Archive for October, 2007

Reactive Spaces v1

Published by Tom on October 30, 2007 under The Softness of Things, Physical Computing

For Softness last week the topic was ergonomics. In my definition of ergonomics is probably wrong, but it all seems to be about the human body relating to things. How do we fit or interact with space. This all made me think of handles, mice (computer), gloves… all positive spaces, or spaces we wrap around. All of these didn’t really catch my interest… and maybe it was the architect in me, but I started thinking of the opposite: spaces that wrap around us. Like clothes that mold to your body or buildings that come to you. I think we are used to affecting small objects with our bodies, but what about big ones. What would it feel like to have a wall move around in response to you?I got lucky with timing because it just so happened to be motor week in pComp, so I figured I’d mix things up. What I envisioned was a hanging ceiling that would move and respond to you walking up to it and in it. The ceiling would move up to allow a little bubble of space for you to be in. Ideally, the ceiling would be a large area that many people could inhabit and interact in. A smooth, rich, surface would mold to your personal space. The people I talked to about this space/idea all really excited. There seems to be something in the largeness of the whole system… affecting a room, architecturally, with your presence.

Obviously, I could not complete a whole full scale ceiling in one week. So, I scaled back in a few ways: I changed the two-dimensional plane to a one-dimensional strip, and I made it physically smaller. It ended up being a little model where I could work out the mechanics and technical stuff, in preparation for a human-scale version. I learned a lot from this model. 1) DC motors are not way to go (too hard to accurately control), 2) IR sensors are a bit flaky and should be used with caution, and 3) A human-scale version of this project will be complex and expensive.

The basic system works like this: six panels of cardboard are connected together so they make a snake-like structure. At four different points, the structure is hung from strings which are connected to motorized rods. Below the panels are IR sensors which sense if something is under a specific panel or control point. When the IR sensor ’sees’ something, it tells that motor to pull the panel up. When it stops seeing it, it tells the motor to lower the panel. Simple. And because all the panels are connected, it makes one undulating surface. This prototype was somewhat of a failure, but I learned a lot of what not to do. So for next week I am going to make a second go at it. The topic will be space, so this project is well suited for it.

  

 

   
     

 
     
     

Networked Alarm p.1

Published by Tom on October 29, 2007 under Networked Objects, Physical Computing

I have a problem: I like to SNOOZE. I mean, it feels so good to go back to sleep after your alarm wakes you up, especially when its cold in the room, or you don’t really have to get up. I have tried many strategies to overcome this behavior: putting my alarm across the room, so I have to get up and hit snooze, giving myself a rule that I cannot wake up after 10am, jumping out of bed and yelling; but what usually happens is I don’t remember to use these tricks because I’m half asleep, or I get used to them and don’t ever remember walking across the room to hit the snooze button. I am sick of it. For my Networked Objects final project I am going to solve this one.

My plan is to make the alarm last long enough so that I actually wake up, and then hopefully make the more rational and reasonable decision to GET UP. This is how it will work: a little devise will sit next to my alarm, and three to four other devises will be placed throughout my apartment. When my alarm goes off in the morning, and I hit snnoze, the little devise sitting next to it, hears, and tells one of the other devises in the room to go off. So, I have to get up, find which one is going off, and hit it’s snooze button. Once I do that, it tells one of the other devises in the apartment to go off, so I have to find that one. This process continues until all alarms have been deactivated. Its like a like a little game. And because it is random which alarm goes off when, the game is always changing and I can’t learn it. I know it sounds drastic, but I’ve tried everything else (except having a regular sleep schedule I guess).

The great part about the system is that it is scalable. A user can add as many alarm nodes as they want, and the system automatically uses then. So if a person is really bad at waking up, they could have 10, or if a person just needs a little help, 2.

If you want to know more about the technical aspects of how the system would work, you can refer the the System Diagram.

Midterm

Published by Tom on October 23, 2007 under Physical Computing

I’m tired of tweezers. Mostly because I have been tying little knots in conductive thread and soldering way to small LEDs. Why? you ask, to make a physical away message. What? is that you ask, you can refer to the PDF or SITE linked at the bottom, but basically, its a way to let the people around you (especially at ITP) that you are either ‘available’ or ‘occupied.’ This is accomplished through a necklace with a user control and LEDs. I worked in a group on this one, Jen Grier and Heather Rasley, and we decided we wanted to make a pretty and elegant object… that worked… so thats hard, esp when it has to be soft, and portable, and robust.

Technically, the Physical Away Message, or PAM, is not complex, two or three simple switches that control an analog circuit; but fabrication wise, it was a difficult little project. We ended up making five prototypes, each approached a little differently, using everything from surface mounted LEDs, lace, two types of conductive thread, latex tubing, zippers, snaps, magnets, tape, wire, batteries (coin and AA), metal jewelry cases, etc… Needless to say we learned a lot about fabrication, specifically small fabrication.

