Latest revision as of 10:41, 24 April 2024

This is merely a backup mirror page of the page at the RepRap wiki here. It might not be up to date.
For a discussion in the context of APM & gem-gum-tec go to the page: RepRec pick and place robots.
Up: RepRec pick-and-place robots

Template:Development

RepRecs ... Replicating Recomposers
In analogy to RepRaps, RepRecs are supposed to be a whole class of devices.

RepRec – inspiring sources

Definition

Comparison of definitions:

• A RepRap can 3D-print its own parts for a copy of itself – (Today these parts need to be assembled by a human or human built factory robot.)
• A RepRec can assemble its own parts to a copy of itself – (Parts are externally preproduced – FFF printing, casting, ... many options.)

"Copy" as meant here includes upgraded/evolved versions beside just 1:1 carbon copies.

Definition of RepRec systems by (dis)similarity

Delineation from existing pick and place robots:
RepRecs are different from any currently (2017-02 ... 2022-08) existing pick and place robots.
RepRecs differ by adhereing to several quite peculiar design principles.
These design principles will be outlined further down,
thereby sufficiently refining the definition of what a RepRec system is.

Closest currently existing work:
As of 2022 the project coming by far closest to the idea of RepRecs is still the 2014 work of
Matt Moses et al. called "An architecture for universal construction via modular robotic components" (link to the paper).
Closest does not mean close though! Be aware that this design still violates quite a number of the RepRec core design principles.
Details on that further down ...

Development contexts

There are two major development contexts

• the context of the RepRap project
• the context of atomically precise manufacturing (APM) aiming at farther out gemstone based nanotech

The former context will be discussed here on the RepRap wiki.
For the latter context please visit the pages on the APM wiki here:

• http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=RepRec_pick_and_place_robots
• http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=ReChain_frame_systems

Some design constraints originating from the latter design context
may be surprisingly useful in the former. Some may make not much sense.

Defining traits of RepRecs

Overview over design principles

The four ones mandatory to remember:

• frictiontaboo … no dependence on friction for holding things together
• coarseness & granularity … keep all parts in narrow range of size and aspect ratio; not too small, not too big
• clingyness … all parts are to be held in known positions at all times
• self-centering … pervasive use of culled frustum self centering

• structural stiffness … proper diagonal crossbracing
• structural isotropy … building blocks not natured such that they make one global direction special

Following from frictiontaboo and coarseness (explained later):

• tension-rebar-principle
• tension-redirection-principle

These involve:

• form closure (possibly with LIFO constrained; LIFO … last in first out)
• cliplocks … for pervasive positive locking
• clip-load-orthogonality principle

And minor ones like:

• overload protection (inclusion of reversible intended breakage points)
• factorout of motors & electronics

Coarseness & Granularity – Many components in narrow size range

RepRecs are constituted out of a large number of mid sized monolithic components.
Both the size and the aspect ratio of all the component types of a RepRec lie within a narrow range.
Components have a typical total-size and detail-size that lies in the lower end of the optimal range of the fabrication technology.

The choice to Avoid large unwieldy parts is (for one reason) taken
in order to make automated assembly with limited means (only robots of one size) much easier.

Motivations for the coarseness constraint:
Using only monolithic parts would mean we get none of the below:

• compact automatability … only robots of one size can assembly everything
• recompositional prototyoing … acceleration of rapid prototyping by part-recomposition
• recompositional recycling … allow direct recycling of parts by part-recomposition
• design transferability … allow design transfer to other manufacturing techniques that come with
  a narrow range between resolution and part size (e.g. nanoscale: part details like e.g. screw threads cannot ever be smaller than atoms)

How undesired parts outside the desired size range
can best be replaced by parts inside the range
is outlined on the ReChain Frame System page.

Coarseness & Granularity constrain on FFF-printing

For FDM printing that means that the components are desired to be smallish to mid-size.
Like e.g. golf-ball size to large male fist size (detail size around golf-ball dimple size).

Monolithic components must not be:

• tiny (like tiny M3 metal screws with almost microscopic threads) or
• giant (like long threaded rods or extruded aluminum profiles, big structural elements).

Typically these are chosen to be vitamins despite replaceable because they are accessible and cheap.
They pose a huge hurdle on automation of assembly though.
Which is one reason (listed above) why we want to avoid them.

