This is still an unsolved question in OSE project and deciding for one of these options will have consequences for the outcome of the GVCS and the complete OSE idea.

1. Going for bootstrapping from scratch makes for a very long lasting process, and the final result will be open in useability and quality. Maybe a very few people will be able to produce their shop tools with acceptable quality, but this requires time, patience and especially high technical skills. Because of the lack of skills most people will produce shop tools with poor performance and quality.

This will influence the design and quality of the GVCS machines built. OSE specifications call for high performance and industrial efficiency, but with the poor tools homebuilt these goals are out of reach. GVCS machines under this strategy will be poor built low performing machines without any operator comfort.

Gingery books are interesting, but there are 2 drawbacks. I have never heard of someone who did some precision measurements on his machines to compare them with industry standards for machine tools ie lathes, mills.I doubt if they meet these standards. Another issue is these machines are pretty small. Too small for many of the GVCS designs. And it would be much more difficult to do a homebuilt of these machines with double or trifold sizes.

2. Making the GVCS a real replacement for industrial built machines requires higher capabilities, skills and shops with equipment of sufficient performance , precision and quality. With these conditions met, there's hope for GVCS machines being really of high performance and industrial efficiency.

For the short-run, the "cheaper open source machine shop" will just be a dream. OSE is still far away from designing quality machine shop tools. As long as they are talking about a CNC multimachine, I don't take FeFs attempts to build machine tools serious. Most multimachine tools perform poor, a the few ones that are fair performers are highly complicated machines. Not suited to DIY !

Conclusion: Either we build the shops from scratch or we have to rely on industrial built tools for the next couple of years.

Building from scratch will slow down the spreading of GVCS and GVCS machines will be cheap low-quality. They may be of some value still for poor countries where people for example find it a big progress to have a tractor, even if it has low perfomance, breakes often (but simply to repair) and has low standards of safety and operator comfort. In the industrial world such a GVCS won't be a success story, I am sure about that.
So to make GVCS successful in the industrialized world, it must be competive with commercial products, not only cheaper but poor. This calls for the shop from market. Even if OSE once has developed quality shop tools, someone without a shop will have to buy them first - without machine shop You don't produce good machines !

Mike

The plan is the second option, but not exactly the way you put it.
The people (in general) do not need and do not want to own an entire workshop with all the 50 GVCS tools. Why would they do that?
I noticed that some (or many?) of the OSE supporters see in it a project designed to please the rich people who fancy themselves "(open source) geeks" and who want to enjoy making tools that make tools. It looks a bit scary to me, and I pray to God that the project will not go that way. We do not need to make tools to please rich people and to let them decide for the entire fate of communities.

When OSE is making a machine, it MUST stay committed to supply them and their components. When someone buys a CEB Press for 2,000 $, he must have the comfort of knowing that whenever a component breaks, he can buy that component from OSE (or from others) at the decent price for it, and he won't have to buy another CEB Press. Only the commitment of the OSE community to supply the parts to the people who need it, only the availability of components will change the world. It's not enough to give to the world a gift of open source designs. It's even more important to provide a decent supply, at least until others will start to make and supply OSE machines and components at a decent price.
However, it's a better idea to provide the machine and the components forever, just to make sure others won't be tempted to play dirty (not supplying parts or selling them too expensive).

The answer to your question is:
2) Design the GVCS so that it is a direct replacement for existing industry, only cheaper/simpler. People would get together some capital and buy the cheaper open source machines from the market.
2a) The people who only use the machines in their house/farm will always be able to repair them cheaper, buying only the parts they need from OSE.
2b) Millions of people will have the opportunity to create OSE machines. They can start small companies who produce just parts or just one machine. The parts they produce will be cheap, people will buy them so they can keep their jobs. They might not make a lot of money, but in the same time, they won't need a lot of money to buy other OSE machines they need.

Almost no one needs to produce all the GVCS machines. But millions of people can be involved into producing the CEB Press, other millions can be involved into producing the Tractor, and so on.

I understand your passion for machines, making them, using them, making them more efficient and so on.
But in the same time, you should try to understand the people who live in poverty and can't even dream about ever having access to the most basic machines that makes the comfort of a modern life.
Those people don't need to have all the GVCS machines in their own workshop. They don't even have a workshop.
When OSE will supply the machines AND THE PARTS, at decent price - and will stay committed to it - then the poor people will finally have the opportunity to buy them and to repair them. In time, they will learn that they can produce at least some of the parts too. It will create (hundreds of) millions of jobs around the world. But it will take some years for them to learn it. Until then, please make the parts available and don't fail in keeping the supply in shape.

