In the battle over the right to repair, open-source tractors offer alternatives(civileats.com)
civileats.com
In the battle over the right to repair, open-source tractors offer alternatives
https://civileats.com/2022/04/27/right-to-repair-open-source-tractors-john-deere-oggun-farms-profitability-technology/
78 comments
I wish we had open source options for household appliances. It would be the best response to the planned obsolescence companies currently employ.
Would it be too hard to find good out-of-patent designs for appliances and to elaborate on them with details on manufacturing, assembly, and repair? Publishing complete documentation of an appliance like this would be the final product, really, because after you post a good design some Chinese factory (or 10) would start turning it out.
I've personally been thinking about designing a standard classic drip coffee maker with parts that are easy to manufacture, replace, and clean. I have a personal belief that you should only ever have to buy one of those, and that the only reason that we go through many in a lifetime is because they're made of plastic, the reservoirs are impossible to clean, and the insides are often inaccessible without breaking something.
A lot of Chinese stuff seems to be based on old (but still great) designs, for working with paper and printing, for working with leather, etc.. The shared designs result in a standardization for both parts and replacement between factories and over time; you'll be able to replace your alibaba paper cutter with exactly the same paper cutter 10 years from now. I love it.
I've personally been thinking about designing a standard classic drip coffee maker with parts that are easy to manufacture, replace, and clean. I have a personal belief that you should only ever have to buy one of those, and that the only reason that we go through many in a lifetime is because they're made of plastic, the reservoirs are impossible to clean, and the insides are often inaccessible without breaking something.
A lot of Chinese stuff seems to be based on old (but still great) designs, for working with paper and printing, for working with leather, etc.. The shared designs result in a standardization for both parts and replacement between factories and over time; you'll be able to replace your alibaba paper cutter with exactly the same paper cutter 10 years from now. I love it.
Man, you just brought up one of my biggest pet peeves.
The design of modern drip coffee makers. Prior to about 15 years ago, the basket for the grounds was almost always full separated by a compartment from the heating element and pumping area. Slowly, these areas were combined into one, with a plastic lid that covers both where the grounds are place for filtering, and the basin that water sits in. Maybe its a simpler design. Maybe.
By combining the regions, steam builds up and small particles of coffee find their way into the water storage basin (inevitably). Because of this, the heating element and pumping area are exposed to small particles of coffee, which creates buildup, and can clog the elements. Thus, a modern coffee maker designed in this way *will* fail after a number of cycles. There is no way to prevent particles of coffee from getting into the pumping area, and its otherwise inaccessible (no way to clean).
Prior drip coffee makers, they had lasted me as long as I had an urn that still fit them. Never any issues with the mechanism. No issues with buildup or clogs in the water storage area.
Its my number one consideration when purchasing a drip coffee maker.
The design of modern drip coffee makers. Prior to about 15 years ago, the basket for the grounds was almost always full separated by a compartment from the heating element and pumping area. Slowly, these areas were combined into one, with a plastic lid that covers both where the grounds are place for filtering, and the basin that water sits in. Maybe its a simpler design. Maybe.
By combining the regions, steam builds up and small particles of coffee find their way into the water storage basin (inevitably). Because of this, the heating element and pumping area are exposed to small particles of coffee, which creates buildup, and can clog the elements. Thus, a modern coffee maker designed in this way *will* fail after a number of cycles. There is no way to prevent particles of coffee from getting into the pumping area, and its otherwise inaccessible (no way to clean).
Prior drip coffee makers, they had lasted me as long as I had an urn that still fit them. Never any issues with the mechanism. No issues with buildup or clogs in the water storage area.
Its my number one consideration when purchasing a drip coffee maker.
Just get a Moccamaster and never change brand again. It's a Dutch brand, but they seem to offer them worldwide.
Separate lids for the grounds and the water reservoir. Spare parts can be ordered, but on the whole the thing just lasts. It comes in a range of hip bright colours, but also just shiny metal.
https://moccamaster.com/
Separate lids for the grounds and the water reservoir. Spare parts can be ordered, but on the whole the thing just lasts. It comes in a range of hip bright colours, but also just shiny metal.
https://moccamaster.com/
I have a moccamaster and it works great.
(that said, I switched to cold brew coffee and have used the moccamaster maybe once in the last 6 months)
(that said, I switched to cold brew coffee and have used the moccamaster maybe once in the last 6 months)
239 EUR, yikes. That's 10 EUR less than I paid for my super automatic espresso machine. I guess it may be worth it if it lasts a lifetime (which my espresso machine won't, even though it's been going strong for like 7 years).
Edit: Ah, 239 is the MSRP, you can get it for 200, less when it's on sale.
Edit: Ah, 239 is the MSRP, you can get it for 200, less when it's on sale.
>239 EUR, yikes. That's 10 EUR less than I paid for my super automatic espresso machine
Sorry to break it to you, but that's actually not much money for what good drip machines usually cost. I don't want to sound like a snob (I promise I'm not), but at 229 Euros your "super automatic espresso machine" is probably pretty junk Aldi/Lidl-grade machine or some budget DeLonghi/Philips, that make awful espresso, no offence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuFQbiIVUkw
229 Euros is the cost of a good electric grinder alone, while a decent non-automatic espresso machine starts at north of ~500 Euros for the most basic models, from Sage for example, and fully automatic ones from Jura go for north of ~2000 Euros.
And those brands and prices aren't some snobby enthusiast grade luxury one-of-a-kind machines, but your basic home/small office appliances from reputable makers in the industry.
Yeah, making great espresso is hard as it has so may variables and automatic machines that can pull it off with minimal human intervention are very very expensive. Which is why I recommend people on a budget stay away from automatic machines in that price range as they suck.
I'd recommend James Hoffmann on YouTube for a deep dive into the world of coffee, espresso, grinders and coffee machines. He really opened my horizons to the world of great tasting coffee, with the downside that now, the coffee that I though I enjoyed, and most other commercial made coffee, tastes like crap to me haha.
Sorry to break it to you, but that's actually not much money for what good drip machines usually cost. I don't want to sound like a snob (I promise I'm not), but at 229 Euros your "super automatic espresso machine" is probably pretty junk Aldi/Lidl-grade machine or some budget DeLonghi/Philips, that make awful espresso, no offence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuFQbiIVUkw
229 Euros is the cost of a good electric grinder alone, while a decent non-automatic espresso machine starts at north of ~500 Euros for the most basic models, from Sage for example, and fully automatic ones from Jura go for north of ~2000 Euros.
