Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Independent Operability

The subject of this section is an invented term, having no relation to the description given in the first paragraph of the article. In fact, the act described by example of a rabbit is properly known as *self-reproduction* and has been known as such long before the birth of Charles Michael Collins. Allowing Mr. Collins to abuse the English language in this fashion is unconscionable. I, for one, will not participate in such abuse, as by failing to scrub the article clean of such abuse. William R. Buckley 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I note there used to be an article about it, but it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent operability. From this it also looks like Collins was previously editing under User:Fraberj, and his talk page is filled with similar ramblings about independant operability. At this point I'm thinking it's best to just remove references to the concept from this article completely until some sort of independent verification comes along. Bryan Derksen 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, from other edits I'm now digging up such as [1] (adding an extremely lengthy rant to a user talk archive from over a year ago) and a now-deleted rant posted on Talk:Independent operability I think Mr. Collins is coming across as a rather contentious editor. Collins, please tone down your rhetoric and come up with some references or we may have to start looking at things like article protection to get the situation under control. Bryan Derksen 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I did mention this as a possibility in the discussion now excised from the talk page. Frankly, I do not want to see this happen. Much as I like to challenge Mr. Collins with himself, I am mindful of the great potential for valuable input. For instance, I do agree that an old notion is redundantly termed: self-reproduction. Von Neumann called his automata self-reproducing. Noting such language peculiarities does not, to my mind, reasonable empower the invention of terms. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The degree of the inability to determine differences is a degree of insanity. Similarly, the degree in the inability to determine similarities, similarly is a degree of insanity. I was making an analogy for the benefit of children who need a similar analogy to grasp the term and I made that clear. I clearly was weighing similarities. Children use this reference as well as adults. Check the context and syntax. Further, even though it is customary to use "reproduce" for biological descriptions (and "self-reproduction" may be a redundancy) "replicate" means, more generally to make a copy (in my Webster's unabridged dictionary). Therefore "self-reproduce" is simply a more specific way of saying "self-replicate", in this art. Do not many practiced in this art use the phrase "man made life forms"? So, machines that are personified to an extent to be held as "life forms" may be called "self-reproducers", and vice versa. You indicated that von Neumann had some discussion on that, I would like to know where you saw that. 11:08 , 13 October 2007 (EST)
Actually, I have no quarrel with any of that (though I think we don't really need to bring the article down all the way to child level - that's what the "simple" Wikipedia is for). The thing I think we need better references for are the F-units section and the term "independent operability", which previous AfD discussion seems to indicate is a neologism inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia as a general term. Bryan Derksen 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had much to say but there is much going on here, this is not a "rant". I respectfully and constructively take issue with the several points you made at 03:16 14 October 2007 (UTC) above. The "previous AfD discussions" included not a single person that had the slightest inkling on the subject of nanotechnology much less self-replicator technology specifically. In fact it is my humble opinion most were nothing more than boobs and that comes from not as an elitist perspective but from a pragmatic and functional aspect per the task at hand. One even said it "gave them a headache". Their vacant minds had probably been inspired and led like lemurs over a cliff by a particularly malicious and opportunistic individual by the name of Richard Stallman who firmly states on his personal site aside his appeals for drug legalization (his real core interest), that the phrase "intellectual property rights" is "propaganda". I glimpse this from various attacks then on my patent. One abusing the technical term "patent cruft, a new flavor" which bestowed a particularly vile abuse of a technical term, around long before Wikipedia tried to revision it that does have a proper and sane prior usage. It is however highly misused when directed at my patent claims in particular which have been reviewed by very many top scientists and patent firms and found to be none of the such and in proper order. The confusing aspects of the patent's description section came from a sleeper spy named "Irah Donner" who, posing as a software patent lawyer chopped the description to shreds, and attempted to sabotage the PCT filing so to allow his home country to infringe it. I did not want to patent the software but believe it or not the examiner made me do it for "full disclosure". Check the file wrapper.
The patent presents volumes of novel technology aside from very allowed and fair merging of prior art to many novel useful innovations. It did not try to patent something like the browser address bar or the like. It was upon a whole working useful device presented to the patent office not some piece or widget calculated to force others more innovative to pay royalties on pieces of their own innovations. Their is not a single "cruft" aspect to it. I disagree that all patents are not source worthy material. Large Important ones are and no doubt this one is. Those presented with prototypes reduced to practice by assembly, adjustment and use of an important device like this device are to boot. It is also accompanied by quite a bit of high media attention such as the in studio, hour long talk show I did on December 8, 2005 at prime-time (evening hour) with Don and Mike, broadcast world wide on WJFK-FM (106.7), Washington DC's largest station "Washington's Superstation" (featuring big name acts such as Gordon Liddy, Howard Stern, The Greaseman etc.) concerning the technology, wherein I fielded the first general public talk show with call-ins on nano-replicators, my other many inventions and further discussed my CD that was played over the air upon the avant-garde theme "Nanorock" and the upcoming feature film "War in the Nanosphere" and the comedic character "Dr. Nanite" that I portray and the many other comments from high places that abound including my high detractors Frietas and Merkle proclaiming, amongst over 1000 other words, and as first patent described in their book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines:
"The breathtaking scope of the Collins patents..." and...
"...they may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers (they quoting Matt Moses)"
Cumulatively, the above with my very successful recording and performing carrier with much acclaim with musical themes on the subject of nanotechnology and self-replicators and the coining of a new genre named "Techno Crush" that makes me highly encyclopedic thank you.
I came to this site, of late and participated after seeing that there appears to be some sanity on the subject from editors with better technical and intellectual knowledge on the subject at hand. Although Buckley and I have our differences, it is at least refreshing to have someone to work with on this page that appears to know a great deal about the subject and I can interact with approximating other real scientist I work with, not political and intramural demagogues like Frietas and Merkle or the previous delinquents here at Wikipedia. I noticed you have a Bachelors in genetics and computer science. Hopefully, in a new unit of time our interactions will be somewhat better poised than with the boobs that I had to deal with before and something of substance can be purveyed to the readers. Although I disagree with Stallman and other points of the GNU I do like the idea of a free encyclopedia as long as those who decide to protect their artistic and practical useful works through patenting, copyright and the like are respected and not ridiculed or have a bias shoulder turned against them for political or other reasons. Such seems like it might be the intent and policy of Wikipedia but some of the editors seem to have gotten the wrong idea, unless I have it wrong. It really is hard to tell in this looming, evolving state of affairs known as Wikipedia.
On the "neologism" aspect that you pose as a problem on upon "independent operability", I think the term is more of a genuine technical phrase because it means what it means and increases the clarity of the sentence as required by Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. It is used, as well in that context in other technical fields. Further, it has been used very much within this technical area and well published, to wit: the popular book "Nano": The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology, by Ed Regis used it extensively in a proper manner. It also poses no trite or hackneyed aspects and is not stereotypical in this context. I will point out that my specific interest in it is that it was used regularly by K. Eric Drexler in the 90s and others in that era. This went on until I received my patent with a claim using the phrase and claiming such and soon thereafter he quit using it out of jealousy, in my opinion and many followed his cue. But all involved with the use of it with me in the patent as a technical term had no problem with it in the very independent claim it was within and were top flight firms. It really provides important substance to the article.
You might reconsider using the rabbit analogy because, take it from me, one ending up having to do this often if someone, adult or otherwise asks you: "What is a self replicating machine?" that is the fastest, most direct, analogical answer that people, in practice actually understand. It works every time when other definitions, for some reason haven't. You just tell them, afterwards that a machine has been devised that does the same. I agree though it seems a bit untechnical. You can also go into the complex, sun grown blade of grass being eaten by the rabbit showing slight flaws in its independency (maybe you missed the discussion on independency?). Independency or "independent operability" is requisite and an indispensable aspect to any real discussion on self-replication or reproduction, in my humble opinion. Just really trying to help, do as you like on that last one. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 3:45pm (EST)
Please, Charles, independence, not independency. Heck, you notice from the red-line underscore that independency (when you edit the text) is not even a recognised word in the Wikipedia spell-checker. I do note that both words are listed at www.yourdictionary.com, and in both listings the meaning is identical. However, by standards of colloquial use, we speak of the independence of one nation from another, not their independency. You obtain independence and become independent. I really do not know what independency means. Please, use independence, not independency. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Per your example, the way I see it we had a war that won the United States our finite state of "independence". Per my rabbit we have a number of degrees up to a point being described on a gradient scale of possible degrees of independency amongst a group weighed. I use independency when I am discussing one of a group and where it is situated upon that possible range that the whole group could possibly be on (like degree of independency). One is a finite state and the other a determined state among a range of possible states within a group. As you said, both terms are correct (or interchangeable) but you say you were taught or know yours is the colloquial correct item. But I hear the other used in my stated context often by others, particularly by economics people when they colloquially discuss statics as applied above. How does one determine which is correct, aside from considering the group agreement is considered reality? Your further thoughts? Also, FYI I was setting up the margins on this section here when our edits conflicted and you got to it first and when I try to use the sandbox or "Show prewiew" or "Show changes" it crashes. So, all I can do is save every update I make when needed. Also, when I make comments on sanity it is just comments on directions towards sanity, the degree in that direction being held as the more valued one, not an attack, always. Charles Michael Collins 11:25 pm October 15, 2007 (EST)
Actually, I did not say that both are correct. I said both are listed in YourDictionary (www.yourdictionary.com). These two statements do not share meaning, in spite of their obvious relation. YourDictionary shows the words with identical definition. Now, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language College Edition (C) 1968, gives some difference in the terms. Independency is i. independence, or ii. political partition (I summarise). Independence is the more usual notion, of separation from outside support. You are describing a condition that is not properly described by political contingency. Use the word *independence* and not the word *independency*. As a final test, to be sure that I have not been too restrictive, I'll contact Michael Quinion and ask him of the subtleties of usage. William R. Buckley 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Conversely from what you said above, colloquial use differs from your considerations on the word. To wit: There are 457,000 uses of it on my search in the Yahoo search engine at this moment and most within the context that I used it, including a financial institution named "Independency" and this bestows a thought that, like I said it is used extensively for statistical analysis of real world stock performances which work in the real world, not like in La La land in academia with Frietas and Merkle who deliberately commit copyright infringement in books they sell and arrogantly get away with it while only getting paid otherwise by an insane government. The company used it in a context identical to "independence" as you would have it here as such:
"Our company Independency, attends to business, and personal finance to property, superannuation, investment and company structuring, we'll help you achieve a state of independency." (used here as a finite state even not even a number of degrees up to a point being described on a gradient scale of possible degrees of independency amongst a group weighed).
seen here:
http://www.independency.com.au/about_us.htm
Considering the volume of use, as such why is this not "colloquial" use? Are you saying all these people are somehow in error? and you are not? Or, most likely is it not just you who is in error? You also did say that "in both listings the meaning is identical" in the defined terms in the dictionary, so say what you mean (as you like to bang me over the head over at length).
Charles Michael Collins 6:19 am October 17, 2007 (EST)
Actually, it is quite common for people to en masse get word spellings and definitions incorrect. To wit, the various perversions used for the word *résumé*, which unfortunately we Americans seem to abuse with glee. Listening to the GW, it would seem we all need to resume updates to our résumé. As stated above, lets see if Michael Quinion can add detail to our discussion. William R. Buckley 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Michael Quinion, you academics would like to think that you and the dictionary are the cause not the effect of meaning. However, the group agreement, however mad rules the roost and the dictionary and academia simply should disseminate the results. Please forward this comment to your friend, as well as my vantage on the word, if you would and while we are discussing third parties; I spoke to several publicists today and they all told me that when I was invited to come onto WJFK-FM (106.7) on December 8, 2005 , Washington DC's largest station "Washington's Superstation" (featuring big name acts such as Gordon Liddy, Howard Stern, The Greaseman etc.) and discuss the "Fabulous Self-Replicating Machine" concerning the technology, wherein I conducted the first general public talk show with call-ins on nano-replicators, my other many inventions and further discussed my CD that was played over the air upon the avant-garde theme "Nanorock" and the upcoming feature film "War in the Nanosphere" and the comedic character "Dr. Nanite" that I portray, and asked back for a second show that I became well sourced and a public figure, right? Charles Michael Collins 8:30 pm October 17, 2007 (EST)
You know not whereof you write. It would do you good to read other posts of mine on other talk pages within Wikipedia. Also, Michael Quinion is not likely to think much of me, at all. He is a linguist who manages the World Wide Words listserve. William R. Buckley 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
But which whereof do you refer? User:fraberj 06:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The use of a metaphor is fine. Presentation which is condescending is not fine. To be treasured are details of a working machine, a specific example that I may watch engage in the task, and yield two working copies, these then also, together, engaged in the act of self-replication. To be shunned is such a description which is not available in external sources. I would love to have included in this article operational details of Mr. Collins machine. Alas, that will apparently not happen until the machine is described in published sales literature. I reiterate my request for an in-person demonstration of your machine, Mr. Collins. Heck, if there are no published sources upon which to base content for this article, show me the device, demonstrate self-replication of the device, and I will be happy to write that source for you. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had much to say but there is much going on here, this is not a "rant". With all due respect, you have been beguiled by such videos as seen in the Cornell replicator and "RepRap" and the like (of which, Cornell's is admittedly not a self-replicator nor RepRap's). The notion that a self-replicator can be filmed and such quick content may be easily Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Do not presume to tell me of my emotional reaction to the work of Dr. Lipson. While the self-assembly work is interesting in a basic sense, and the units of construction are interesting, the overall model is not particularly compelling. Then again, in as much as they are abstract models, neither are the self-replicators that I built. Compelling would be the physical equivalent of a von Neumann self-replicator, the assembler described in Drexler's Engines of Creation, and apparently due the genius of Merkle. Let's not forget the Utililty Fog of Storrs-Hall. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused out of lack of specifics, here you express above that you have a "self-replicator", elsewhere herein you expressed that you had a "computational self-replicator". Could you describe that some more in more detail? A "computational self-replicator" might indicate a software rendition. As for presumptions, working by email requires a good deal of that as diction, elocution and the like are not present, another fallacy of Wikipedia investigations. As for the utility fog it's better off forgotten because anything in the air strong enough to stop a human body would fall out of the air before activated, by gravity. I would say more rude than genius of Merkle. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 7:51am (EST)
One more time, Charles. Pay attention. As stated elsewhere in our discussions (probably those you excised, leaving mine without context) I specifically stated that the self-replicators I have built are abstractions. One series executes upon the 6502 of the Apple II computer. Another series perform identically but are constructed for the 8088. My work in Core War comes between these two. Then there are those, in two forms, which are constructed for the cellular automata of von Neumann (a 29-state rule set), and for the variation due Renato Nobili, of the physics department at the University of Padova, a city of Italy, near to Ferrara and Venice (a 32-state rule set). As to description, I also previously told you that you, like everybody else, will need to hold yourself in abeyance, till the relevant paper appears in the academic literature. When I am sure of acceptance, then I will tell you which journal to read. William R. Buckley 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"Once more time" you say? What kind of grammar is that? Further, I was asking for additional information, a fact that you have chosen to ignore. From what country do you hail? does any of those 8088 "abstractions" be made to run on modern day computers? (maybe my old 486 DX, well... maybe not)Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 9:13 pm(EST)
Its called a typo, and apparently the grammar is that kind which presents you unfathomable confusion. The layman knows that 8088 code executes upon the Pentium. The 6502 self-replicators were written in machine language - no assembler available. The 8088 code is in assembly language. Look to any public library (or spend some of that money you get by being a big *rock star* and get it online) for the March 1985 issue of Scientific American, where you may find the source code of the Apple Worm (Computer Recreations, Scientific American, March, 1985, 252(3) 14-23). For the 8088 code, see Hobnobbing with the Hyper Hacker, about Worms, ASCII Magazine, 13(3) 265-271. ASCII is the Byte Magazine-equivalent of Japan. William R. Buckley 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not purport to be an expert at the universe as you seem to pose yourself. The first requisite of learning is admitting you don't know something needing learning and ask questions, a quality you have chosen to devalue and exploit. I
The second requisite of learning is to do your own homework. The best question is, where can I find that written by another author. You have already stated, in remarks elsewhere in this talk page, that you do not want to take the time to read the work of von Neumann. Whether you are or not a dilettante is irrelevant. What is relevant is that homework you do not. You wanted to know where my self-replicators may be found. You have your answer. Now, go do what all other intelligent people do - their homework. William R. Buckley 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
am not a dilettante. I am however, an expert in what I do: F-Unit Self-Replicators specifically. I eat, breath and
Frankly, and this is my opinion, you are a dilettante, otherwise you would know the work of others, both those who preceded you, and those working today. William R. Buckley 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
sleep that world specifically which seems to unfathomably confound you and all of academia as to why I do it and why I ignore most other such mainstream activities concerning stepper motors, robot arms and program languages that rely on someone else's mistakes under your work. I love my work and have found myself in it. I am a true and unapologetic, in your face maverick. I wreak of total freedom from influence from other disciplines. I value my work out upon an island with my close associates, say what you will with no due respect. You do not respect my devotion to that discipline. I am "about my work". When I needed control software learning instructions a very well mannered scientist (quite unlike yourself), taught me the works in Q-Basic a long time ago concerning initiating my F-Units. Told me how to get the lines right to open and close the MOSFETs feeding the power and I just thereafter moved the subroutine calls around in lists here and there to run the F-Units and act on the sensor signals coming back into the counter cards. That program is really nothing in the project to speak of yet, in terms of relative importance. It could be replaced by a programmable power supply. You would most likely have a hissy fit if you knew the structure. However, it works perfectly every time without error at its intended purpose unlike 90% of other programs around. The only reason some of it ended up in the patent is that the examiner ordered it there, much to the howling monkeys in GNUdom. If you want a copy I'll send it to you and you can give it away to anyone you like. The F-Units have their own "hard" software in their own "language" that I wrote and developed from low to high. I've learned enough C, C++ to communicate to professional industrial C++ programmers to develop the GUI product from the elements that was in Q-basic having done plenty on the F-Units and the QBasic. I consider myself a smart evaluator of what is important to know on a project and leverage from on high. The only thing that counts is the results. I'm certain that if you actually knew the F-Unit programming function concepts you would realize you are being like an ant next to a swimming pool of humans intellectually with your attitude. That arrogant attitude, along with stealing of my ideas has
(Much to say, not rant) You did not read my statement properly as intended. I was stating my opinion on academia as far as "stealing" of ideas is concerned along with scientific misconduct and the like. Opinions, in speech are not
You were discussing me, saying that *if I actually knew ... you would realise you are being like and ant ..." and this is nothing than a personal attack. Moreover, the sentence is followed with assertion of your ideas being *stolen*, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that you intended to assert that I had stolen some of your ideas. Keep the fact clear, and I will not be offended. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
actionable. It is as well my opinion and it was what I was trying to say that you are defending them against me in your intense retorts to my opinions on them or so it seems. No, I do not and have not stated that I think that you have stolen anything from me but my time here dog fighting in text with you. The threat to sue me does not concern me much
I do not steal your time. You offer that of your own free will. It is not a dog fight, either. The only thing I care about is the content of the Wikipedia article Self-replicating machine. To that end, I have engaged you and your tirade, and worked very hard to get you to cooperate. What I did first was to give you reason to review your rant, pointing out why other editors would perhaps prefer to shun you, rather than engage you.
because you cannot sue someone of "slander" for what they set forth in text and that bestows a certain legal ignorance. You can sue a party for "libel" upon the written text, not "slander" which applies to verbal statements. You
Moreover, if you really have something to market, then I want to see you do it. My personal position is that I just do not want to hear, or read of, you wasting time on pointless emotional issues when you could actually produce what you claim to be able to produce. If I had a useful patent, I would not sit on it for a dozen years, or so. And, clearly, you know that libel is where you have tread. Concentrate of the details of your device, and nothing else, and you will find me much appreciative. Spend you time on emotional complaints, details of your legal battles, and generally being contentious, and I will continue to point out your failures. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
need to look up the terms. Like I have done prior to being involved with such suits. If you remember my MySpace profile (or read it all) I sued Don and Mike and WJFK for both. My further opinion would be that you seem to be even more grumpy than I. This is why I left my conservative girlfriend, of late for simply being "mean" all the time and jumping down my throat for mostly no reason at all and don't hang out with or support right wing ideology types anymore. I am reporting this legal threat to Wikipedia management as the personal attack I think it is (per Wikipedia definition).
Not grumpy. I looked at your MySpace site. What is there is not impressive. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right! I had not been attending to it, check it now, particularly the hot new tech groupie and the other lineups. I am having the same problem you pounced on elsewhere herein: remembering old technology, does anyone know where to get info on HTML code relative to MySpace sites, I've been cheating up until now just copying and pasting what I saw and liked, don't think I can pull that off at MySpace, or can I? (joke). Just another of the billion to the nth things I have to put off for self-replicator work. Now I'm hunting down a DV editor that works in my Athlon to send you some F-Unit action vids (old one worked in NT, Athlon spit that one out). How I miss having a full bore investor and being able to shop all this type of work out. User:fraberj 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)]]
However, because they are not diplomatic enough to allow apposing views from those who complain about their methods, somehow nothing will be done about it I think. You should also run by some of these things you say by a lawyer because my lawyer opines that many things you have said on the law have been wrong and you are giving legal advice, that I
Well, I did not need a lawyer to do battle with the California State University. Indeed, their lawyers repeatedly stated that the CSU obeys all privacy rights laws. The federal Office of Family Policy Compliance ruled otherwise. I was found to have a valid basis for the allegations of FERPA violation. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
did not ask for and you are not a lawyer it seems. My lawyer knocked down grand central police headquarters: FBI's Quantico and won with prejudice. Just for the record, I dislike government just as much as you and was a libertarian for a long time but realize that government will never stop its endless corruption due to greedy people like Bill Gates and Skull and Bone types like the Clinton and Bush dynasties and so I work within the system to win at what I do, lacking any other viable alternatives. It seems you are too, libertarianism or anarchism notwithstanding, considering a suit. What I do know about the important subject at hand is that Drexler and other "bottom up" advocates, indicating that tweezers, cogs, gears etc. can be fashioned within the highly active atomic structure realm is ridiculous to me. From my
Your skepticism is in good company, with the likes of George Whitesides, chemistry at Harvard (IIFC), having also reservations respecting nano-assemblers. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Good company indeed. Here is one of the few "big shots" in nanotechnology that I respect and don't feel that I am wasting my time reading and getting older therefrom otherwise. Reading his work nourishes the mind body and soul in knowing you are not spinning your wheels and might learn something, unlike Drexler, Merkle, Frietas and ilk. Much of his writings thus have been useful for me when deciding on substrate setups using ablating lasers at Potomac Photonics [2] and Resonetics [3]. Material reaction characteristics are quite unpredictable and differ greatly than burn lasers such as carbon dioxide lasers when cold cutting near or at the one micron spot size and tighter than 190 nanometers with UV excimers. Setup is crucial less materials underneath off-gas, buck, charge or otherwise react during the actions. With masked power burst lasers substrates may explode vaporizing work. Scientists like Whitesides who publish reliable data on actual functioning projects with long histories of successful setups save endless amounts of time for such, as well as providing typical setup parameters for processing standard used materials at various energy levels etc. His work toward self-assembly and "hopping" technique may prove valuable to provide loose microtiles for assembly of F-Units, see here: [4] (pages 4-7 "Stochastic Microassembly"), this is real work in such areas that I respect. His practical "shop speak" is quite the proper way of discourse in this practical science as well. This has helped me establish foundations in practice to lead to my next stages with e-beam work similar to Penn State's interests: [5] (note they are having similar aspects to deal with on heat dissipation as constructs get smaller and smaller as the air thins). Why no mention of this gentleman herein? User:fraberj 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
experiments unless one builds a self-replicator on the top that can evolve down to that level to effect a self-replicator, or any other mechanical device down there as all that exist down there now are, like life-forms were rendered only with evolution, one is going to fail. I purchased the book "Nanosystems" by Drexler and sat down with it for about an hour and when I glimpsed some of the devices, made of individual atoms I laughed out loud until I realized it sold many pretty such books like that. That and Al Gore winning the Nobel prize, having been told the oil would run out by 1977
Al Gore is irrelevant to this discussion. Please, keep on topic. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
when I was a child, after looking at the space shuttle launch on first glance and uttering "that thing will someday go up like a Roman Candle" (which it has more than once) places the academic scientific world and the like on very unsound footing in my opinion and theft is something I think that I have experienced more than once. Similarly, after taking the time at selecting a project to scope into, the RepRap project, which I found so ridiculous and unprofessional (along with my other scientists I work with) that I believed it was a complete waste of time. The video of the device looks
I take it that you own these other scientists. How did you get around the 14th amendment? After all, you do refer to them as *my scientists*. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
like a washing machine out of balance and in my opinion is simply absurd.
As well, he spouts off all the mantra of the GNU and like you he says he is "right wing" which I find strange,
To whom do you refer? Who is *right wing* ? William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe you can explain it to me? Are you and he similar? Do you both like Wikipedia? The GNU? You all certainly
Actually, I would promote Free BSD, not Linux, not GNU.
dislike patents it would seem. Further, the comments I read from Stallman are nutty fruitcakes with his drug legalization comments. Drugs, sooner or later, like all the friends I know who got into them will kill you, including the medical variety, in my opinion. You and the rest of academia are not open to alternative forms of research such as mine, that focuses on the scientific work and not pretty writings. And when I come here to get some practice with a different
You are describing me, without knowing a thing about me. Remember, no libel, no slander.
flavor you attack rather than assist finding my way around in here (this is not my calling). Scientists should
I am under no obligation to assist you. Further, your attitude towards the editors of Wikipedia is strong motivation for all editors to refuse to help you. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
hire writers, and spend their time in the lab. That's my opinion which you should respect. You do it your way I'll do it mine which has been successful already more than once. The only reason I can't prove it to you is because of my concern in it being stolen if I published it here after having my patent busted like has occurred with Frietas and Merkle
That is a weak excuse. You can always show something in private. As I stated earlier, if you show me the goods, I'll happily write the paper. William R. Buckley 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
at NIAC and you do not seem to be concerned in face of that and continue to leave their book up and argue with me and indicate that I am greedy as they did. The fact that you attack my writing skills and indicate that somehow that
That you are greedy is indicated by your own words. I differ from you, in that I have little use for money. Information is the more valuable commodity. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
reflects upon my scientific prowess makes me laugh. I have a new "compressed" language that can take a book and
A compressed language that no one else uses. Such tools make you less than the great communicator. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Crop circles was an earlier, similar use of it by others, someday it will further propagate. (Charles Michael Collins) User:fraberj 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)]
put it upon ten pages and still be legible. That is where I focus my linguistic skills. I think speech should be, like a man does it: A to B, strait to the point. If cause distance effect is accomplished and the same is duplicated at
Your point being that somehow women fail to speak straight and to the point (straits are regions of water between to closely placed land masses). All women note: an admitted sexist. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strait also means "Strictly" and "righteous". Further, celebrating differences instead of demagogically vilifying differences, like you is not a negative way to go about things as the tone of your allegation would so indicate. Most women prefer a man who appreciates the relative complementary contrasts, excepting those looking to demagogue for personal profit, in my opinion. (Charles Michael Collins) User:fraberj —Preceding comment was added at 08:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
effect then communication was successful, done. When I play my guitar, therein lies my artistic prowess that none will deny that I worked many years to develop like you have your writing skills it seems. Respect other people's
A person who shows not respect, deserves no respect, a talent which you have so ably demonstrated. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
different talents please. Recording studios (Que here in DC for example) give me endless studio time just to watch me operate. I have never done a live show without a standing ovation and girls go beetle groupie.
More irrelevant trash. No one cares if you have standing ovations or not. Yet, I'll bet you turn those girls down, don't you? William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I really dislike the textual world, mostly because of absurd words like "laugh" and endless other ludicrous particulars providing nothing to either meaning nor art. If you guys want to pretty it up I have no objection, it's wonderful, I respect that as long as you leave the meaning intact. Further, if it was not such a headache dealing with people in academia I would have probably have read more of von Neumann or others having instruction on faster means to