Coarseness & Granularity constraint in future piezomechanosynthesis (nanoscale context)

• Coarseness: Parts cannot ever have details that are smaller than atoms thus coarseness is an unavoidable prerequisite.
• Granularity:
  – Production by recompositional recycling speeds up manufacturing significantly (due to less energy turnover compared to piezosynthesis from scratch).
  – Recompositional recycling also might save our future from many Himalayas worth of diamondioid waste.

Frictiontaboo: – Thoroughgoing abandonment of frictionusage for selfholding

Just as ReChain Frame Systems RepRecs thoroughgoingly refrain from the use of friction for self holding. No compromises are to be made here. This rather extreme design choice massively reduces the likelihood of structural failure at the contacts of the components. E.g. it prevents undetected structural loosening that creepingly degrades accuracy in operation). Because the system is composed from a big number of components very low likelihood of failure per component is important. Cheap FDM printing has inaccuracies which are most often irreproducible between the usage of different machines. These make friction fittings unpredictable and unreliable. Also without a (by requirements vitamin free) torque wrench friction is pretty much not quantifiable. As a consequence of the "no friction usage" design decision the conventional use of screws nylock-nuts wedges and stuff like that is banned. The fastening together of components is instead done by tension locked with smartly arranged clips. No slippage - all or nothing. More details about how this works exactly can be found on the factored out ReChain Frame System sub-concept.

Near term macroscale RepRecs mainly assemble cheap FDM 3D printed parts but that does not necessarily exclude parts produced by other means like potentially quicker mass casting.

Relation to stiff nanomachinery

At the nanoscale there is near zero friction and violent thermal rattling potentially knocking everything loose. So there friction can't be used by nature and thus this method is the only way to go for far term advanced gemstone based nanosystems. The alternatives are either:

• relying on relatively weak interaction forces (VdW) which should be at least feasible for "low" performance products or
• making giant monolithic covalent systems - which is a horrible recycling disaster when elements like nonburnable silicon become involved.

Other less important aspects

Design decision: stationary motors

Mounting the motors mobile onto moving axes (serial mechanics) may save some complexity as can be seen on the dollo 3D-printer but:

• They introduce quite a bit of inertial mass (well known).
• Organizing the cables nicely without resorting to vitamins (cable spirals) leads to bulky cable chains (that could equally be mechanical drive-chains).
• (The ulterior motive) At the nanoscale predicting mechanical behavior (quite classical) is much easier than predicting electrical behavior (quite quantum mechanical). Thus by factoring out electrical parts of the self replicating robot the design is more likely to be scaleable down to the nanoscale.

RepRecs as innovation booster

RepRecs may boost innovation like RepRaps did:

• RepRaps brought FFF 3D-printing to the masses by
  giving industry a broad hint that there is unexpectedly high nonindustrial demand.
  This consequently spurred technological innovation considerably.
• RepRecs may bring automated pick and place assembly to the masses.

Reducing human effort in the self replication cycle

RepRecs may revive the seemingly vaning interest in the RepRap space:
3D-printers got increasingly industrial produced and the relative number of RepRaps is vaning. Why is that?
There a number of possible reasons. One of them an especially pernicious vicious cycle.
A vicious cycle that attracts people away from RepRap self replication.
RepRecs may break this vicious cycle.

The problem: A vicious cycle!

• Manual assembly labor forces the part-count of RepRaps to be low and consequently parts to be in a wide range of sizes.
• Parts in a wide size range forces manual assembly.

The solution: Breaking the vicious cycle making a virtuous cycle.

• Automated assembly allows to use very many small parts in a narrow size range. (No more minimization of part count.)
• Very many parts in a small size range allow for automated assembly.

The result: Manual labor taken (more) out of the picture.

Part count - size range - relationship

Why does a lower part-count force a wider range of sizes?

• Fewer parts means bigger parts because structural parts with little surface functionality become fused together to monolithic units.
• Fewer parts means smaller parts because small screws are the standard way we assemble things (there is probably some deeper reason here ...).

Reconfigurability boon

With more parts one gains the great benefit of very quick and cheap drastic reconfigurability in geometry. A simple change of linkage arm-length may be a matter of minutes instead of hours. Cartesian-robots, delta-robots, scara-robots and whatnot may share many of the same parts! No reprinting and throw-away. Just reassembly and reuse.

