass clippings.

Solar isn't cost effective due to batteries (coupled with cost of panels) I've done the math and its cheaper to live off the current electric. A biogas system, however, with just the tank system, can run the cooking gas, lights, fridge, even air conditioning systems (there are natural gas ones but i know of no one that is running them with biogas, but it is possible). It's certainly not perfect, but its a proven cost effective solution to reduce electricty usage.

Diogenes

I do not believe that selling products is the way to go at this stage. The implied unspoken long term goal is autocatalysis. A machine set fully capable of replicating itself with only time, will and raw resources for viral propegation throughout the world to empower the powerless.

In my opinion, the industrial tools that get people like me out of the arm chair and into participation is what the immediate goal is. People like me have lasting enthusiasm for the idea, but that's not very useful. Give us the ability to make tools, and some fraction of us will then go on to contribute. I think settling lots of people on the farm is a minor mistake as it causes a lot of labor to be spent on the high labor low gain enterprise of growing food which could well be inefficient. Additionally, it distracts from the engineering of industrial machines and diverts to agricultural machines which is another mistake still, in my view. After all, what can I do with a CEB press when I can't even figure out how to get my hands on five acres that people won't be trying to tell me what I can and can't do on?

Luxury appliances and schemes to sell them is just another form of the same thing: a way to delay industrial tools. People will develop the cool stuff, once they have the tools to do so. And then they can make them in their garage and try to sell them if they want, and donate half of their profits to OSE. It's just not the thing for right now. Right now the problem is getting people more than just excited, but involved.

gonzo

Selling products can attract huge investments, and very fast. That will only accelerate production of tools that make tools, and it will only accelerate the autocatalysis you are talking about. If the Makerbot (who sells a 3D Printer) already got $10 million in investments, then imagine how much $ can OSE get from supplying more desired machines.

I also agree that making a farm where to produce food is not a very good idea. You don't need to waste people's time on agriculture. You can test the machines without involving a lot of OSE members into agriculture. I think this idea comes from an ambition of Marcin to prove that OSE can produce everything a civilization that start from scratch needs. This ambition can slow the project. The machines will be far more useful by being integrated into the rest of the world than by recreating the world in parallel.

Luxury appliances and schemes to sell them is just another form of the same thing: a way to delay industrial tools.

Washing machines and refrigerators are not luxury appliances. They are needed on large scale. They can generate huge amounts of sales and it can attract enormous investments. It's really sad to see that Marcin is happy for getting $360,000 from Shuttleworth while he can get tens of millions of dollars in investments.
Such huge investments and the profit from sales can be used to accelerate development of industrial tools, so there is no way it can delay (developement of) industrial tools.

People will develop the cool stuff, once they have the tools to do so.

Here is the big problem. There are already lots of tools to develop the cool stuff. The problem is that people do not involve into developing tools. We are only 500 true fans, for example, and we should be much more.

And then they can make them in their garage and try to sell them if they want, and donate half of their profits to OSE.

Not everyone has a garage or workshop. And I wouldn't be so sure that the people will donate their profits to OSE. I prefer that OSE sells the products and make profits directly.

Right now the problem is getting people more than just excited, but involved.

The best way to get the people involved is to make the project popular. And it can become popular much faster if it will supply (some of) the most desired appliances - then the people around the world will hear about the OSE project. That will bring more supporters and more investments.

wormfarmman

Hey not everyone finds agriculture boring here ;) Where I live just about everyone is involved in agriculture!! For alot of people of in the states im sure agriculture appears really dull, but for others its a lifestyle and survival. Marcin needs to showcase his premier product, thats all.

And as for the brick machine not being exciting...... building houses with quality materials available for free is plenty exciting, and so is the competetive price and performance of the open source brick machine.

I ended up designing my won cinva ram and having it built (Cinva ram in the wiki, thats me), and am in the process of learning how to make quality bricks. Once that goal is reached and after Marcin has further tested his ceb machine I might order 1. Maybe a tractor to.

Diogenes

Luxury - something very pleasant but not really needed in life.

Antonyms - Necessity, indispensable.

Refrigerators are a luxury. People lived without them for hundreds of thousands of years. An OSE refrigerator should happen at some point, but it does not enable other things to be developed. It is a very end of the line product. I'd love to see an open source freezer-refrigerator-air conditioner or something, and millions of people around the world who can't afford to buy and maintain them would also love to see one. However, there is no guarantee of successful business enterprise as you insist, and it does not enable other devices. First the industrial tools must be developed, and then all the other products can be developed. OSE must achieve autocatalysis and then it can develop agricultural tools, luxury appliances, vehicles, and so on.

Energy, tools, and resources, in that order.

And wormfarmman, I neither said nor implied that agriculture is boring or dull. I said agriculture is out of reach for the majority of the world's population which lives in cities and for which land ownership is an increasingly difficult thing to achieve. The high labor cost is another issue, and that was about the opportunity cost analysis of farming vs engineering.

wormfarmman

I'm just trying to point out that Marcins just showing off his premier product. The tractor is OSE's most refined and tested design, its logical that he would advertise the tractor working in agriculture.

I think you are right that Marcin should concentrate on the industrial tools so that OSE can expand into a factory, and local populations can consider manufacturing as well.

gonzo

@Diogenes

Tractors, 3D Printers, 3D Scanners, Forge and CEB Press machines are also a luxury, according to your definition: Homo erectus lived millions of years without them. Homo sapiens (modern people) also lived without them about 70 thousand years or so. An OSE refrigerator does not enable other things to be developed, but it can generate enormous sales, and that can make lots of cash, that can be used to accelerate the speed of OSE. Really, what's so hard to figure that out?
What kind of reasons can you have to believe that there is no big change of successful busineess enterprise by selling OS devices? PC standards created a worldwide PC industry, Makerbot got $10 million in investments, just for making an open source 3D printer, why wouldn't OSE get even more money for making machines that every family wants?
You don't have to make tools that create other devices in order to generate sales. By the contrary, you have to create final products, that people need the most.