And please, start with some of the most needed machines. Now OSE talks about even an open source car. That's great but.. really? Do cars really have more priority than looms, than sewing machines, than washing machines, than refrigerators?
Clothes are not basic things? Machines that make and wash clothes are somewhat ridiculous or what? What's wrong with them? Are they for women?

"...he must have the comfort of knowing that whenever a component breaks, he can buy that component from OSE (or from others) at the decent price for it, and he won't have to buy another CEB Press. Only the commitment of the OSE community to supply the parts to the people who need it, only the availability of components will change the world."

> The way I understand it, OSE machines are built out of stock materials with as few machining steps as possible. That means the vast majority of the components are commodities that already have robust, competitive markets. For example, the optional control circuitry for the CEB press uses components you can walk into Radio Shack and buy, or order online for pennies. That way OSE doesn't have to become a supplier.

"...just to make sure others won't be tempted to play dirty (not supplying parts or selling them too expensive)."

> The idea is to keep the machines so simple suppliers will always compete with each other on price. When that's not possible, make the specifications freely available so that anyone with the right tools can become a supplier.

"When OSE will supply the machines AND THE PARTS, at decent price - and will stay committed to it - then the poor people will finally have the opportunity to buy them and to repair them."\

> You mean like a charity? Do you mean give the machines away for no or next-to-no cost? I don't think that's OSE's charter. Also, there is no need for OSE to take on that function. All the information necessary to make the machines is freely available and OSE will provide training if required. So, if someone wants to start a charity to donate machines, they have no barriers to entry. All they have to do is start making the machines.

"Clothes are not basic things? Machines that make and wash clothes are somewhat ridiculous or what? What's wrong with them?"

> We've been around on this subject before. The GVCS can make appliances. Appliances cannot make the GVCS. Things that can make things are more necessary than labor-saving devices. Appliances will be made AFTER things like machine shops, houses, and plumbing. Or not. There's nothing stopping you from starting an open source appliance project.

"The availability (supplying parts) is the key to change the world."

> Agreed. That's why the infrastructure that turns raw materials into parts is more important than the parts themselves.

"...the project should start with making at least 3-5 of the most desired and easy to make machines: Home appliances. That will help generate a lot of sales"

> OSE isn't a for-profit organization.

@Matt_Maier:
That means the vast majority of the components are commodities that already have robust, competitive markets.

That's awesome. However, OSE should make sure that the rest of the components (those who don't have robust, competitive markets) will be available for the people to buy.

The idea is to keep the machines so simple suppliers will always compete with each other on price. When that's not possible, make the specifications freely available so that anyone with the right tools can become a supplier.

I thought the specifications will be freely anyway, not only in case that the supplies don't compete each other on price.

"When OSE will supply the machines AND THE PARTS, at decent price - and will stay committed to it - then the poor people will finally have the opportunity to buy them and to repair them."

>You mean like a charity? Do you mean give the machines away for no or next-to-no cost?

No way. That's not what I meant at all. I mean, when nobody wants to create parts, then the OSE should make them (for a profit, but at decent price - i.e. not a price inflated 10 times), in order to make sure the clients can repair their machines when they need it. That is the promise of the OSE, that the machines will be easier and cheaper to repair, because they are open source and highly modular. It's common sense to assume that by saying that, OSE means it will take care that the people can buy the parts they need. Because forcing the farmer to buy another 10 machines just to make parts for his OSE tractor isn't exactly "cheap" for him. OSE must check if the parts are available for the people to buy, and if they are not, it should try to supply them. Otherwise it means OSE made a false promise.

We've been around on this subject before.

Yes we have been but you refused to answer some basic common-sense questions. Like what kind of indication you have that appliances with 10x reduction in price (that are also cheaper to repair) can't make significant sales.

The GVCS can make appliances. Appliances cannot make the GVCS. Things that can make things are more necessary than labor-saving devices.

Really? A Tractor or a  Soil Pulverizer can make appliances? I don't really believe that. They are part of the GVCS because they can help to produce something basic - food.
A CEB Press can't make appliances. It can help to make something basic - a house.
I have to believe that clothes are also something basic.
I can't imagine a self-sufficient sustainable community of people who have the comfort of modern civilization, working in agriculture, in industry, in engineering ... all naked.
Can you imagine a naked self-sufficient community?

