OSE Incentive Challenge

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search
  • 320k people own 3d printers in 2015 - [1]
  • Basic question is why are people not getting involved when expected payback per year is $300-2000? [2]. An answer to this lies in first testing the prints suggested and seeing the outcome. One side is developing the production engineering so it is highly reliable - at this point, it appears that

Incentive Design

  1. Enforced collaboration by requiring use of accepted modules pending clear interface design
  2. Requirements are specified for performance, admissible parts and interface design
  3. The trick lies in explicit specification of modules in a way that degenerates design to a high degree towards a specific implementation.
  4. Degenerate production engineering - one slicer, one operating system, one machje, one software toolchain, one package. Trick here is reconciling diversity of options with starting a business. For widespread distribution, we need the most open tools possible.
  5. Minimum entry barriers. Ready download, embeds of content, usage of Part Library. No signin - outside of wiki editing. All documents outside of foundational docs are editable. Time logging, etc.

FAQ

OSE Incentive Challenge FAQ

Marketing

  • Solicit a representative from every single country to start a business in their country
  • Low entry cost revolves around a low cost production machine (3D printer)
  • For uniformity, every single production machine involved is 100% open source.
  • Production infrastructure uses scrap plastic.
  • Plastic testing protocols are included for the waste stream

Advisors and Collaborators

  • Use this as a chance to recruit top technology advisers, funders, and judges such as Dan Gelbart, Lee Felsenstein, and others.
  • Collaborate with Crowd Supply?

Incentive Structure and Judging

  • Total reward specified and large. Number of rewards is unspecified and as large as the number of contributions provided. Prize around $100k, but may be $2-300k.
  • One prize could be awarded if one person does all the work. Inpossible.
  • Extended transparency on logic of the prize
  • Admissible content is that which is posted on the wiki.
  • OSE Incentive Challenge Wiki Template is used. Evaluate HeroX for the type of content that is uploadable. Solution for OSE is to use external repos or increase memory limit to 5MB
  • People are rewarded for collaboration. Basic logic if incentive is that - if you are entering, you are serious about the possibility of producing. BUT, you will be required to provide to a regenerative standard. For this, you will be using recycled plastic, contributing to a database of filament production - AND you will be cleaning up the environmental because you will be taking plastic from the waste stream. So you are motivated for the full package and educated in the process.
  • Leap of faith. We know that amazing innovation can happen when incentivized properly. As such, one option is to go out on a limb and let the PEOPLE develop the technology - with us setting ONLY the direction and hinting at possibilities. The task for OSE is still onerous: as setting the right properties for the winning design is a major conceptual design challenge, which has to be substantiated by a deep understanding of needs, easy and hard possibilities, and pushing the limits of what is possible. However, the other option is for OSE to do much more work on preparing the challenge, in terms of validating technical points such as feasibility of CNC solder connections on the battery pack, feasibility of 3D printed belt geardown for industrial performance, faesibility of MIG casting in hard steel, etc.

Directions

  • One possible angle is to match industrial performance by using as many off the shelf parts, but doing 3D printing and plastic recycling as the core technical innovation (outside of the distributed business model)
  • Another direction is to maximize the experimental aspect of pushing limits of what is feasible in a distributed production context.
  • The latter is more exciting, and more risky. But it is required for our core goals.

Openness

  • All phases including design challenge design, ideation - should be transparent to maximize feedback, inspiration to the public, and participation.

Feasibility Studies

  • D3D CNC Circuit Mill for making gears and metal parts
  • Feasibility of stovetop casting for making the necessary metal parts such as the chuck
  • Feasibility of industrial performance 3d printed belts for geardown
  • Feasibility of MIG casting for chuck and metal
  • Feasibility of plastic-embedded circuits, where we mount the components on 3D printed holders to eliminate the need for standard circuits, so that we do circuits in house. Includes 3D printed wire channels to simplify wiring
  • Feasibility of solder extrusion for making battery pack connections - this can produce significant innovation and open up low cost, efficiently-produced battery packs
  • Zinc coated plastic for body-integrated circuits to simplify wiring. This is an alternative or addition to plastic-embedded circuits. This is essentially making the equivalent of copper-clad circuit boards.
  • Feasibility of D3D CNC Circuit mill for milling necessary ZA parts, with a grinder attachment for precision grinding

Prerequisites to Challenge

  • FreeCAD usage,
  • FreeCAD-KiCAD import
  • Wiki Usage
  • Kdenlive
  • Collaboration Architecture for the Challenge
  • Challenge Inspiration Video
  • OSE Parts kits sold by OSE (for sale to builders) and frame options are available for an identical system - same print profiles and settings in Cura. Requires a 12-24 OSE Print Cluster.
  • OSE print cluster?
  • MES system for online orders - from online order to a print
  • OSE certification process
  • Specific production engineering requirements for necessary elements of efficient production, including cost and organization. Includes 3D printed materials bins, machines, cutoff saw, etc.
  • Fully developed examples of D3D machine productivity and capacity(calipers, vise, drill prototype, tablet for running the printer, Soft Rubber Printing)
  • Gear production methods- included or off the shelf?
  • Testing MIG Casting and Desktop ZA 3D printing foundry.
  • Claerand Desktop ZA 3D printing foundry.
  • Clear production goals - 12 drills per day from printed parts, and 100 per month. $50 profit each.
  • Extreme efficiency for beating mass manufacturing with on-demand production
  • OSE Linux. If you make improvements, upload them to wiki. Inprovements are accepted on everything.
  • Rubber optimized extruder is necessary for rubber handles with plastic
  • 2 tool head is required - rubber and normal
  • Printer can produce a part kit in 12 hours, for monthly production limit of 60 drills. Get this very specific.
  • Calculate predicted print time based on weight of printed parts
  • 3rd head for solder printing is required - such as for making conductive leads on the battery pack
  • Judging criteria are such that we replicate your work EXACTLY by printing at home, verifying g that you have built the same system as we, or you just replicated the same system.as we from our blueprints. That means that you have the freedom, but the responsibility is up to you to verify that you did it right. This must be down to the .ini file and gcode. This is required by the Scalability Requirement of the resulting design - the Incentive Challenge INCLUDES that. This I believe has no precedent on earth - as typically, the contest runner just privatizes a design and runs with it. Here we have a major opportunity to show an example of shifting this dynamic as we prepare for Oslo.
  • Legal form - is doing this as a nonprofit qualify as related business income? I would say yes, as we are in the business of education.
  • OSE Forum to continue discussion on the challenge. Forum serves as Dev tool because it is fully searchable. OSE Forum