Fewer vitamins - slight in number - big in count ratio

RepRec pick-and-place-robots have less vitamins than RepRaps. They have no hot-end, no filament-drive and no print-bed so more of their parts can be printed. (Well for the motors an attempt could be made to try a pneumatic actuator solution with printed TPU bellows but this is probably to slow and weak for productive usage.) But RepRaps are equally important in the the full self replication cycle. At least if they are not replaced by RepRec operated part casting or a pre-produced stock of parts (that maybe still assembled in some old structure).

RepRaps produce parts waay slower than RepRaps can consume them.

• If the RepRap to RepRec ratio is choosen to avoid a bottleneck (this would be RepRap a botfarm - very unlikely in DIY home settings) there is little potential in saving vitamins.
• If one chooses one RepRap and one RepRec halve of the printer specific vitamins are saved.
• If the same machine is used both as RepRap and RepRec the needed vitamin-count obviously unchanged from a "normal" (screw-free, frame-printed, RepRec-compatible) RepRap.

In terms of part-count (not in terms of volume or mass) the vitamin to printed-part ratio can probably go way below 1%.

The parts

A good size range for the parts of a RepRec would be ~5mm ... ~5cm (factor 10) compared to 0.3mm(M3-thread) ... 300m(length of threaded rod) (factor 1000) in many 3D printers.

Distinction to other self replicating pick and place robots

There is Matt Moses et al. prefabricated block based "self replication modular manufacturing system".
Here is a paper about that system: "An architecture for universal construction via modular robotic components" (UCVMRC)
While this is probably currently (2018) one of the projects that comes closest to the proposed class of RepRecs it is rather far away from what would count as a RepRec, maybe going into a different direction.

Here's a video of parts of the self replication process.
Note: Gregory Chirikjian only describes how the mechanics works and not what actually happens.
As I take it what happens in the video is:

• There's an extended mother Tron-Recognizer-like-3DOF-assembler-tower on two rail-tracks.
• It is extending its own rail-tracks. It assembles rail-tracks normal to the ones that it uses itself.
• It builds up an non-extended child Tron-Recognizer-like-3DOF-assembler-tower onto the new tracks that run normal to the one itself runs on.

A little earlier in the video there's a bit of introduction noting the concept of "parts complexity" (not necessarily related to the somewhat intuitive and unfortunately less formal use of "complexity" used here in the following text).

Main differences and similarities between UCVMRC and the proposed class of RepRecs:

• UCVMRC uses screws for assembly that are held in place due to friction forces (like pretty much every design in existence today 2018). A good RepRec would not do this but would be based on a friction usage abolishing ReChain Frame System instead. (The reasons are elaborated in preceding text)

• While UCVMRC already aims at more heterogeneous part diversity than many other approaches RepRecs still would have much more diversity of part types (more external exposed complexity per part) more on that later in the adapter section.
• While UCVRMC already aims at not including too much functionality in the base parts RepRecs still would have simpler smaller more passive parts (less internal enclosed complexity per part) more on that later in the adapter section. In particular RepRecs base parts should manage without any electrical components. (No wiper contacts, no flexing wires compensating relative motions).

• UCVMRC and structures built by it are rather anisotropic since parts all face in the same main axis (upwards). RepRecs should not have that limitation. Means to change direction are a requirement.
• UCVMRC suffers a bit from geometry that is far from ideal for maximum structural stiffness (moving masses on "levers" that stand off 90°). RepRecs should be designs such that such situations are avoided.
• Just as UCVMRC Reprecs may operate on a lattice that they can extend by themselves.
  But instead of a 2D-grid RepRecs would aim at stiff 3D-trussworks (octett truss). So instead of track-extension there's truss-extension (in all three spacial dimensions).
• Both UCVMRC and Reprecs operate in precisely defined structured environment (low entropy, isentropic, machine phase) they can operate without feedback (without "looking" at what they are doing) in open loop control.
• For locomotion of the main manipulating part of a RepRec system in a the Truss part of a Reprec System it mey be desirable to try to avoid linear rail designs and go for rotative brachiating locomotion instead (this is not absolute requirement).

• While there is most certainly the intention to design and build a build a demonstartion instance of a RepRec system, the RepRec concept in its full generality is not a project with a strict deadline for such a demonstration instance. This likely excludes most means for funding but on the other hand makes an approach possible that does not allow any project breaking compromises to creep in.

Gripping adapters - moving internal to external complexity

Self replicating pick-and-place robots with very low component/part specialization (that is very view generic part types like in Matt Moses design) would be useful for practical use if the constituent parts are small enough such that the created structures can be treated as a mechanical metamaterials. In this context small means almost imperceptible small by human senses. That is the parts must be at least under the 300 micron scale.