And those brands and prices aren't some snobby enthusiast grade luxury one-of-a-kind machines, but your basic home/small office appliances from reputable makers in the industry.
Yeah, making great espresso is hard as it has so may variables and automatic machines that can pull it off with minimal human intervention are very very expensive. Which is why I recommend people on a budget stay away from automatic machines in that price range as they suck.
I'd recommend James Hoffmann on YouTube for a deep dive into the world of coffee, espresso, grinders and coffee machines. He really opened my horizons to the world of great tasting coffee, with the downside that now, the coffee that I though I enjoyed, and most other commercial made coffee, tastes like crap to me haha.
You do sound like a snob! It's a De'Longhi Magnifica S (typically 300 EUR, 250 on sale). Yes, that's their entry level offering. It's not junk. The coffee is fine. I buy decent beans, which helps.
I'd recommend it to everyone who just likes coffee, but isn't interested in making it their hobby.
I'd recommend it to everyone who just likes coffee, but isn't interested in making it their hobby.
I'm sorry if it sounded like that but you won't get any snobbery from me, my coffee gear is under €100. I'm just trying to provide useful information.
You can also like good coffee without making it your hobby, but unfortunately those cheapo budget brand machines aren't it chief. At that price range, their grind uniformity alone must be awful since the corner cutting is taken to the extreme to hit that low price point.
Yeah they make "coffee", but not good coffee, which I guess for most consumers that never tasted good coffee and have no standards and just need a hit of caffeine in the morning is fine, which is why they sell so well to the general public, but if you buy great beans, running them through a cheap and lousy machine is kinda wasteful, as you're not getting the most out of your expensive beans.
I also though the coffee my cheap machines at home/office was great for many years, until I tried a Sage, Jura or other methods/grinders that really make good coffee and I couldn't drink the previous coffee anymore. It tasted trash. There is no comparison, the difference is night and day.
But if you enjoy yours that's fine and that's all that matters.
You can also like good coffee without making it your hobby, but unfortunately those cheapo budget brand machines aren't it chief. At that price range, their grind uniformity alone must be awful since the corner cutting is taken to the extreme to hit that low price point.
Yeah they make "coffee", but not good coffee, which I guess for most consumers that never tasted good coffee and have no standards and just need a hit of caffeine in the morning is fine, which is why they sell so well to the general public, but if you buy great beans, running them through a cheap and lousy machine is kinda wasteful, as you're not getting the most out of your expensive beans.
I also though the coffee my cheap machines at home/office was great for many years, until I tried a Sage, Jura or other methods/grinders that really make good coffee and I couldn't drink the previous coffee anymore. It tasted trash. There is no comparison, the difference is night and day.
But if you enjoy yours that's fine and that's all that matters.
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure you'd consider the beans I buy "pretty junk".
I was only trying to be helpful and extend your horizon to what objectively makes great coffee.
Nothing wrong with going for budget options all the time if that's what you're into (traditional German stinginess I guess, haha :D), but there's a reason most good coffee and appliances cost what they cost, and you can definitely taste it without being a snob.
Nothing wrong with going for budget options all the time if that's what you're into (traditional German stinginess I guess, haha :D), but there's a reason most good coffee and appliances cost what they cost, and you can definitely taste it without being a snob.
[deleted]
I bought mine second hand for €100. Totally worth it, and if it breaks down, I can fix it. The only reason the seller sold it is because he was a chef with limited kitchen space who went fully French press. It's not a complex machine at all, and friendly to tinkerers in the choice of fasteners, materials, and design. It's generally regarded as a pretty machine as well. Should I ever lose this one (in a fire I guess) I would buy a new one for the full price in a heart beat.
You won't find many cheaper models that have the grounds and water reservoir not under the same cover. Most €50 to €100 models have them under a shared lid, because that particular design (while flawed as noted above) is cheap to manufacture. You also won't find cheaper models that haven't been over-optimized for production costs and where the cutting of corners will render them broken in ten years time.
It doesn't grind your beans for you, but for that I simply use a vintage wall mounted grinder I restored. Those can be had for a few Euro in any charity shop.
You won't find many cheaper models that have the grounds and water reservoir not under the same cover. Most €50 to €100 models have them under a shared lid, because that particular design (while flawed as noted above) is cheap to manufacture. You also won't find cheaper models that haven't been over-optimized for production costs and where the cutting of corners will render them broken in ten years time.
It doesn't grind your beans for you, but for that I simply use a vintage wall mounted grinder I restored. Those can be had for a few Euro in any charity shop.
I'm not an expert when it comes to drip coffee makers, but I had a cursory glance at Media Markt's offerings. There's an entire category of machines with a removable water tank (which implies a separate lid), with machines starting at 33 EUR for a Grundig and 40 EUR for a Bosch. They're not as pretty, though.
This shouldn't be downvoted. It's an honest representation of the situation.
The reality is that most consumers (and I'm one of them) will not pay $200 for a coffeemaker when they can buy a $20 one every few years.
It's simply not worth it to most of us. OTOH, a long time ago I spent $200 on a KitchenAid mixer that is all but indestructible and has a healthy supply of spare parts for the occasions when something does break. Having a mixer that can power through stiff bread dough is worth $200 (probably far more now due to inflation) to me. Having a coffeemaker that's easy to clean is not.
It's simply not worth it to most of us. OTOH, a long time ago I spent $200 on a KitchenAid mixer that is all but indestructible and has a healthy supply of spare parts for the occasions when something does break. Having a mixer that can power through stiff bread dough is worth $200 (probably far more now due to inflation) to me. Having a coffeemaker that's easy to clean is not.
> small particles of coffee find their way into the water storage basin (inevitably). Because of this, the heating element and pumping area are exposed to small particles of coffee
Fun fact: I had a coffee maker literally catch fire because of a build-up of coffee grinds on the water heating element.
Fun fact: I had a coffee maker literally catch fire because of a build-up of coffee grinds on the water heating element.
Not saying I don't believe you, but having had little experience with drip coffee makers since ~2010 when I lost my last one, I simply can't imagine the design involved that would let coffee get into pumping area (worst was that you accidentally spilled ground coffee into water tank.
Can you point to some examples? Just so I can share what to avoid :O
Can you point to some examples? Just so I can share what to avoid :O
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp9H0MO-qS8
The specific mechanism that gums up the works occurs at 6:45. When you raise the lid of the modern version, grounds and coffee bits that have dusted up to the lid of the coffee maker drip via condensation into rear water reservoir.
