Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
Is the plan really efficient?
-
66 Comments sorted by
-
"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. "Its true utility will always be limited by the chosen basic configuration. There are good reasons why skidsteers with bandtracks are vanishingly rare as general purpose agricultural tractors.If it's all about process at this stage then fair enough.
-
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.
I don't have to develop my idea into a plan, on my own. That's why we are here, together, to work together. Everyone contributes the way they can.
And there is no need for a plan at this moment. What is needed is the decision to include a few appliances into the GVCS. The plan follows next, like for every other OSE machine.
I didn't restated my point of view, I defended it. That's a big difference. I'm not coming here every day to repeat the same thing. But I answer to those who try to prove that it's not a good idea. It's my right to do that. -
Have you considered talking with that guy who just freaking volunteered a farm? You could try working with him. You're running up into resistance now because what you're doing is basically like suggesting ideas for video games and then expecting someone to jump at the chance to make it. In reality, video game ideas are useless and no one wants to hear it because an idea on its own doesn't simply manifest. Lycurgus said to start with your own household, and Hayek said that the job of economics was to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design. I think both quotes are relevant here.
You could try to find people who think this is a good idea, and then set up a project aiming to do exactly what you're proposing. But to expect to change the entire modus oparandi of FeF with just the persuasive power of your idea is unrealistic and a little arrogant. An open source washing machine or dish washer would be incredibly awesome and there's no telling how many lives that could change both in inner city poverty and the developing world. But the answer here is a fraternal project, not redirecting the MO of another project.
Where FeF aims at the rural, you can aim at the urban. And just because I'm saying you should start a different project doesn't mean I'm saying you have to do it alone. If people collaborated with wikispeed to build a $25k racecar, I'm positive you can get people to collaborate on a washing machine or dish washer.
I don't know, maybe you just propose unrealistic ideas and then get off on the matyrdom when they get shot down, there are people like that. But if you're sincere, I think maybe you should talk with that Augusta Georgia guy and see what he thinks.
-
Its true utility will always be limited by the chosen basic configuration. There are good reasons why skidsteers with bandtracks are vanishingly rare as general purpose agricultural tractors.
This configuration will make it virtually useless in many environments. Unlike the US, most farmers in Europe, Africa and Asia live in villages and have their fields scattered in the area. Therefore a tractor must be capable and legal to operate on public roads.
Besides this issue, its no smart idea to design a tractor without 3-point-hitch and pto in the rear, so it can't use millions of already existing implements !
Mike -
I had to laugh when I can across this thread today. I have been absent from the forums for various reasons for the last few months and it is still going lol!
@gonzo
It is said that in order for an idea to manifest itself into reality it must go through three stages: to be conceived of by the mind, spoken by the mouth, and put into action by the hands. In the case of this idea I would say that the action is long overdue :) Every project must be initiated by someone, and it is usually the person who has conceived it in the first place. If you feel this strongly about what you are proposing you are not doing it justice by simply talking about it. Action is required to make something happen. Even if it takes a long time, done little by little, the action of trying is what inspires, not the talk.
My advise is to find an old washing machine and sit down with it, paper & pencil, tools and an area that you can dismantle it in. Catalog how it is built and why. Then begin trying to rebuild it with common materials, or in what way you see fit. Post your progress and accept help from those who offer it. This is how you can start your project.
Personally Ive never seen OSE as a manufacturing facility that makes and sells the GVCS. I'm sure they will sell some of their stuff but I have always seen it as more of a repository of knowledge, accessible to all. In this way an open source washing machine, fridge, etc, would fit perfectly well into the grande open source scheme of things.
Peace!
-
First of all, sorry for irritating some of you with my messages. I really don't want to become the "resistance". OSE is by far the best project I could find on this planet and I am extremely happy to have the opportunity to participate.
@Diogenes:
GVCS contains a 3D Scanner, 3D Printer, and many other industrial tools. Are those tools really rural? In fact the industry developed in the cities and that it was the main driving force of urbanization.
So I really can not see how including 3 appliances into the GVCS can be redirecting OSE to another project, but in fact it will simply be a (big) improvement on the project.