Blaming academia for personal failures. That you find academics difficult is no cause for you to be ignorant of the works of von Neumann, or anybody else. The limitations are not within others. Rather, they lay with you; you demonstrate your own limitations. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
approach it and sift through it to find what I want. But alas, I remain fairly certain what he has to say would be useless upon my style of operating because I focus on stats indicating results and not highly worded pedantic prose that may even obscure. One would behoove themselves to focus on stats that indicate results, like a patent upon a well documented prototype provided to the patent office and the claims examiner, rather than many pretty books spewed far and wide. That's where the rubber meets the road, in the private world not in rich kids living off their parent's credit cards in academia stealing music off the Internet and doing drugs as I think many do (not all). Al Gore = Nobel Peace Prize = academia = complete and utter joke. I will give an opinion of your operating methods. I will, with all due respect submit
Apparently, those who have the money disagree with you. A million and a half is nothing to sneeze at, and nobody sent you that money. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
to you that one's writing style equates to scientific ability is flawed. Would you fire a specialist in mass
That connection was asserted by you, not me. My point is that your writing style lends itself to rejection by readers. No one has an obligation to read your writing, and if you choose to make it intractably opaque...well, you get the attention you deserve. The inability to express oneself in a manner palatable to readers clearly limits your impact upon others. Communication is the obligation of those who seek to be heard. No reader owes you any duty. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
spectroscopy because he had lesser or even poor talents driving an automobile? Or dancing? I think not. The textual world associated with the scientific world is ding ding as it exists equally speaking. Attempts at textual experts and loudmouth politicians in stealing the limelight instead of scientific results makers is backwards I think, look at Gore. I have coined a term for it" "Green Acres Syndrome", wherein the one intelligent individual ends up being ridiculed by the pigs. What bothers you, I would think is that regardless, I remain at cause and the patent is at cause and I apologize to no one thereto. (Charles Michael Collins) October 20 2007 5:05 pm pm(EST)
I suspect that it shall be my privilege, and indeed the privilege of all others, to one day see your precious patent dismissed by the courts. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
resulted in my staying clear of academia and not having much knowledge, nor interest in that subject you speak. Maybe I'm a layman to your world. But I've built every domestic computer I've used from 286 to FX-53 I have now. I was, as well the first human being on earth to get a real self-replicator past the patent office. A feat that you have chosen to ignore. What rude comments do you have on that? (Charles Michael Collins) October 19 2007 4:09 am (EST)
Cobbling together a bunch of well manufactured and engineered parts is not feat of genius. It is not much harder to produce a central processing unit of small scaled integrated circuits, a game engaged by many youths of the 1970s. Further, many of the personal computers sold in those days required one to solder and wire-wrap. How special you must feel therefore, having obtained your computers by no more work that is obtained from a child by the interconnection of Lego units. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The comment is a fallacy. When I was seven years old I "soldered" my first computer with germanium transistors. How do you think the interface got soldered for the F-Unit's power/data distribution to connect them with the initiating computer? I personally assembled by hand a large number of F-Unit self-replicators all of which were fashioned from scratch. Before I had an investor to pay the high cost of laser cutting I cut them out on band saws and further fashioned them with files and other tools. The lasers must be used to cut the small ones. The electromagnetic coil actuators, before they can be fashioned with expensive laser cut tiles to form them, must be Ohm's law tested with regular windings of copper wire that must be hand wound and bound with ceramic sealants and had to be cooked to cure. When one of the coils gets over-driven during tests of performance at times they explode, arc or burn, getting into your eyes and nose with the smoke which becomes a really gritty chore.
So, F-Units are not simply a merging of components from previous technologies. There is plenty of new art in those patents, anyway. The merging done of old technologies that does occur results in new and novel technology which has always been, thereafter patentable. One just pays the previous patent holder royalty for the widget(s) used. All great science rests on the shoulders of past great scientists, which is nothing new. Thomas Edison had to use the technology of glass blowing before him to make his light bulb. I wounder if Edison was chastised for "cobbling" a light bulb from "a bunch of well manufactured and engineered parts" (meaning the bulb) by his competitors, like you seem to be accusing similarly here. It is only smart to leverage one or two known prior art technologies together to come up with a valuable novel new one and mix in totally new innovations with widgets of old ones. Just as long as credit for and royalty is paid for patented prior art or otherwise published works. That's the way to win at the game. So is knowing what homework to study that will give you more bang for the buck. It's the science of evaluating importances. That's my method. You do yours, I'll do mine. User:fraberj 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Your apparent failure to recognise the nature of von Neumann cellular automata belies a greater lack of familiarity with the work of von Neumann generally, as it relates to self-replication. I would strongly suggest you become familiar with the papers of Burks, Thatcher, Moore, and Myhill. The important works are to be found in Burks' collection Essays on Cellular Automata. Most of these papers are also available from the DeepBlue server at the University of Michigan. The Hixon paper of von Neumann is also quite important, as is the Silliman lecture, given by von Neumann's second wife, Klara. William R. Buckley 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read up on it enough to know that a tape discussed cannot be replicated (mine uses self-reproducible paths of intermittent electrically conductive and non-conductive tiles that the F-Units traverse and detect to read instead); Rooms full of liquid with parts floating around sounds a bit odd, will all the metal parts float?; Cellular automata... software, no real tiles? Again, mine can replicate without a computer attached, uses its own "hard software" and actually self-replicates. Why should I waste any amount of time studying buggy whips? Tell me? I'm improving what works on the F-Units and other work to make it available for the public. I query you on it, at times in hopes to glimpse certain important features that might be there without waisting several weeks of my life reading it all. Direct me to a point in the huge volume of dense writings he has that would be beneficial to what I am doing for mankind? Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 9:35 (EST)
The reason for reading the work of others is that you not demonstrate ignorance in discussions with others. You are the person who both makes claims as to the insufficiency of work due another person, and at the same time claims to need no familiarity with those same works. How may you be unfamiliar and knowledgeable? (Personal attack redacted) Even if self-replication of functioning configuration was not shown by Pesavento, he certainly showed the tape to be replicated. William R. Buckley 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to describe someones behavior. The administrator who redacted my text does not understand this distinction. As such, this person should not be an administrator. William R. Buckley 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is what's with that: Those who do not have a real self-replicator end up spending most of their time making money writing much on it and reading other people's written works to try and get to a place of substance. I have a self-replicator and therefore tend to spend my valuable time in developing and promoting it instead because the substance that needs developing and reinforced is far more important. The problem is (and this is not a slight, just opinion) there is to much interest and credit these days, owing to the Internet, of those who publish writings stylishly and the substance of real scientific work is regrettably overshadowed by those who create the big splash by spending much time with polishing their style while the person with substance, having to work on the substantive science gets out of practice and out of "vogue" and gets missed as the writings are not as nice. It is a matter of priorities done. There is nothing wrong with style if it is not devoid of substance. However, when it becomes a priority over the scientific work there is a problem and that is exactly what is going on here simple intramural politics notwithstanding. It seems what I say is true because if you spend more time on the work, you get your work done sooner and end up first at it like I did.
On von Neumann, I read enough of his works to understand he had not made a self-replicator and did not find it worth my time to continue reading on as the type device he presented was not the type of self-replicator I was interested in. The tape was a problem that could be solved rather simply. I just thought I would point it out to you that it was one of the reasons I moved on. I read some of Frietas and Merkle's book "Kinematic Self Replicating machines" and found it lacking in any new direction toward a new style of any kind. Further, it is of my opinion it was only written to bust my patent and supplant my terminology with von Neumann's. I just do not take Frietas seriously at all and the book was childish in its attack on my patent. I enjoyed reading "Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology" by Ed Regis. If you read it you would know of my liked term "independent operability". My favorite interests are on Whiteside (as you mentioned herein). He is realistic, innovative and intelligent. I've spoke with him over the phone on nano. (Charles Michael Collins)User:Fraberj 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What Lipson et al. have going for them is a physical system that satisfies at least some of the characteristics of a self-replicator. Further, it is clear that with suitable manipulators and computational capacity, Dr. Lipson's mechanisms would be sufficient to the replacement of humans in the factories of Earth. It would be foolish to assert that Lipson et al. are not close to closure on self-replication. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My F-Units would comepletely replace humans in factories, if the pure F-Unit system were employed in its entirety. The problem is, Lipson's Cornell "replicator" infringes on my trolley car aspect and several other claims he will not give me credit for and the many redundant motors make it very impractical even if you could make it strong enough for industrial use. The same would be better redone in like my thermocoupler actuated arm I use in the F-Unit systems that is otherwise identical to the Lipson "replicator". He's close alright, to getting my design working well. What did I say about making the best GD buggy whip in town? Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 8:51am
Well, whine all the way home. So Dr. Lipson doesn't give you credit. That is quite a chance to take, for a university professor. I wonder, have you tried to present your claim to the university administration of Cornell? Maybe you could get Dr. Lipson fired! You know, plagiarism and all that. William R. Buckley 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a legal reason why that is difficult. However, Unlike the others that have Merkle did not infringe the patent, he just participated in copyright infringement. So, I have already been in contact with the college he was professor of at the time and it's in the works. Charles Michael Collins fraberj October 23, 2007 10:22 (EST)
I would think that with possession of such capable components, you would already have commercially available systems. Why don't you forget the fame and recognition, and instead, go for the thing you want most. Carpe pecunia. [Hey, Latin experts, did I get that correct: seize the cash?]. William R. Buckley 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
One would think that. But like I said I made a replicator and I encountered indifference. Nobody came. So, we swept the project under the rug until Frietas and Merkle attacked it of late. Back then I had a major investor. He wanted complete control. I wanted equal control. Would you release control of a self-replicator if you had one? I said no and he walked, amazingly leaving a huge invested interest in my hands. I can't complain the way things turned out. I have a new design I have been working on now that is far faster but needs funding. It is a fast limited replicator and zips around like race cars. I have a very advanced system with no single self-replicating unit, like a biological body that builds "stuff" in a mass. It is not even a self-replicator but makes any self-replicator totally obsolete. It will be a fiasco to patent just like the F-Units were back then with the patenting structure as it is presently. No one will even recognize it, just like the F-Units back then and it would just be stolen by academia once they arrive on the subject later. Frietas and Merkle pose a problem with my present funding. It costs quite a bit of coin to do it right. Further, I can only release to you what has been patented and I don't want to waste money on building an old version just to get into Wikipedia. People investing want to see a profit from it. I get cheated at scientific institutions like NSF and NIST. For example, I called up and asked what to do to apply for the "Advanced Technology" grant at NIST back in February. They took my address and said wait for the "proposal kit" and "Don't call us we'll call you" sort of attitude. The "proposal kit" never came even though my address was correct on their records. CIT Virginia (Center for Innovative Technology) I've been applying for grants for for years. Met Rocco from NSF there. Same problem, I'm not a prominent professor and it's all about business and politics, not science. And like you guys, globalization sees patents as "un-trade-like". (Charles Michael Collins) fraberj 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What I don't see in your patent front page is any form of three dimensional handling mechanism - an arm, if you will. William R. Buckley 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at lead line 224 on sheet 23 in patent 5,764,518. It lays tiles like a bathroom tile floor, one floor on top of the next etc. by moving around on their feet on the skids and picking up and laying the tiles and next dabs liquids upon the tiles for fine details, hot knives (lead line 42) further shape the structures. Their feet they move around on receive power and data up through the electrically conductive tiles to manipulate the F-Units made up of "columns of conductive tiles" (the "trolley car" feature, which the Cornell Replicator infringes on as well as Zyvex Instrument's "polybot"). Such can make the list of items listed and do the items listed in the description including "grasp, grip, grapple, span, link, attach, clasp, lift, lower, anchor, plumb, support, buttress, prop, stay, push, pull, drag, alter, deliver, convey, haul, transfer, bear, rotate, shift, move, carry, uphold, truss, repair, climb, swivel, apply, position, turn, flip, stand, ascend, sprinkle, drop, ram, mask, load, poke, slide, ply, pry, write, read, crimp, scatter, amass, constrict, inscribe, distribute, alluviate, incremate and manipulation or control of matter, energy, space, data and knowledge... This can be used for research and discovery ...". If you cut the tiles with E-beam (one angstrom spot size) you can pretty much make anything just said and dab more tiles or cut them and further on those lists with enough time in this fashion, so the patent office agrees. They can as well be jolted into the air by the coils when fabricated with wings, as mentioned in the description. The motion of the F-Unit upon its skids can apply finner details of dabbed liquids than the details in the dabbing F-Unit itself allowing it to effect smaller F-Units than itself and has demonstrated that in the real particularly when vibratory actions are evoked. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 10:09 pm (EST)
I would review this material, and indeed all of the patent, if I knew where to get this material. I seem only to be able to find the front page. I admit to being unfamiliar with the USPTO, so some appropriately worded guidance is requested. Truth is that I would welcome detailed knowledge of your system. William R. Buckley 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
1. To view patent type in at Yahoo search: patents 5764518, (or 5659477 for earlier, mother patent, best start there). 2. Click on this top link: "Look up patent number 5764518 in the USPTO Patent Database", 3. If you have a TIFF plug-in (viewer) already installed just click on red "images" icon (most likely the type the patent office requires is not loaded on your computer), if not click on "help" and next click on "How to Access Patent Full-page Images". 4. Suggest downloading free trial of program off this sight: http://www.internetiff.com/ ... dload the free trial version or buy. Just load and restart, can view in I-Explorer afterwards. To view for overview of main interesting F-Unit: (see sheet 20 of patent 5764518 for individual high resolution independent F-Unit that can both self-replicate, and compute from raw resources after ecosystem is established). See sheet 13 of patent 5764518 of block that I claimed are made electrically conductive to make up the legs of various F-Units that walk around independently upon the structure they are fabricating upon while receiving data up through their feet allowing independent motion. I'll try and send you a large hi-res 1080 .bmp file of a complete overview I drew up to look over first because the patent has errors in the lead lines of the tweeze tip that though corrected, do not show in the drawings (that's the way the PTO does things, they won't reissue drawings, the mother patent does not have those errors but is limited in scope). I'll send the 1080 res shot via Yahoo mail, that is, if Yahoo mail will let me send that large a file as an attachment, otherwise I may have to post it on a board somewhere as I cannot post it at MySpace because of "bandwidth" limitations there. I may try posting it at Wikipedia, but don't know if that large an image could pose a problem loading the main page. That 1080 res shot can be well understood if you read it and follow the lead lines because it's done up for a totally clear overview. If you don't have a big screen take it down to Best Buy and put it on a computer there to look at (52" + recommended, preferably Sharp 52" Aquos like mine that I use for circuit board/F-Unit system layouts). Review it per my instructions above in earlier post to find the "manipulator" as you call it. There are two forms of "manipulator" as some like to call it, at low level: The "Tweeze Means" (pointed gripping and shoving tweezers) and the "Dabber Means" (similar to painting on of thin liquid layers up to a few angstroms thick). At a higher level, with angstrom deposition capability underneath it, as well as tile laying higher up for larger features, it eventually can make pretty much anything, one layer at a time, including all the lists of hard products (which include many various type and scale manipulators) as allowed by the USPTO in the patent. The F-Unit seen in that photo of the blue "quad" F-Unit uses magnetic manipulators to grab ferrous tiles (iron-like, magnetically attractive) coated with various materials used. It can "self-replicate" but as always a "limited self-replicator" is faster and more usefull and it can do that as well. The 1080 hi res image can be viewed on any rather fast computer with and normal decent monitor if you zoom in and out and are good at it to follow the lead lines around and read all the text describing it. It (F-Unit system(s)is just a huge vast system and you have to have it all described interacting like a large circuit board layout there in the 1080 image. (Charles Michael Collins) User:fraberj 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
depicted on-line in short is a fallacy. Of all the life-forms around you, would any of those self-replicators be able to be filmed to any end? Can you film mold growing and get anything out of it? No. Indeed we tried filming it but the problem was... (Charles Michael Collins)23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
An easily demonstrated counter-example is any of the computational self-replicators that I have built. Further, the notion described above for the systems of Lipson et al. would be fully demonstrable via film. Clearly, I can film the operation of every aspect of a factory, and show same to any interested viewer. QED. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, maybe. But that only being the case if you have someone interested in seeing it or even knowing what it is at that date in history and an investor willing to pay for that without return and have the cameras miniature enough to fit twenty of them over a one foot area with a microscope on each and worked/panned continuously for six months on the action. And we do have some video, but do I give it out randomly when my ideas are being carted off by the wheelbarrow load? And only being partial, I'm certain you would scoff at that. Besides, my newer version makes my older F-Unit System look like the Jurassic. They are just cutting their own throats really, once I come out with anything industrially because I would have worked with them in the past but not now. I will be placing countermeasures in to the next system to prevent abuses, as a responsible person I am. And only when I get that aspect right. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 8:35 (EST)
that the cameras back then, inexpensive ones, that is the ones that the investor was interested in investing in (VHS) provided not enough detail and it took so long (6 months) that no cameraman from a studio with hi-res was interested in hanging around for any length of time like that or leaving the camera(s) and you would have needed at least twenty cameras panning all the time over a large area on small devices with microscopes to capture the full continually performed actions of the devices involved anyway and the strong lights overheated the F-Units prone to that. They explode when they overheat. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Ah! A weakness in the design. Do quantum mechanical constraints bring this weakness? William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Ohm's Law electrical constraints, if you could even call it a constraint. However, the actuators performed then as designed at normal ambient room temperature. The infrared spectrum of the lights they were particularly sensitive too with the deep red copper coil stacks. It was just a prototype that did replicate first, in its day and time but nobody knew or cared as all others were doing bottom up. That didn't work as I told them it would not. Now a decade later they have discovered my design and want it. The newer industrial F-Units will work under boiling water and several thousand times faster. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 8:51 (EST)
I should think you would have been satisfied with time-lapse photography. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Too active after long wait times of repetition etc. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 8:52 (EST)
The important thing was, I wrote Drexler letters to come see it, called him on the phone (he did not come to the phone) and he presented complete indifference. I made a self-replicator and nobody came! I would love to put up another project Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
As with taste, there is no accounting for personal choice. Indeed, every creative person experiences these feelings as a consequence of expecting that others will feel equally, as to the feelings of the creative person. Just because one feels something to be important does not mean that others will feel likewise. Ultimately, the competition is with yourself, and your performance within the world is a measure of the success of that competition. What is it that matters to you, Charles? Fame? Wealth? Something, else? William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, here it is you who seem to be assuming, no? I live for the day and as I did from childhood align all my plans, purposes, policies, and goals to the time we all can get through this dangerous time of difficulty, past our "technological adolescence" and live in this bright and shining future with the promise of the power of the most powerful machine ever devised which will provide us with the only means to overcome our rising populations and the problems that brings. The technology will be here sooner or latter so lets get on with getting it right because if it is gotten wrong we may be smashed all the way back down to the primordial soup otherwise like the last Big Bang, the last nano-conflagration. Done right, we then will all be amongst "the riches that you seek". The only thing I want "greedily" is recognition for my hard work and fair pay for that and no one deserves the fruits of their work stolen from them. The only fortune I plan to amass is enough of a war chest to prevent my patent and business from being carted away by the real greedy an malicious. The patent done like that was a strike back at those who showed me indifference and a prevention of too quick of a proliferation and if it bothers Frietas and Merkle that's too bad. I don't care if they think I'm greedy I know myself and that's what matters I can't stop those out there who assume the worse of me, out of failure to understand this difficult quest someone always will. It would seem though that those with comments on that would wait until I amassed this alleged great wealth first but no, I get called greedy in advance. By the way, I have medical problems that have huge costs and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to fine people that need paying back and before this project is over much more will have to be spent. I thank those who have so graciously and selflessly invested their hard earned money in their philanthropic manner and others the sweat of their brow as so many, many have in this long and difficult struggle. Again, thank you if you are reading this. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 9:06 (EST)
Ah! Complete disclosure. Recognition and pay. Well, that is fine with me. Somebody has to be the *Bill Gates* of the world. Hey, there is an idea. Take your patent to Mr. Bill. He already has the cash. Maybe he'll bankroll your venture, and you can seriously reduce the development time. Understand this, regardless of your patent, these devices will be ubiquitous before the legal system can act. Any settlement will be ex post facto, and will simply result in a court order for assignment of royalties. The technology you claim is beyond the control of any one person. Any reasonably technologically savvy person will understand that the first generation is then directed by human intelligence to build the second generation. And, as Myhill noted so long ago, the machines will bootstrap their technological improvement. The colliding J's tell us that the rate of technological improvement in such devices will be exponentially increasing, and over a very short time frame. William R. Buckley 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Note, however, the apparent conflict in your goals. First, you want us all to have riches, at which point riches have no value. It is the differences of economic class that give value to riches. Then, you do an about face, looking for proper pay. What value is pay when you have riches? William R. Buckley 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You should read above again I was finishing it as you commented and there was more you missed. I've known all that. There's more. The comparative value of riches is very real to me. That's beside the point. Bill gates seems to be a very greedy man. Go scape your finger at him and the like. I'll give you a little hint. The technology is already here. It is in the cells of your arm, the bark in the trees the bugs in the fields. Why is it here for us to use indirectly and not control directly Could it be "God's Plan"? Could it be that after thousands of primordial soups up to great civilizations then the final technological advancements drove them into war and then automated fission replicators to the particle levels and fissioning of the physical universe as a/the Big Bang? That is, trillions of cycles of this, going infinitely into time's past, primordial soup... civilization technology goes to infinity then the eventual Big Bang, time after time. Through evolution only the societies not inteligent enough to understand the technology, as we do not understand our cells now, stayed around the longest, carrying their genes forward... allowing us to live with the technology indirectly accessed and not known as now at length. However, seems it may just be the physical universe itself, trying to get it right. Trying to get it somehow right this time. After endless millennia of the cycles. Will we get it right this time? Will we survive our technological adolescence? Then live immortally as mass structure is, for the first time in this cycle come under our direct control to the atomic level? I believe if countermeasures are in early enough and strong enough we could get it right this time. But putting it into the hands of those who did not devise it, and not intelligent enough to control it and malicious enough to steal it is the quickest way back down the shoot. Like I told the police operatives that cornered me at Potomac Mills Mall and said to me arrogantly: "We don't know if we want you to have this technology". My response was: "Do you want someone who was not intelligent enough to devise it controlling it? Not intelligent enough to control it?" They said nothing. They got the picture and backed off into the woodwork never to bother me again. Whether God or evolution provided me with this technological ability or evolution is unclear. But I do believe I have the ability. It will not be controlled by the stupid. And the control of mass structure will inevitably lead to immortality if done right. And that carrot, and the stick of fear of being taken out by malicious others are my prime motives. Self preservation, improvement. Up or out. For myself and the rest of mankind. Charles Michael Collins October 18 2007 12:57 (EST)
like that and invite you out but who is going to fund it right now? It would take a million or two to do it proper at the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
That is what investors are for. If venture capitalists feel that you have a chance at making money, they will support you; if not, they won't. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
least... to get the software done the way I like it... I am NOT a GUI, C++ with verbal commands pro and I will not waste my time doing it half way in Q-Basic again. Further, I need to buy the laser banks and E-Beam cutters to cut the huge number Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Interesting. Your page on MySpace lists you as having C++ skills. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've programmed some small C++ work, mostly snippets in control software though. Finished music programs in Power C. So, what? Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 9:10 (EST)
The issue is an apparent inconsistency with several of your statements, respecting your programming prowess. So, I simply wish to get this detail clear. William R. Buckley 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
of tiles needed to initiate another system. This large scale endeavor was done culminating in 1998 by having .dwg files that I drew up at the lab sent to Resonetics and they burned the tiles up and shipped them out to us and it cost thousands of dollars at that then (nearly $100,000.00) and that was just lasers, I need E-Beam cut tiles on a proprietary E-Beam device to do it right. I might get buy with an 193 nanometer table top device but that's on the cheap and dangerous with the fluorine involved. I also have some issues with various widgets I need help getting the bugs out and need to contract small part experts to get the minor bugs out that slowed the last project. This is not a simple little toy we are talking about here. Another project is certainly in the works and give me you contact information and I'll call you whenever the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Again, send your email address to my email address <email removed for privacy reasons. If you would like to be able to send email, use the "Email this user" function on their userpage. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)> and we can engage more directly than is possible via Wikipedia. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just send me something in MySpace, my old email service went down. [I'll have to continue this tomorrow, meeting to go to]. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 9:11 (EST)
Dude, cop a clue. Get a GMail account. It is quick and easy, and a great free offer. GMail beats all the other email services that I have used. William R. Buckley 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea, and send 50,000 change of address notices to people I've emailed at Yahoo for at least the last 10 years? Why is GMail so great? Yahoo is seldom down. It's free, little to no spam and never deletes years of past records. It is probably ELF hackers anyway. I'm looking for a 168 bit BlowFish anon service to beat my other of the same, to go with my prehistoric, certain clipper free Scramdisk Containers. Charles Michael CollinsUser:fraberj 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, Yahoo away. I really don't care who you use for email service, just that you have same. Since you responded to my entreaty, we have other means to communicate. William R. Buckley 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
funding is had for this new project. In the meantime look at the picture on-line as I depicted of an F-Unit that was successful in making others of its type (coils are omitted because they are trade secret) but they lay across the top and underneath those ferrous plates which move to traverse the F-Unit. There is an umbilical that connects two of them and as one locks down on the electrical contacts the other one lays tiles or dabs liquids etc. It is very simple until the computing device, which is less difficult to actuate becomes involved but is complex but explained in the patent and here just now.
No real world self-replicator will be a simple thing like Cornell's. At least I don't think so. I am trying to write the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
I disagree that Lipson's work is unrealistic. It is quite different from classical machine design, and it performs self-assembly and universal 3D articulation. What is missing is a general manipulator. However, just as with a Bobcat tractor, the manipulators are likely to be interchangeable. All one needs is a manipulator and a means to hold same in place. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
software myself but I really need it done by someone who eats, sleeps and drinks GUI C++ for a living to do it right. When the software is ready I can order the tiles on my credit cards which I will. But I need the high quality 40A 32V power supply and that's not cheap. However, the project to be done properly needs a minimum of $8M to do it right, preferably $20m to hire the proper people to help to do it all properly particularly if patent protection is involved against academic infringers that run of the mill patent lawyers don't like to deal with usually and without patent protection, at least here in the nonacademic world no one will fund you. Hey, I have to make a living wage at this, right? Frietas and Merkle and company notwithstanding. If it was not for those two the project would have been funded, they scared them off as well as my NIST grant in the works. You seem to hobnob the academic circles effectively, you get the grant money and maybe we can share in the income and credit in an honest job at doing something wonderful but that's just a proposal, all agreements I only agree to in writing. Thanks for the interest. Would the old Q-Basic software help to source this, cumulatively with the rest of the stuff going on offered here? I have some short DV video (from a Sony DVX 1000 camera) of the "Quad " as you see it but it's a short clip... but I need to get an editor to blur out the trade secret coils in it or I'm in big trouble with my investors that funded its development. The problem with digital DV is they don't like you editing it. Would you know of any software that will that's not thousands of dollars for pros? I don't have the camera. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
I would argue that C++ is a bad choice in development language. IMPO, C and assembly are better choices for your application. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As to von Neumann's discussion, see The General and Logical Theory of Automata, as published in the book Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior - The Hixon Symposium, edited by Lloyd L. Jeffress. I forget the date, and my copy is now in storage. If you don't have a copy of his paper, send me email to the previously disclosed address, and I will send you a PDF of the paper. To the best of my understanding, von Neumann's work in this area is first presented in this paper. I'll ask around, and see if this is indeed the case. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:07pm (EST)
Send me your email address, to the address for me, given above. I am always happy to help anyone to obtain the papers of past researchers. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, there is a tendency for Wikipedia to rely upon the retention of records by others. This means that sources once cited, may thereafter be no longer retrievable. Wikipedia should endeavor to retain *house copies* of all cited sources. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on that. The Wikipedia site has been crashing on my attempts and I'm finding things are different than before here now. It's harder to upload things. Importantly, you guys know more of this subject than the last group at Wikipedia who knew nothing and chose to go nuts. I need to get some sleep, be back later. Charles Michael Collins October 14 2007 12:59 am
Thanks for the complement. William R. Buckley 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, legal threats