Calculations

  • $10B market. At $100 per drill - 100,000,000 sold per year. Out of 8 billion people, that is 2% of the population buys a drill every year?
  • Person makes batches of 12 drills
  • Typical production run takes 1 hour to source, and 12 can be built per day
  • Printing of drill and its case is the limiting step. Requires 12" bed 3D printer for the case with 2 battery packs.
  • 12 hours per print goal, design production engineering accordingly
  • Max number of prints per month with 1 printer - easy 30 - max 60.
  • Design it as a sideline. $20 in materials if we make our own printed and metal parts. May need to start from independent Arduino chip for lower cost.
  • Number of Big Box Stores
  • Drills Sold Per Store

End State

1. Details from Scratch, Mon Apr 8, 2019

2. Elements

  • Sufficient production levels are achieved for producers to meet a significant demand. See Cordless Drill Productivity Goals.
  • Collaboration Architecture Taxonomy developed and deployed as the new Development Template
  • Website templates are produced, and deployable readily on common open source platforms
  • Operations are set up for a country head in every qualifying country, with marketing support established at high level for each country
  • Tranining and certification for producers. Independent producers can get involved without license agreement (true open source).
  • Producers are incentivized to continue development by virtue of a transparent, open source platform.
  • Sound governance and corporate form adheres to Distributive Enterprise mission
  • Risk-Free preorder - preorder yours. If campaign fails, you will get your money back. Bank transfer, cc, or check.

3. More

  • 3 years for Distributed Market Substitution from the time the contest ends.
  • OS Microfactory for producing cordless drills from the waste stream of plastic, aluminum, zinc, and rubber.
  • Lifecycle stewardship on the part of producers, takeback for 100% recycling of materials. This means the most for the circuit boards. These should be in house manufactured and should use COTS parts
  • Enterprise Level - a way for anyone to be trained to produce professional grade 3D printed cordless drills with lifetime design
  • OSE Lifetime Warranty
  • Materials cost - $20, profit $80 per drill, relies in a heavy level of Technological Recursion and automation.
  • 12 per day build capacity from 3D printed parts. Production bottleneck is 3D printing of complex shapes.
  • Most of process is highly automated.
  • Product comes in kit form with minimum assembly required, 30 minutes to 1 hour, or fully assembled.
  • Distributed quality control and production at 3 Sigma level
  • Collaboration with Big Box stores for distribution
  • Training ability to get any additional producer trained in a period of 1 month
  • Certification procedure for producers
  • Distributed quality control protocol that is transparent via online documentation
  • Bootstrap-able 'slow lane' for people without $2k startup capital is included as a startup strategy

4. Tool Heads

Future evolution can include:

  • Cordless drill
  • Cordless Paint Sprayer
  • Sheet Metal Cutter
  • Jigsaw
  • Reciprocating Saw
  • Cordless Hole Puncher
  • Sander
  • Cutoff saw
  • Multitool grinder
  • Handle is replaceable to a different angle
  • Batteries are stackable
  • Sander
  • Tire inflator
  • 2000 lb winch

See Cordless Tool Heads

Critical Path

See OSE Incentive Challenge Critical Path

Challenges

  • Scope creep - full production tool chain. Determining the level of depth of recursion. Do we make our own motors? Gearboxes? Circuits that are milled? Solution is examining this all in detail to determine which fits in the end game scenario of 100,000 producers worldwide producing drills.
  • Distribution - how do we distribute product to various outlets? See OSE Incentive Challenge Distribution

Opportunities

  • Converting other projects such as V1 Engineering to open source as ancillary tools. However, this does not address degeneracy of toolchain.
  • Resolution of tool chain degeneracy is modularity. Making the parts so modular that they can do everything. We are the only guys that can do it at present.

Production Infrastructure

  • Explicit production engineering design is part of the Challenge, and a key element of distributed quality control
  • Uniformity and low cost can be achieved by 3D printed organizing systems. Drawers and bins, using a 12" bed 3d printer.
  • Larger 3D printer may be required for packaging and shipping - using 3D printed shipping boxes or cases. A Tool Case can also serve as a shipping case if provisions are made for closing the box securely for shipping
  • Abrasive disk can be made from a sand-plastic filament. See Abrasive 3D Printing Filament

Modules of Overall Challenge

  • Drill Technical Specifications
  • Charger
  • Other tool heads - or simply drills of different torques
  • Scalable battery pack
  • Web store - embeddable code
  • Distributed Production Engineering and Quality Control
  • Blockchain for tracking product or development
  • Marketing - making marketing relationships

Judging Team

Business, thought leaders, academics, designers, corporates, tech stars, sociologists, community economic leaders, microfinance, politicians, permafacture, geologists, polymer chemists, crowd supply types, diamandis types.

  • Joshua Pearce
  • Cesar Harada?
  • Colby Thomson?
  • Marcin J
  • Dan Gelbart?
  • Jeff Moe?

Incentive Challenge Design

Links