The purpose Matt Moses macroscopic design:

• Perfectly demonstrates the principle possibility of high degree self replication in a system of manageable complexity.
• It is impractical for making almost all of everyday utility stuff. At the macro-scale a robot that is using too few types of components/parts (including non included but handleable parts) just degrades to a "nonproductive replicator". A device that only exists for the sake of demonstrating the possibility of self replication. Without producing "nectar" a robot design has no chance of explosive growth.

To get a useful productive self replicating macro-scale pick-and-place robot there are two major things:

• (1) More external complexity (exposed for external function in post assembly time) must be invested in part prefabrication.

That is compromises on component/part design must be kept minimal. This is easy with 3D-printing where the "voxels" are under the required 300 micron for cube like blocks with limited external functionality.

Still the compromise of trying to reuse part-types (the same part design) is necessary to keep the number of part types and associated adapters low (wild guess: <300 ?)

• (2) Less internal complexity (enclosed for internal function in assembly time) must be kept in the design of the parts.

That is the parts can't be made to all have a point where they can be picked up with the same manipulator. Encoding The gripper-shape in all the parts is massive physical code duplication and leads to excessive physical space overhead. The interfaces to standard gripper(s) must be separated from the parts - especially the smaller ones.

The result is the need for a sufficiently wide set of part adapters. Or looked at it from the perspective of the manipulator head a set of specialized end effectors coupleable to the generic manipulation head(s).

Adapters of adapters may come up occasionally. Further stacking probably not. Obviously the adapters need to be well tensioned to the manipulation head when used.

Special parts / adapters / assemblies

• part adapters
• part magazines
• temporary clipping tools (to not need multiple manipulators at the same time - only for use in "assembly time" removed before "use time")
• tensioning tools (akin to screwdriver bits -- Note again: No locking of screws by friction intended in a RepRec!)
• LIFO pre-assembly templates (e.g. gear-bearing planet placement templates ...)
• FIFO pre-assembly templates (e.g. chain assembly "factory" mechanisms ...)
• DOF restrictors for not yet mounted but already assembled chains (e.g. a LIFO chain coil magazine from which chains can be rolled onto sprockets while permanently keeping tension! This is difficult but important. End-effector part assemblies for locking chains to loops are their own topic.)

RepRecs operate on the 2nd assembly level

(1) Full self replication involves automation of at least two steps:

• preproduction of monolithic parts (FFF printing, automated casting would work too) from raw materials
• discrete assembly of these monolithic parts into nigger assemblies

Or to formalize it a bit more: Automated assembly

• RepRaps – from plastic – to small monolithic parts
• RepRecs – from small monolithic parts – to bigger assemblies

We say they operate on different assembly levels:

• RepRaps – 1st assembly level
• RepRecs – 2nd assembly level

Such a hierarchy is called hierarchical assembly or convergent assembly.
... the latter 2nd assembly level is still missing.

RepRap RepRec Symbiosis?

Symbiosis between RepRaps and RepRecs:
As there is a symbiosis between RepRaps and humans (the idea promoted by Adrian Bowyer)
there can be a symbiosis between RepRaps and RepRecs:

• RepRaps make parts for RepRecs (most of them)
• RepRecs assemble RepRaps (most of them)

So things that should be assemblable with RepRecs include (among many other products)
suitably/appropriately designed RepRaps (that is ReChain based RepRaps - more on that later) These special RepRaps then in turn can pre-print the various base parts for RepRecs.

While pre printed parts are "vitamins" for RepRecs they are not "vitamins" for RepRaps. Also there may be more efficient methods for base part preproduction like e.g. resin casting (done by RepRecs). So one might refer to these base parts as "quasi vitamins"

Related

• ReChain Frame System sub topic
• SMT Pick-n-Place System
• MakerLegoBot
• Robot

External Links

• Wikipedia: Deltahedron. Usable as components for a stiff frame trusswork.
• "Designing tensegrity modules for pedestrian bridges" by Landolf Rhode-Barbarigos1, Nizar Bel Hadj Ali, René Motro and Ian F.C. Smith1. Hollow tensegrity structures possibly usable as frame or frame components.
• A growing list of parts for partially self replicating productive nanosystems among other objects that just demonstrate novel principles encountered in future advanced atomically precise manufacturing.
• Robot and Protein Kinematics Laboratory (RPK Laboratory) - Robotic Self-Replication