I have removed a number of incivil and rude personal attacks from this talk page. Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. I have also excised a number of legal threats - our policy on legal threats is very straightforward. Any further referring to "suing", "libellous statements", or any other legalese intended to denigrate or threaten a fellow editor will result in an indefinite block. Neil ☎ 12:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the *fair use* legalese of Mr. Collins? This statement of Mr. Collins is a denigration of Merkle and Freitas, and yet you seem not to be concerned that such statements remain within the text of the talk page. William R. Buckley 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Buckley, I have clearly set forth my statements as to the case with Merkle and Frietas's surpassing fair use. Please specify what is deficient in those comments if you are going to challenge them. My comments consist of details on this but no threat of law suit towards anyone. Any threats would be directed at them, if any, when and if and not done herein. Fraberj (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

F-Units removal

I have removed the unsourced, overlong section written entirely by the creator of the subject. This talk page has an incredibly long argument between the author and another gentleman, yet no action appears to have been taken. Amid the talk discussion are enough personal attacks and nonsense that an admin has had to intervene and remove legal threats. As a complete outsider to the topic, I am making the bold move of deleting the section entirely. If it is to be replaced it MUST be fully sourced and at an appropriate length with regard to the rest of the topic. If it is replaced some form of administrator assistance should be sought, as it is quite clear to the unbiased observer that the section does not belong. 81.108.103.145 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due absolute respect, sir the article has been sourced, with a link to a photograph of a witnessed working model that is described by the article itself very well, and I and others were in the tedious process of doing much further on this while working with those well informed and qualified to judge on this. Other's had contributed too with material substance within the article as well and suggested changes that were carefully done. I would respectfully request that you do not delete material(s) of which you are not familiar with and please return it until we are finished the course of the process. I have transmitted a large volume of materials pursuant to sourcing to Mr. Buckley via email and was awaiting his response and such was well indicated within the talk pages. There was also discussions on a shortening or moving it to the patent section (yet undecided). Further none of my writings were deleted by admin for any transgression of any kind. Please do not attribute other's transgressions to me and attribute it to any deletion you may make. Also, if you were familiar with this subject you would understand that this subject is extremely complex and duly requires lengthy description(s). It is also the only self-replicator set forth in this article and such merits the length as the other materials admit to none other real self-replicator. That is why familiarity with the subject is necessary and experts on this, in the form of editors are sorely lacking and that is why I had to do most of it in the vacuum of such and such "exceptions" are often allowed in Wikipedia if no one else on earth has the capability of writing such absent available others. If you want to source it be my guest and I'll send you the documents. I also am concerned that you did not sign it which is quite irregular for a large scale action (the total deletion). Please supply a user name so we can ascertain you are not the same person who suggested the deletion, which would be inappropriate. I would suggest you get more familiar with this subject as I will answer any questions you may have regarding it. Do you know Ohm's law? Do you program control software? Ever work with robotic devices? Such experience as that is very needed. Thank you for your kind attention anyway and have a very, very, nice day (no disparage intended). Fraberj (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to get involved with a subject you may be more familiar with on this article in a peripheral capacity it would be very welcomed. It is the matter of the book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines"[6] included herein front and center and its surpassing of the acceptable amount of use of wording of copyrighted materials required to be within "fair use" in the United States where it was published. In the precedence setting United States President Gerald Ford case Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters,[1] that clearly set precedence, such found that the use of verbatim material, constituting the "heart" of any copyrighted work constituted copyright infringement if over 400 words and could not be therefore considered "fair use" [7]. There are over a thousand verbatim uses of the words out of the copyrighted description from my presently in force U.S. Patent 5,764,518  within "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" on page 3.16 as seen here: [8] If it had been a simple press release or the like there may have been an excuse (barely) but this is substantial interesting materials placed within a book widely published and sold for profit. Copyright infringing materials are clearly not allowed in Wikipedia per its rules. If you (or any other editor reading this) want to delete something be my guest at deleting all references to that book herein. Be advised that user William R. Buckley strongly objects to this but in my opinion has not clearly specified why. Notice that in response to my requests to general management of Wikipedia that it was removed but it has not been removed from within this article. Thank you. Fraberj (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that happens when admins fail to understand the purpose of debate - even heated debate - such as that between myself and Mr. Collins. Were the administrative mechanisms of Wikipedia better considered, I would still be a participating editor, and much more corrective action on the postings of Mr. Collins would have been made. That is to say, the justification for removal of the F-Units text would not have come to pass. William R. Buckley 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Buckley, here again you have made a statement that does little more than make one wounder what you are talking about. The comment is very general. Please specify exactly what "corrective action" you are talking about and what your basis is that you hold that would have somehow prevented the deletion. Further, do not attempt to chastise me for not knowing what you are saying when you present general comments with data as to what you are talking about missing. People will think you are a troll. You seem to allude that my thinking and actions have been in error in some way but do not specify at all as to how such is true. If you point out any error, I am certain to correct it, or are we not going to be cordial? I am trying to be very diplomatic here. I admit I am not a professional editor by profession but with proper data I would be and you give little aid without derission. If proper data is withheld you have little to lay blame with. I feel a photograph of a device suported by detailed description that a teenager could understand is quite sufficient for sourcing for you or others to create an article on the technology and myself. If you don't understand it you have asked no questions. Further, a patent supported by a file wrapper containing witness to a working prototype by a well trained patent examiner is also a relatively good source for a device. It is some source as is the prior. You have not specified why such would be a deficient source as presented or how or why it is weaker than needed nor commented on variouse comments other competitors have made on my work such as Frietas and Merkle. Would you or 81.108.103.145 do so please or I will undelete the article myself and call up admin oversight. Also I am concerned about a deletion from someone who has not enough experience to set up a user name and page and admits to being an "outsider" to this very complex subject. This is enough to have it returned as it does have some sourcing and is linked to it.
The only reason I produced my portion of the article is no one seems to be willing to produce one instead of me. If you don't and don't want to do an article as needed please don't blame me for doing so and delete it because you will find that I have never been nor ever will be a pushover to what is going on and find this to have a strong element of bias somewhere. I am clearly and always have been a major player in this field, in fact the best at it again and again. No one else has ever claimed a self-replicator nor presented one and it is outrageous and a real scandal that this page is not including me. Further, Frietas and Merkle's comments in their book is clearly lacking in any specifics concerning their tirade, coming from my two direct competitors, fellow patent holders one of which (Merkle) had to cite my patent as prior art just two years after my patent was filed, barely after it issued. Mr. Buckley, you need to specify your thoughts on what you say about my opinions on this and how you feel I am in error upon my allegations of there being a copyright infringement. I spelled out precisely how I thought it was and you just said it was in error specify nothing as to how you arrived at that. Every lawyer I've talked to disagrees pursuant to the Gerald Ford case. Please specify or not comment. Thank you and have a nice day. Fraberj (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I will, however, take pains to point to one failure of the above analysis - Mr. Collins work is *properly* something that should be included in the article. After all, the claim of Mr. Collins is that he has a physical self-replicating human artifact, and should this claim prove true, is clearly a significant advance. Your *unbiased observations* notwithstanding. William R. Buckley 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Admins take note - your actions in the debate between myself and Mr. Collins have cost you an authority, and in place you now have casual observers maintaining this column, observers whose qualifications to maintain the article are questionable. So much for the quality of your administrative decisions. William R. Buckley 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Buckley, did you not duly peruse the rather large and dense amount of documentation I sent you by email attachment and compare it to the photo also submitted to you? You posed no questions, technical commentary nor objections to date on the materials. I've been told that said materials are quite sufficient to enable a clear contemplation of the art upon any such system engineer practicing it and realization upon the photograph being true. Further know that the patent office is an expert at that. They did as well amongst others observing it, those I trust not to steal or discuss it openly as I choose not to disseminate it yet in its present form without proper countermeasures against abuses. As much as I feel I shouldn't have I, while biting at the bit reserved my comments on your prior remarks on and about the affairs of the talk page(s) as you irreverently requested per terms of our roughly contrived armistice, as it were, did I not?
Further per our prior discussions, it certainly satisfies all of von Neumann's requisites for a functioning self-replicator and a very independent one at that and much more (as you suggested I looked over some of von Neumann's works in the spirit of good faith cooperation). In fact it presents several features that were lacking in von Neuman's writings critical to an actual functioning real world self-replicator entity in my opinion. Of course, he commands a very huge volume of materials on the subject and frankly you have not been much help at my sifting through it (as you appear to be an avid reader of it).
User 81.108.103.145 why would you summarily remove a section that you stated you are an outsider on? Please don't delete material you don't understand. This presents clear bad faith so please return it forthwith. You should leave those judgments and actions to those who understand this complex subject which indeed requires a large volume of writings to convey it in any real understandable form to the public. Further, please could you not have waited until the holidays are over so I would not have to go into all this spoiling it? I have, believe it or not reduced it as much as possible and anyone reading it would have to admit all the passages are very rich in substantive material on the subject, little of which is extant elsewhere herein. I spent much time proofreading it carefully with pulling the length down in mind as best I possibly could. I would challenge anyone to do so further without leaving out important subject matter which could preclude enablement of the technology or its very many important utilities.
It is less lengthy, nonetheless than the combined writings herein, none of which presents any enabling description of a real world "self-replicator" that could function as the title of this article would suggest. As for what constitutes "sourced" a photograph accompanied by an enabling description is usually sufficient sourcing for, at the very least commentary on the subject. Certainly not total deletion particularly when no other article herein can provide neither photo nor an enabling description and certainly not an opinion at the patent office that those of you adhering to the wayward chantings of the GNU may deplore bestowing bias, in my opinion. Further, I believe that the degree of sourcing needed and required both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere is destructive to the public good and Wikipedia states clearly that such situations such as this one, following smears by Frietas and Merkle, both prominent elitists on the subject and an allowed patent accompanied by a working prototype clearly an historical event alone. I should have my public say against their, rather insolent comments, no? Otherwise presents a bias against patents that is uncalled-for.
The least you could do is move it to the patent section if you discuss patents at all here. You did discuss patents here right? I sincerely believe that there has been enough cumulative public attention and serious scientific work done here not to remove it entirely without comment, particularly the materials I have provided to Buckley by email under agreement of nondisclosure. I could understand shortening it down, if such could be had without raining destruction down on it but removing it entirely with no discussion in the least is not in good keeping with professional journalism, in my opinion. It is true that the description is rather lengthy. The F-Unit System is a large system and therefore I make the case that using that as a reason for there being a problem at all on that should not be considered as other articles in Wikipedia needing lengthy descriptions were allowed without comment when needed. After all this is an encyclopedia, a source of all knowledge, no matter what it takes. If you remove my work, you should remove all the rest as my work is far more substantial, particularly if you are going to include rapid prototype discussions, none of which ever will self-replicate by themselves alone no more than a car or a clock would. It further seems that those of you who have had the device enabled in their mind by the disclosures should in good faith write on what you find to be the case of it in good faith. Further on good faith, those of you who do not or can not understand it should fully refrain from getting involved, please.
Further, F-Units was deleted prematurely. This is because to satisfy objections to sourcing so stated herein of late I am presently in high level talks with the principles at the United States Patent Office, who are acutely aware of the goings on herein to have the entire huge "file wrapper" (patent legal documents/history) published on the Internet (including the PCT international stage) and after that I could refer a link to the section therein where the prototype was produced for the examiner at the time F-Units were patented for sourcing of the F-Units. If that step does not work to satisfy sourcing next I do retain video recordings of the F-Units in various stages of replication, enough for those practiced in the art to ascertain that such a device existed, at great expense, effort, and patience several years ago. The device was dissected for knowledge of newer devices not yet patented and therefore a present working model of that older class and type does not now still exist and one is difficult to quickly reconfigure, lacking the present funding for it (no one wants to fund old technology). The complete self-replication cycle lasted over six months and I never dreamed it would have been necessary to video the entire sequence as no challenges were ever presented in its time many years ago when the public knew little on the subject and cared little about it. I don't particularly want to publish it (the old video), however seeing how critical novel elements of the patent have been used in other's devices on self-replicators after the patent was published without royalties paid to cover investors debts.
Note that I had been waiting for Buckley's response to the materials I had duly sent him for this through email attachments as the first step in sourcing because I only wish to source what is necessary, no more. So maybe you guys could get together in chat off of Wikipedia and finally decide what is necessary for sourcing this as publicists I have talked to have told me you guys are being too strict, with all due respect.
The video I am thinking of releasing has all functioning aspects in place less the coils which I can replace with coils that are not able to be replicated (which I don't want to now release) which will validate all other claims in the patent less the coils. Such a limited replicator, even that 90s class is far superior to any that ever existed to date outside of my own. I may never release it because the microscopic self-replicators can easily be used in the plants, held trade secret to produce worker non-replicators to be exported to households and not limit things in the least as far as the DRA system is concerned. I feel that I have been abused therefore my newer self-replicator and limited replicators will not be released until all points of proper marketing and patent protection are strongly in place this time with solid countermeasures against dangerous abuses. You wouldn't want someone who was not deft enough to devise it controlling it would you? I will tell you this that is a thought you need to consider as Frietas never made it really work at NIAC and neither did Cornell really make a true replicator even with my patent in hand. There are many artistic nuances to balancing and programming that only one who devised it can render after years of working with them hands on actually self-replicating and such will always be the case. Having a self-replicator that does so unpredictably like the F-Units set forth in the patents may get you respect for being first but finishing a reliable one was a long difficult path to propagate.
What you notice about Fietas and Merkle's article is that they only say what they proclaim "appears" to be the case so serious science people have dismissed it completely and indicates its actual worth for reading by other scientists on the subject. Further, any good patent lawyer will tell you that von Neumann simply never presented any form of prior art over my very different patent and von Neumann indicated himself that his work was not rigorous. There are may things that are needed in any replicator disclosure that are obvious and known but what you need to know is that any form of new art that enables a device or even improves it is patent worthy and has always been seen to be justifiably so and most likely will continue to be considered fair patentable subject matter. This is very settled law. Frietas and Merkle show dysfunction in what they are writing of that and therefore should not be taken seriously, particularly when writing in such a manner as to my being "acquisitive". My business practices certainly have no business being included in a serious scientific critique and I am certain both of them have made far more income in their lifetime on this science than I have running a loss against investments had.
Saying such a thing bestows a lacking in credibility and bestows complete incompetence and is of the height of hypocrisy. Issuing such commentary upon one of their other fellows of science is also beyond unmannerly but nonetheless creates a sourceable subject considering the importance of the claims I've made and the loftiness of those commenting on it and the degree and intensity of it and its import in history. This is the most important event since the dawn of time and the most powerful machine ever devised and should be treated as such, with the same magnitude of attention and volumes of writings so needed. Von Neumann and others certainly have their works entirely preserved and well published unabridged. Such is particularly so when absolutely no technical reasons were given particularly stating their bothers about my work. Nothing but generalities and unwarranted mouthings were bestowed, full of malice of a loosing, grumpy competitor. Whether I was greedy or not what technical difference would that make to science readers? If they have some technical reasons for their malicious rantings, they could have spelled it out but they could not and did not. Spewing what amounts to nothing more than malicious noise certainly does nothing but further put me on the map intellectually and publicly and drops them in level on both. They chose to try it in the media instead of in the courts which bestows the substance of what they speak, all the while, at the time under extraordinary first amendment protection while holding positions as university professors for cover.
If F-Units is not returned (undeleted), at least until after the holidays, or a comparable article written or being written on it I will research my options here at Wikipedia to execute those options to put it to an open vote herein. I am a new-be at editing so I will have to hunt down the options wherever set forth herein. If someone would refer me it would be gracious. Thank you very much to all. Fraberj —Preceding comment was added at 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, who wrote up F-Units for deletion in the first place? The editor of that seems unsigned in history as best as I could tell. Does anyone know? I want to make certain it was not the same editor who finally deleted it presently. Fraberj (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to undeleted the F-Units section on my considerations and Buckley's at 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC). He indicates that it should be herein as anyone practiced in self-replicator technology would clearly know. Anything other would be absurd. On that, Buckley appears to be an editor hound that smells self-replicator for certain, in fact the air wreaks of it but somehow will not seek along with others who, in bad faith keep silent and do not source along with Drexler, Merkle, Fietas etc in other vehicles than Wikipedia. Knowing the technology, I can, however clearly contemplate the various reasons the sources that exist, unethical as it may be continue obstinately not to source it. Bad faith should not disallow such an important article from being. The only thing that "does not belong" is those who do not understand what they are doing here.
Further, I am going to initiate a challenge to the policy within Wikipedia to not source patents that clearly were presented to the patent office accompanied with a working prototype as was the F-Units. Note the patent is referenced herein and would be and should be source, particularly considering the expertise of the examiner and the world wide discussions of famous scientists on it such as [9]. Please note on that, nowhere in there did they dare point out one particular deficiency, only discussed "appearances" and mainly expressed typical jealousy a competitor may have among all three of them (including Matt Moses referred to therein) who were and are the primary top other replicator scientists about in the print media and elsewhere though not successful. There are other sources that I will be adding such as video and the patent file wrapper but such takes time, please allow for it. The USPTO is working with me at this moment to document it on the net for linking to herein.
It is no brag but fact that all the rest of the material herein is subordinate to the F-Units excepting for historical purposes (any before the 1990s). It is diluting important work on the subject screaming to be told. If the editors herein would acquiesce from fighting the inevitable we could get on with the work of bestowing a very large amount of other pertinent materials on the subject such as the principles and philosophy of how and why self-replicator technology is about us already and why we only can access it indirectly prior to the F-Unit System.... and how I plan to release the system in a safe and proper manner and other countermeasures that must be employed in such powerful technology. Rest assured, this is an area that has been already tediously explored and contemplated along with the certain societal upheavals and necessities needing to be in place to deal with them effectively. The concern is control. Would anyone, in there right mind want anyone else than the creator to control it and possibly allow it, therefore out of control? I would think not. Some disagree with that out of greed and lust for power. To this very day I will tell you that I am the only individual that understands certain complex aspects, indispensable to enablement and control of the F-Unit System and that as well stands in the way of other "sources" being able to understand and therefore source. I've tried to teach it many times but that does not seem to work. It is not well disseminated but self-replicator technology is and has always been the principle engine that runs the physical universe. Direct access of it and control of such has always been a subject of intense concern to all in the know of it. There is also a vast amount of history on how it was suppressed and as well used by "hidden hands" I will call it and technophobes in general that would make for interesting reading to history buffs. Thank you very much to all who have been with me in the long road to here.Fraberj (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again! Another completely contentious editor has summarily deleted the F-Unit section without doing the research homework and most likely is just prejudicial to intellectual property rights of patent holders and contemptuous of the patent office and its examiners. Highly trained examiners, that is (unlike most Wikipedia editors) who witnessed the device's function the only device to date that has self-replicated unlike the flooding other material in the article which I am begrudgingly tolerating. Flooding material of useless, dysfunctional content which includes jealous, infringing competitor's rants with similar unintelligible commentary employing broad generality and stupidity. You would delete the only witnessed working model with an actual photo included and leave the rest of the material that constitutes no replicators at all? It is clear that the Wikipedia method of editing has bestowed a severe prejudice to patent sourcing when said patent is witnessed to be accompanied by a working prototype. This over other more "literary" sourcing such as journals which most real makers of technology shy away from because in truth are just writings and one's work gets stolen (as has happened to the F-Units with no review of that here and I wounder why I am not surprised at that). A close look at the claims in the patent will bear that out of works published herein including copyright infringements. The only "crackpot" around here (and thanks for restarting the contention calling it that) is "Populous" for hit and run deletions as continues and continues. First off, you gave no functional reason or failure in any axiom within the art that would support your crude comments, basically spewing very general stupidity (just like Frietas and Merkle). This is a very narrow field and there are not any editors qualified as authority to write it up that I can ascertain so don't expect me to sit around and have it deleted by those who have no clue at what they are doing and with not the slightest inkling of what is going on and have clearly not read the full talk section on how it is sourced. Did you ask any questions? Ask for any technical materials? No, such is the flaw here doing it on-line. The one editor who did look the materials over, though leaving on protest of the scrapping, at least admitted, as an authority that the technology is sound (see: William R. Buckley 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC). If you had read the talk section or been following it all along you would have known that. If it is done on-line more care should be taken to get it right. Further, if you mean "eccentric" by your slang and very nontechnical term "crackpot" that would still be no functional reason for deletion because many important innovations are eccentric and self-replicators by name are just that anyway. If you are so deft why don't you articulate how the patent office, admitting to observing its function, somehow erred in their evaluation instead of spewing pure unadulterated nonsense based on summary observation you seem to know nothing about. It gets deleted and undeleted again and again showing that even passer-by editors find its content appealing and not a single flaw has been pointed out by any editor to date that was observed correctly. This is how progress comes to a grinding halt. Don't delete articles on what "looks" to you like this or that unless you have ascertained some proper dysfunction in the article at hand. That activity is called generality and is out of Giraldo's reporting style.71.114.19.89 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is addressed to Digizen (and other short comment deleters) from Charles Michael Collins (the scientist that invented the technology of the F-Unit System). First off, do not delete an entire section as a Johny come lately not in the discussions all along who has clearly not read all the talk on this subject (or has conveniently chosen to ignore it) and give only equivalent to sound-bite comments that are very general on what you are doing and why you think that way. Second, don't try and play games with me. I am very cognizant of the insulting innuendo of calling a scientist with a patent an "inventor" instead of a scientist and the non-neutral aspect and the breach of bad faith this wreaks to the core of in an encyclopedia that continues to do it while embracing the likes of Richard Stallman who writes in his site [10] that intellectual property is "propaganda" (most certainly referring to the United States and capitalism where I live but clearly not referring to where you used to live in Russia). Wikipedia's assertion to NPOV when it comes to intellectual property rights is absolutely and completely absurd when terms like "patent cruft" and "patent nonsense" has become common used nomenclature. I am truly astounded that you could even raise the issue of NPOV considering the the fact that you yourself have ignored the fact that Frietas and Merkle have used more than the minimum necessary words under law in verbatim citing my copyrighted patent description [11] which clearly and fully violates purported fair userules [12] against publishing copyright infringing material and I don't see you repeatedly deleting references to that book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines". In fact when I deleted it it was summarily returned with threats of protection and note Frietas and Merkle never produced any form of self-replicating device even though Merkle calls his patent that and he was forced to site my patent as prior art; Adrian Bowyers' ridiculous section on rapid prototyping herein is kowtowed to simply because he rabidly embraces the "Open source" paradigm (this reeks of non-NPOV). And last but not least you simply are to obtuse or are maliciously ignoring the fact that a replicator exists which transcends any other policy herein because faced with that reality instead of point of views which apply to concepts instead of actualities point of views do not therefore apply. If any one here has any questions to alleviate misunderstandings about the technology I have always been obliged to help out but that's just the problem. No honest questions have been proffered in the spirit of real understanding which constitutes further real bad faith and violation of NPOV when it is clear that it is upon my patent (PCT recently sourced to) mentioned that the deletions are occurring. I am interested in honest dialog, something that I have found rarely exists in the textual world properly called "merchants of chaos". Rudely deleting someone's hard sincere work without due respect or due discussion is more than bad manners as well and in my opinion vandalism and if it keeps up I will diff on it. If I thought what you said was true I honestly would delete it myself but it is not true. Also, I have not talked enough here with any of you to ascertain if any of you new deleters (coming now after I linked the PCT) command the knowledge on the subject to be involved in this extremely high technology article particularly when no such prowess has in the least been placed forward for me to interact with and others practiced in the art have pointed that out as well (See: William R. Buckley 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
As to the alleged COI aspect I am acutely aware of that but the policy clearly does not rule that out if great pains have been taken to draft it in a COI neutral manner: "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."COI I believe I have taken great pains to present this form of content. I do not think that anyone else can write the article because I really do not believe anyone else can and they are certainly not doing so and if any of you think that having a self-replicator exist is not encyclopedia worthy you have no business editing this article particularly since no one is sourcing it, not even citing my patent in the "Artificial life" article elsewhere and related, though I wait patiently for an editor to do so which I guess I'll have to do my self (my allowed patent # U.S. Patent 5,764,518  describes the F-Unit system as an "artificial life" in the description). The ethics of other editors in this event has been appalling and it needs to stop. This is a serious article and I have been highly involved at the highest levels since I started Nanotech Corp back in June of 1994 In Fairfax County Virginia and have several patents including a world PCT filling. Ignoring my work is wantonly malicious, particularly when editors placed Frietas and Merkle's book front and center with its attacks om my patents front and center which I was neutral enough to include in the F-Unit article which is also a highly publicized third party source as well.
Further, the fact that my claims in my patent U.S. Patent 5,764,518  claim #65 claims "A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein said conductive indices are interconnected to a source of current through a column of conductive tiles" and note that it further claims these tiles make up blocks operating as the trolley car self-replicator means just like the Cornell "self-replicator" uses [13] infringing and just like the Toth Fegel project infringes on that Frietas worked on at NIAC as "consultant" see here: [14] all nicely written up herein. All these issues are ignored by these latest editors and the old ones refused to write upon this important occurrence in the self-replicator world so please do not insult me bringing up NPOV allegations until these aspects are properly attended to. You are not going to pull any wool over anyone's eyes here.Fraberj (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Collins, with your permission, I will be happy to bring the question of the inclusion of the F-Units section to the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia. I will agree to permanently abide by their ruling regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the section in the Wikipedia article.