And it doesn't have to change the modus operandi of the OSE even for a second.
Also, the 3D Scanner and 3D Printer are mostly used more like appliances than as industrial tools.
Look at the above comments (not mine comments, of course):
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.
..
I will agree that I probably would not have included a 3D scanner.
I did started in my own household: I work more, I save money, and I donate it to the project. I can't make a Wikipedia in my own household, but I can contribute greatly to Wikipedia, from my own household.
The same with OSE.
I remember it was year 1998 when I was wandering why there was no such thing as an encyclopedia on the internet. For me it looked like it's the most necessary thing to do once we have internet.
After four years, Wikipedia came into existence and it was the exactly what I was thinking about. Now, there is no way I could start such a project on my own, in 1998. I simply had no resources and power and "appeal" to do that.
I was too small and insignificant in order to be capable to start such a project, and I feel the same about the OSE.
@Danial:
Personally Ive never seen OSE as a manufacturing facility that makes and sells the GVCS
That is not realistic. If nobody will make and sell the GVCS, then the project will fail. And the best candidate to start making and selling the GVCS is exactly OSE.
Someone has to show to the people that it's a good idea to make and sell the machines. Who can do it better than OSE?
Look what Marcin said recenly, answering to my message:
"Therefore, we aim for a bootstrap-funding enterprise model – and yes, production is our route. Our next milestone is to clear $20k/month via sale of machines."
http://blog.opensourceecology.org/2012/06/4417/
The problem with the grande open source scheme of things is that the people fear to start making and selling the open source hardware. They fear that they will have competition but they forget the fact that others have the same fear and do not involve into the bussines.
And if nobody wants to do it that means there is a big opportunity for anyone to do it.
I can not start my own production facility on my own but I can contribute with money for making it.
Having said all the above, please excuse me if sometimes I look like a "pain in the neck". But please consider the fact that I had to spend my energy and time on this thread in order to counter extremely strange arguments like "you need charities in order to supply parts".
Parts can be supplied at normal price that includes everything - production cost, tax, profit for the shop, etc. Why would you have to make parts at artificially low price?
Therefore, I insisted on this thread not for persuasive reasons, but simply in order to prove that it's a good idea to include appliances in the GVCS and also to prove that selling GVCS machines and parts is a necessary thing to do.
-
"I insisted on this thread not for persuasive reasons, but simply in order to prove that it's a good idea to include appliances in the GVCS...">>> Still waiting...
-
Which machines are most important are different form where you are. In the poorest part of the world the one billion who dosen´t have electricity it is important to create efficient stoves and electricity. I the world about 2 billion who has electricity you probably what machines who reduces the burden of for women such as washing machines and refrigerators.
The dilemma with the general discourse is that machines just will make everything better and easier. It is really important with them but also why and from whom they are made.
The interesting with open source is that it is open but alot of the machines can be owned by a collective or co-op. Somethings you what at home or by yourself. Open machines own by the common are interesting when it comes to create something better what´s existing now.
-
@Matt_Maier:
I can't convince you of anything. It's your choice to open your eyes and see reality.
There are lots of companies that sell machines and parts for those machines, yet you are convinced that only if you ask help from charities you can sell parts.
It's not my problem that you refuse to see the most simple facts.
-
@gonzo:
>>GVCS
contains a 3D Scanner, 3D Printer, and many other industrial tools. Are
those tools really rural? In fact the industry developed in the cities
and that it was the main driving force of urbanization.
>>So I really
can not see how including 3 appliances into the GVCS can be redirecting
OSE to another project, but in fact it will simply be a (big)
improvement on the project.
It's open-source, so feel free to contribute designs to the Wiki.
>>And it doesn't have to change the modus operandi of the OSE even for a second.
You still don't understand it, then. OSE is designed to industrialize communities, not modernize them.
>>Also, the 3D Scanner and 3D Printer are mostly used more like appliances than as industrial tools.
With a 3D scanner/3D printer, you can print replacements for any non-structural parts that break. 3D printers allow you to design and prototype new things, print out things that others have designed, etc.
>>I
did started in my own household: I work more, I save money, and I
donate it to the project. I can't make a Wikipedia in my own household,
but I can contribute greatly to Wikipedia, from my own household.