OSE does not require to achieve autocatalysis at the expense of efficiency ! It does not need to delay it's success for 5 years just for the ambition to do everything with open source tools.
By the contrary, making OS appliances with non-open source tools can only accelerate the production of tools that make tools, by generating resources (cash) that will be poured then into fast and efficient design and development of the rest of the tools (GVCS).

Energy, tools, and resources, in that order.

Only if you have a strange ambition to recreate the civilization again from scratch and to lose years of progress for that. Other than that, the order should be: efficiency (attracting donations and investments by supplying most popular appliances) -> sales -> resources (cash) -> develop tools that make tools.

You have to start with the most popular appliances if you want to attract cash very efficiently.

Matt_Maier

"You have to start with the most popular appliances if you want to attract cash very efficiently."

>>>You seem awfully certain that your business model is guaranteed to work. Why are you wasting time on this forum when you could be "attracting cash very efficiently?" You're starting to sound an awful lot like the investment-guru dudes who spend so much time talking on the radio it's amazing they have time to spend all the money they must be making with their investments. At least cough up a business model. Do something to advance the project that you yourself are demanding everyone else acknowledge as an obvious future success. When you keep saying it will work, but you don't do anything beyond saying it will work, all you're doing is convincing everyone else that you don't actually believe it will work.

UtopianPragmatist

I think it's a matter of scale, a small team can efficiently work on fairly low volume products while designing the work flow and organizational models needed - when the production methods and tooling needs have been established then it can be increased to deal with larger volume production of items like washing machines.

The initial GVCS is really just a means of developing and proving the methods of design and production - it'll also result in a project which allows small groups of dedicated professionals to construct and furnish a factory unit complete with R&D capabilities, media connectivity and crowd funding models - in short OSE is creating the blueprints to assemble itself; once this is available for others to copy then hopefully new projects will spring up all over the world working in various ways. Many of these will surely want to focus on designing the more profitable and immediately useful tools, many will want to manufacture open designs for local markets, and many will want to try totally new things - we'll hopefully see an explosion of projects and possibilities.

Well no doubt once the GVCS is complete and other projects are following the model and producing open source designs for all sorts of useful items many of these things will find their way into improving HabLab and other buildings on the farm, maybe the OSE team will even begin a new project focusing on home life? or maybe they'll keep adding ever newer and better manufacturing tools? - but before these projects can begin making things they'll need the manufacturing tools like the CNC table which they're designing at OSE.

gonzo

When you keep saying it will work, but you don't do anything beyond saying it will work, all you're doing is convincing everyone else that you don't actually believe it will work.

I don't just talk. I am a true fan, so I donate $10 / month to OSE and also I already sent about $800 as a separate donation to OSE.
I work extra hours, I save money, and I send it to OSE. This is the way I can participate, I am not good at engineering and I can't move to live at the OSE farm also.
I contribute the way I can and I don't really think that my participation is insignificant. So I'm not just talking

Bastelmike

@wormfarmman
Untill then, I think OSE has to focus on its strong points. I think what OSE really has going for its products right now is innovative designs. The Tractor is a good example of a great innovative design. Its exactly what one would want in a tractor. Dirt simple, reliable, and super easy maintenance, and low purchasing cost. its simplicity keeps it cheap, using very basic materials, some of which are available from local construction supplies like the, like for the frame.

I just agree with You about the Lifetrac in one issue: it's cheap !

But with a Lifetrac You will get what You've paid for. Maybe not even that...

Its a poor design with no advantages except being cheap. And the manufacturing quality of FeF built Lifetracs is lowest possible level.

There have been a lot of discussions about Lifetrac on the forums and the weak points have been clearly pointed out. So why are You still talking about a great innovative design, wormfarmman ???

Mike

Matt_Maier

"I contribute the way I can..."

>>>Which apparently doesn't include developing your own idea into an actual plan. You haven't even developed it during the course of this argument; you've just restated the same basic presupposition in different ways.

"There have been a lot of discussions about Lifetrac on the forums and the weak points have been clearly pointed out. So why are You still talking about a great innovative design, wormfarmman ???"

>>>I can't speak for wormfarmman, but I can explain my opinion. The tractor is innovative because it is a proof-of-concept. Have you seen James Slade's alterations? http://vimeo.com/44216600 The CURRENT design of the tractor isn't impressive, but the POTENTIAL is impressive. It's not that simple, cheap tractors are a new idea. It's not even that DIY tractors are a new idea. It's that tractors which are specifically designed to be an open source, modular part of a larger system are a new idea. Because the rest of the system doesn't exist yet the tractor is being compared to other stand-alone tractors. That's kind of like comparing a single Lego kit to a Batman toy. Unlike the Batman toy, the Lego kit is compatible with the entire Lego system of modular pieces. If you look at the Lego kit in isolation it looks pathetic. The stand-alone Batman toy is a lot cooler. It's got an action figure, and a motorcycle that shoots darts, stuff like that...the Lego kit just has some stuff that sort of looks like a motorcycle after you put it all together. BUT, when you don't want a Batman toy anymore the Lego kit can become anything else. The stand-alone Batman toy will always be just a Batman toy.

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/lego_batman1.jpg

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/blog/damnyoukozo/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/4_hot_toys_batpod.jpg

So don't worry about the current design of the tractor. It will improve as it evolves and its true utility will only be realized as the rest of the GVCS evolves.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Open Source Ecology Forums