Although our PAM was a daunting and, by the end, aggravating process of: design, prototype, test, re-design, prototype, test, again and again; it was great being able to have multiple revisions of a project. Usually at ITP we have one go at something and are always let saying: “if I could do that again I would…,” but with this midterm we got to try it again.

Working in a group was also helpful, especially near the end when we started multi-threading the project (each making our own prototype). Actually, the team work aspect was really enlightening. I have worked in team many times, but usually with team work the problem is complex and big, so many people can work on it at once. But with our PAM, it was small, so really only one person could work on it at a time, not efficient. Next time, when faced with such a situation, I will try to design the production part to be more multi-threaded.

Overall I am satisfied with this project. I am glad its over though, the world of wearable electronics is tricky.

Links:

Midterm Presentation (PDF)

Midterm Presentation (Website)

Team:

Jen Grier

Heather Rasley 

Internets Pong

Published by Tom on October 22, 2007 under Networked Objects

Our midterm proj for Networked Objects was to make a networkable Pong controller so that we could play a big game of Pong as a class, over a network. The physical interface did not matter as long as your ‘controller’ could send instructions to the Pong server (in the form of left, right, connect, disconnect) over a network (the internet). So the project was really open; some groups in my class made some interesting controllers: snowboards, bottles, guns, etc, which were fun; I on the other hand, as always, made my controller simple and rational (and don’t forget beautiful). The technology part of this project was somewhat simple, so I had time to build a solid, robust, and feel-good object that will last into the future and maybe be useful for other projects.I am really proud of this one. I know this because I keep showing it to people and I can’t stop looking at it myself. Besides its good looks, the controller also feels good. I got lucky in finding a really nice spring-loaded potentiometer, from a keyboard, for the knob-thing, so manipulating the little digital Pong paddle is accurate and responsive. Actually, I got lucky all around with this project, I found the right wood dowel and the right connector (MIDI)… so the whole sha-bang came out great.The process of fabrication on the Pong Stick (my name for the controller) was also a dream. I felt so good and in-tune the couple days I was making it; working intuitively and efficiently is where I do my best work, I wish I could to that all the time. I was happy.For those of you who like the know the techie stuff, the Pong Stick works like this: Inside there is a spring-loaded potentiometer with a gray knob/wheel attached to it. Three wires come off the pot: a 5V supply, and two signal lines. Those two signal lines go down the cord (along with the 5V supply), through a MIDI connector, to my Arduino microcontroller. The microcontroller then looks at the voltages coming from the two signal lines, turns them into values, then interprets those values to see if it should send ‘l’s or ‘r’s to the Xport. (Side note: the further you push the wheel to the right, the faster the microcontroller sends ‘r’s, and visa versa) The Xport then sends the ‘l’s or ‘r’s over the internet (or any network) to the Pong server, which is running on a computer. This Pong server is what hosts all the Pong controllers in the class and displays the graphics and game (this is the black screen in the video… I did not design the gme/graphics by the by). There are also two switch connected to my microcontroller which connect and disconnect me to the Pong server.  

 

   
     

 
     
     

Threads and Reflections

Published by Tom on October 18, 2007 under The Softness of Things

How am I not myself? How? am I not myself. How am I not, myself? How am I not myself? (Just a little ‘I Heart Huckabees’ humor for you).

Its self-reflection time over here at Softness of Things. Midway through the semester and a good time to sit down and think about what has gone on. I went through all of my projects and project descriptions for this class and noticed a few trends: I sure do like to be self-reflective and I sure am a formalist (in the art-world sense). I say that because in all of the posts about my projects I can’t help but question what I did and what I’m doing. Its like a self-critique, but all the time… but its a positive one. I guess its like saying “what did I really do? And is that the best thing to do?, where should I go next”… all very rational thought processes being applied to very non-rational actions. Which makes me wonder if they really do anything at all. I can pretend that my self-reflexivity actually influences my action… but does it? I have the feeling it does not, at least not very much.

I have habits; a somewhat well established style, and a picky aesthetic which have been developed for 20 years, so can I really change what I do by just thinking about it. It seems ironic to process such ‘from the gut’ work with a really rational action… but maybe thats just what it is: processing. Maybe that is how I process my work, or, ‘finish it off’-by thinking about what it was that I just did. I have noticed I enjoy talking about HOW I approached a problem, not WHAT I did to solve it; but when I am making the artifact I almost always make decisions because they FEEL right, not THINK right.