OSE isn't a for-profit organization.

Of course it's not but it needs money. Developing the GVCS machines costs a lot of money. More money can help the organization to be more efficient and to be more productive. Money are always welcomed in OSE for future enhancements of the designs, and for further research. Why to refuse to make more money? Is Marcin refusing donations because "OSE isn't for-profit organization" ?

"Clothes are not basic things? Machines that make and wash clothes are somewhat ridiculous or what? What's wrong with them?"

> We've been around on this subject before. The GVCS can make appliances. Appliances cannot make the GVCS. Things that can make things are more necessary than labor-saving devices. Appliances will be made AFTER things like machine shops, houses, and plumbing. Or not. There's nothing stopping you from starting an open source appliance project.

One problem is, the GVCS50 is a mixture of machines. Without following one approach consequently.

There are things for consumer items. And there are investment items. And there are machines to produce machines. Thats 3 different categories. But all are mixed up in the GVCS50.

A CEB press doesn't produce machines. But it produces investment items, ok, has to be qestioned if you build a house. But if You build a factory with those bricks, its an productive investment. From the GVCS 50, there are many machines that don't produce other machines. Tractors, bulldozers, trucks, though these are productive items. Therefore its wrong to say the GVCS contains goods that produce machines, that's only true for more or less a dozen of the GVCS50. Okay, maybe two dozen if I count machines that produce raw materials for machines (steel roller, aluminium extractor...)

Also there are a few items for consumers in the GVCS. The bakery oven doesn't produce anything productive, "just" bread and pizza. The car is more a consumer item than a productive item as most cars today are for personal use. I don't think we should integrate a washing machine in the GVCS, but to be consequent, the bakery oven has to be removed from the GVCS set too as it not a bit more productive than a washing machine.
@Gonzo

For the short-run, the "cheaper open source machine shop" will just be a dream.
That's totally false. The open source machines are much cheaper as you can replace parts at dirt cheap.
>

Well, currently there are no 'open source machine tools' available. And, according to all information in the forums and the wiki, there will be none in the next years, that are competitive to commcial machine tools in performance and quality of work.

'Simpler'? A simpler machine means most often a machine with lower overall value. Industrial research has over years explored most ways to reduce production costs of machines. And its a myth You can produce a machine with comparable value much simpler. To ensure same quality, You need the same quality and materials and the same precision in manufacturing. This is valid as long as OSE specifications call for "high performance", "industrial efficiency" and 'livelong quality". If we give up these standards, OSE machines will be simpler and cheaper. But IMO than it has become a third-world GVCS.

Mike

ive just been working on crank shaft design and i read your comments here and now im feeling bad for being sloppy :O

@@dorkmo

Sorry, I can't give You links to good literature in English.

Lifetrac, well, my last information by MikeA is that FeF doesn't use the Lifetracs anymore. They are developing a Lifecat skid-steer loader roughly based on the Lifetrac.

Maybe some people at FeF have realized that the Lifetrac design doesn't have the potential to become a good agricultural tractor.

Obviously, Marcin favores now outsourcing the development of machines to commercial companies, so I wouldn't be surprised if a new tractor design is developed by a commercial machine shop.

Personally, I am not sure whether we should be happy or sad about this outsourcing policy ???

:-S

Mike

"The bakery oven doesn't produce anything productive, "just" bread and pizza. The car is more a consumer item than a productive item as most cars today are for personal use. I don't think we should integrate a washing machine in the GVCS, but to be consequent, the bakery oven has to be removed from the GVCS set too as it not a bit more productive than a washing machine."

I like this thread very much, a lot of good stuff floating around it!

The GVCS has a lot of built in assumptions around their construction. One is that the people/peoples building the machines already have at least some what of a stable base of resources. Second is that they have access to cash, credit or bartering assets with which obtain the parts and materials to build the machines. And third is that the people doing the building have a basic to moderate knowledge of metalworking/engineering/construction/ect. Given these assumptions it is obvious that the GVCS is not a from scratch project. I would say it is equally obvious that those people who have money and desire to build the set will be able to do so much quicker and comfortably than those with the desire alone. Here is where charity comes in. That ia of course a whole other philosophical can of worms for another time.