>>The same with OSE.
But you contribute to Wikipedia by contributing, not by telling them they're approaching their goal incorrectly. Same with OSE.
>>That
is not realistic. If nobody will make and sell the GVCS, then the
project will fail. And the best candidate to start making and selling
the GVCS is exactly OSE.
It's Open-Source, anyone can make and sell it.
Would you consider MultiMachine to be a failed project because nobody has made and sold it?
Is RepRap's success based on sales?
>>Having
said all the above, please excuse me if sometimes I look like a "pain
in the neck". But please consider the fact that I had to spend my energy
and time on this thread in order to counter extremely strange arguments
like "you need charities in order to supply parts".
Consider that generally, established projects don't like people coming in and saying "You're doing it all wrong!". DIYers also generally don't like people that suggest ideas but complain that they can't do it themselves because, well, DIYers do do things themselves. As someone else already said, if you think an open-source washing machine is a good idea, sit down and explain the basic mechanics, and try designing one yourself.
>>Parts can be
supplied at normal price that includes everything - production cost,
tax, profit for the shop, etc. Why would you have to make parts at
artificially low price?
I don't think you realize how expensive hardware is on a small scale. Count the number of nuts, bolts, washers, knobs, and bearings are in a washing machine. If you go to source those parts, I think you'll find it's probably already going to be more expensive than the 10x reduced cost quoted previously. Then you need a motor, controller, water pump, drum, seals, and an enclosure. How would the drum even be sourced or manufactured? You could conceivably use a standard, 55-gallon drum, which would still require cutting and drilling, and attaching it to a rotor, which requires a very large hole not easily made with hand tools.
Again, if you think this is a good idea, then do it already. Quit whining about not being able to do it. If you don't know how, then learn how, like everyone else. For someone who acts so helpless, you sure do seem to have a strange perception that you know more than these guys.
-
Supports from me to raise efforts to manufacture "essential" goods like washing machines.I like Danial's idea of proposing concreete products.I would also like to point to relative importance of goods that represent manufacturing ability (like tractors). They deserve a thought also, as they are starter of productivity connected to ability of raising standards.
-
Someone is building a foot-powered washer/dryer for poor people. Maybe you can convince them to open source it.
-
You still don't understand it, then. OSE is designed to industrialize communities, not modernize them.
GVCS contains many machines for agriculture. That's not exactly industry.
The point of OSE is to provide better access to machines, since they will be cheaper to buy an much cheaper to repair them. It's just natural to start with the most basic machines - tools that make tools. But there is no point to be fanatical about it.
However, if you would be right, then why not to include into GVCS machines like looms, sewing machines and (micro) wind power plants? (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Village_Construction_Set#Toys). They fit perfectly into your description.
But you contribute to Wikipedia by contributing, not by telling them they're approaching their goal incorrectly. Same with OSE.
I can contribute to Wikipedia and in the same time I can participate into creating / improving policies, guides, and also into suggesting new sister projects (like wikisource, wikinews, etc).
Consider that generally, established projects don't like people coming in and saying "You're doing it all wrong!"
I am not doing that. I am not just coming here to complain. I support the project unconditionally, with substantial amounts of money. Other than that, I also ask for improvements, yes. And most of the talk I do here is not to promote my idea, but in fact I do it to show to people like you that they didn't get the point. The project is not designed for rich people who want to play with toys and to produce machines just for pleasure, no matter the costs. Not everyone will have to make their own parts since they can simply buy parts. Not everyone has money and space and time to invest into huge workshops. Exactly the same with Photocopiers - everyone can pay 5 cents to make a photocopy at the nearest shop, so they don't need to buy their own Photocopier.
I don't think you realize how expensive hardware is on a small scale. Count the number of nuts, bolts, washers, knobs, and bearings are in a washing machine. If you go to source those parts, I think you'll find it's probably already going to be more expensive than the 10x reduced cost quoted previously. Then you need a motor, controller, water pump, drum, seals, and an enclosure. How would the drum even be sourced or manufactured? You could conceivably use a standard, 55-gallon drum, which would still require cutting and drilling, and attaching it to a rotor, which requires a very large hole not easily made with hand tools.