I do not dispute that you have a patent on a self-replicating machine, and I take no issue with its validity. However, I do not believe that Wikipedia is a site for self-aggrandizement - that's what a personal blog is for. You have chosen to write a section about F-Units that dwarfs all the other sections of the "self-replicating machine" Wikipedia article. Your section sites no other sources aside from your own website and your own patent. Your patent is by definition your own work - which you or your attorney had to have submitted to the United States Patent Office. In other words, you have no third party sources that talk about your work, and I believe that this is a prerequisite for something to be included in Wikipedia.
Thanks, --Digizen (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't dispute it then why are you not sourcing it yourself for something this important or leaving it alone otherwise? As you speak I am working for further sourcing at the patent office getting the file wrapper. Even touching the article brings on attacks because it encountered this latest rash of attacks when I linked the PCT as source (light source). This clearly bestowes the bias of Wikipedia editors attracted here as the article was up fine for six months before I made that addition. This is bad faith. All I can say sir is that after working with you this short time, with all due respect you have no business editing here on this self-replicating article on the basis of any kind of authority because you clearly seem to not have that much background on self-replicators. If you don't know what you are doing yet why are you doing it? You clearly do not understand that all the world's greatest scientists coming from the distant past to this minute have mostly all commented on self-replication and how it is senior to all technology, the most important technology there ever was or ever will be. Self-replication is the engine that runs the universe and it is now beginning to be directly accessed for the first time (at least by mankind). The reason I say that you seem to not know what you are doing is you don't seem to grasp that simple fact and have your basic priorities in order or at least you would not have deleted the F-Units section without asking many in depth questions and found out the facts first or at least read the talk section completely. When the magnitude of a development exceeds a certain level, I and many others think that it becomes instantly encyclopedic and this is no "self-aggrandizing" but fact. I would agree that gratuitously self-promoting is "self-aggrandizing is a bad thing. However, there is this thing with Frietas and Merkle's book and the fact that this technology does not come about in a vacuum or without great expense requiring a properly maintained public relations campaign to protect my public image against nefarious types that would steal the technology and prevent it from ever being brought forth as it is also no brag but just fact that Cornell, NIAC, NASA, Frietas and Merkle, Drexler and a host of other players both stealing it or not have failed in their efforts to duplicate it out of sheer inability to garner the intellectual capability to duplicate what is indeed within the patent.
What you further don't know or have some other motive against is that intramural politics that pervades the players and how that all Ralph Merkle's and Frietas' book is is a machination using public relations and maliciousness to smear the only workable technology on the subject, most likely for the government to steal it. Did you know that I was kidnapped and coerced, thrown in a mental asylum detained for three months without legal cause by the government when I refused to turn it over to them and help them develop it? When you hear rumors of this sort of thing they are talking about this case. As a matter of fact, the only reason I am alive today is because they know that if I am dead no one else can make it work. All of this can be documented if you want to see the documents and I can work with you to debunk and expose Frietas and Merkle's book "Kinematic Replicating Machines" for the lie that it is. And after examining all this know that it is my carefully decided opinion that bringing this project up big as fast as possible is the only way to simply survive this. It's simply good business, needed business, for me and all. Greed-baiting will get you nowhere, I have a job to do and if you had read the talk page you would see that I have cut it down to the quick. Size is meaningless for something this important and if Frietas and Merkle's book is up here I'll be here writing on it and no one else can. What I've learned is that all the world in-deed's a stage and some are worthy, some are not but self-replicating technology certainly is worthy. This is the most important technology since the dawn of time and all great scientist certainly agree to at least that one fact as a given but you seem to not know that and so do many other Wikipedia editors passing buy. This is not some kind of gag or past time here. I can't even discuss openly the kidnapping and torture I endured less I be called a "crackpot' but that does not change the record. Accusations of crack-pottery is just what Merkle and Frietas are counting on and have, indeed initiated so quit playing into their malicious game (actual self-aggrandizing) and return the article and start sifting through the evidence or go do something else. Nothing personal.
As to my being greedy I lost my house many years ago from undercover government police operations that ruined me so keep that nonsense to yourself or go hang with Merkle and Frietas. I suggest you join the right side, the constructive side for everyone's benefit. The article should be there, needs to be there and all the other material is secondary. Get your priorities in order. What you have read just now and what is within these talk pages and in the article (which is short for a full disclosure) is just the tip of the tip of and iceberg of knowledge derived from years of research. What would you have me do? Give up and be buried? You either sink or swim in a project and the accelerator is now pressed firmly on the floor on this one and it may sink or swim with the Wikipedia article which you editors should have done yourself long ago. I owe huge sums of money to investors on the project aside from my personal situation and public relations is what goes on when you run a business. In your failings I have simply stepped in and if you think I am greedy I really could care less. That's the favorite noise I constantly here from those who don't want to work and pay for someone else's intellectual property rights that they worked hard to attain. Stallman can go strait to h. I spit in his rotting face. He is a thief. He wants to steal my work and so does Frietas and Merkle who tried to steal it at NIAC with Toth Fejel [15] note his name on the site as "consultant" and Matt Moses who was used as witness in his book on my technology and notice the infringements. The problem is most reporter or media types are lazy. They look for the big easy splash. If you study up on this you'll have a big one but it will take huge amounts of your time so do not blame me for doing the work that reporters have failed on, most deliberately due to various types of bias. Some just freak out like the Unabomber.
As for sourcing, you are in error my fine friend. Your issue on size is moot with something of this magnitude. A Marshall amplifier gets ten times more copy but its importance is minuscule in comparison when you evaluate the importances. Size means nothing. You type what is sufficient to disclose the science. Leaving stuff out is simply a stupid thing that some media types go about doing for some stupid reason. If it was TV and you have a time schedule, fine. This is not a TV show. This is a serious encyclopedia (so far). That site you called it of mine was simply a link I put up there because I could not put the material in Wikipedia without having it lose its copyright status. If I was self-aggrandizing I'd link to a great big site like Frietas' and show ooo wow nonsense like balls representing atoms which are long known to be clouds[16] and things... machines made of atoms which is well documented and completely fiction yet still gets done as Frietas does. Serious PR is yours, mine and everyone else's daily bread and butter. That link site is simply nuts and bolts business. Going overboard is what's the problem. All the world's a stage and I do need to be made known but what's there is necessary and should be there, no more. If it's not there It ruins my life. That's an abridged description of a vast technology. It makes for difficulty in a sound bite world but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. You should Know that. Frietas and Merkle put over a page in their book attacking me as usual and were even afraid to admit completely and directly that I have a self-replicator just said it "appeared" so. The intent is clear and sickening. There is the photo of the device, staring you in the face and particularly when one was presented to not only the patent office but in a world broadcast on WJFK and Larry King interviewed me on the police actions. What are all the kings horses and all the king's men attacking me for if I don't have a self-replicator? Read the documents (no one has been willing to so far). Do you know the ramifications of a self-replicator had? This is tricky business, if you know not what you are doing you could easily slip into thinking it's all quackery and do the wrong thing. Read about Chief Dean of the Prince William County Police Department calling me paranoid and delusional before the high court for saying I have a self-replicator and amazingly even accusing me of having a sawed off shotgun (all thrown out at great legal expense on my part). You'll find government criminality and corruption to the degree that it boggles the mind. The ELF targets me and I get no police protection and when an incident occurs I'm arrested instead. I'm in an actual all out war here not a self-aggrandizing campaign. That's ridiculous and the article does not boast as that and does not read like advertising copy either. When I tell someone in the media of the government criminality I am attacked as a quack. They never look at the documents. One reporter asked me if I ate human flesh and kept body parts in jars. The police accuse me of all sorts of nonsense to save face. You have neglected to consider the human emotion this subject triggers in very many people. Look at Frietas and Merkle's tirade. Now that's sensational copy there.
Take whatever sourcing you like but it seems to me you are selective about your selection of the importance of sourced materials and this is bad faith. The other scientist's materials in this article have no credible sourcing either that's why I tried deleting it and boy did that get the dander up! Wikipedians are very hypocritical about this indeed! Frietas and Merkle are now the center of of the self-replicator world and they attacked me front and center. That in itself is sourceable. And Wikipedia's and Stallman's assertion that all patents are not source-worthy is the depth of bias. Particularly when the patent was only allowed when a working prototype was specifically demanded. If you notice there were two United States patents issued to me. The first failed to give me a claim on "independent operability" because of lacking of a working model presented though they gave me all the widgets. The continuation was allowed only after great challenges by the examiner and a working model presented. That's in the patent legal file if you want to examine it. Not all patents are the same and should not be clumped as one big failure of the patent office. Much of the "ridiculousness" of patents are a misunderstood as like in patenting of "over unity devices" which are attacked as perpetual motion devices and that's how rumors get started. Note that Wikipedia has it wrong because "over unity" term was probably attacked for political reasons like the term the patent office called my self-replicator: "independent operability" (attacked and deleted by Wikipedia editors when I proposed it). An over unity device does not continue forever like a perpetual motion device does and Wikipedia does not seem to differentiate and merged the two articles (most likely to have something to attack the patent office with). Reason being, Wikipedia (and many other media machines) have a political line to tow and won't source patents which is completely political. They want to ban compiled source code for political reasons and now patents and next all other intellectual property rights and next all property. You don't have to be a genius to see where this is going. If you like communism you might want to go back to Russia as it looks like its taking back hold again there (no insult intended). In the "globalization" racket patents are considered "non-trade like" as I have heard them called on Capitol Hill. Patents are hated by big business and big government who would rather steal than pay royalties and they're the target of the month with globalization wonks. Too bad we don't have as many self-replicator wonks, but you can get involved! All are welcomed. If you want to book up authorities are sorely needed here.
A vote is interesting but lets not get the cart before the horse. Before the election you allow a campaign and campaigns need fair rules. It is convention here to not delete subject matter before discussions are complete. Further, outside novice hit and run editors, not knowing what they are doing have destroyed the debate and flooded the talk pages, precluding me from making my case. This is the primary reason why I object to you doing that. How are the other editors to know of what we are talking about to vote intelligently? Deleting a long standing article that has fought off deletions in the past without talk page entries is malicious in my opinion particularly when the original requester of the deletions was satisfied and left. Read the talk, and understand it. At the least, it seems that when an article has stood for this long the deletion notice should be removed because it simply attracts outside novices with delete happy fingers and attitudes. I would hope that if a vote is someday necessary to be had that it thereafter gets protection and the deletion notices are finally removed and that the voters have professional experience on the subject, but professional authorities are few and far between on this most technical and complex and tricky matter under the sun. That is why I strongly suggest that you yield to the professional authorities herein to do the work (I am an authority on self-replicators and not an editor here by profession so don't judge me on editing skills please). A vote by those not privy to this narrow field most likely would be the like of tossing a coin which is a futile endeavor. I would rather work with someone and if it's you I expect precise again precise adherents to the rules here and not go with one rule strongly then not another at whim.
I would prefer that you and others get more involved to preclude all this conflict first which is the proper path, stated by Wikipedia's rules. However, it is imperative that some knowledge be known on this subject or it is futile to even begin. It seems a ten year old can edit without oversight and wreak havoc when not dealt with instantly, like someone calling someone else's work "crack-pottery" as done of late. That's pure contentious insults. Further, I don't get a patent by the patent office with "nonsense", regardless of what you have heard as rumor about the patent office. It is very formal and strict and was very difficult and trying. I do yield that "nonsense" may be a technical term, more-so than "crack-pottery" but it is still a poor choice of terms and is a bit contentious and certainly does not apply to my work. Some of the patent's description can be seen as "weird" but this is the cryptic work of patent lawyers, don't attribute it to me. In the 90s when the patent was done many thought it was nonsense, but now others are rediscovering otherwise. It may not be in the order of what has now become today's norm, in terms of admin preferred style and syntax but that was then this is now and the patent still stands. What's really annoying is that, due to the talk page length, and the substance that is missed by being disturbed by hit and run deleters is I am having to do all this talk debate again and again as editors fly by and only read a few lines of a long complex article's formation and delete without thinking. FYI: there is no hard set rule against an authority such as I writing on his own work in the lack of others not doing so as long as it is not advertising copy and impartial... read Wikipedia's COI page further on this: "If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography". This is the stage I'm in here. Frietas and Merkle's attacks stole the limelight needed for my technology success so I come here and I'm trusting in professional honesty and precision from all of you, not hit and run editing. However, without question editing this article requires knowledge, brains and time to study and accuracy and impartiality... very, very little of which I have found here. Only one other (William R. Buckley ) has barely fit the bill on what I am doing due to its highly unorthodox nature and his tolerance to my novice editing skills was lacking along with his admitted lack of knowledge on patents in general (this article and one or two others on patents and the like is all I've edited, not an editor by profession but by need herein).
If you want to point out somewhere in there where I inadvertently got something written wrong or with the wrong slant I'll fix it or do it yourself. Better, do the whole article yourself or we can collaborateand I'll help you with the science. Further, as much as we were at each other's throats about our scientific procedures the only other person here (editor) with any aptitude and authority on replicators (Scientific American writer) was William R. Buckley who was in the process of sourcing it himself as authority when he quit after reprimands from admins on making legal threats. In the end he advocated leaving the article up as I pointed out earlier herein. Now we are stuck here in the middle of a long futile talk page with much frustration. There again is the emotion factor this technology brings. You could write a book on that alone and many have been, take the Unabomber for example. At least you Mr. Digizen are polite (not counting your intense deletion efforts). We would get along much better if you talked before you deleted or at least made suggestions first and allowed a response. But keep in mind I am fighting against my business survival and personal reputation against nefarious players within the pages of this article and feel at least I have the right to defend myself against Frietas and Merkle who have their book discussed herein front and center and have genuinely interfered with my work in what I strongly believe is serious scientific misconduct and copyright infringement (beyond 400 words to sell their book) upon my patent's copyrighted description (that, in bad faith is not closely examined herein along with the rest of Frietas and Merkles activities).
Being flippant or using words like "crackpot" or "nonsense" or "rant" without doing homework is not in order after all someone paid over $1000,000.00 on the patents alone so it is a bit more than that and deems more respect than that. You give me respect and do your job properly and I'll return the favor. I'm a reasonable, level headed person but I can smell bias and politics like the best of the best blood hound so leave it at home. I work very hard at what I do and I believe I do a very good job at it and have been at it for many, many years and many around agree and sooner or latter someone else will undelete it when they see it is deleted as has been done repeatedly in the past six or so months, the scientists that is. I'm surprised it's not back already it's been up and down up and down now, mostly up for about six months. If you are interested in doing this subject about self-replicators, roll your sleeves up and dig in, my friend for a long time and do a proper yet difficult job or with all due respect go do something else. And BS will get you nowhere. But don't delete or have any "vote" or whatever you media types do until you do your homework properly. Talk to me. Then decide. Questions? Ask. This is the most important work since the dawn of time. Please, lets Do it right.
P.S. Tell me what interests you about self-replication and a bit about yourself as I like talking to people that have lived overseas; do you know Dr. Mihail C. Roco at NSF? (will break the ice as well). Fraberj (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my -- this talk section is ridiculous! I don't know what's funniest: The long rants, the really high diction, or the consistent use of full names and middle initials,. .... I actually have an opinion, too. The most amount of paragraphs any other section has is 6. "F-Units" has 16. So even if it weren't poorly sourced, rambling, too technical, or smacking of original research, it is still -- OBJECTIVELY -- too much information. And by "objectively" I mean, at least we can quantify it. Would someone like to please cut it down to size? Laser813 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should someone else "cut it down"? Are you too incapable or just plain lazy? Or maybe it is the fact that it simply can't be "cut down" any further. Try it, I dare you. Fraberj (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. The above discussion, as well as the entire "F-Units" section in the article, is absurd. I support deleting everything f-unit related from the article, as overly long, spam, unenyclopedic, unsourced, and completely non-notable. And before someone tells me it's sourced: no it isn't, a patent and a link to a picture doesn't count as reliable third-party sourcing. The only reason I haven't removed it already is expected backlash from the above editors. Can we get a little more consensus to delete, so we can clean up this otherwise-fine article? -FrankTobia (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Laser813 keep your contentious, flippant, comments that are all about style and absolutely zero substance to yourself or at the Britney Spears article. Admins have already warned of this herein on the subject of denigrating fellow editors personally. The long talk section and the ridiculous state it is in is completely on account of my having to respond to shallow editors such as yourselves and those with political agendas (like FrankTobia). Bad faith here wreaks. As for allegations of "sockpupetting" you better be careful who you accuse of such when that can easily be proven otherwise because it is simply not true and with your flippant modus operandi you, of course refused to do the proper check thereto or simply do not know how. As usual, not a single word uttered on the subject on the table: the review of this article "F-Units" on its merit to be here per its notability which has only been discussed by one other herein with authority who recommended it stayed. It is obvious you have not understood what has gone on here so get with the good faith editing or I'll diff you so fast it will make your head swim. The first order of retaining good faith is to stay out of the business upon which you clearly know nothing . That is clear to those of us who do. It is clear that not a single one of the latest hit and run deleters of late, prompted only by my sourcing the PCT have an iota of knowledge of my longtime involvement in the nanotechnology community and most importantly have no idea in the least of how any of this technology functions. It is bad faith to shout "rant" upon technological descriptions concerning the most complex technology on earth. Further, it is clear that you airheads love short soundbite literature. Some of us don't. Who appointed you god to to put the touch of Britney Spears soundbitedness here? I like my encyclopedias unabridged. There is no bookshelf space limitations here, is there? This article stinks. Full of petty political demagoguery much as you FrankTobia. Self-replicator technology is not supposed to be pretty it is supposed to be functional or leave it out so leave out all but the F-Units which are functional. I have one summation comment on these absolutely childish comments: Wikilawyering and pettifogging and gaming the system thereby. If you don't have anything of substance to say that will benefit this article don't go away mad, just go away because you have no business being here. Fraberj (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fraberj. Thank you for taking the time to write back. I understand how you feel – that you are sticking up for what you see as the sharing of good, functional knowledge to the public in the face of other people who just don't understand where you're coming from or how technical or involved the issues are. I also appreciate your candor and positive spirit toward making this the best article it can be. Let's talk about what we can do going forward to improve this article – something I think we both want, yes?
Since you are familiar with Wikipedia, you must know about several of our policies. These are practices that have been thoughtfully discussed and agreed to by tens of thousands of smart editors, and one of the tenets of being an editor is going along with the policies or, when we disagree, taking that disagreement to the right forum. But Wikipedia is a team, and like any team, individual members can disagree. But even when we disagree, as a team we agree to abide by the will of the community, and it is this will I would like to politely suggest we look to now to guide us.
Specifically, there are three policies that I will be referring to: Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Before we continue our discussion, FraberJ, can you confirm you are familiar with these three? Can you also confirm whether, as a Wikipedia editor and community member, you agree with them or not? Thank you. I look forward to your reply. Laser813 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There are justifiable and beneficial rules, and then there are foolish rules. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is largely operated by the application of foolish rules. So clearly is this the case, that article quality is harmed. I do not know all the details of Mr. Collins' work, and can therefore not pass on the factualness of statements regarding the prior demonstration of self-replication by his model, such as during patent examination. However, to exclude description and discussion of Mr. Collins' work from the *Self-replicating machine* article would be wrong. Were I in possession of sufficient bases to write and publish a suitable paper to cite, I would, and then especially to quiet the keyboards of less capable editors, particularly those who cling to procedure and protocol, instead of fact. I do not like the quality of Mr. Collins' writing but, that is no reason to exclude presentation of his work. If you are to battle with Mr. Collins, then do so for the benefit of the written word, and not for benefit of rules. Your rules have brought Wikipedia to publish lies. A case in point is the claim that Pesavento's configuration is an answer to von Neumann's problem; it isn't. I will argue that between Wikipedia rules versus expert knowledge, it ought be the knowledge which wins. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add that you are disingenuous, at best, respecting the obligations of an editor. The phrase is *the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.* This statement is unequivocal, and without limitation. For instance, the phrase is not *the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they abide our edicts." William R. Buckley (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, "petty political demagoguery" aside, it seems we're at an impasse. Responding to Mr. Buckley above, I believe that Wikipedia has three core policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR) that are non-negotiable. Maintaining that there are no limitations on the freedom to edit Wikipedia is a mischaracterization of the facts. But in any case, I firmly believe that the F-Unit section should be removed from this article. I am sure a few editors agree with me. And, quite obviously, there are a few editors who disagree with me as well. It seems like neither side will budge, so I want to propose mediation, where we'll ask the mediation cabal to help us come to an agreement. If you feel this is too soon, can we start a new discussion based solely on the content in question, per WP:Dispute resolution? What does everyone think? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is no *mischaracterisation* to give a quote. If you have problems with fact and truth, then change the motto to one which more accurately represents Wikipedia sensibilities. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have studied those policies very carefully long ago therefore I am acutely aware of them. For the most part they are very sound policies. However, sections and individual sentences within them and other alternative balancing policies are selectively enforced due to intense bias presented of most of the editors I have experienced here for the last six or so months. Therein that is my assertions of wikilawyering and pettifogging and general gaming thereto. I am not surprised in the least and have been prepared for most of it do to the known nature of the GNU and Richard Stallman's political statements and the type of editors Wikipedia will ultimately attract as a "community" as you put it because of him and other "open source" advocates. As to what I agree with or not there are aspects I agree with and others I am strongly opposed to and if I ever get any time away from this article I have my two cents worth to get in as to changing a few of them that certainly require changing for the betterment of Wikipedia and foremost its readers. Particularly in the areas of patents and other intellectual property rights.
As to whether I agree that the "group" should prevail, that depends on how the group's supposed opinion is arrived at. It has been well documented that well spoken yet malicious leaders or media members can wreak havoc as it is seen as similar to the proverbial lemurs that will run in mass off a cliff after their poorly chosen leader(s). With Richard Stallman who says the word intellectual property is "political propaganda" as the one setting the tune here just let me say that my opposition to Stallman is legendary and would be better published but for the bias that pervades the medias that keeps you from knowing me well and limits and poisons my sourcing thereto. But would you ban the free speech in Wikipedia to those, such as I who strongly oppose it's politics? I think that would severely violate Wikipedia's very own NPOV, would it not? Having said that I do believe, while being a champion to the wonderful and vital ways of intellectual property rights and compiled source code that I am a very strong believer in on "open" encyclopedia such as this and support it vigorously for the benefit of not just this limited "community" as you put it but the planet's people as a group who desperately need the technology I am trying to provide for them. I know that it is the most important technology since the dawn of time, which is something that all who even dabble in this art become acutely aware of. This is something that the casual editor here usually knows absolutely nothing about in the least. Further there are very few of us around, highly practiced in the art which has presented a very serious shortage of editors that are authorities on the subject which is why I feel in all good faith that what I am doing is in good faith as no one else that I know of, who is not an intense competitor in this dog eat dog field is capable of writing the article or willing to as a competitor. Further on that, "citing one's self" is an occurrence that is allowable (NPOV) when other methods are impossible to arrive at otherwise such as clearly this case... and like has already been agreed to long ago and followed by editors at the time such is now down the road in this case being decided all over again and again. If this aspect is the regular function of Wikipedia then I certainly do not agree with it because once voted up, voting again just gets it another chance to be voted down making even just one more pass unjust. Allowing it continually as is going on now here assures eventual deletion one way or the other by detractors and competitors and is patently unfair.
Back to the good faith not seen from bias editors I have encountered herein, there have been many capable of at least doing a light article on the subject and sourcing it themselves but have not done so which reeks of the bias herein. I agree that a patent that is allowed without a working prototype is not good sourceable material but strongly disagree that one only allowed when a working prototype is submitted with it to an independent examiner such as is with the F-Units is strong sourcing. If I could ever get away from this article I would be fighting that over at the policy and patent article. However, even though I asked for time to do so such was not allowed as such things are very time consuming. As for other sourcing had I believe that are strong on their own such as Frietas and Merkle's well publicized attacks on me in their book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" [17]. Their conspiracy to bust my patents and attribute my work to von Neumann when carefully examined will prove a scandal of a magnitude that is a huge story in this area. A story, in bad faith being completely ignored, certainly not closely examined bestowing a rabid bias against patents. The story of my actually being kidnapped by Quatico MCB and attempts to have me maliciously committed are monstrous stories that are being completely ignored. The two hour in studio talk show I performed on self-replicators and nanotechnology in general is also being totally ignored as is the on air discussion about the government kidnappings with Larry King... saying there is no sourcing here is ridiculous. The shows are at the Library of congress. I just need a more experienced editor to help me with sourcing it therefrom but such has not been forthcoming on the bias it would seem, against patent holders.
Wikipedia policy says clearly that it is allowed to put my article up to source it right here and that's what is supposed to be going on right now again but has really already happened and here I am fighting the case again in disgust (read Wikipedia's COI page further on this: "If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography". ) That and all the other aspects of policy I just set forth and their being continually ignored by editors herein are examples of what I speak of on bad faith selective following of policy and other rules etc. Wikipedia clearly states that you must in good faith if I put up an article for consideration of its merit and notability that you dutifully continue that process of examination to its conclusion while asking and answering questions on the technical aspects and all the surrounding present existing sourcing which should be weighed in a cumulative manner in good faith. Doing this has been selectively absent, though I have requested it, time and again... and as I have said before, again and again that the event of an actual self-replicator being presented to the patent office, WJFK radio and Larry King should be stupendous news and it not being so is a horrendous tribute to reporters, editors and other literary types world wide which indicates strongly that, somehow the system needs to be changed.
We need far more discussion and I see that those in the know are voting against those who don't. What does that tell you? To start with I would suggest a complete dissection of the attack page in Frietas and Merkle's book on my patents:[18] And how it relates to the cover for the infringement on patent 5,764,518 at NIAC [19], specifically the trolly car means and the further use of colored depictions of tiles and blocks to represent units of build in a self-replicating device's software per these claims here:


