The Makerspace Is the Next Open Source Frontier 46
An anonymous reader writes: Jono Bacon explains that in the same way open source spawned millions of careers and thousands of companies, the same openness has massive potential when applied to products. It could potentially jumpstart a revolution in how we conceptualize, build, and share things and how we experiment and innovate to push the boundaries of science and technology. He outlines some steps for adapting open source principles to physical creations: "...we will need to create a premise of a blueprint bundle. In much the same way I can download a branch from Git or a tarball with some code, complete with build system, we will want to be able to download a single branch or tarball with the full software, hardware designs, and more for how to create an open product. ... we will need to figure out how we collaborate and improve different pieces of these projects. For example, if someone refines a 3D printed piece of a drone, how do they fork the blueprints, submit their changes, have them reviewed, and get them merged into the project? Another question could relate to automated testing: when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn, so how can we have unit tests for hardware or test in a virtual setting?"
Sounds a lot like life before Intelectual Property (Score:1)
doesn't it?
I want thingiverse + github (Score:2)
This article is spot on. I've experienced this when working with 3D objects on Thingiverse. It allows you to "remix" someone's work, but that is a fork. It doesn't really allow for collaboration. Lots of times I've found someone's .SCAD model and improved it but I have no way to contribute it back to them other than to post a comment and hope they notice. So some objects have dozens of "remix" forks, which have more forks, etc.
Lots of people make their objects to work for just themselves. It's the har
Re: (Score:1)
The ironic thing is that I got asked to work for a startup whose job is to add DRM into 3d printed objects. The firm is assuming that Congress is going to pass a law banning 3D printers that don't disallow blacklisted files, or only print signed files (and private clearinghouses set up to vet people's files to see they are not pirated, and that they cannot be used for firearm parts... No lower receivers for ARs, for example.)
The whole gist of the startup is to go against everything the parent poster does
Hmmm ... Inventor software ... (Score:2)
Isn't there software which allows you to simulate real machines in software? Adobe Inventor or something?
Has anybody made an open source version of something like this?
If you could just continuously integrate this kind of stuff with your designs to simulate the actual mechanics, you could "build" it without mak
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can simulate things, but that often takes more work than actually building it and testing it. Especially for the little gizmos we are talking about (not Boeing 777 class aircraft where it is worth several billion dollars to build up the simulation suite). Writing simulation software is hard. Collecting the physics to run the simulation software is hard. Things like Adobe Inventor and Solidworks are often a start but even these expensive programs don't have the necessary data to simulate someth
Re: (Score:2)
So how does a makerspace address this? Don't get me wrong, I like going to the one near me as I help them with Linux and they help me with electronics, but they don't have Solidworks installed to do the simulations described up top.
Re:Hmmm ... Inventor software ... (Score:4, Informative)
Just as an example, Ikea is manufacturing ten thousand flatpack shelters. This was the result of people with materials experience getting together with people that manage refugee camps and are aware of the conditions, and people that do shipping and other materiel distribution, so that they could manufacture something that's durable, simple to assemble, and capable of being transported easily. Sure, corrugated plastic, extruded metal tubing, and rivets aren't sexy like a 3d printer, but the point was to build and deliver a product, not to navel-gaze in self-congratulatory smugness while the 3d printer warms up...
Sorry, I don't have a lot of respect for "makers". Those that self-identify with that label are as silly as those rooftop gardeners in high-density environments that try to call their 2' by 6' patch of dirt a "farm".
Re: (Score:2)
Think of makers more as open source software developers - it'll scratch the itch they have. It may or may not be suitable for someone outside the community, and it would be a lot of work to make use of it. Doesn't make it bad, just different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like open source developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Take the Tesla Model S as an example, it's made of aluminum and assembled through relatively conventional processes, not out of exotic processes.
Really? Because Gilbert Passin, VP of manufacturing at Tesla, says that the Model S is constructed differently from another car [youtube.com]. But wait, yes, I watched the video, and you're right. That's a bunch of bullshit, and the car is built just like any other Aluminum vehicle, whether it's an Audi A8 or now a Cadillac CT6 or hell, probably an F150 but I didn't look into that yet. They use the same five bonding methods that everyone else does: adhesive, fancy rivets, robotic cold metal transfer, manual MIG welding,
Re: (Score:2)
He really just carried it too far.
Re: (Score:2)
He really just carried it too far.