For greater detail, juxtapose minutes 8-11 with minutes 16-21.
Mr. Coffee represents the king of drip still. And it is the greatest contributor to this fundamental design flaw (imp).
The specific mechanism that gums up the works occurs at 6:45. When you raise the lid of the modern version, grounds and coffee bits that have dusted up to the lid of the coffee maker drip via condensation into rear water reservoir.
For greater detail, juxtapose minutes 8-11 with minutes 16-21.
Mr. Coffee represents the king of drip still. And it is the greatest contributor to this fundamental design flaw (imp).
Thank you very much, bookmarked for any future drip making needs to avoid buyib bad crap.
Not to get off-topic, but have you tried cold brew?
I went through a long and tortuous path through coffee making techniques and eventually tried cold brew.
The idea is to soak the coffee in cold water 12-24 hours and filter the result.
The coffee is wonderful and lacks the bitterness of brewed coffee.
Back a little on-topic - the apparatus to make cold brew coffee is a bit simpler than hot coffeemakers.
I went through a long and tortuous path through coffee making techniques and eventually tried cold brew.
The idea is to soak the coffee in cold water 12-24 hours and filter the result.
The coffee is wonderful and lacks the bitterness of brewed coffee.
Back a little on-topic - the apparatus to make cold brew coffee is a bit simpler than hot coffeemakers.
The best toaster was made in the 50's.
One issue is the higher upfront cost and this is where high-tax Europe could make a smart move: reduce VAT on products that get certified to last longer (modularity, longer warranty, fair pricing on spare parts, refurbished program to re-sell devices).
This might help incentivize consumers and producers. As an added benefit, they could upgrade components along the way, e.g. smart home integration with new standards for replacement parts.
This might help incentivize consumers and producers. As an added benefit, they could upgrade components along the way, e.g. smart home integration with new standards for replacement parts.
Exactly. The problem currently is proprietary components (and interfaces between them), and tight integration. When almost anything breaks, you need a proprietary part, or even an entire subsystem, which is very often more expensive than junking the entire appliance and buying a new one, and often parts are not even available.
We need modularity, more like a desktop PC or 3d printers, standard parts and interfaces. You don't have to throw that away (including screen, keyboard) when a stick of RAM breaks, for example.
We need modularity, more like a desktop PC or 3d printers, standard parts and interfaces. You don't have to throw that away (including screen, keyboard) when a stick of RAM breaks, for example.
What if that tight integration brought the price down to what would be the cost of 5 modular and repairable versions?
My toaster isn’t modular but it’s lasted 10 years so far and I don’t think I’d pay 5x more for the repairable one.
My toaster isn’t modular but it’s lasted 10 years so far and I don’t think I’d pay 5x more for the repairable one.
It could be the opposite. Eg, instead of limited runs of electronic boards dedicated to a particular model, you use a collection of standard boards made in the zillions.
I think your 5x example is unrealistic. It might be that much currently because long-lived rapairable devices are a boutique niche.
But if stuff in general were built more with commodity modules (of whatever quality), it could actually be cheaper than custom designs, with their design overhead and lower-mass production.
But the thing is, even if it's slightly more expensive to manufacture initially (and with electronics, it's often about mere pennies), the actual cost, if you factor in all the external costs transport/transport infrastructure, disposal, etc, etc, and especially the environmental cost, it's much higher for 'fast appliances' (ala fast fashion) than for longer-lived, more repairable choices.
I think your 5x example is unrealistic. It might be that much currently because long-lived rapairable devices are a boutique niche.
But if stuff in general were built more with commodity modules (of whatever quality), it could actually be cheaper than custom designs, with their design overhead and lower-mass production.
But the thing is, even if it's slightly more expensive to manufacture initially (and with electronics, it's often about mere pennies), the actual cost, if you factor in all the external costs transport/transport infrastructure, disposal, etc, etc, and especially the environmental cost, it's much higher for 'fast appliances' (ala fast fashion) than for longer-lived, more repairable choices.
We do...we really do!
We have such a throwaway culture that prototyping and experimentation has a fairly low bar/cost. Getting serious and building a "sellable" product can have a bit of a ramp (my opinion due to the administrative and scale aspects which can arguably distract from the goal) but if you stick to the "by-the/for-the community" approach I feel we have a great moment where the protocols and many of the tools are open to try with.
The challenge is the electrical side if you come from software and vice-versa. There are plenty of resources but it's scattered and getting started ends up touching a little bit of everything.
Python and Arduino / Pi have been incredibly friendly to augment and don't feel like you need to start from scratch, take something that exists and extend it.
Zigbee, X10, WiFi, and Bluetooth LE are all common and open ways to talk with easy to comeby plug-and-play ish modules/hats for microcontrollers.
I suggest Python, not necessarily my favorite, but by far the friendliest and batteries included for experimentation.
We have such a throwaway culture that prototyping and experimentation has a fairly low bar/cost. Getting serious and building a "sellable" product can have a bit of a ramp (my opinion due to the administrative and scale aspects which can arguably distract from the goal) but if you stick to the "by-the/for-the community" approach I feel we have a great moment where the protocols and many of the tools are open to try with.
The challenge is the electrical side if you come from software and vice-versa. There are plenty of resources but it's scattered and getting started ends up touching a little bit of everything.
Python and Arduino / Pi have been incredibly friendly to augment and don't feel like you need to start from scratch, take something that exists and extend it.
Zigbee, X10, WiFi, and Bluetooth LE are all common and open ways to talk with easy to comeby plug-and-play ish modules/hats for microcontrollers.
I suggest Python, not necessarily my favorite, but by far the friendliest and batteries included for experimentation.
I have a hard time thinking of appliances I own that are not easily repairable or lifetime lasting. I bought a commercial blender that is not repairable afaik but will definitely outlast my home use. My Speed Queen commercial washer and dryer will outlast me for sure, and are easily repairable if something does break. All the bathroom appliances either last forever or are easily repairable: sink, faucet, toilets.
I think the trick is for many things you have to buy the commercial version to get something that's going to last "forever" or be built for repairability. The tough part is, do you want to buy a $3k commercial dishwasher when you could buy 6 $500 non-commercial dishwashers. I personally chose to buy the commercial washing machine and dryer, but I still have the "disposable" kitchen appliances that came with my house. When it's time to replace them I'll consider the upgrade. Depends on if this is my "forever" home.