TROLLEY CAR CLAIM:
CLAIM 65. A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein said conductive indices are interconnected to a source of current through a column of conductive tiles.


COLORIZED TILE CLAIM(S):
10. A fabrication system as described in claim 1 including a display system for displaying all or part of the object to be fabricated in either planar or three dimensional views, wherein each pixel of said display represents a corresponding one of said pieces.
11. A fabrication system as described in claim 10 wherein each pixel of said display is displayed in a unique color representative of the type of material of said object represented by said pixel.
12. A fabrication system as described in claim 11 wherein the particular color of a pixel may be changed to change the type of material used by the system in fabrication of the object.


Speaking of "sockpuppets" notice that Matt Moses is Frietas and Merkle's "meatpuppet" as he is used as the person practiced in the art referred to in link 1130 in their attack page on my patent: [20] and how Matt Moses is also in on the NIAC project with Frietas "Consulting": [21].Seems they are planning, along with General Dynamics to build an autonomous self-fabricating space station on the next Mars mission with NASA using the F-Unit fabrication system. No?
I assert, further that the Cornell "self-replicator" (if you really want to call it that): [22] infringes on my trolley car claim (claim 65) as well (watch the video there to understand this clearly how data and power is sent up through the floor to and through the columns of blocks).Fraberj (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

When I first read this article I thought that the F-Unit section needed to be trimmed down a lot. I checked the talk page and found all of this discussion. I have taged the F-Unit section with the templates that best summarize the complaints about it until we can reach consensus on what to do. My suggestion would be (assuming that any reliable sources can be found about F-Units) it to cut the F-Unit section down to one paragraph and set up an additional article. Should no sources from well known peer reviewed publications be found I would recommend this section for deletion. I believe we should leave the article as in (we should declare a WP:Truce) until consensus can be reached. Bobprime (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am getting a bit "concerned" (putting it euphemistically) at the fast pace and indifference these outside editors, after asking no questions nor citing their own qualifications to make such technical decisions are placing templates back up that have already been long ago pulled down once first up after long careful discussions which is double and triple jeopardy. These will just serve to attract more outside happy deletion fingers getting the wrong idea and there is about equal consensus against those markers reasons and it suspiciously seems that the non-technical editors, none commenting on their knowledge of the subject are the ones consistently coming down against the article without exception. Aside from Buckley who does have technical understanding on this subject, what qualifications do you others here have, taking these what appears to be fast-track actions upon this complex subject? It's impossible that you could have absorbed what I have given you just today it would seem and no comment on it which seems again, like a broken record of bad faith. There is a real problem with those not knowing the technical subject matter here.
Further, I am seeing errors in the judgment process on Wikipedia policy interpretations when it comes to these hostilities upon the article that are of great concern, again on the subject of conflict of interests dealing with an expert such as myself writing on a well known subject, even upon my own materials. COI reads on this: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." Out of a lack of those who are experts to source it, doing it myself seems a very plausible alternative under these guidelines unless one of you feels like writing it yourself which seems not forthcoming for some reason. Further, including the Reprap project and leaving F-Units out is the height of hypocrisy because that home fabrication method, using a similar dabbing method was first disclosed in the F-unit patents. If Adrian Bowyer's project is source worthy (and I don't think it is here) it is upon my invention. But of course he drinks, eats and sleeps open source method. I'm proposing it for deletion if you delete the F-Units section. This is clearly bias. One thing is for certain, if you non-technical editors are not certain that it works well know this, it walks like a self-replicator, talks like a self-replicator and therefore most likely is one, a feature at the least shared by none of the other admitted failed self-replicators discussed herein. This is absurd, you are just taking out patent holders. A WP:Truce to slow things down for more careful contemplation I would agree to but not in any exchange for other negative actions... and I expect some answers to these questions, please so I can know who I'm dealing with. Fraberj (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Note WP:OWN. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than leaving the templates up I believe a Truce would be a good starting point. The templates simply warn that there is a dispute going on. While I am not able to judge, and in fact am unwilling to judge, the technical accuracy of the article, I am able to see that it is incorrectly sourced. I am a scientist myself and I know the the difference between being published in a well known peer reviewed scholarly journal and being self published on a geocities page. The verifiability requirement of Wikipedia is fulfilled by articles citing such publications. The reason for this is editors act simply as editors, they do not need deep subject matter experience in the field to edit. The peer review process in actual publication is what handles the correct-ness of an article.

Other than the lack of sources my only complaint was an editorial one, which needs no subject matter expertise. The article should be cut down to a single paragraph more inline with a summary article in an encyclopedia and a new article should be created for the greater depth of information you want on F-Units.

As for citing yourself you still need to cite yourself from a reliable source as stated "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." See WP:COS.

What got me involved in this is not the truth of the article though, simply its length and style. As I said earlier the section in this article should be very short and read like an encyclopedia. All of the other machines in this category fit this model. The basic information is when was it made, who made it, and very briefly what is it like. The single paragraph on RepRap is a perfect example. It even contains a link to a more detailed article about it.

Finally you seem to have several disagreements with the Wikipedia policy such as the usability of patent documents as a source. If you want the policy changed there are several dedicated parts of Wikipedia to discuss such changes, but until the changes are made you still have to abide by the rules. Its not a valid argument to say that because you disagree with the motivations for a rule that you will not follow them.

I am hoping that we can come to some sort of reasonable resolution.

Bobprime (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bobprime. For what it's worth, I think you're right about this being a fair and straightforward way to proceed. I am doubtful that mediation will be started though, since it requires both sides to accept it's process and I doubt FraberJ will go for it.
A couple of points, FraberJ. The posting of templates is, by most accounts, a sign of health for an article. The more eyes that look at it, the better it gets, the more authority it has, the more good and useful knowledge that can be shared. Posting a template is not a "fast-track" action, but rather a slow-track one. It says, "Hey community, let's talk about this some more." Make sense?
Also, FraberJ, what if we moved beyond the question of the technical feasibility of your idea? I think that's a red herring for you -- you feel your idea is being attacked. Nothing is further from the truth. We're debating the adherence to policies, not the idea of an "F-Unit." I think we all want good, well-sourced content. If you can give it to us, you will be a valuable and praised editor.
FraberJ, I apologize for the "bad faith" that you perceive in our fellow community members, and it is my hope that we will be able to move beyond that and deal with this hotly debated section in a precedented, clear, and deliberate process consistent with the policies of Wikipedia as they currently exist. Fair enough? Laser813 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


I believe the best course of action is for FraberJ to point us at one or more WP:RS or at a minimum point us at a WP:RS in which he has been published to fulfill the requirement in WP:SPS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " Then we can use FraberJ's sources.
If FraberJ does this then we can write the article ourselves and the COI issues and the self sourcing problems go away since we, as neutral parties are writing it. The ability to summarize secondary sources requires very little in the way of technical knowledge and is mainly a function of writing skills. That is why editors and journalists in the real world (not Wikipedia) are almost always english majors.
Tomorrow I will try to summarize in brief the the F-Unit section and post it to the talk page here. Assuming all parties agree with it then I will replace the F-Unit section with the summary and make a new F-Unit article with the current F-Unit text. This sidesteps the verifiability issues for now and cleans up the article quickly with no change real change to the content. Since this I believe should be done eventually anyway and in no way deletes or removes anything I hope we can come to a consensus pretty quickly.
FraberJ, I am trying to understand what F-Units are. In summary so far I get that they are small machines capable of moving about on a prepared grid of tiles and building new tiles in a manner similar to various Rapid Prototyping techniques. One of the things they are able to build out of the tiles are copies of themselves as well as copies of the data blocks that describe themselves, thus self replicating in an environment with sufficient raw materials and electrical power. Would you say this is correct so far? I would be tempted to call the F-Units little self propelled robots to simplify the language further. Though this may be due to personal bias as my field lies more in the direction of robotics, it makes me want to call everything a robot.