What drives me nuts is that you don't need any bullshit hyperbole to make the Model S seem amazing, because it is amazing in spite of being assembled in the same way as other cars. It's what they did with the same bonding technologies as everyone else (everyone has an Aluminum spot welding system, and everyone is proud of that fact, but it's no longer a differentiator) that's relevant. Anybody with the cash and the vision could have done what they did, but nobody had both.
Re: Makerspace Utility (Score:3)
Most makerspaces are hobbyist-level workshops. They don't usually have industrial grade software or fabrication machines available, because those are expensive. I'm working on the idea of a "MakerNet", where instead of a converted warehouse space with hobbyist tools and home-made workbenches, you have more commercial-grade machines spread around, either run as small businesses, or owned by groups of more serious hobbyists. For example, a $6,000 lathe might be split among half a dozen people. When you ha
Re: (Score:2)
There is, and it tends to be expensive for the hobbiest. I have simple simulation programs and they cost several hundred to a couple thousand dollars, plus an annual maintenance fee in the 10-20% of the original purchase price. The thing is - the more complete and automatic you would like it, the more background programming is necessary, such that the most automated and simple programs often cost the most (i.e. - they allow less skilled users to produce more complete output).
OTOH, I assume structural analys
Just follow the software industry's lead. (Score:2)
when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn ...
Well, it should just follow the software industry's path breaking achievements in shaping user expectations and user behavior.
First there should be an EULA claiming the body and soul of the user, with added clauses to add more demands later any time.
Then user should be made to accept, "it is going to crash and burn. Can I get get something done in the mean time?".
If it builds we ship. Then the customer feedback is how we know whether what we built works. This is the software industry standard.
If you d
Re: (Score:2)
I did a brief trademark search, and only found this:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/... [uspto.gov]
Which seems to be a coworking space: http://www.themakersspace.com/... [themakersspace.com]
I'd stick to calling it "maker" space, singular, and go for it. Make sure there is no way someone might confuse your efforts with theirs.
Cleverly disguised slashvertisement is still... (Score:4, Informative)
Click-bait alert! Reader beware!
Is this really a... (Score:2)
We need to fork reality first (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to break that ability is to destroy capitalism.
There's probably no way to keep capitalism from destruction, because greed demands endless expansion regardless of sustainability.
forking and "merging" hardwar designs (Score:3)
if someone refines a 3D printed piece of a drone, how do they fork the blueprints, submit their changes, have them reviewed, and get them merged into the project?
Where I work, this happens as part of our normal product develop processes. Design documents, whether for hardware or software, are still documents. Granted, "merging" changes in a "blueprint" or 3D model is harder to do, but not impossible. Right now, it still requires a lot of human work, but that can improve over time.
Re:forking and "merging" hardwar designs (Score:4, Insightful)
In the aerospace industry, we had metadata around the actual design documents, and a process for incorporating changes. Some examples are:
* A drawing tree. A complete airplane or other complicated product had a top level drawing, that called out major assemblies (wings, landing gear, engine installation, etc). The major assembly drawings then called out sub-assemblies, in a tree structure, until you get to the parts level. Documents tied to a particular drawing (like engine installation procedure) got the same number as the drawing with a -002, -003, etc added, so you could track what they go with.
* Interface drawings and documents. Between assemblies you defined the interfaces between them - mechanical, dimensional, electrical, etc. You can't change your side of the interface before first consulting the people on the other side, and updating the interface data. That's how you ensure the pieces go together later.
* Requirements tracking. For example, the 747 landing gear has to support a takeoff weight of 880,000 pounds. Therefore there has to be a weights tracking process that assigns weight budgets to the various parts, and reports status back up the tree. Otherwise you can end up with a plane that's too heavy for the landing gear. Anywhere else there is a critical design value with contributions from various parts, you use this method.
All this metadata has to be passed around along with the actual parts drawings and software code. If you don't, then anything too complicated for one person to design is likely to need rework when the pieces of the design are merged.
Re: (Score:2)
As a component supplier, our point of view is far smaller. It is normal for a new project to take an existing design then modify it as needed. Sometimes, this involves combining changes from different variations from a common ancestor. When this involves a single physical part, as opposed to an assembly, this requires some kind of "design merge". Sometimes this involves taking one of the 3D models and modifying it to incorporate the desired aspects of its "cousins". How much of this can be done automaticall
Reinventing the wheel. (Score:4, Informative)
Which is kinda the pattern I see a lot in tech, people living in bubbles discovering what others have already been doing, giving it a new name, and claiming they came up with something new that all those non-makers couldn't have.
Thanks for the info. (Score:1)