I think the trick is for many things you have to buy the commercial version to get something that's going to last "forever" or be built for repairability. The tough part is, do you want to buy a $3k commercial dishwasher when you could buy 6 $500 non-commercial dishwashers. I personally chose to buy the commercial washing machine and dryer, but I still have the "disposable" kitchen appliances that came with my house. When it's time to replace them I'll consider the upgrade. Depends on if this is my "forever" home.
Commercial dishwashers don't exist. The $3000 devices they call dishwashers are just dish sterilizers, and will not get anything except the loosest dirt off. I've been wanting a commercial dishwasher, but they don't seem to exist.
Exactly. Or simply don't buy bottom-of-the barrel appliances in the first place. I have a KitchenAid blender and mixer. Both are around 20 years old and have been repaired multiple times. KitchenAid appliances are well built and built to be easily repaired when they break. You can buy pretty much any replacement part for them.
I've long wanted to do something similar to David Tulloh's Linux powered microwave.[0]
[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/674877/
[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/674877/
I'm certain there's a niche in replacing the dmca protected garbage wholesale with a completely different board on some appliances. Wish I had the capital to try.
People do this all the time, but it's not marketed. When the control board for my washer died, I came across a bunch of Arduino projects to replace controls with new hardware.
As an embedded systems engineer, I even considered designing a replacement controller, but that thought died the instant I found one for $30 on eBay. That, and the reality of the situation is that when I can buy a replacement washer for $400, I have no incentive to spend dozens of hours redesigning a control. Maybe if I was bored and wanted to create an OSHW project that maybe 5 other people on the planet would use.
As an embedded systems engineer, I even considered designing a replacement controller, but that thought died the instant I found one for $30 on eBay. That, and the reality of the situation is that when I can buy a replacement washer for $400, I have no incentive to spend dozens of hours redesigning a control. Maybe if I was bored and wanted to create an OSHW project that maybe 5 other people on the planet would use.
Could you expound on this? In my mind there must ultimately be a manufacturer of a given product. Even if there was a completely open source blender, for example, manufacturers would be incentivized to make it in such a way that it still breaks, unlike code where there is no factory and no resources being spent after the design (code) is finished.
Open source and open spec parts can be manufactured by anyone with a jigsaw, 3d printer, cnc machine, etc. You could walk into a maker space with $100 worth of materials and walk out with a repairable, maintainable blender or whatever that will last your lifetime, and your kids' lifetimes.
I was going to make a note in my first post about 3d printing but I forgot. In my opinion 3d printing cannot be a solution until metal 3d printing is cheap. For the blender example, do you really want to use a handmade blender consisting of a hacked together motor, blade, and glass? this seems like a recipe for disaster. For things that are 100% plastic, ie. basically the only type of thing a 3d printer can reliably produce, even then with required knowledge, planned obsolescence is less of an issue already. Plastic goods are either throw-away or durable enough for what they are (eg. a hairbrush).
With regards to the cnc machine, yes it is more doable, but now with more time, money and knowledge required. Open source appliances are definitely not bad -- I can't imagine a downside to them -- but they can't do the same thing that open source software does.
With regards to the cnc machine, yes it is more doable, but now with more time, money and knowledge required. Open source appliances are definitely not bad -- I can't imagine a downside to them -- but they can't do the same thing that open source software does.
"For things that are 100% plastic, ie. basically the only type of thing a 3d printer can reliably produce"
This is nowhere remotely near true. I've been testing SLS-printed diamond blades and coring bits for two years, now. They work just fine, and last longer than their stamped/brazed equivalents.
This is nowhere remotely near true. I've been testing SLS-printed diamond blades and coring bits for two years, now. They work just fine, and last longer than their stamped/brazed equivalents.
I may be living in the past in this aspect. I admit my statement earlier that only plastic being printed reasonably may be wrong. I don't know what SLS is, but I briefly looked it up and it looks like the cheapest ones are more than $5,000, with the larger ones being hundreds of thousands. There may be cheaper options that I didn't see. in any event that may not be an issue if only specialized people use them, and others can buy parts from them locally or online. Would you mind sharing more about what SLS printing is and what it can do? Can I print real appliances with it such as a microwave or blender? Do you see the cost as being reasonable or would it simply be paying more for guaranteed quality? For context I tried searching for what SLS is made of but it seems like it a process and not a material. Can this process be used for metal? If it can only print diamond than I don't think it could be used for appliances. I also found this result which just lead me to more confusion:
>The two most common powder bed fusion 3D printing systems today are plastic-based, commonly referred to as SLS, and metal-based, known as direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or selective laser melting (SLM).
>The two most common powder bed fusion 3D printing systems today are plastic-based, commonly referred to as SLS, and metal-based, known as direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) or selective laser melting (SLM).
Sorry for a long delay in reply.
Selective LASER Sintering/melting is a form of powder bed deposition printing. You get materials in a powder form (usually thermoplastics, but there are metal versions used in heavy industry) and hit them with a LASER to fuse them together. It is an additive form of fabrication. You can print most of the parts you'd need for something like a blender or microwave, structurally-speaking. You'd not be printing the actual hardware components like the magnets for a motor, nor would you be printing diamond, as you need way more than a LASER to make that happen. You could print the regular non-PCB wiring with powdered copper filler. The cost is not quite reasonable for wanting to work with metal those machines get pricey due to the extremely high-powered LASERs required.
I just buy SLS-printed diamond-embedded lapidary blades and use them. They're metal, with 10mm segments of diamond-embedded metal at the rims.
Selective LASER Sintering/melting is a form of powder bed deposition printing. You get materials in a powder form (usually thermoplastics, but there are metal versions used in heavy industry) and hit them with a LASER to fuse them together. It is an additive form of fabrication. You can print most of the parts you'd need for something like a blender or microwave, structurally-speaking. You'd not be printing the actual hardware components like the magnets for a motor, nor would you be printing diamond, as you need way more than a LASER to make that happen. You could print the regular non-PCB wiring with powdered copper filler. The cost is not quite reasonable for wanting to work with metal those machines get pricey due to the extremely high-powered LASERs required.
I just buy SLS-printed diamond-embedded lapidary blades and use them. They're metal, with 10mm segments of diamond-embedded metal at the rims.
> diamond blades and coring bits
Can you point me a direction where I can learn more about this?