Bobprime (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


You are on the right track just keep in mind that all this activity is indexed within the "Digital Referenced Area"" (DRA) addressing each tile or cluster much like a hard drive tracks its clusters. What you described so far is just the "scaffolding" that can further effect digital control and expansion with unlimited substances beyond including liquids and gases effecting controlled morphing. Since every tile is tracked, and because any real self-replicator can evolve such can be simply animated inside a computer program and trillions of years of evolution may be run in seconds with the results reconstructable in the real, get the picture now?
Following was response to earlier comments (you guys&gals are moving too fast for this novice editor):
Incidentally, it has happened twice now. I have hit the backspace to delete a single character only to have an entire section that I have been working on for thirty minutes completely disappear as I am moved to a previous screen. Admins need to fix that or give some explanation as to why such could occur.
Let's take this one step at a time. I say this because when, it seems I purvey a large amount of substantive information to this debate it is met with indifference, particularly when it is going in favor of the F-Unit article which I justifiably perceive as very bad faith. Doing this constitutes continuing to argue an opinion while knowing it is wrong. That activity that I see does not encourage me to participate in any kind of vote or mediation or whatever else here until this stops here and now.
Now, lets get real. Let's take the attack on my patent by Frietas and Merkle in their book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" and lets focus in tightly on it please for a close discussion on it. Here is the link: [23] examine the full page carefully because it is highly pertinent to this article. This is a page in said book wherein they are ostensibly evaluating patents. My patents are focused front and center for some important reason here. I wounder what that might be all about? Most of the page is devoted to a very unprofessional tirade, vilifications and well over the 400 words necessary to surpass fair use on the copyrighted patent descriptions cited verbatim. They went to great pains to further include another huge player in the self-replicating community who is making an important comment to further strengthen their attack. This person is Matt Moses referred on link 1130 therein.
Frietas, Merkle and Moses are unquestionably the primary players in this self-replicating scene if anyone not living in a closet has been reading the written text on it and they have been very loud about it unlike myself prior to this event and they have spent copiously on their media image machine and its connections to that. The lion's share of the page has been taken up devoted to the attack on my patents as apposed to just a few lines for any of the other patents reviewed. If not anything else, this is clearly a coordinated attack upon a well known maverick (myself) in the private area (off campus and away from government). A maverick who has ridiculed them for years on end for going about bottom up research now proven to be failed. If you have been following you would know the points on that ever since I founded the first named Nanotech corporation on June 24th 1994 in Fairfax Virginia (a name stolen by a Chinese firm of same name: [24], wonder why I protect intellectual property, there's a reason friends, see what not trademarking will get you?). Now what does this book coming out constitute? An 180 degree turn by Frietas, Merkle and Moses towards my direction in the top down community.
This is the established University elite turning their meat grinder towards a private patent holder's technology to bust a patent that they must bust to legitimately practice upon the material within it, the only self-replicating technology in existence. The reason I patented down everything but the kitchen sink of what I innovated (being the only one doing serious work on it and being ignored and having my ideas stolen and written about as attributed to others) is this exact sort of maleficence that I encountered early on. And yes I did patent down the "entire design space of artificial kinematic self-replicating machines" as they irreverently put it and for good reason, I developed all of it and plenty were gearing up to steal it, like here. There are lofty and grandiose words being evoked in this article. Far reaching and certain words, by all the principle players in the field focused squarely on me in a personal manner. Moses, oddly did indeed give it a positive official comment: "... (the patents) may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers". They did not say definitively that the technology was dysfunctional only said the description appears not to enable it in Moses's opinion but they are clearly upset about something it protects. They also were upset about "the breathtaking scope of the Collins patents", discussed its "expansive claims " discussed its "encompassing the whole of kinematic artificial life".
They also never missed a beat cramming von Neumann speak into my work as well interchanging all my technical terminology with his (Mechagenics, Reproductive Mechanics to "Cellular Automata , Kinematics"... etc.) If you ask me the whole book and Frietas and Merkle's entire operation for several years has been about this media smear with this thick cloud of von Neumann speak (who never made any form of self-replicator). Please, if all this alone is not high-grade sourcing I'll eat my hat, friends.
After we discuss this huge portion of the record we will discuss next how this machination tool was used for Frietas and Mosses to actually attain grant money from NIAC to develop my technology for NASA with General Dynamics as seen documented here using my trolley car means and colorized tiles scheme right on line there [25] (because where I live NASA stealing private technology is newsworthy). Fraberj (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick note on your proposed summary keep in mind that after you understand it you may not be able to realize, after writing it and then upon reading it afterwards that points could be missing for the new reader, seeing how it is all so tricky and weird. Proofread very carefully, less something end up missing that can preclude understanding by those far less technical.Fraberj (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FraberJ, you still need to establish yourself as an expert in the field to qualify your self published works as a valid source. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " WP:SPS. You would also need to publish a secondary article based on your machines so that the content in Wikipedia would be from a secondary source and not a primary source. Currently the article stinks strongly of WP:OR. Without this, the editors of Wikipedia have no way of telling you apart from some guy from the street claiming to have made self replicating machines. Unfortunately for you even your patent does not provide any support, nor does it detract, for your expertise. There are patents for Cold Fusion devices and other devices that when tested scientifically turned out to be hoaxes or junk.
Until you provide some proof of expertise you will remain a non expert in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. Please provide a cited reference to yourself from a reliable source, or a publication by yourself in a reliable source or most preferable both. I know in my field anyone who can be considered an expert both publishes regularly and is regularly cited themselves. I have access to a university library to verify claims of publication should either the publication in question be out of print, or only available in print. Bobprime (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Definition (in my dictionary) of an expert: "A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular field". I produced, in the past video of these F-Units working as described in the patent. Since they are seen working it is certain that I am an expert in this because I am the only one doing it with more skills than any other on it and it as well depicts a person "expert" in robotic control central to the art. However, some advanced technology was stolen via distribution of those tapes breaching nondisclosure agreements. I do have some video I could show you of some F-units functioning but with human made coils, which is all my investors will allow me to show at this time. This will show you the functioning of the devices laying tiles. If you understand the technology you will know that laying tiles is all that is necessary and at least that the primary tooling means functions as described. A good engineer would have a high degree of certainty by this experience of my expert abilities. Convincing you is questionable as I do not know your background. I am not certain it qualifies for this editing job (no insult intended) it is just the fact that you asked the question after my control software was published on the net. Anyone practiced in the art that closely observed the software and the device would understand, even though what is shown is 90s class technology that an expert has been at work here on the conventional aspects and the advanced concepts. Also how did that laser cut prototype you see there get there in my hands in the first place? With my CAD-CAM laser manufacturing skills. Anyone that has worked on a robotics project using robotics control software that is hand written would be able to tell from the lines of code that a huge amount of fine tuning and testing came about in a real way per the code because if it was a fraud it would be too difficult to produce code like that without having it all going on setup and running all together. I am beginning work here at Valentine Robotics being desired for my advanced self-replicator skills. Valentine Robotics is an advanced robotics school. Because of your stiff stance on accepting source points I don't know what if any of this you might want to examine. Let me know.Fraberj (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

There are comments above that non-technical editors lack the qualifications to make technical decisions. Such comments reveal a lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policies. It is far more important to understand WP policies than it is to understand the details of a subject.

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources - independent third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As editors our primary job is to verify that content is supported by a reliable source. It is not enough that information be true, it must be verifiable. If there are no sources for the information, then it can be removed. If there are reliable sources, then our job is to compare the article with the sources and verify that the article is an accurate representation of what the sources said.

We don't evaluate material on the basis of our technical knowledge but on the basis of whether it is supported by reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the propensity for Wikipedia to publish lies. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont think I have ever seen an article that meets the verifiability requirements with significant factual errors. I would love for you to give an example. The whole process is designed to exclude items which could be factually incorrect. Also if you do not believe in wikipedia's methods why do you use wikipedia and not one of the other online dictionaries that only allows editing by vetted experts. The "Approved articles" on Citizendium would be a prime example of this. Bobprime (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a logical fallacy, a non sequitur. That you haven't found does not mean that same is non-existent. Indeed, I recently gave example, on this talk page: Pesavento. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You make a truth claim that the verifiability requirements of wikipedia lead to lies. I say, I do not believe you, please provide an example. The burden now lies on you to provide an example where needing to be verifiable has lead to lies. This is what I requested. Unless that is you are defining lies as the omission of true things, in which case we have a debate on the meaning of words. I have yet to see a good argument where proper citing increases the number or rate of "lies" which "Hence the propensity for Wikipedia to publish lies" would imply. Your example must provide a statement of fact on wikipedia that is not true, is well cited from reliable sources and proof that the statement of fact is in fact not true. Bobprime (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave you the case, just above (my statement about your non sequitur) where I mention Pesavento. See the historical record, and my correction of the claim previously posted in Wikipedia, and you will find the proof. Again, I have stated this claim three times. Also, you might want to consult Dr. Tim Hutton (you can Google him), and ask him why he withdrew from editing of the article in question. You, Bobprime, need to do your own research. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are looking down the throat of one here with "factual errors". Myself, my company and my investors, who have suffered greatly due to errors on-line at Wikipedia is plenty reason enough for me to be here, thank you. If you fail this experiment will fail and I strongly believe that even though Wikipedia may have started as a nefarious plot by the GNU that it can change to a non-bias course and be a wonderful reference. It's not there yet though. Fraberj (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the comments here I made in extreem anger with apology. Even though the words were best for the group and greater good I am certain. I get vain when I get mad and later on regret it but I feel I am defending myself and my badly hurt investors and workers justly. But this policy above and this whole situation is disgusting and wrong. How can you guys say I'm an unknown while Frietas and Merkle publicly drag my and my investor's and worker's good name through the mud and try and steal the technology and you do not look closely at it. You have not described to me sufficiently how that is not considered published in your eyes and you seem to be ignoring that in bad faith (using it as source) and mostly the act of not explaining why you will not use it as sourcing specifically... as I genuinely believe it is as everyone else I speak with. It's not a nice sort of source nor voluntary form of it, in fact a negative one but when Frietas and Merkle attacked me they put me on the map, so to speak and at this point I feel no reserve whatsoever at riding that pony back to decent reputation and whatever else it brings and apparently those here on-line who vote my article up believe this too. So I have consensus so if you guys want to rewrite it do it and I'll look it over but it cannot be a hack job.
Again, you are not commenting on this which is bad faith and when the people voting me up see this I imagine they will vote accordingly. Further, a patent with a documented working prototype observed by the examiner is not untried cold fusion. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The ability to discern differences is sanity even when such are fine nuance such as here. I will say this in response to your comments on patented cold fusion. They patented it and it failed. Mine worked and worked for the Cornell replicator using my trolley car effect that you can clearly see [26]. Read the claim again and look at it work on-line in the video per the trolley car effect. Rely on your own eyes, not someone else's words which are second to your own experience and logic. That's why I prefer experts doing this judgment. Cornell has the money to back an infringer instead of the original inventor. Do you want them getting away with this? Where is your ethics? If someone patents an untried innovation the claims are written differently than one that is known to work by the examiner. Mainly, you get everything but the kitchen sink as far as strong protection if you present a working prototype and I certainly got that. This is a good way to do things because you need protection on something you have not put to practice yet and the patent office provides for that justly in proper balance in my opinion and the GNU seeks to take advantage of the USPTO's precarious public persona thereto. But they also separate those out from the ones that have a prototype presented within the patenting language within the claims which is why it is better that you yield to the experts on patent law and the area of self-replicators, particularly in this case when they are fair and not bias.


As a scientist (those that are) you should be disgusted At Merkle, Frietas and Cornell. You can write on the scandal per you professional witnessing, I don't care. Just ignoring this in full is bias against patents from my vantage and I will fight it to the mat because it is wrong. Once attacked it is not vanity to strike back and defend ones good name. I did not run for public office in this but was dragged in kicking and screaming and I see it happening to too many others. It is time to teach those that do this a good hard lesson and I'm certain no one will mind due to the good that will come out of this. There is too much relying on third party sources if you ignore some of them and not others among reliable ones even the bad ones. I have self-replicator technology that needs funding. Period. Are you going to walk away from that and leave the people empty handed? Without proper handling in the public eye it does not get funding and they don't get it. Regardless of what you might think of an admitted angry, maverick, malcontent like me. You guys are handling it badly. Very badly for all involved, with all due respect. Fraberj (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


You can nice up my article per the aesthetic appearance if you like, I am not a professional editor by trade nor profession I understand that but it would be better to leave the size as is, unless you can tell me where it is written in here to chop everything down into soundbites for no reason whatsoever. I call this dinkyism and yes I do hate... that Fraberj (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


IMPORTANT:
I may not be the most experienced editor (a year off/on) but I know a real and very serious problem when I see it and have experienced it. This simply because I have learned to think for myself on what I see as factual and actual from my observation weighed against experience, what is not what is said (name of my next book will be named "What IS" because of this Frietas and Merkle case herein). Again, Buckley need not go any further than this case to find you a case. In fact, I believe this is a precedence setting case beyond any other. There is no more important case than this. Never has been and never will be. If you fully understood the exact function of any self-replicator to come about at any time. If you were technically in possession of those facts via technical aptitude and experience you would know that. By your actions so far (and all editors but Buckley so far) you have demonstrated that you have yet to arrive at that important piece of awareness. It is clear to those (a few it seems) practiced in the art (of self-replication and Programmable Matter) that this is the last frontier of technical development for mankind once matter itself is morphable to extent evolution is possible. This is also very clear to Frietas and Merkle as I have read them and their past and particularly present actions bestow. what you are looking at is an extremely sophisticated ruse they have contrived, counting on reporters and editors to follow it like lemurs over a cliff.
You still think, even after I spelled out the function of the trolley car method and how it applies to the government's NIAC case precisely and lucidly that I am indeed, or in your mind possibly an over-exuberant inventor as Frietas and Merkle would have me (you don't really know yet do you, be honest) or just gaming what I got to work with. With all due respect, you really don't know therefore won't go out on a limb as good reporters/editors must do and expose Frietas and Merkle. You have the Watergate of technology in your hands and you still can't confront it. You still are treating it like simply another run of the mill case... it is not. A further fact bestowing this is how you seem to dismiss the DRA aspect of the F-Units, the portion that my PCT lawyer (turning out to be a sleeper) refused to file. If you checked the file wrapper (patent legal history) you would find that the patent office went to great pains to ascertain that this technology was functional before giving me the claims on independent operability, not allowed but fought for tooth and claw upon my first patent. The patent office is not at fault here it is Frietas and Merkle (and Drexler).
If you were technically oriented about this field you would also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that von Neumann's discussed machines never involved itself of any trolley car type technology and that before my patent was filed no other discussed self-replicators ever were built of fantasized in sci-fi nor patented of any trolley car type self-replicator, limited or otherwise. I know this I was there when the world patent search on it was done by $600,00 an hour patent lawyers. Frietas and Merkle know this. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind of this because I am technical and I know the technical mind and the technology.
You see this before your eyes, you see the Cornell devise work upon my trolley car means right clearly before you I think but you think it is just to weird an occurrence to accept, with all due respect. You can't confront it. Believe it, governments and big organizations steal stuff. Look at the politicians. Even if my device does not work in your mind the Cornell device does and the idea was mine and the patent office says so.
In Wikipedia they say throughout that when there is a clear exception to a rule, go the exception rout. It also says rules can be changed in light of functional failures otherwise. Frietas and Merkle are top NASA scientists. If I were but a quack they would have ignored me. If they were right about my patent, important as it is they would have taken me through patent court instead of tried this in the media. The simple fact that this is going on should be a central focus of ethics and peer review as you mentioned and a huge encyclopedic interest. Again I caution you, slow down, slow down, slow down... and get every fact strait on this case or drop it, with all absolute due respect.
The facts on the case, known to the experts, resolved or unresolved deal with NASA clearly steal technology. Big technology along with the government kidnapping... and when I feel you're taking this seriously I can produce documents that prove upon the primary affidavits sworn by a chief of police that clear attempts to commit me were enacted simply for saying I had this existing patent in open court. Like Sherlock said, "Something is clearly, clearly afoot". You see cracks in Frietas and Merkle's case, stick the crowbar in and tear it open. Fraberj (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

F-Unit replacement text

After reading the patent application for the F-Unit machine I have written a brief summary of the design. I will allow that it breaks WP:OR as I had to research primary material to do so, but since the patent is the only source of information available there was little recourse at this time. A google for "F-Unit self replicating" turned up nothing except the patent application, the wikipedia page and comments to blog posts by Collins linking to the wikipedia article. Thus the summary can only talk about the existence of the patent itself. F-Unit replacement text follows:

"In 1998 Charles M. Collins received U.S. Patent 5,764,518  for a self replicating machine. The machine would be a small robotic device with several attachments enabling it to tool a complete copy of itself. It would use a combination of traditional machining techniques and a polymer buildup technique similar to that found in many Rapid Prototyping devices. The patent claims that once replicated the machines could be used for any number of industrial and personal uses. These uses range from parts machining, to large scale infrastructure creation to personal grooming.

There have been complaints that the granted patent was overly broad and did not give mention to most existing prior art [2]"