You make a big error here. Do It Yourself (DIY) doesn't mean you have to create all parts. DIY means you assemble the machines, with the parts you create or buy. If it's more expensive to create a tractor on your own than buying one, then why on Earth would you do it? The point is that you can buy from someone who produce on a large scale and cheap enough, and when you need a part you can buy it from such a producer.
Later edit:
As far as I can see, the point of the OSE project is not to make rural tools or to industrialize the world. The world is already industrialized (post-industrialized in fact).
The point of the project is to make better designs (that can be called modernization) and above all, to democratize access to machines. Open Source machines are cheaper do buy, easier and cheaper to repair since you do not depend on a single producer who fixes prices of parts.
-
Someone is building a foot-powered washer/dryer for poor people. Maybe you can convince them to open source it.
That's a good idea, but also an electrical washing machine is needed. Also refrigerators and unplugged refrigerators that can use heat or light as a power source.
-
GVCS contains many machines for agriculture. That's not exactly industry.
Actually, agriculture is an industry, and if you haven't noticed, many of the machines are focused on the use of biomass as fuel. There are also many drugs derived from plants, and there is already at least one open-source medicine project around.
The
point of OSE is to provide better access to machines, since they will
be cheaper to buy an much cheaper to repair them. It's just natural to
start with the most basic machines - tools that make tools. But there is
no point to be fanatical about it.
It's also to help communities start their own industry so they can sell some of the products they make. If you don't already have fabrication technologies, what is the use of an open-source washing machine? Without the necessary machine tools, they can only be made at low volumes, not quickly enough to sell.
However, if you would be right,
then why not to include into GVCS machines like looms, sewing machines
and (micro) wind power plants? (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Village_Construction_Set#Toys). They fit perfectly into your description.
This has already been discussed.
But you contribute to Wikipedia by contributing, not by telling them they're approaching their goal incorrectly. Same with OSE.
I
can contribute to Wikipedia and in the same time I can participate into
creating / improving policies, guides, and also into suggesting new
sister projects (like wikisource, wikinews, etc).
But it's unlikely that anything will happen unless you actually do it.
I
am not doing that. I am not just coming here to complain.
Which has a requisite condition of you thinking there is something wrong.
The project is not designed for rich
people who want to play with toys and to produce machines just for
pleasure, no matter the costs.
Right, which is why the project is focused on machine tools that can produce things at fractions of the cost of buying them.
Not everyone will have to make their own
parts since they can simply buy parts. Not everyone has money and space
and time to invest into huge workshops. Exactly the same with
Photocopiers - everyone can pay 5 cents to make a photocopy at the
nearest shop, so they don't need to buy their own Photocopier.
For someone so disdainful of rich boys, you sure sound like one. Just go buy stuff! Actually, most people can't afford stuff like that.
Open-source projects don't require money, just resources. There is tons of scrap metal and e-waste in many large, impoverished populations. They will be able to make machine tools from scrap, and controls from salvaged surface-mount components and strip board. Then, they can share the tools as a community, which is the entire point of the open-source movement.
You
make a big error here. Do It Yourself (DIY) doesn't mean you have to
create all parts. DIY means you assemble the machines, with the parts
you create or buy. If it's more expensive to create a tractor on your
own than buying one, then why on Earth would you do it? The point is
that you can buy from someone who produce on a large scale and cheap
enough, and when you need a part you can buy it from such a producer.
Where did I make that error? It seems pretty clear to me that I first described the high cost of buying machine hardware, and the difficulty of sourcing (buying or salvaging) a drum for a standardized project, and then I discussed manufacturing it. Then you continue and lay out exactly the doubts that others have already described, and somehow think of it as a refutation of my (and others') statement(s) that it will be difficult to build an open-source washing machine at a lower cost than a corporate factory-made one.
Later edit:
As
far as I can see, the point of the OSE project is not to make rural
tools or to industrialize the world. The world is already industrialized
(post-industrialized in fact).