Can you point me a direction where I can learn more about this?
What sort of information are you looking for? My use case for these is lapidary work.
I would like to learn more about SLS where you are using hard stones (?) as blades and such.
I have a thing that I want to make and this might be a potential path.
I have a thing that I want to make and this might be a potential path.
I apologize for what I see as some confusion caused in my wording - diamond itself isn't the blade. It's the abrasive sintered-in with a powdered metal. You basically mix the two together and hit it with a laser to fuse it all together.
> Open source appliances [...] can't do the same thing that open source software does.
People don't write their own open source. Expertise and economies of scale are a thing. I'm fine with buying my open source appliance from Walmart, as long as I can get parts from everywhere and download a manual that tells me how to fix everything that goes wrong with it.
People don't write their own open source. Expertise and economies of scale are a thing. I'm fine with buying my open source appliance from Walmart, as long as I can get parts from everywhere and download a manual that tells me how to fix everything that goes wrong with it.
>People don't write their own open source. Expertise and economies of scale are a thing.
True, people don't write their open source, but what distinguishes open code from open blueprints is that in software the plan, ie. the source code is the product, only in binary form, where with an open blueprint or schematic the product is only defined by the plans. The point being that having a good plan cannot ensure a good end device, especially if the opposite is incentivized.
>I'm fine with buying my open source appliance from Walmart, as long as I can get parts from everywhere
This assumes that the parts from everywhere are not themselves low quality, which may be a fair assumption since they are parts not a product. But if this becomes feasible, and the manufacturers are indeed incentivized to make broken products, they will may not produce open source products at all rendering the existence of open source plans useless, although the OP assumed the existence already. So yes in the event that we did have open source appliances planned obsolescence might be solved or reduced by your method, but the fact that planned obsolescence exists in the first place is a signal that manufacturers will never produce them if this is the case. It is then in effect almost (in this regard) the same as the OP saying "I wish manufactures would not implement planned obsolescence." A potential solution for the manufacturer would be to simply make the most expensive part be the most the one that breaks, or even better to pull an apple and solder everything together such that you can't ever fix it. Even if the latest apple laptops were completely open source you wouldn't be able to upgrade many aspects of it. My point here is that if we start from the point of assuming manufactures will implement planned obsolescence then they will continue using it. Which is why the GP suggested that via 3d printing the user become the manufacturer or to do so with small scale manufacturing, which as I pointed out comes with increased cost and safety concerns.
>and download a manual that tells me how to fix everything that goes wrong with it.
Open source doesn't automatically suggest a manual and closed source doesn't automatically suggest no manual (as someone else pointed out, manuals used to be more common). That said, the chances of there being a manual for an open source appliance are probably very high if there are enough users or if the creators cared to document it. And of course if you can read the source than open source in fact does imply a manual, but at greater cost (which still is better than nothing of course). Either way I think my above point stands that if we assume manufacturers are implementing planned obsolescence (which the OP assumes) and if we assume that open source would solve planned obsolescence, then we have no choice but to conclude that no manufactures will make open source products. The exception being if its so difficult that only a small number of users will actually be able to repair the product or could only do so at a high cost. In which case there would be a small segment of people who would benefit. But that severely limits the statement of the OP, which is totally fine, just something to take note of.
True, people don't write their open source, but what distinguishes open code from open blueprints is that in software the plan, ie. the source code is the product, only in binary form, where with an open blueprint or schematic the product is only defined by the plans. The point being that having a good plan cannot ensure a good end device, especially if the opposite is incentivized.
>I'm fine with buying my open source appliance from Walmart, as long as I can get parts from everywhere
This assumes that the parts from everywhere are not themselves low quality, which may be a fair assumption since they are parts not a product. But if this becomes feasible, and the manufacturers are indeed incentivized to make broken products, they will may not produce open source products at all rendering the existence of open source plans useless, although the OP assumed the existence already. So yes in the event that we did have open source appliances planned obsolescence might be solved or reduced by your method, but the fact that planned obsolescence exists in the first place is a signal that manufacturers will never produce them if this is the case. It is then in effect almost (in this regard) the same as the OP saying "I wish manufactures would not implement planned obsolescence." A potential solution for the manufacturer would be to simply make the most expensive part be the most the one that breaks, or even better to pull an apple and solder everything together such that you can't ever fix it. Even if the latest apple laptops were completely open source you wouldn't be able to upgrade many aspects of it. My point here is that if we start from the point of assuming manufactures will implement planned obsolescence then they will continue using it. Which is why the GP suggested that via 3d printing the user become the manufacturer or to do so with small scale manufacturing, which as I pointed out comes with increased cost and safety concerns.
>and download a manual that tells me how to fix everything that goes wrong with it.
Open source doesn't automatically suggest a manual and closed source doesn't automatically suggest no manual (as someone else pointed out, manuals used to be more common). That said, the chances of there being a manual for an open source appliance are probably very high if there are enough users or if the creators cared to document it. And of course if you can read the source than open source in fact does imply a manual, but at greater cost (which still is better than nothing of course). Either way I think my above point stands that if we assume manufacturers are implementing planned obsolescence (which the OP assumes) and if we assume that open source would solve planned obsolescence, then we have no choice but to conclude that no manufactures will make open source products. The exception being if its so difficult that only a small number of users will actually be able to repair the product or could only do so at a high cost. In which case there would be a small segment of people who would benefit. But that severely limits the statement of the OP, which is totally fine, just something to take note of.
> For the blender example, do you really want to use a handmade blender consisting of a hacked together motor, blade, and glass?
there are people who forge metal by hand for a living, and they are better at it than average javasctipt developer is at 'hackibg things together'
there are people who forge metal by hand for a living, and they are better at it than average javasctipt developer is at 'hackibg things together'
Could you expound on this point? I don't think there is any appliance that is made only of metal that has planned obsolescence. For example a cheese greater I would expect to last forever as long as you don't buy a really cheap one, but that I feel is inevitable. and I'm sure there are people selling hand made cheese graters. In any event what I meant by household appliance and what I assumed OP meant was something like a blender, a microwave, or a washing machine. Just forging metal isn't going to cut it with these products. perhaps my language was bit harsh earlier but what else is there to say? I'm sure there are many talented people who can do this but I'd imagine they would be doing something more productive. Even if not, there is no guarantee on the quality, even if it's open source, as it still has to be manufactured. This seems like microwave gatcha to me, a game I'd rather not play.