I believe this summation fits in length wise with the flow of the article much better, is free of any bias and because of the link to the patent itself still contains a full description of the F-Unit system. This length and style of the article is sufficient to me for the removal of all of the template warnings on the article. It no longer references self published work and is only based on a documented patent claim. The reference to the complaints about it helps remove any issue with bias or NPOV. I would create a new F-Unit article except my searches for further references revealed that the invention would severely fail the WP:N guideline. I used the articles on Spaceship One, Sputnik and Pebble bed reactor as guidelines for length on information about the construction of the device as each of them is a highly complex widely publicized machine. I also used the article on Mitosis as a guide as mitosis is the best, most complex, and most successful means of self replication I know of. The current article was considerable longer than the entire mitosis article. Bobprime (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will most likely post this replacement tomorrow night assuming there are no reasonable objections. Bobprime (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable start. You will get involvement with Mr. Collins, and the text will be in flux for a long time. However, it is better this way, than either alternative - excision, or a content war. Mr. Collins' work deserves at minimum mention in the Wikipedia article, and there is at least one other published source: Frietas book. Even if his claim is bunk, it is current with the topic. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for the mention in Frietas's book. I think, and would love to add more citations to this part of the article. I agree since other people in the field have gone to the effort of calling his patent junk, it is atleast worth mentioning and since my rewirte is just based on the patent filing it avoids making judgements about the claim. I believe previous editors had not taken the time to understand the issue and just deleted the article. I believe this is bad editing. While it saves a lot of time and avoids wrong information it also leaves out correct information that a bit of reading and google searching combined with normal editing skills can successfully include in wikipedia. Bobprime (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Cautiously I indicate that I like your work as a start. I will try and work with you even though I feel very slighted. You are good at compressing material and still holding some meaning. However, it is excruciatingly short and therefore lacks important key novel elements. Maybe a list of such added would be in order? It leaves out the veritable war going on between myself and Frietas, and Merkle and Matt Moses and the legal entanglements of Cornell University. If this was to come about it would seem that you would communicate with me as to the accuracy of this description and add, in your own words a handful of other aspects important, no? And would this be more permanent you think, or one step down to permanent deletion by my adamant competitors? If it could be seen with some protection I would be willing to provide, as well the photo directly into Wikipedia of the F-Unit within the article and relinquish my copyrights to it which may enrich the article. The only reason thet photo is offboard now is copyright concern of loss to a temporary artice (not a source link as thought here by many). Another main problem is that it will be seen as no different to the RepRap project that does not reproduce it's actuators, bearings or other small parts and in my opinion should not be here in this self-replicating article.
I did not mean to slight you. Its just no matter how important the subject, wikipedia is an enclopedia and articles should be short and easy to understand. You may actually want to take the main part of the text and move it to your own webpage and the section can provide a link for thoes interested in more detail. As I said I used the articles on several very important technical achievements and devices to gauge how long this section should be. Also you should note that it is atleast as long as RepRap and twice as long as most other sections.
Do you have any news articles about your legal battles. Should you have a link to an article from a real newspaper then the information about your legal battle can be included in this section. There must be documentation for it somewhere. Also some court systems leave their files online, links to them could be helpful. I agree that I missed the fact that RepRap doesnt machine all of its parts and F-Units do. I saw it in the patent but forgot to write it up. I believe a short paragraph on the differences between the two would add to the content.
Can you point out some of what you believe are more important aspects and tell me about where they are described in the patent disclosure (I really don't want to read the whole thing again). This way I can summarize them from the cited source.
I believe since I am only taking material from WP:V sources (the patent filing) and I am adjusting the article to fit better in the document flow then this would be a perminant change. First, most people who have been deleting it noticed it for the same reason I did. It was very very long and formated oddly. This causes one to take notice of it as perhaps bad content and leads one to delete it out of hand. If it fits well in the content most people are not going think about editing it at all. Secondly since its not written by you, and infact I am not involved in the field at all (the closest I get is I have some friends who build autonomous vehicles), any claims of COI or NPOV are removed. Before reading this article I didn't even have a POV. Finally since everything I wrote was based on what I read in the patent filing then nobody can claim its poorly cited or based on unverified sources. If Buckley can provide a citation for the book in question and I can get my hands on it to read (or if he could read the section in question and paraphrase it in his own words) then we can add whatever information that provides as well. That is assuming Frietas meets wikipedia's standards as a verifiable expert (unfortunately these days anyone can publish a book).
You don't actually have to relinquish copyright or ownership of your photo, just license under the GNU. I think it would be a useful addition to the article though I see why you are reluctant to do so because license under the GNU is almost worse than relinquish copyright. I, and this is personal bias, think the GNU and the FSF have gone quite a bit too far. There is something to be said for having free communal projects, but trying to force it on everyone is just wrong. Bobprime (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
F-Units stand alone at effecting "complete" self-replication as you put it in situe (in place) including its simple actuator and all its small parts and accessories and functional environment including computing means and power source. This independence of operability (happy Buckley?) as set forth in the last two claims in the patent the main important claims, peculiar to the device setting it apart seems passively described in your very tight synopsis, with all due respect to your fine effort. You could also tail the line of that with something similar to this: "...That effectively self-reproduces its self, all small parts, including simple actuator its computing means, instruction code (DNA) power source and own ecosystem". You could also just say it effcts "independent operability" as set forth in those important claims (though Buckley may clamor over that).
I will try to clarify that all of its parts and its framework as well as its instruction set and power source are copied as part of the replication process. I had actually taken that as a given in a successful self replication. Discounting the weirdness of Prions I consider cell Mitosis to be the perfect example of a self replicating machine. F-Units to me sounded like they operated similarly.
You also left out the second impoertant process that all self-replication is intended for which is to fabricate structure, "stuff", if you will. Your cells in your arm produce more arm, stuff. This device primarily targets that including houses sidewalks buildings etc. and was first (long before RepRap) targeting feasible home fabrication of products at microscopic accuracy something RepRap has no hope at, hence its "high resolution" description. In its condense form it seems hopeless to get in the one very important innovation that is being stolen which is the "trolley car means" as I now call it causing much contention as the feature was stolen by Frietas and Moses and as well Cornell University New York. I'm not certain that you yet grasp that pivotal feature, can we have discussion on it. Thank you very much sir. Fraberj (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the trolley car means, we can discuss anything you want here, but unfortunately if its coming straight from your head it counts as WP:OR and this is one of the things we need to remove from the section. Once again if you can point me to parts of the patent application and discuss more exactly what you mean by "trolley car means" I will see what I can pull out.
Do you have any local newspaper or magazine articles about finished and working F-Units. This would allow us to add to the article that more real and working examples do exist. For simple claims of existance I believe popular print media should be sufficient for the verifiability requirement. The current article has information on newer F-Units and their ability to manufacture multiple generations of themselves, I believe this would be a good addition to the article but there is no citable reference for such information.
I would like this article to focus on the self replication aspect of the F-Unit (this is a self replication article) and not so much on its other uses. Once you get past the self replication part the F-Unit just becomes a robot that can build stuff and that is a field with a lot of players already. Or am I missing something about F-Units that make the different from existing robots that build buildings. Bobprime (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A primary concern of mine is that once the content amount of the F-units is pulled down, no one will understand it, not even those technical and therefore will receive additional later challenges if the new description is not convincingly complete. The subject is so vast I may not notice what's left out now, short like is proposed until I see it later on. It is hard, knowing how it works yourself to avoid leaving material out that will obliviate the new reader's understanding of it.Fraberj (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
First I think that most people object to it because it is so long, thats why I did it. You can't really object to a short section saying that this patent exists and that it is related to self replicating machines. I think a link to your site, with a copy of the entirity of the old article would allow anyone wishing a fuller understanding of F-Units to read and understand as much as they want. Also since you are publishing it yourself you can write in any manner you wish and not worry about wikipedia guidelines. Bobprime (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Per your requested references:
The attack on my patent occured in a book by Frietas and Merkle named "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" opening page is linked here: [27] Here is the link to the attack page on my patent: [28] examine the full page carefully. This is a page in said book wherein they are ostensibly evaluating patents. My patents are focused front and center for some important reason here. I wounder what that might be all about? Most of the page is devoted to a very unprofessional tirade, vilifications and well over the 400 words necessary to surpass fair use on the copyrighted patent descriptions cited verbatim (per the Gerald Ford case's precedence: Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises). They went to great pains to further include another huge player in the self-replicating community who is making an important comment to further strengthen their attack. This person is Matt Moses (his site: [29]) who has comments referred to in the book from link 1130 therein.
Frietas, Merkle and Moses are unquestionably the primary players in this self-replicating scene (see the first paragraph of this article we are working on). They have been very loud about it unlike myself prior to this event and they have spent copiously on their media image machine and its connections to that. The lion's share of their attack page has been taken up devoted to the attack on my patents as apposed to just a few lines for any of the other patents reviewed. If not anything else, this is clearly a coordinated attack upon a well known maverick (myself) in the private area (off campus and away from government). A maverick who has ridiculed them for years on end for going about bottom up* research now proven to be failed. This has been a point of contention since I formed Nanotech Corporation on June 24th 1994 in Fairfax Virginia (a name stolen by a Chinese firm of same name: [30]). Now what does this book coming out constitute? An 180 degree turn by Frietas, Merkle and Moses towards top down* self-replicators and nanotechnology which is towards my direction in the top down community.
This is the established University elite turning their meat grinder towards a private patent holder's technology to bust a patent that they must bust to legitimately practice upon the material within it, the only self-replicating technology in existence. The reason I patented down everything but the kitchen sink of what I innovated (being the only one doing serious work on it and being ignored and having my ideas stolen and written about as attributed to others) is this exact sort of maleficence that I encountered early on. And yes I did patent down the "entire design space of artificial kinematic self-replicating machines" as they irreverently put it and for good reason, I developed all of it and plenty were gearing up to steal it, like here. There are lofty and grandiose words being evoked in this article. Far reaching and certain words, by all the principle players in the field focused squarely on me in a personal manner. Moses, oddly did indeed give it a positive official comment: "... (the patents) may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers". They did not say definitively that the technology was dysfunctional only said the description appears not to enable it in Moses's opinion but they are clearly upset about something it protects. They also were upset about "the breathtaking scope of the Collins patents", discussed its "expansive claims " discussed its "encompassing the whole of kinematic artificial life".
They also never missed a beat cramming von Neumann speak into my work as well interchanging all my technical terminology with his (Mechagenics, Reproductive Mechanics to "Cellular Automata , Kinematics"... etc.) If you ask me the whole book and Frietas and Merkle's entire operation for several years has been about this media smear with this thick cloud of von Neumann speak. Von Neumann was an extremely prolific and complicated writer, long dead... perfect to use to accuse of doing my work prior to me (known as "prior art") that wrote and did some research on self-replicating technology in the 50s just before his death. However, in his own words the work was "not rigorous" and no patents were filed though he filed other patents on his other works. However, the work he did was not that specific and discussed only obvious features of self-replication that would be needed in such a device and did not disclose in writings or otherwise any material that would or has to this date enabled any actual real world self-replicator. My self-replicator (F-Units), does enable actual independent self-replication in the patent as disclosed (5,764,518) and has capacity to do so independently unlike the NIAC/General Dynamics so called self-replicator seen here [31] with Robert Frietas and Matt Moses infringing my patents with Toth Fejel, nor the Cornell University New York's so called self-replicator, seen here: [32] infringing my patents, nor the RepRap rapid prototype machine seen here: [33] who commandeered my idea of home self-replication and fabrication constituting scientific misconduct at his Bath University.
My device is, aside from obvious features of any self-replicator... like the ability to seek out materials place them, have processors and power sources is very different than von Neumann's (more on this below). Note as well, that it is required to present all of your innovation in a patent as well as any obvious or prior art aspects though you may not claim any obvious or prior art aspects. Frietas and Merkle are playing off these by saying I claimed these, which I did not and they try to ascribe similarities of the obvious features that any self-replicating device would have and say von Neumann's writings had patentable material that was the same as mine. This is clearly untrue to any good patent attorney. It's a rat's nest of deceit. You are also required to set forth the best embodiment of the patent and the best materials of it. I stated electrically conductive and nonconductive materials are optimum to use. He crazily attributed that to me patenting down all the materials there are which of course is incorrect. He even ridiculed boilerplate clauses most patents employ such as his attack upon this phrase: “The foregoing is considered as illustrative only of the principles of the invention. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact construction and operation shown and described except where specifically claimed, and accordingly, all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resorted to as falling within the scope of the claims.” ...this is used in many patents, so I'm told by the patent lawyers particularly since my device cam morph. Fraberj (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ralph Merkle, equal co-writer to the book Kinematic Self-Replicating machines was a professor of Artificial Intelligence at Georgia Tech College of Computing, 2003-2006 see his site here: [34], he is also noted for principle work on public key encryption and other dark work as I portray it with the government. He has a patent [35] filed later than mine on self-replicating technology wherein he was forced to site my patent as prior art limiting his patent considerably (see prior art citations therein).
Robert Frietas is also a lawyer has patents in nanotechnology long after mine (of late) and is a psychologist which will be made of relevance later herein and has a site called "Nanomedicine" [36].
My history per the patent and F-Units:
In January 1987 I went public with work that I was doing in secret for a long time concerning self-replicators. Shortly thereafter in July and continuing on until present I noticed odd activity that would later prove to be investigators and agent provocateurs infiltrating my operation which soon resulted in over twenty detainments (I can produce photocopies of affidavits to this effect from actual witnesses if interested). The agents seemed to be posing as technophobes (Unabomber and ELF types) employing extreme trickery and sophistication of tactics. One detainment, later on was by the same Quantico group that was responsible for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. I was tortured to force pleas on crimes I didn't commit in Fairfax County Virginia and in Prince William County the Chief of Police Dean attempted to commit me for stating that I had a self-replicating machine calling me "Star Trek Man" and made numerous felonious statement before the high court (on record) and admitted my phone had been illegally tapped and revealed Rep Hilda Barge's (district supervisor then) involvement. Such drained my bank accounts upon legal bills and the infiltrations crashed my property management business in Fairfax County, all with this harassment and committal campaign(s). An FBI officer jumped up at my adoption threatening me and forced the adoption process to a halt (as an example).
Immediately after my patent's disclosure document # 357673 was first filed in 1994, before any secrecy order investigations had on it I received a phone call from someone stating to be from the "Naval Research Laboratory" and solicited me to present my at the time being patented technology to the laboratory for weaponry research and development. I declined, stating that I did not want to become known as the Robert Oppenheimer of nanotechnology.
Because of the backdrop I depicted just above of typical well known methods of patent holder harassment by government entities it is not surprising to see the activities and backgrounds of Frietas and Merkle. I believe the government is in the process of nefariously "managing" the emergence of this powerful technology and put it to weapons purposes. The fact that Frietas is both a psychologist and a lawyer and Merkle is strong on black ops Internet encryption to bust my encrypted ScramDisc containers of info sent over the Internet is not at all surprising. I feel they constitute the overt wing of the government operations... to commit, steal, discredit and convict. Fraberj (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


TROLLEY CAR MEANS DESCRIBED:
The principle claims in the patent describing the "Trolley Car Means" as I call it publicly is CLAIM#s: 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 in patent 5,764,518:
"63. A fabrication system as described in claim 55 further comprising a plurality of movable legs and wherein said indices are conductive regions adapted for coupling to the bottom of said legs and are interconnected to a source of current"
and:
"64. A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein said legs are conductive and act as commutators to provide current to said fabrication tool and the weight of said tool being adequate to establish electrical contact between said legs and said indices."
and:
"65. A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein said conductive indices are interconnected to a source of current through a column of conductive tiles."
and:
"66. A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein there are a plurality of conductive indices on each piece."
and:
"67. A fabrication system as described in claim 63 wherein said pieces may be of different sizes, at least some of which may be used as indices and others of which may be conductive to provide a source of power to said tool"


The description in the patent further describes how tiles can be interchanged with (be used instead of) "blocks" or have "blocks" made up of tiles with these conductive centers and an enterchangeably connectable "block" indeed was even pictured in the patent drawings (Figures 13(a) through 13(b) for use in fabricating this way to arrive at ultimate self-replication like the Cornell and NIAC replicators identically do therefore infringing. Fraberj (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
These claims and all through the descriptions of all three patents (including the PCT) discloses a means to provide power and data to a self-replicating entity up through the legs it is walking on while it is moving about (much like a trolley car) and fabricating, lightening it greatly and allowing the computing device running it, data storage space and the power source to be very large and off-board and this alone is the pivotal key innovation enabling the "independent operability" (independent self-replication and existence) of this first self-replicating device called F-Units (for Fabricating Units). Von Neumann never disclosed any sort of device, Frietas and Merkle's claims notwithstanding.
Also note that the Cornell "Self-Replicator" is situated in a box, just like my F-Units need to be, however the Cornell device has no use of that.


COLORIZED TILE DISCUSSION:
Please note claims 10, 11, 12 and 13 in patent number 5,764,518:
"10. A fabrication system as described in claim 1 including a display system for displaying all or part of the object to be fabricated in either planar or three dimensional views, wherein each pixel of said display represents a corresponding one of said pieces."
and:
"11. A fabrication system as described in claim 10 wherein each pixel of said display is displayed in a unique color representative of the type of material of said object represented by said pixel."
and:
"12. A fabrication system as described in claim 11 wherein the particular color of a pixel may be changed to change the type of material used by the system in fabrication of the object."
and:
"13. A fabrication system as described in claim 10 further comprising a library of selectable object images which may be interactively selected for fabrication by the system."
These claims patented the idea of representing the tiles being used in fabricating, as represented within the CAD-CAM software used to control the process of self-replicating and being sent over the Internet being represented singularly or in groups or in bulk in different colors with the different colors representing areas in the structure of various materials. Note the NIAC so called self-replicator depicts this (and as well is being depicted over the Internet via the site) therefore infringing: [37] (see first illustration of the blocks, which as well receive data and power to reorient up through each other, therefore infringing). The same is depicted at K. Eric Drexler's Foresight Institute site seen here: [38]. Fraberj (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheading 1

Note that I attempted collaboration with K. Eric Drexler in 1997 shortly after the first mother patent # 5,659,477 published and sent him a copy. I was subsequently to encounter indifference thereto. Now he makes his business getting involved with the NIAC infringement.


Much of the laser work was done with excimer lasers from Resonetics [39] and Patomac Photonics [40].Fraberj (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I also have an independent review "letter of operability" document from an independent patent checking firm attesting to its operability amongst other things, let me know where to send that scan. Fraberj (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I can scann to produce to you the "assertion letter" sent to Cornell University New York offering them license, which they chose to ignore. This now leaves them open to pay triple infringement damages. Lawyers are now organizing case. Will send if tell me where, how. Fraberj (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I did two world broadcast shows on the Don and Mike show at WJFK in Washington DC (Gordon Liddy and Howard Stern's old station), one comedy (as Dr. Nanite on December 2005 (Dec 5th and 8th) [41]. The second show got serious and I answered caller's questions. If that gives you anything let me know. It was the first talk show on self-replicating technology in history (second show was in studio). Radio Gods Forum had an on-line talk but is now deleted (some looking for the recordings seen here: [42]) I screen captured some back then if you think they mean anything. I also have the recordings. Fraberj (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


There is also a feature length movie called "War in the Nanosphere" being produced and a finished CD entitled "War in the Nanosphere Project" of the sound track (I play some lead guitar in it and wrote both). The theme of the songs are all about self-replicators and there is promo stills. Was played on air on Don and Mike Show WJFK. The movie is about when all the earth's matter is subject to nano control and becomes verbally addressable "nanostuff" and a galactic wide war breaks out resulting in the next Big Bang when all the universe's mass is programmably fissioned. I've been in extensive number of local bands in Washington DC: Onyx, Agent Orange (not the big band) Litz etc. Fraberj (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


You can leave all the government operations activity out if you like, it was all embarrassing, anyway and may get it deleted and attacked, regardless of the documentation, unless you really want to get in depth. Fraberj (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to leave it out as I believe it casts you in a poor light. Most people will tend to side with the government and I found that mentioning the issues would slant the article POV against you for no good reason. Bobprime (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
* "Bottom Up" means Nanoreplicators or the like that build from very small sizes (usually said to be atomic or molecular sizes) and build up to the real world;
"top down" means the inverse, starting at room size and working down to atomic size. Since it has been proven that atoms are uncertain clouds and the world is highly active and volatile down at the atomic/molecular level, the idea of building atom by atom then up is mostly now frowned on of late.