You as the reader may be saying to yourself “man, why doesn’t he just not think so much… stop worrying about it”, and I would probably do the same if I was reading this. The only problem is: I like it. I like to think of it as my way of balancing out my work. I make things from the gut and with reckless formal abandon, and then over rationalize all my decisions once they are done… I could trying inter-weaving those processes… that could be interesting. One really great side affect of the rational introspection, though, is I can talk about myself accurately and freely. I can be my own curator, which is helpful in times like these… but I wonder if its all B.S?

Oh, PS: Isn’t it funny how I can’t avoid thinking too much and making a jumble of thoughts… it is to me… even in a essay ABOUT reflexivity…. AHHHH INFINITE LOOP!

Energy and Waste

Published by Tom on October 11, 2007 under The Softness of Things

It was energy week at Softness of Things, actually, sustainabilty, energy, waste, composting week at Softness of Things. We talked about what all this environmentalism stuff means, the ideas that are out there, some things that you can do, some things you can’t do, and most importantly, what we all think we can do. I guess I have been entirely indoctrinated by Pliny Fisk while working on the Solar Decathlon, because all I can think of on the subject is embodied energy and ‘carbon life cycles.’

As for my response to ‘energy’ this week, I didn’t make a physical thing for once… I made an idea/image thing: an EER label. After thinking about my energy in my life, I discovered that I have no real way to make informed decisions about the products and foods I buy. Thats a shame because the information is out there. Embodied energy data and carbon footprint data exists for most things we buy (at least roughly), but there is no way to get at that info… especially at the time of purchase. So I did what the FDA did a while back, I made a energy version of the ‘Nutrition Facts’ label. My label displays a product’s EER or Embodied Energy Ratio (which I made up… but kinda exists), its manufacturing location, and its carbon footprint. I was surprised in my research to find that there is actually a ISO standard for calculating carbon footprint, and close to that sort of standardization for embodied energy… so all the info is out there; we just need our government to implement a program that makes producers display that data-just like Nutrition Facts. You can find my label proposal HERE.

As a second activity for Softness, we individually kept a log of all the waste we produced during the week. I found out I flush the toilet a lot. Earth day should jump on an idea like that, maybe send out cards to fill out for a week; it really made me take note of the things I throw away. It made me wonder though, what can I really learn from my habits? One habit I would maybe change is: bringing a cup to ITP to use over and over again, instead of using plastic cups and throwing them away-but would that really be better? What uses more embodied energy? We need a way to know.

Links:

EER Label

HERE is my waste log.

Network

Published by Tom on October 8, 2007 under The Softness of Things

‘Networks’ were the subject of this week’s Softness of Things Class. This time we worked in groups, so we ended up with larger projects. My group and I thought about networks for a while and became interested in a couple ideas: 1. Sound… its a good medium to play with… easy to deal with and project/control. 2. A ‘bad’ or naughty network… one that did not necessarily do what you want, could be chaotic. and 3. The click that 1/4″ audio jacks make when you plug them in, its really nice.So we mixed that all together and came up with a human controlled, physical, musical, chaotic, network. It works like this: We made eight boxes that people wear via a velcro/elastic strap. There are three types of boxes: Music Makers, Mixers, and Speakers, each with a specific function. The Music Makers play one of five sounds from a iPod sound with a iPod attached to them, then send it out over the ‘network’, the Mixers take two signals and send them other places, and the Speakers take signals and make them audible.

Eight people put the boxes on (anywhere they want) and play with the connections between them via audio cables; how they make the connections change the way the five sound tracks are mixed and thus what comes out of the speakers. I know this is unclear, it is confusing, especially for the people playing (they are tangled and covered with cables), but its more fun that way… surprises happen.

It was good working in a group for this project. We got our ideas together quickly and were able to produce a lot. In the production of this project I learned something important: electronics are CONFUSING… or at least hacking electronics is confusing. We needed a speaker with an amp, so I had the ‘great’ idea to take some radio alarm clocks apart to get it. It started off fine, until I had to start cutting the circuit board to take it apart. I know, crazy, problems when cutting a circuit board? Who would have thought? Well magic happens. I spent lots-o-time breaking and fixing those alarm clock boards, but it all turned out well and I learned about hacking, yay!

I would also like to thank my group members, Thanks guys.
Alex
Petra
Ithai
Kate

  

     
     
     

Flag Waver

Published by Tom on October 8, 2007 under Networked Objects, Physical Computing

Wowy wow wow that was tricky!
I just finished my fist excursion into networking… a place I have never really been before. So for Networked Objects, we are using a little devise called the Xport. It converts serial data to the ethernet protocal (what the internet speaks), what that means is: I can now make my pComp projects (sensors, microcontrollers, LEDs, etc) talk to to the internet. Which is good because the internet has a lot to say and many people are listening. This all probably sounds complicated and scary… and it is. Mostly, I think, because there is so much going on I cannot control. In typical pComp projects you can touch the wires, program the chip…. debug all that stuff. But when you start playing around on networks, you often cannot change anything (its in other people’s control) and its invisible-that makes debugging really hard.