> do you really want to use a handmade blender consisting of a hacked together motor, blade, and glass
Unironically yes. Handmade does not mean "hacked together". Airplanes are handmade. My dinner is handmade.
Unironically yes. Handmade does not mean "hacked together". Airplanes are handmade. My dinner is handmade.
>Handmade does not mean "hacked together". Airplanes are handmade. My dinner is handmade.
In my view you are defining two types of handmade here. Dinner can be handmade of course, but from an evolutionary perspective this is necessarily true. I would put this into its own category given how fundamental it is. But aside from that, just from a basic perspective, dinner is very simple to make, and the ingredients are standardized by nature itself; that is, there cannot be any incompatibility between two foods. So the parts are extremely simple and the building process even simpler. And there are minimal safety concerns. Although from a quick search I found the following:
>CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States.
I don't know what to conclude from this, but it doesn't matter anyway. The reason being that we cannot compare making dinner to making a blender. This is obvious from my evolutionary perspective given above but also from direct observation. The ingredients of a blender are much more specialized. Size matters, quality matters, and it all has to fit together. I'd compare it to a Linux based OS actually. Most people need someone to package all the utilities together (and provide support, but lets ignore that). Except hardware of course does not scale in this way. You need to repeat the process each time. The is the problem that factories solve: securing supply, putting it together, and all this at scale. In regards to the airplane example, the definition of handmade is vastly changed, or at least the type of handmade has changed. Now there are government regulators, extremely specific and expensive machines (some of which I assume are in house), highly skilled engineers and billions of dollars at work. The only reason we aren't using factories is because we can't (I'm taking your word for it, I don't know). Unless you are referring to smaller planes, which maybe don't have all this involved (I don't know anything about this either). But at the very least they have a few skilled engineers and a lot of tools. We can't use these engineers to make blenders and washing machines, it just cannot scale. There need to be billions of these things. Maybe a few thousand can afford this, but now we have lost our engineers to less important problems.
This said, you never directly suggested we do this at scale. Only that you would like if possible.
In my view you are defining two types of handmade here. Dinner can be handmade of course, but from an evolutionary perspective this is necessarily true. I would put this into its own category given how fundamental it is. But aside from that, just from a basic perspective, dinner is very simple to make, and the ingredients are standardized by nature itself; that is, there cannot be any incompatibility between two foods. So the parts are extremely simple and the building process even simpler. And there are minimal safety concerns. Although from a quick search I found the following:
>CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States.
I don't know what to conclude from this, but it doesn't matter anyway. The reason being that we cannot compare making dinner to making a blender. This is obvious from my evolutionary perspective given above but also from direct observation. The ingredients of a blender are much more specialized. Size matters, quality matters, and it all has to fit together. I'd compare it to a Linux based OS actually. Most people need someone to package all the utilities together (and provide support, but lets ignore that). Except hardware of course does not scale in this way. You need to repeat the process each time. The is the problem that factories solve: securing supply, putting it together, and all this at scale. In regards to the airplane example, the definition of handmade is vastly changed, or at least the type of handmade has changed. Now there are government regulators, extremely specific and expensive machines (some of which I assume are in house), highly skilled engineers and billions of dollars at work. The only reason we aren't using factories is because we can't (I'm taking your word for it, I don't know). Unless you are referring to smaller planes, which maybe don't have all this involved (I don't know anything about this either). But at the very least they have a few skilled engineers and a lot of tools. We can't use these engineers to make blenders and washing machines, it just cannot scale. There need to be billions of these things. Maybe a few thousand can afford this, but now we have lost our engineers to less important problems.
This said, you never directly suggested we do this at scale. Only that you would like if possible.
[deleted]
Think about it like your old style steel frame 1-3 speed or 10 speed bicycle (pre big box versions).
If every part is standardized to the point of commodification (competing exclusively on price and quality) and it's assembled by a local store whose asset is their reputation, then it becomes hard to defect on any given part because it will just get swapped out.
Similarly if our open source blender is made of 'electric motor' and 'belt' and 'brass gears' and it will be repaired rather than causing a repeat customer when it breaks, then the nash equilibrium becomes producing an okay product for a decent price, not a mostly-good one for the same price which will break.
If every part is standardized to the point of commodification (competing exclusively on price and quality) and it's assembled by a local store whose asset is their reputation, then it becomes hard to defect on any given part because it will just get swapped out.
Similarly if our open source blender is made of 'electric motor' and 'belt' and 'brass gears' and it will be repaired rather than causing a repeat customer when it breaks, then the nash equilibrium becomes producing an okay product for a decent price, not a mostly-good one for the same price which will break.
That is pretty much the state of the bicycling world - the ship of Theseus has pedals !
Well it was. Shimano, bosch, yamaha and the big frame manufacturers are trying their absolute hardest to 'fix' it.
Kind of like with code right?
Open schematics for electronics, parts blueprints for mechanical components. Anything with code/firmware should also have open sourced code with related toolchain to program it either freely available or open sourced too.
This is not that hard to do, a lot of older appliances already do it all.
Open schematics for electronics, parts blueprints for mechanical components. Anything with code/firmware should also have open sourced code with related toolchain to program it either freely available or open sourced too.
This is not that hard to do, a lot of older appliances already do it all.
Of course having the plans is great. I wish all information was free. My point is that planned obsolescence, assuming it exists (which I do) can only be solved by the manufacturer. Even if we make an open source blueprint for a given appliance, It will not stop the manufacturer from modifying the blueprint by using cheaper materials or otherwise ensuring that the device breaks in x years. The only relevance open source blueprints has that I can see to planned obsolescence is that is lowers the barrier of entry to making a product, thereby increasing competition and somehow making it easier to make quality products. I can't save for sure, but I would assume the largest barrier is building and scaling the factory, not the blueprints. The manufacturer ultimately has the last say here.
One solution is the hire a factory to build the product to spec. Here we can deal with planned obsolescence by raising consumer awareness about a given blueprint, so that they know to buy the right spec. That sounds a lot like HDMI, which has no shortage of low quality implementations. now that's not a perfect comparison because HDMI is only one part of the cable and I don't know how much needs to be verified to qualify but ignoring that there is another issue of simply uncertified products altogether taking advantage of the name to sell worse quality products. And this leads me to my last point which is that it may not be feasible to have a standard like HDMI for appliances like a blender. The reason HDMI exists at all is not because of quality per se but because devices need to work together. So what results of this in my opinion is that there are a lot of (too many?) prerequisites to solving planned obsolescence, definitely more than just publishing the plans.