Most of the world is actually not industrialized, and most of our production lies in the hands of a very small population, leading to the extreme inequality in access to resources that leads to most social problems (correlated with: violence, drug use, mental illness, obesity, mistrust of others, illness, and so on). Most of our products are not manufactured in places all over the world, just a few. China makes almost all of our general products, Thailand makes most of our computer hardware, Japan makes most industrial robots, and Europe and Japan make most cars. Most of the world is left out of the process. Actually, that's not true. Most of the impoverished world has the majority of valuable resources, and we exploit their poverty by using them for cheap labor, or ignoring them altogether, or forcing them off their land, sometimes resorting to death squads for that purpose.
This project will allow resource-rich, industry-poor communities to pull themselves out of poverty by using open-source machinery.
Again, what's stopping you from implementing your ideas yourself? If they're really good ideas, then it will be worth your while to spend some time learning and then make them a reality. If you do a good enough job, other people will test your design and improve it, and then you have yourself an open-source project. I'm starting to source materials for a I'm starting to make graphene. You think I'm an expert on nanomaterials? No, but I've been reading studies about graphene and found a method that I think I can replicate. I've already found a company interested in selling me the intermediate material used in the experiment, and I've had help from people in the reprap project to think of a design for a tool to make thin films.
Don't fight the model, make new model, etc. --Buck etc. Fuller
-
The
point of OSE is to provide better access to machines, since they will
be cheaper to buy an much cheaper to repair them. It's just natural to
..
It's annoying that the forum software breaks lines like that. The easiest solution I found was to copy the text into Notepad and then back on the forum.
If you don't already have fabrication technologies, what is the use of an open-source washing machine?
Wow, really? An open source washing machine (OSWM) can be made also with tools (fabrication technologies) that already exist on the market, isn't it? Is there any law that requires you to make OSWM only with open source tools? And the point of giving priority to OSWM is that there is a huge market, it can make the OSE project wildly famous and it can also generate lots of sales (brings lots of $$ needed for future research).
I have a friend that has a hotel. He wants to put in all of his apartments the same kind of washing machine. And he wants to be sure that he can buy parts for those machines when he needs them. He doesn't have time, money and energy to make his own workshop but he is ready to pay for such OSWM ! Now, he is only ONE hotel owner that is waiting for a miracle like an OSWM. And not only hotel owners are waiting for that - most of the people who use washing machines would prefer to buy OSWM instead. Because it will be cheap to repair them.
I am not doing that. I am not just coming here to complain.
Which has a requisite condition of you thinking there is something wrong.
I used the word "complain" just to make a concession to you. You used the word in the first place. I am not complaining, I am just suggesting things - it's not my fault you call it "complaining".
For someone so disdainful of rich boys, you sure sound like one. Just go buy stuff! Actually, most people can't afford stuff like that.
Of course I prefer to buy a video card for my computer instead of making one! It's much more cheaper. Of course I prefer to buy a $5-10 part for my washing machine instead of paying another $300 for a new "Shoe mart" washing machine. That doesn't make me rich. By contrast, I have to be very rich in order to make my own workshop, buy/make machines that creates parts. Why to spend $20k just for having my own part-making*machines when I only need another door for my washing machine? Isn't it just much cheaper to pay $10 for another door?
Most of the people pay (buy) for photocopies, instead of buying/making their own photocopier, but that doesn't mean they are rich! It's simply cheaper to pay someone else to do it.
The poor people might afford to buy a washing machine, but for them it's a serious blow to buy another one. They can afford to buy another door for their washing machine exactly because it would be cheap! That doesn't make them rich.
You still didn't get the point of the project - it's much cheaper to buy parts from someone who is making them on large scale than to make your own parts. You can also make parts but it's more efficient to produce in large volumes some specific parts. That's how creating cheap machines can be efficient.
Right, which is why the project is focused on machine tools that can produce things at fractions of the cost of buying them.
It is cheaper only for those who produce parts in large volumes and sell them. It's not cheap for you to invest in an entire workshop just for making a $10 part occasionally.
Most of the people need to replace parts of their appliances every now and then, so it's much cheaper for them to simply buy those parts instead of investing tens of thousands of dollars for their own production facilities.