In regards to the outsourcing of the machines to design companies, it is likely to be the only way for OSE to hope to get the full 50 machines prototyped in the next 10 months. I largely agree with Bastelmike on the pros and cons. I tend to lean towards it being better in the long run so long as the lay person is able to repeat the professional construction with the GVCS tool and other basic and affordable tools.

I think precision Can be largely situational, but is is always advantages to be overly precise rather than lacking. An example is in woodworking. It is a simple thing to make a rudimentary lathe capable of producing furniture and other goods from wood. This contrasts to a metal lathe where precision is paramount because of nature of the finished products application. There is nothing wrong with a rudimentary wood lathe, just don't try to do anything precise on it!

"Can you imagine a naked self-sufficient community?"

>
Yeah...actually I can. Humans were self-sufficient and naked for most of
their history. There's no mechanical reason why clothes are necessary
to operate digital watches. We could go back to being naked if the
culture wanted to.

I find this comment quite humorous. Clothing is technically a form of shelter, without which humans would have never left their original natural environment without the evolution of thicker hair or fatty layers. Clothing allows people to be outside of their natural environment by keeping them warm and protected from the elements. I tend to agree that clothing production and washing are not well adapted to what the GVCS is trying to accomplish, although, a commercial loom is necessary, and fits into the structure of a machine that creates a machine, as the fabric created is not the final product, and is further refined into items. It should be noted however that while human beings could technically take off their clothes and live naked, the majority of those who live in temperate climates would only live until the weather turnes cold, and then they would die from exposure, as it would be impractical and nigh impossible to not leave ones home for resources.

"...there are no open source machine producers today."
> Could you expand on that idea? I suspect you didn't state it clearly because I can think of a dozen off the top of my head...depending on what you mean by "machine."

That's extremely few, almost nothing. They don't produce even 0.001% of their respective market demands.

"Saying "repair the machine is cheaper" means OSE will try to help the clients to buy the parts when they need them."
> How so? I read that as merely saying that the machine was designed to be "cheaper" to repair than the commercial alternatives. I don't see where it says OSE will do all the work for you.

If you want the people to buy the GVCS machines, you must make sure they will trust you when you say that it's really cheaper to repair the machines.
If they will need a part for their machine and they won't be able to find that part on the market, then they should have the opportunity to buy it from OSE.
If you tell them, in full arrogance and cynicism, that "it's their work to make the parts", suggesting that they will have to buy an additional 10-20 machines to produce the parts, then it won't be exactly "cheap" for them to repair their machine.
It's a total nonsense to tell to a farmer that he will have to spend 50,000$ for machines and for raw materials just for producing one part that costs 50$.

Indeed, some people will start to produce parts for the GVCS machines. But it will take some time until that happens. And they will need to have some demand in order to start. The demand can be created only if there are enough people who buy OSE machines.
So until there will be a good supply of parts elsewhere, OSE should supply them, in order to make the clients to believe that it's really cheaper to repair the machines, and to make them buy the machines.
It's utterly preposterous to assume that everyone will buy a set of 20 GVCS machines because "it's their job to produce their own parts".
Again, you show that for you, the OSE project is designed for the fancy rich "geeks" who want to play with toys... for boys.
To tell to a poor farmer that struggled to save money to buy a Lifetrac that he will have to spend 10 times more to buy an entire set of machines, just to produce a 30$ worth component, that is absolute insanity !

@Matt_Maier:
1) I wasn't talking about parts that are (or will be) available to buy on the market.
2) Good. But some people might not have a machinist in their neighborhood to make them parts.
3) I wasn't talking about selling parts now. I was talking about supplying parts after the machines will be created and sold. And I was talking only about parts that won't be available on the market when the clients will need them.
4) People should be able to buy parts for the prototype machine they buy.
5) If the parts are not available locally, that will be a temporary situation. It will take some time for the people to learn that they can produce them. Until then, OSE should supply those parts. Not as charity (in case you got me wrong again), but for profit. GVCS can't be a failure if the people adopt it. In time, the production facilities around the world will start to produce parts too.

"some people might not have a machinist in their neighborhood to make them parts."

At the moment, there's plenty of stuff the GVCS can't even do in theory. 

"When the people using OSE machines will be successful, then the OSE project will surely be successful."

> Success is in the eye of the beholder. A cutting edge, brand new, paradigm shattering technology project has unusual metrics for judging success. I will say OSE is successful when it inspires and supports businesses to provide and support the GVCS. I don't think it makes sense for OSE to take on the role of a business.