One solution is the hire a factory to build the product to spec. Here we can deal with planned obsolescence by raising consumer awareness about a given blueprint, so that they know to buy the right spec. That sounds a lot like HDMI, which has no shortage of low quality implementations. now that's not a perfect comparison because HDMI is only one part of the cable and I don't know how much needs to be verified to qualify but ignoring that there is another issue of simply uncertified products altogether taking advantage of the name to sell worse quality products. And this leads me to my last point which is that it may not be feasible to have a standard like HDMI for appliances like a blender. The reason HDMI exists at all is not because of quality per se but because devices need to work together. So what results of this in my opinion is that there are a lot of (too many?) prerequisites to solving planned obsolescence, definitely more than just publishing the plans.
If parts and designs are standardized, if your particular manufacturer has skimped on a part, you could replace just that part with an identically specced one from another manufacturer.
edit: And I don't mean that everyone uses the same type of clothes iron, I mean that the type of clothes iron you use isn't tied to a particular manufacturer.
edit: And I don't mean that everyone uses the same type of clothes iron, I mean that the type of clothes iron you use isn't tied to a particular manufacturer.
The idea is for the design to be repairable and the plans available. These can specify materials as well as shapes etc. Basically, if it needs to be specified to meet a level of performance, it can be so specified.
In terms of mass sales, yes a manufacturer would have to make it. But multiple manufacturers could and they may not "cheap out for obsolescence sake" in the same way. And if they do, a person has the option to make it themselves - whether or not it makes economic sense.
This is still better than the current situation where the customer has to pay money, cross fingers and hope.
In terms of mass sales, yes a manufacturer would have to make it. But multiple manufacturers could and they may not "cheap out for obsolescence sake" in the same way. And if they do, a person has the option to make it themselves - whether or not it makes economic sense.
This is still better than the current situation where the customer has to pay money, cross fingers and hope.
I wonder what interesting features electric vehicles and farm equipment could have to power other devices?
A lot of old jeeps used to have PTO ports on the transfer case, so you could use the jeep engine to power machinery. I suppose you could do the same thing with modern vehicles, at the cost of some mechanical complexity.
A more interesting option on EVs would be a big switch to disconnect the 3-phase AC motor from the motor controller, and route the power to an external plug with three conductors and some sort of control interface. The idea would be to use the car's motor controller as a programmable power supply for just about anything. You could have it generate normal 50 or 60 hz AC power (single phase, double phase, or 3-phase) at any voltage up to the pack voltage, or it could supply DC, or it could act as the power supply for an arc welder, or it could act as a motor controller for just about any kind of motor (with the control interface used to update the motor controller on the motor position, for motors that require that sort of thing).
There's this problem generally with electrically-powered devices like electric lawn mowers and chain saws, that they're limited to about 2 horsepower because that's about the limit of what you can send over a 15-20 amp circuit at 115v AC. 220V AC gives you more power for things like big table saws, but there isn't really a standard for 220v household extension cords, as far as I know. But a typical EV motor controller (or the battery directly) can supply hundreds of horsepower worth of electrical energy. It's kind of scary, actually, when you think about it. You could power a lot of stuff with that, if we just had interconnection standards.
A lot of old jeeps used to have PTO ports on the transfer case, so you could use the jeep engine to power machinery. I suppose you could do the same thing with modern vehicles, at the cost of some mechanical complexity.
A more interesting option on EVs would be a big switch to disconnect the 3-phase AC motor from the motor controller, and route the power to an external plug with three conductors and some sort of control interface. The idea would be to use the car's motor controller as a programmable power supply for just about anything. You could have it generate normal 50 or 60 hz AC power (single phase, double phase, or 3-phase) at any voltage up to the pack voltage, or it could supply DC, or it could act as the power supply for an arc welder, or it could act as a motor controller for just about any kind of motor (with the control interface used to update the motor controller on the motor position, for motors that require that sort of thing).
There's this problem generally with electrically-powered devices like electric lawn mowers and chain saws, that they're limited to about 2 horsepower because that's about the limit of what you can send over a 15-20 amp circuit at 115v AC. 220V AC gives you more power for things like big table saws, but there isn't really a standard for 220v household extension cords, as far as I know. But a typical EV motor controller (or the battery directly) can supply hundreds of horsepower worth of electrical energy. It's kind of scary, actually, when you think about it. You could power a lot of stuff with that, if we just had interconnection standards.
> but there isn't really a standard for 220v household extension cords
Well, there is there in the rest of the world, outside of North America. Most of the power plugs are 220v-240v @ 10-16 amp (depending on country, plug, etc).
Picking an existing standard would work here I think.
Well, there is there in the rest of the world, outside of North America. Most of the power plugs are 220v-240v @ 10-16 amp (depending on country, plug, etc).
Picking an existing standard would work here I think.
There are also standards for 3-phase industrial power plugs etc.
Not exactly what you're describing, but the F150 Lightning has a feature called 'Pro Power Onboard' that provides up to 9.6kw of power on 240v and 120v outlets in the bed. This is plenty of power to run a welder, air compressor or other item that would have traditionally required hauling around a large generator.
To your point, however, this is just a stopgap b/c a) it requires an expensive inverter that is otherwise completely useless on the truck and b) the power is still somewhat limited. As a result, there's not much incentive for a manufacturer to create high power electric tools that could take advantage of this ability because the market is extremely limited.
It does seem like something that will naturally evolve, however. I'm looking forward to a nice electric log splitter that actually has some guts.
To your point, however, this is just a stopgap b/c a) it requires an expensive inverter that is otherwise completely useless on the truck and b) the power is still somewhat limited. As a result, there's not much incentive for a manufacturer to create high power electric tools that could take advantage of this ability because the market is extremely limited.
It does seem like something that will naturally evolve, however. I'm looking forward to a nice electric log splitter that actually has some guts.
3,7 kW extension cords are very normal in Europe. Of course, only brand names can do that. Asian manufacturers cheat and do 2-2,5 kW cabling. With 3 phases 11 kW is also no big deal. Older equipment had this type of interface. Modern tools use only 2 phases.
I got the feeling farm equipment PTO was super dangerous. An electrical system might be not only useful, but safe.