Where did I make that error? It seems pretty clear to me that I first described the high cost of buying machine hardware, and the difficulty of sourcing (buying or salvaging) a drum for a standardized project, and then I discussed manufacturing it. Then you continue and lay out exactly the doubts that others have already described, and somehow think of it as a refutation of my (and others') statement(s) that it will be difficult to build an open-source washing machine at a lower cost than a corporate factory-made one.
I'm not sure I understood your message here but in your first message you suggested that it's expensive to make parts (like a drum) for your OSWM. And by the way, I guess the drum is one of the parts that break the last. There are other, smaller, cheaper parts that are prone to break much faster: door, buttons, the space for detergent, parts touched by water where the calcium deposits.
I'm not sure I understood your message here but in your first message you suggested that it's expensive to make parts (like a drum) for your OSWM. And by the way, I guess the drum is one of the parts that break the last. There are other, smaller, cheaper parts that are prone to break much faster: door, buttons, the space for detergent, parts touched by water where the calcium deposits.
This project will allow resource-rich, industry-poor communities to pull themselves out of poverty by using open-source machinery.
Exactly. Because it's much cheaper to buy a replacement part for your machine instead of buying a whole new machine. It's a $10 against $1,000.
Speculation, Monopoly and Price fixing are the main forces that create poverty. Help the people to save money, by helping them to stop being exploited by price-fixing monopolies, and you greatly help them to get out of poverty. Also, give them the opportunity to create the machines/parts on their own and then again you helped them a lot in the fight against poverty.
Again, what's stopping you from implementing your ideas yourself? If they're really good ideas, then it will be worth your while to spend some time learning and then make them a reality.
For the moment, the best way I can contribute is by sending money. If / when OSWM will be included into the project, I am ready to send at least $2,000 in order to support the project.
We are not the same, if the OSWM will be included in the GVCS list (or in a future GVCS2), it will simply be designed by those OSE members who have talent in doing it. My guess is that it will be quite easy for them to do it.
However, I started to share my thoughts (like 8 moths ago) about it here http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Source_Washing_Machine_Project
I will keep discussing it when I will have more thoughts about it.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions1,013
- General Discussion895
- ↳ Introductions145
- ↳ GVCS Development43
- ↳ GVCS Replication14
- ↳ Similar Projects, Partnerships and Open Culture53
- ↳ In the News14
- ↳ Education15
- ↳ Food18
- ↳ Energy42
- ↳ Health2
- ↳ Sustainable Architecture21
- ↳ Transportation10
- ↳ Household6
- ↳ IT, Web Infrastructure110
- ↳ Shared Personal Notes1
- ↳ New Communities10
- ↳ Other Languages34
- Project Management4
- Proposal and Development Status10
- Organizational Development26
- ↳ Team Logs4
- ↳ OSE Core Team1
- ↳ OSE IT - Core Team2
- ↳ OSE Collaboration Platform - Core Team6
- ↳ Resource Development3
- GVCS Technical Development52
- ↳ Open Source Car10
- ↳ Open Source Tractor1
- ↳ Gasifier Burner1
- ↳ CNC Torch Table5
- ↳ Agricultural Microcombine4
- ↳ Dimensional Sawmill1
- ↳ Documentation and Instructionals18
- OSE Dev0
- ↳ Trucktor0
- ↳ Microtrac0
- ↳ CNC Router0
- ↳ CNC Torch Table0
- ↳ Bulldozer0
- ↳ Backhoe0
- ↳ Car0
- ↳ 3D Printer0
- ↳ 3D Printer Laser Diode0
- ↳ Tractor0
- ↳ Powercube0
- ↳ Brick Press Controller0
In this Discussion
- aarnareddy10 June 2012
- Ackhuman July 2012
- Bastelmike June 2012
- Danial July 2012
- Diogenes June 2012
- dorkmo February 2012
- gonzo July 2012
- ivanv July 2012
- Jason June 2012
- Matt_Maier July 2012
- Metz June 2012
- Mr_ayhan July 2012
- PaulP February 2012
- RichardT June 2012
- surfcam February 2012
- UtopianPragmatist June 2012
- wormfarmman June 2012
Loading