BUT, I prevailed, and it wasn’t that bad. I mean, it took a looooong time to get everything running right, but it was a great process.
So this is what I made: I made a little flag connected to a servo motor that waves every time someone posts a comment to THIS blog entry. So if you post a comment to this entry, the flag will wave at my desk… happy. It is a simple concept, but a nice one. Something physical happens in my world when you do something physical in yours-even if you are in Texas, China, or where ever. The execution however is not simple. Heres a summary: Arduino microcontroller tells Xport “go check if anyone has posted a new comment,” Xport says “ok” and connects to the ITP server. Once the server is connected, the Xport gets a message saying “hey, your connected,” it then passes it on the Arduino who says, “ok, go get a php file on that server,” the Xport does so and comes back with how many posts are on the entry. The Arduino then decides if there has been a new post, if there has, it tells the servo motor “wave that flag”… and the servo does, and I smile. If there is not a new post, the Arduino says “oh, well lets wait a couple seconds and try again”. And that goes on forever until I unplug everything.Lots of bits to get broken in there, but it all works!So thats about it, if you want to make me smile, post a comment.

  

 

Whole mess of wires in debugging mode
     
     

     
     

Connector

Published by Tom on October 2, 2007 under The Softness of Things

Assignment three for Softness of Things was to create a ‘connector.’ Physical, conceptual, whatever; like last week’s project, a module, you could create any type of connection you want. I almost immediately got this image of a fluid type of connection. I want to be able to feel/see/hear a fluid movement with electronics. I thought of water, lots of tiny steel balls, mercury… any substance that would move fluidly. That type of kinetic movement seems to be missing from electronics and the digital world-and I want to change that. It probably doesn’t really exist because of the connection problem. Fluids are unpredictable and hard to control/translate into the on/off world of electronics. SO, I decided I would try… eeef!

I initially had grandiose ideas of hundreds of BBs rolling around in a object, turning LEDs on and off as they passed… but that is quite tricky to make a schematic of, and even trickier to fabricate (especially in a week). But I did not give up, instead, I simplified. My hundreds of BBs turned into one larger brass ball, and my X-Y two dimensional plane turned into a one dimensional track. I did however manage to keep the fluid movement around, so in that way I am quite pleased.

It works like this: The brass ball rolls back and forth in between two copper tubes (like a train on a track); as it rolls down the ‘track,’ it connects a current to light up different LEDs. All of that (ball, track, switch, battery) is encased in a little wooden box that you can hold in your hand.
The result, a little box with lights, is really just there to play with. Bring a smile to your face. Remind you that computers can be cute and human. I am most happy about the reaction this little guy brings out in people. Its almost like its magic. You can feel the ball rolling around, the weight changes, when you act, the box naturally reacts. Its what we are used to in our lives. When we drop a glass, it breaks, when we toss a rock up and catch it again, we feel it. All of that is mostly missing from computers and the like. I guess it might come down to less abstraction. People know (kinda) what is happening, not technically per se, but they deeply understand the cause-effect relationship. And not really on a rational level… but a subconscious one. It must be the subconscious part that is important, because I have experienced and rationally understood many digital interactive installations, but often you can only ‘understand’ them, you have to think. The experience is not natural. Like if I make the ball in my little box really lite, the whole experience would suck… the same electronic stuff would happen (rationally the same), but no one would smile.

  

   
     

 
     
     

Fashion Forecast (Weather Bugs 2)

Published by Tom on October 1, 2007 under Networked Objects

In week two of our ‘The Thermometer of the Future” group project for Networked Objects we had to come up with an actual proposal. From our research, we decided that the way we currently receive weather data is not practical. What does 86 degrees really mean? Its really abstract. AND it doesn’t tell us information about the things we use it for: clothing decisions. Almost everyone we talked to mostly used the weather to decide in the morning what to wear and take with them. So, we decided to fix that problem.
We propose a weather data system that would be much more practical to your life. All of this is eloquently (and beautifully) described in THIS PDF of our presentation… but the basic premise is that your computer recommends what you should wear that day, and then looks out for you when you forget umbrella or whatever.
I liked our final proposal because it could actually be implemented… and with the right application/customization, be useful I think. Who know… maybe a prototype in the future?

Links:

Presentation

Group Members:

Andy Doro
Shin-Yi Huang