That said, there are standards for powering devices. Usually generators, which generally work from 110/20amp 110/30 amp locking and sometimes 220/50 amp
That said, there are standards for powering devices. Usually generators, which generally work from 110/20amp 110/30 amp locking and sometimes 220/50 amp
Electric motors are not very expensive, just buy one and save all the complexity of having your car allowing it to be disconnected.
I often refer back to Open Source Ecology when agricultural hardware is brought up: https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/gvcs-machine-index/
Open Source Ecology is currently on its 7th generation prototype of open source tractor:
https://www.opensourceecology.org/portfolio/tractor/
"LifeTrac is a low-cost, multipurpose open source tractor. It serves as a workhorse backbone for many of GVCS technologies. We are currently on the 7th prototype – see LifeTrac Genealogy.
The highlight of our design is that it is a modular design that allows for a high degree of modification and flexibility – such as scalable frames, interchangeable power units, quick connect wheel drive, and plug-and-play hydraulic power that allows for a driver and remote."
https://www.opensourceecology.org/portfolio/tractor/
"LifeTrac is a low-cost, multipurpose open source tractor. It serves as a workhorse backbone for many of GVCS technologies. We are currently on the 7th prototype – see LifeTrac Genealogy.
The highlight of our design is that it is a modular design that allows for a high degree of modification and flexibility – such as scalable frames, interchangeable power units, quick connect wheel drive, and plug-and-play hydraulic power that allows for a driver and remote."
I mean, neat, but come back when you’ve got something with hundreds of horsepower that could serve as an actual alternative. It’s a bit ambitious to talk about that as a competitor to John Deere
Baby steps. You can't go from nothing to something very powerful in one step. This is an accomplishment worth celebrating, and nobody said that's it, we're done.
> but come back when you've got something with hundreds of [megabytes] that could serve as an actual... competitor to [IBM]
For someone hanging out on hackernews with the name Christensen, I imagine you would have stumbled upon The Innovator's Dilemma by now.
Tiny competitors disrupting established incumbents by playing a different game that is fundamentally incompatible with the incumbents' business model is the very story of tech disruption.
For someone hanging out on hackernews with the name Christensen, I imagine you would have stumbled upon The Innovator's Dilemma by now.
Tiny competitors disrupting established incumbents by playing a different game that is fundamentally incompatible with the incumbents' business model is the very story of tech disruption.
Having grown up driving tractors with hundreds of horsepower, it's not that. These projects are neat, but they are backyard gardening toys. If you wanted to build a tractor that competed, you could start perfectly fine with something big. You would need the kind of machine tools that many farmers have to repair their own equipment and the capital to build something big, but most of what you would need that a person of decent skill couldn't do themselves is available off the shelf.
Someone could disrupt with a small scale competitor, but the place to start wouldn't look like a go-kart, it would look like this [1] 50-150 HP range, probably without a cab, with appropriate standard hitches, hydraulics, PTO, etc. You could learn lessons and scale from there. The couple of open source farming tractor things I've seen have been cute, but just not anything like what would actually compete, and there's no reason not to start with something that at least is in range.
1. https://www.caseih.com/northamerica/en-us/products/tractors/...
Someone could disrupt with a small scale competitor, but the place to start wouldn't look like a go-kart, it would look like this [1] 50-150 HP range, probably without a cab, with appropriate standard hitches, hydraulics, PTO, etc. You could learn lessons and scale from there. The couple of open source farming tractor things I've seen have been cute, but just not anything like what would actually compete, and there's no reason not to start with something that at least is in range.
1. https://www.caseih.com/northamerica/en-us/products/tractors/...
You don't need massive machines, you need a certain ratio of crops to labour and capital.
If the go kart tractor allows experimentation with automation and presently difficult to automate farming methods or crops then it may be viable.
It won't compete with the ten hectares of wheat needed for one person to earn a living wage even without other costs, but there might be a niche for produce rather than calorie crops that looks like 1000 gardens rather than a vast ocean of corn.
Edit: Opened your link to the rather small tractors, this is what I had in mind with the one in the article being more along the lines of what the reprap was in the 2000s compared to a ratrig now.
If the go kart tractor allows experimentation with automation and presently difficult to automate farming methods or crops then it may be viable.
It won't compete with the ten hectares of wheat needed for one person to earn a living wage even without other costs, but there might be a niche for produce rather than calorie crops that looks like 1000 gardens rather than a vast ocean of corn.
Edit: Opened your link to the rather small tractors, this is what I had in mind with the one in the article being more along the lines of what the reprap was in the 2000s compared to a ratrig now.
This excites me.
I've been hearing much more lately about how crude our approach to farming/agriculture is and how counterproductive current methods are. No-till, carbon farming, cover crops, etc. which spend more effort in creating a balanced ecosystem where crops are incorporated versus placing product, extracting value, leaving nutrient deficient earth behind.
There's an interesting documentary called Biggest Little Farm where a couple tries to strike that balance although not focused on tech/automation. This article bringing in the resourcefulness and ingenuity of farmers with tech alongside that balanced ecosystem has worldwide impact.
I've been hearing much more lately about how crude our approach to farming/agriculture is and how counterproductive current methods are. No-till, carbon farming, cover crops, etc. which spend more effort in creating a balanced ecosystem where crops are incorporated versus placing product, extracting value, leaving nutrient deficient earth behind.
There's an interesting documentary called Biggest Little Farm where a couple tries to strike that balance although not focused on tech/automation. This article bringing in the resourcefulness and ingenuity of farmers with tech alongside that balanced ecosystem has worldwide impact.
> how crude our approach to farming/agriculture is and how counterproductive current methods are
Where are you getting your information from? Certainly not from modern farmers.
Where are you getting your information from? Certainly not from modern farmers.
10 years of R&D good enough? I'm not claiming there aren't advances but there's a long tail to implementing new things.
Crude as in there are many forms of existing processes we have inherited and continue on. No different than any other industry but this one has been linked to profound impacts on a multitude of outcomes that affect many in more immediate ways.
Crude as in there are many forms of existing processes we have inherited and continue on. No different than any other industry but this one has been linked to profound impacts on a multitude of outcomes that affect many in more immediate ways.
I would love to see iFixIt do a teardown of one of these tractors.
If you want a cheap lightweight tractor, there are plenty on Alibaba, starting around US$3500. But you're not going to pull full sized implements with them.
Shhh! People don't like being told that they're solving the wrong problem.
It looks like a modern Farmall Cub to me.
I like it!
I like it!