Please let me know which of these legal documents you may want and let me know a means to deliver them (I have them all scanned), preferably by e-mail attachment.Fraberj (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to weigh in that I fully support Bobprime's summary (found at the beginning of this section). I think it's very reasonable, and manages to summarize the topic nicely without giving undue weight. This discussion can and should go on for as long as it needs to, but I feel that we should replace the current "F-unit" section with the proposed text, and then create a new page for f-units and copy the existing text there. Any objections? -FrankTobia (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted what I will describe as contentious vandalism and clear vilifications by "Populus". Populus is one of these sanctimonious characters that would call you greedy just for picking up your paycheck when you are in bankruptcy court. I have done my work and worked hard at it and have not tried to steal it as others have mine and I expect it not to be stolen or vilified and I will stick up for it dead on when anybody tries. Hey populous, where is your attack on the elitist self serving Frietas and Merkle? You love situations where the good have been harmed in a way that is difficult to articulate and see your opportunity to put in your knife cut. Populus is one of these individuals who would relish in any opportunity to say bad things about good things and good things about bad things any opportunity that comes along and greed-baiting is the vehicle.
Is it any wonder at times I get angry. Take a look at this shock jock. All those listings of possible sources were in response to requests for such by other editors here. I wonder what would happen if I just posted nothing? It is clear that with people like this around that no good deed goes unpunished. If you had any idea of what this technology will bring mankind (and you most likely don't) you would be helping out here. Because of Frietas and Merkle there is great difficulty in funding this project so I must promote, promote, promote. Populus is one of these far left individuals who would have you greedy for simply holding a job and have you on state welfare until you are dead in a hole. (this is coming from a centrist) I make no apology for expecting to get paid for my work so I can survive. What worthwhile deed have you done lately to deserve any form of recognition for your rude comments? All you do is demagogue any situation you can get your hands on because you are jealous that you can do no better.
Here's a direct question for you Populus: How do you decipher who is self serving and who is a valuable producer per what you have done here? Let's see you do it without defecating on everything far and wide until the last working man's hands fall limp and dead with your spit on their face. Come on. Let's hear it. You seem itching for a contentious debate. So, this is a talk page let's get to it. Describe how I'm greedy for going after the elitist Frietas and Merkle with every penny of resource I can get my hands on. When I called NIAC I was told a $75,000.00 initial grant went down on the project for starters, before the boss shut everyone up. Let's talk about the leftist that stole my house with their high secret hand. Moderate house that was never paid for long enough to even say I owned it. Until some sanctimonious nut sent in undercover operatives to subvert my work all in the name of "greed". Tell me Populus, where am I to get a new home in your political paradigm? Have you worked out all the details? Fraberj (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why you responded very angrily to FrankTobia and myself. I didn't see that Populous had totally rewritten the article with rather POV language, ignoring the work we are doing here. I am going to see if I can find another template to tell people to quit messing with the article until we reach consensus here. I am actually quite supprised how much the entire section gets deleted with no mention on the talk page. Here is hoping that the new version with reduce the number of stupid edits. Bobprime (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added an active discussion template to hopefully ward off these huge edits, atleast that is what the template is supposed to do. Its the best fit I can find. Fraberj, if you don't like it or feel that it violates our WP:truce then feel free to remove it, I thought it is for the benefit of stopping further edits but if you don't like it I don't want it to get in the way of our good work. I thought the existing tags should warn off bad editors as is. Bobprime (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see that. I also find myself re-editing commas and other tidbits I corrected yesterday. This is really weird. Some hacker may be cloning my view, using my ip. Fraberj (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
New text revision ideas. I just got home from work so I haven't had time to actually write anything yet.
I don't think we can cover too much on the dispute between Mr Collins and the other scientests if only because the weight of the citable material (simply because the other parties publish a lot) is against Mr Collins and that would show, in my opinion, rather undue bias against him. I am guessing that given equal media coverage and access to publication both parties would have equivalent claims, at least in quantity. Thus I would like simply to mention that there is a significant legal dispute ongoing. I plan on providing links to Frieta's book and a small summary of Frieta's complaints. I would also say that Mr Collins contends that they are violating his patents on his trolley car means and colored tile visualization techniques (and obviously stands by his patent). As part of this I will have to describe what the colorization and trolley car means are. This expands the section to 3 paragraphs, but I believe increases its content substantially.
I would also like to mention the other patent 5659477 as well as the one already in the text. I would also like to include any other relevant patents that Fraberj knows of. I think I should also mention the patent that claims Mr. Collins work as prior art.
Finally I will flush out the fact that F-Units are truely self replicating and don't require outside parts. Also that they are designed to search out and process raw materials and gather power. This was covered in the patent filing.
If fraberj could upload any small scans of documents showing that there is a court battle going on to his geocities page (perhaps the cover letter from the initial court filing) then we can also link to it in the coverage of the patent dispute.
Additionally I would strongly suggest to fraberj that he take a lot of the very good, but origional content, he posted both to this talk page and the main article (explaining both the history of his legal battle and the basic workings(the main article part) to his geociteis page. I believe if it was published externally we could use it as source material for a main F-Unit article, similar in scope to the seperate RepRap article. Both are obviously current projects in the field of self assembling machines. I feel that since other experts in the field have written in their book a complaint of Mr Collins' patent as being too broad without indicating that it is wrong, that we can consider self published work by Mr Collins a valid source. This would make writing a full article a lot easier. Does this all sound good to everyone, especially fraberj? I am hoping that if everyone accepts the next revision we can put it up and remove all of the warning templates. Bobprime (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Also fraberj, you said you could scan a copy of the letter indicating that a neutral observer found your device to be functioning? I would like to link that into the article as well if you can post it to your geocities page. Bobprime (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not up to formally rewriting the suggestion I had so far today. Every time I try it comes out bad. I think I will try again tomorrow as this peice deserves to be well written. Bobprime (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no rush on this end. In fact I am overwhelmed to the nth. Someone came here that programs bitmap, attracted by the colorized tile discussion. They are editing the links in the 3d paint section in F-units. Now I have to focus on reviewing that in my foggy head after dealing with the vandalism. Keep in mind that nothing happening here is in a vacuum at this page, ever. This is the top gun technology and it attracts plenty of attention with the slightest change on thousands of watch lists. The article sat peacefully several months until I put up the PCT link. Now all the nanotech people overseas know they are infringing and are mad, confused or whatever.
I would strongly and respectfully suggest a lock out on the article itself until we finish this work because it is excruciatingly difficult to focus with all this going on... and the work here will attract loads of attention. We are in an electronic ocean with millions of fish and some are sharks. You put those tags up now they smell blood in the water. They feel justified, encouraged to delete. Many are just 10YO vandals. I think removing any of this talk is troublesome as it deprives those that need to read it and make decisions. Without just discussion this technology breads fear and anger and this will erupt as many times before. Hear this, my friends from someone who has had two attacks on his life and knows this business. It can get pretty ugly at times with this. Take the Unabomber and the ELF for example. These guys are out to get guys like me and no one in the know will think of denying it. I have a missing front tooth to prove it. On the flip side, there are many out there not working now on this project with me not being paid that will strike out at any attack on me and I don't blame them. They may want revenge on Frietas and Merkle. Getting this right will hopefully settle things down and your careful, so far astute attention is not going unappreciated by these eyes.
Also note there are weird hackers here. Bobprime you may not have forgot to sign that work on the bot. Someone reverted edits and bypassed detections. I found and re-corrected edits I distinctly remembered editing yesterday. There is also a weird trick where if a hacker does an edit and does not want a particular other editor to see it he reverts what the other ip address sees, not seeing the edit (if they get your ip). I noticed that once when someone told me there were different article renditions on their screen than mine.
This next thing I say is important in the self-replicator field. Bobprime I get what you said about focusing on mostly the self-replicating aspects of the F-Units. However, a close observation upon anything that self-replicates will yield and understanding of any self-replicator's purpose. Why a self-replicator? An F-unit, a germ, a rabbit even a human being, all self-replicators are doing one thing: They are creating and managing stuff within the physical universe to suit their existences. Even the self-replicating process itself is creating and managing the stuff that a given self-replicator is made of. The vastness of the F-Unit patents are dedicated and must be contemplated upon this creation of stuff. Like a cell makes more of your arm by self-replicating, F-Units make more materials, soon sidewalks buildings, malls and our own homes, subject to only our verbal commands. Self-replicator scientists know this is someday possible and so important and valuable it will occur due to demand. So, the digital control of mass structure or stuff is key to grasping most of the F-Unit System. Leaving that out would be leaving out half the patent.
I think this will make sense once we create the F-Unit article itself. I was talking with FrankTobias earlier about this. Pending your agreement, as per the truce, we would like to create an F-Unit article, replace the text here with my short summary (which will continue to get updated as we refine it) and allow the F-Unit article to discuss F-Units more fully. This article, the Self Replicating Machines article, being about self replicating machines should focus solely on the self replicating part of F-Units, and link to the fuller page. This will keep the same information you already have, improve the flow and layout of the Self replicating machines article, and allow you to more easily watch for changes to the F-Unit article, once Frank creates it. Bobprime (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Frank, it looks like we will need to create a disambiguation article for the F-Units, and then a specific a specific page for these F-Units. I think we should leave the train article where it is for now because we don't want a fight with the train crowd right now. Bobprime (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think calling the page Fabricating units would be a better choice, as not to initiate a turf war with the train people. Besides, they could probably get the new article AFD'd if they really wanted. I'll try to make the edits in a few days, once I have time. Actually Bobprime, if you want to you can create the page first. I know how you said you've been wanting to, and you might as well instead of me. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the F-Units should as well be mentioned at the "Programmable matter" site. As well as the "Claytronics" site, and the "Artificial Life" site:[43]. A planned completed F-Unit system will provide for all these in a digitally locked, error corrected, verbally controlled "Digital Referenced Area" (DRA). Study on this please. Any questions, just ask. The description on this page is all the identical stuff in the 90s class patents just made clearer without the legal speak. The extremely new stuff I keep trade secret now due to scientific misconduct like with Frietas and Merkle. However, the F-unit system is slow, safe, contained and user friendly and as deployed set forth in this article allows for no grey goo scenarios and believe me I have countermeasures planned if other releases get out (unlike Frietas and Merkle or Cornell U). Thousands of scientist are concerned about this and mishandling of this article will upset many people world wide in the know. The F-Unit system as set forth in the present description is a responsible, safe and effective first line deployment of this technology and is written to ameliorate these fears. Nevertheless, be prepared for extreme emotional reactions and outbursts such as with Frietas and Merkle (and the Unabomber types). It will go on here, as many times in the past.
The patents are all listed and linked in the "Other References" section in this article (including Ralph Merkle's) Look within this patent under section called "References Cited". Both my patents are cited for prior art discussion Cited. Frietas' provisional patent is around the net somewhere but was filed lately and has little resemblance to mine (there are two dates and numbers which is weird, I am not that familiar with the provisional patent program but it seems they have expired and he did not file a main mother thereto). This is Frietas, who knows what he's up to. The other numbered patent related item of mine I referred you to was the "disclosure document" # 357673 (see: reduction to practice, it is not publicly available, usually), filed prior to the first mother patent on June 15 1994. Fraberj (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that all good faith editors hold off editing here for a few days until I can get these materials distributed so we can concentrate on getting some real serious work done. Thank you my friends. Like they said in the movie contact: slow... easy... steps... Fraberj (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the only good-faith edits we'll be making will be to move the F-unit information to its own page, where we can continue improving it. There are many good reasons for this, which we can discuss, and I don't feel like it will harm any of the parties involved. There will be links to the new page from this article, as well as a host of other ones which are related to f-units. Also, Fraberj, if you respond I'd like to ask that you write more succinctly. Your responses are well-reasoned and thought out, but unfortunately I haven't had ample time in the past few days to read everything, as there is a lot that keeps being added to this page every day. Thanks a lot, I do appreciate it. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Man that subhedding his helpful. Thanks. I would create the new F-Unit page (I have no idea what to call it, as both F-Unit and Functional Unit are taken). Maybe F-Unit(replicator), and move the existing text into it. That way we can work on both at once while leaving this page static. I agree though, moving this along as fast as possible would be good. Bobprime (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I will hold off the changes until you give the go ahead, but I will keep posting rewrites of the eventual replacement text here. This is my newest version:
"In 1998 Charles M. Collins received U.S. Patent 5,764,518  for a fully self replicating machine. This patent extends a previous patent U.S. Patent 5,659,477 . The patented machine would be a small robotic device with several attachments enabling it to tool a complete copy of itself. It would use a combination of traditional machining techniques and a polymer buildup technique similar to that found in many Rapid Prototyping devices. The patent claims that once replicated the machines could be used for any number of industrial and personal uses.
There have been complaints by other experts in the field that the granted patents were overly broad and did not give mention to most existing prior art [3]. They dispute both the scope and the originality of the work. Collins argues that the patents are valid and the other self replicating machines infringe on his work[citation needed] . The main complaint involves design elements where the replicating device gains power and data through the devices legs from an energized track or grid[citation needed] . U.S. Patent 5,764,518  is cited as prior art for one other self replicating device and for several other patents [44]"
I would like to leave any more information to a dedicated F-Unit article. I have tried adding more several times and it just throws off the feel of the article. It also starts to swing away from WP:NPOV and into advertising. We have to remember that this article is just a summary of the entire history of self replicating machines and that all of the machines with more information have their own dedicated articles. Bobprime (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
We can start work on the main part of the F-Unit article now. I moved the current text to F-Unit(replicator). I suggest we begin discussion in its talk page on the layout of the article before we even think of touching the text. Once we finish the F-Unit section here we can have a link to the new full article. Bobprime (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting better. Left out that working prototype presented at time of patenting was only reason USPTO allowed the self-replicating claims of "independent operability" (important this point). Suggest adding: That Merkle is coauthor of book "Kinematic Self-Replicating machine" and words to the effect that the attack on my patent by him was not independent because his patent was limited by mine and what he said was not all that much of a surprise therefore. Also left out was how Frietas and Moses infringed at NIAC (you can say I accused/alleged) and how Cornell is as well. Left out positive aspects of comments by Matt Moses: "(patents)...they may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers". The name "F-Units" means "Fabricating Units" You might name the article that... better: F-Units(Independently Operable Self-Replicating Machines). The name of the field of Science is "Mechagenics" by the way if you could get that in. You discussed the trolley car aspect so might as well indicate I dispute that von Neumann had this enabling aspect in his earlier work too. No discussion on function, suggest indicating its claim had of "independent operability" as this indicates a first for total independent self-replication (I claim "first true independent self-replicating device"). Fraberj (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with receiving these documents via e-mail attachment? I won't be spamming your e-mail (ask Buckley, didn't spam his). Need to send this stuff (legal doc, illustrations, witness statements) if you insist via Geocities site instead of e-mail but let me know right away please. Fraberj (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is the short F-unit article I understood you to be placing in this article, referring to the outside one? I can't have nothing here for long extended periods of time! Fraberj (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The long and unencyclopedic section in here has been transerred to F-Unit (self-replicator). "I can't have nothing here for long extended periods of time". Why not? Until the invention has been demonstrated to be notable, there should not be anything here. "Let me know where to send that scan." Post them to your website of course and provide links to them here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To Bobprime: I did not see any of the notes you put on my User Page until right now. I was monitoring what you and others were doing in the history at herein, why put it in my user page talk?. I was waiting for your response as to whether you wanted e-mail attachments sent, I did not know there was a problem with that until just now. It is difficult for me to have a web site. The more I publish the more they steal and no one respects stuff on your personal web site. I had all of it on the MySpace site at one point and had F-Units referring to it and spent months setting it up and getting it right, a big nice site. The minute I referred it from F-Units it was mysteriously deleted along with my Match.com stuff and other sites without any comment even after huge numbers of emails were sent even threats of law suits. This is what happens when hackers are on your case I guess. Much of the legal documents are not a good idea to put on the open net and the more overexposed a patent is before marketing the worse... the well defined and clear illustrations I was going to send to you are very high definition and I don't want some of it, more advanced than the patent published. Adrian Bowyer has no patent to get overexposed on. Now someone put up that stupid vandalism again. Please put all our talk on the self-replicating machine site so I can track it in the history. I'm reverting the F-Unit deletion here until all this is resolved with discussions. Fraberj (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE! RHaworth left notes on my user page that he is a hacker (and a rather ugly picture per his userpage), I am reverting his edits I see. Been up all night dealing with this, please do not make further changes until I can get back here with some sleep. 71.120.25.253 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Need for talk page archival

Anyone with experience about how to do this. The size of this talk page is getting unmanageable and I am not entirely sure how to create an archive.

I set up User:MiszaBot on my own talk page, and I think I can get it set up on this one. I think it's a great idea, seeing as how this page really is quite long. I like the idea of auto-archival, as opposed to doing it manually (though there are reasons for both). I'll set it up in a day or two if I don't hear any objections. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What does that Bot do? Is it really necessary? Where will we go to put the comments or find the old ones? I thought "archiving" was for older stuff. Fraberj (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I requested the archival of the first half of this discussion because it was old talk and was making this page really long and taking forever for me to update changes. I figured we should restrict the discussion to just the current topic (the hopefuly pending rewrite of F-Units). I just forgot to sign my name. Bobprime (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
MiszaBot will automatically archive conversations on a talk page, based on certain parameters that we can decide upon by discussion. Old conversations (those threads that haven't been active for a certain period of time, based on the time stamp) will be automatically moved to sub-pages. For an example, check out User talk:FrankTobia; there will be an archive box near the top, with a list of links to pages with archived discussions. You can read up about it if you poke around User:MiszaBot's help pages. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpfull words. Fraberj (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So I added the MiszaBot configuration template to this talk page. The next time MiszaBot runs, it should archive discussions that are more than 90 days old. This parameter is changeable, but I thought 90 days is a good amount of time. I believe the bot only archives a section when the most recent comment is older than the limit specified, so that ongoing conversations stay on the page even if they were started long ago.The bot will move text to one archive page until its length equals 250kb, and then it will create a new archive page (so that each archive page isn't super huge). Additionally, the bot won't leave fewer than 2 threads on this talk page: there will always be at least two threads going, no matter how old they are, to keep this page from being completely empty. This number is modifiable as well, but I feel 2 is reasonable. And it's easy enough to visit the archive pages (once they exist): note the archive box template at the top of the page. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be someone known for being too critical about the use of technology. However, I will cautiously object to this for two reasons. I update my computer every four years or so (my text use standard non-scientific computers). I have an Athlon FX53 and it seems to be having not the least amount of problems handling pages several times as long as this one with my simple Verizon DSL connection and less than a gig of ram (really needs updating but it's expensive registered). Last time I updated it took less than three seconds which is not much lag. I relish new power and enhanced functions of technology too but in this case the part I relish is the powerful capability of my computer to deal with the larger materials I can now work with without need of archiving of the like, slowing me down or destracting me. Archiving right now, smack in the middle of this debate has already caused more problems for me than the page length saves/updates. Further, with new technology comes new ways of thinking and doing. I rely more on searches than visual overviews done by hand. This section is well ordered and you can select the section you want to go to at the top of the page and know what's there overall and go to a section you want.
The second is that people coming here can simply search one body of text if I refer to a unique signature and the time/date and search right to it and most important everything is here and easy to find for those coming here unknowing of this technology (F-Units) and with the bots they would have to figure out haw to find the older yet still currently and continually used materials (and you never know at what point something you are looking for is sent to archive and, right now I don't know where it is myself). Further, either these bots are malfunctioning or a hacker is at work because I find myself correcting syntax and other proofread materials that I long corrected and fixing them for the second and sometimes third time and this is no good for my reputation when read by others. And a friend of mine said he saw somthing different than me on this page at the same time I was looking at it. To much complexity and the time to learn and use it obviates the need. I don't think it is a good time to do technical upgrades in the middle of a complex on-line debate. I hope I am not being a spoilsport thank you. (notice the word "something" spelled wrong here earlier which got by the on-line spellchecker at Yahoo, untried tech can fail subtlety). Fraberj (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It takes about 30 seconds for me to update. It can be quite annoying. Plus it already fired and cleaned up the article. Bobprime (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case I understand. Fraberj (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New section idea

In doing all of my reading for the F-Unit article I have found that there is quite a lot of debate as to what a self replicating machine is. I need to find some more articles on it, but I think that it is important enough to include on this page. Bobprime (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I know Buckley's watching and he's been somewhat friendly lately so I'll phrase it using words he prefers:
The degree of independence from outside assistance of a given entity during its self-replicating process determines the degree of self-replicating capability had by the entity. Hence the term my patent attorneys used in my last claim in the patent describing the F-Units self-replication: "independent operability" (which gets howls around here when I tried to enter the phrase into Wikipedia long before this article which was irreverently attacked and deleted). For example, the Cornell self-replicator or RepRap cannot fabricate their actuators (its electric motors) at all, and the actuators are the primary portion of the devices. They depend on the human builder to build and mount those actuators (and many other such small intricate parts). The F-Units, once initiated need no help from man to construct its own simple bearingless actuators (iron bars with feet attached manipulated within a magnetic field) and once fully established as a widespread system provides all its needs, even on a dead sunless planet somewhere by chemosynthesis if resources are present. If renewable chemicals are present the loop is entirely closed and can continue forever, conceivably. For pure science discussions the planet with F-Units on it becomes a perfect paradigm of a totally independent self-replicating entity. This is more so than life forms because even rabbits need pre-processed grass to eat
Charles: The notions you allude here were first presented by Edward F. Moore, in his Scientific American article, around 1956 (IIRC). The critical issue will be if Moore discussed that the *artificial living plants* would be self-replicating. Moore considered using these plants as a mechanism for harvesting from the environment those materials necessary to their replication, and man's needs. As a follow-up to von Neumann's work, particularly that discussed since Hixon, it seems unlikely that Moore did not connect the notions. See the text for yourself. A visit to Google, and then your local university library should be sufficient means to eke and ogle the article. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not think the Cornell "self-replicator" nor the RepRap prototype machine to be a self-replicator at all and was attacked for posing that herein from all sides. So to get along with everybody I euphemistically and colloquially designate them "limited self-replicators" (but I still talk about it when prompted).
Here, Charles is properly critical, regarding the use of *self-replicating* in the discussion of other works. Adrian Bowyer is also properly candid about the limitations of his prototyper, that it cannot make one or a few (see video online of his presentation in 2006 - I'll try to get the URL) of its parts. This cannot be said of Lipson's work; given proper capability in the manipulator, any scalable physical device can be generated. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Now limited self-replicators are very useful and important as they can be easily put together by F-Units and replaced when they wear out. But they are not true "independent" self-replicators in my view at all. Not even half way there. But my competitors need something to do, to get grants on so there you go. That's my humble yet studied opinion on the subject, with all due respect. Now Buckley hates me using phrases like: The F-Units have a high degree of independency, which he says is horrendous grammar but it feels and sounds correct to me. I would love to sit back and observe your new opinions on this and if siding in my direction on that a discussion with Buckley. I yield to this as grammar is not my forte. Those were the previous points of contention (to the best I can articulate).
These points, and that the article section on F-Units was rambling. Now, it isn't rambling anymore. Of course, the cost to date has been the complete evisceration of mechanism description. (Grumble, grumble). Is your email addres still good - the one we used for previous disclosure communications? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems maybe you missed something (or maybe it does not apply). Matt Moses, in his comments within Frietas and Merkle's book, at the page of attack:[45] supported at link 1130 therein stated: ...they may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers (speaking of my patents). This is indeed a clearly positive published review, amongst the bad ones (which are very weird). There's your sourcing, both good and bad from several. (Please notice my words to you above and stuff you asked for).
Also very important, I have for many years now have had a book written entitled: "The Infinity Device" on the F-Unit System. The book is long and boring (so I'm told) but I have an illustration from therein that is nice because the original was drawn up in 1920 x 1080 HD on a 50 inch big screen to that resolution in deep color. It has the whole system hooked all together with lines coming from the describing words from one side to each aspect and part. It is quite effective for an overview of the whole system. The patent drawings (done in the 90s) are pretty bad but I have the original color renditions in hi-res. I have these and quite a bit of other material including the documents we touched on and if you send me an e-mail (linked from this article) I'll send all this attached to you. This is best as I am all set up to do it that way after years of others asking (if you would be so kind). Let me know. Fraberj (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Would welcome reading the book. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you block Charles Collins? He knows better than that. And I checked the file wrapper he did submit a working prototype before the second patent was allowed, they required it. And how do you know whether one was made in trade secret, you can't assume that otherwise. There's nothing wrong with that, you anti patent GNU advocates should like that. And you don't make any friends here in Prince William County spouting off about Poloski, after it was common knowledge (D) Hilda Barge tried to railroad him with the Quantico crowd. Collins is an avowed centrist anyway. What brings you political hacks in here? What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.107 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The more I look this over, the deeper the s gets! If you had wrote somthing like that about ME I would have said somthing much worse. and you talk about cowards? You make all these changes and block charles just be fore he could respond. Itis YOU who is the COWARD. What's YOUR real name "RHaworth? It is YOU who is the coward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.107 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The book "kenimatic self-replicating machines" was quoted by you antis. You antis cite only bad part. The good part I cite too, where Bob Moses say: "they may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers" on the end of second paragraph in http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.16.htm the link there: 1130 links to "Matt Moses statement to frietas". If you know replicators you know Moses, that's why YOU don't know what you do, but if you are wikipedia you really just ignore. And when are you goin to link his cite he put stuff in like you ask? Moses is your eletist "expert" you like in patents, just like Colins said in here up higher. You leave out and ignore because YOUR BIAS, like ALL wikipedia edtors and reporters and your big shot friend Merkel and Frieta. You hate hate patents and you hate copyrights and we hate you and love Charles Michael Collins music when he plays here. And he stands up against stealing of music like napster and wikipedia. He tells us onstage all about it and now we here of this H S going on here. UNBLOCK COLLINS, you LIE he would not make legal threats, too smart! Collins told you to call you right name: "PATENT HATERS!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.201 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Also Collins does not have to prove that he has a replicating machine in trade secret as he says he does now. You can't say he does not have in importamt article like that unless you have PROOF! YOU have "burden" to prove none after patent ofice statement that which you have not. The "predominance" of evidence is on detractors not for collins who shows picture that others see and understand and you ignore and patent "file wrapper" which is history of patent filings record says a prototype submitted with second pate. YOU IGNORE THIS. Now Collins goes underground and trade secrets his stuff an now files no new patents. Yet you sickos still attaack, you should be HAPPY no more pastents. I know patents I go down to patent office and I see file wrapper, like collins says stupid wiki editors too lazy, want to only look for links. You talk trash man! get lost! Jam on Charles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.201 (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


"Also collins site is up now so other pulished stuff is up. He puts music up soon FOR FREE CO000000Ol! So take out lie of "no pulished stuff". He has blogs all over for years http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=451 and in NANODOT COM (I can't find) And you leave out Don and Mike show where he show up at WJFK with self-replicator: http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/Product/12-05-05-120505.html. He KICKED DON AND MIKE"S A HA HA! Don and Mike smart, in end thay say good things about him, He's "Anti shock Jock, Shock jock" HA! IT was CRAZY! They got smart real fast, not learn hard way. Charles ran for president and evil government attacked. Quantico grabbed him and did abu grabe crap on him. Scum! He beat them HA! Stupid WACKS. He has documents but you block before he gives you. Charles will save world not stupid wikipedia and Bowers freak who steal his idea. Don and Mike show so funny we all hurled! Show up at station like red neck, did accent so good Don and mike bought it He KICKED THEIR A! Don and Mike toung tied. thay even admit it that he kick their A. LISTEN TO TAPE MAN! WHERE YOU BEEN? He also sue them in Prince William Court and freaked out Don and Mike's lawyer, he left red as beat ROCK OOOOOOOOOOOON Charles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.201 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You people are BIAS! You put in the bad citation and delete the good!. You are really BAD PEOPLE! BAD PEOPLE! And you don't talk and say why. I KNOW COLLINS knows better than to make legal threats! and

RHaworth and Yamla revert without talk that's not right. Why do you delete good source of Moses in Kenimatic self-replicating machine? you are just bullies! Adrian bower never made a replicator at all, you didn't say junk about his stuff not working. You are just dictators! You like stinking univesity privliged characters! If you don't put back good cites for collins I will properly delete Bowyer stuf if you wan't to play hardball. I was nice, didn't do that before, will now if you don't put that back and quit trashing charles reputation for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.99.189 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have charles email in his web site. I talked to him. Hey everybody, he says they block him for just saying "in good faith" he would report a hacking to police. What kind of s is that? He also said it's cause Yamla LIED! She said that she DID NOT see RHayworth's ugly threatening picture of him in his user page. I see it and boy is he a skum! EVERYBODY SEES IT! Yamla lied to charles, told him she did NOT see it so charles thought it was "hacker tool, targeting only his IP when he clicks on it". If that would have been the case it would certainly wouild have been a hack, right? Then he should call police. What the h is this anyway? you find hack and call police you get blocked. Your CHUMPS MAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.78.181 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I talk to charles. He says stop talking trash and calm down. I'm his NUMBER ONE FAN and say Charles is a good guy (for those who care about that here!). I'll get down to business now. Every one on this side wants to know. CHarles say there (02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) )was Hack BEFORE he see RHaworth ugly mug (and "hacker" writings in there too). He did NOT know about RHaworth until later: (RHaworth (Talk | contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)) So Charles called police in good Faith. What would you HAVE Charles do and not get blocked? Answer THAT. And if you are not hacking Charles (and "open sourcers" hacking is legendary) why are you not concerned with that and working WITH Charles and not "gaming" him as he tells me you are in "bad faith". Tell me that mr. COMMISSAR RHaworth and MARIE ANTOINETTe Yamla, you two just get orgazmic at ordering around important people due to some personality malfunction. Evil persons: I SP!T AT THEE!
Charles say he has compromise solution: He really does not mind short article if refers where he can spell out his points on his site and put short half line saying disputes and link where dispute is as done in this edit. If you want clean up more on that half line he take look (if his here edits not seen as encyclopedic). He says you others accept this as final then he's happy and challeng no more your past changes nor any past legal aspects if Wikipedia admins unblock without prejudice. He will possibly challenge future changes to F-Units or talk elsewhere on them and reserves right to edit in good faith other articles within Self-replicating machine. Then we're all happy as can be. Charles try very hard compromise in good faith. Please don't revert without talk so all can see. (FYI: changes in Charles site still to be done). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.51.56 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)