success
Was the final project a success?
Our original goals included motors, servos, Twitter, sound, LEDs, LDRs, a camera, heat generation, pneumatics, solar collection, batteries, peggy boards, cloth, silicon, metal and many many more components. These components all related back to a general in-put/out-put system that we designed. The in-put would be the proximity of a person, sensed through various means. The out-put would be a coordinated response of movement, sound, lights etc. This in-put/out-put was all in the pursuit of enjoyment for the person interacting and viewing the surface (now dubbed: Simon).
At the end of our final project, we had a surface that seemingly did not accomplish all of the initial goals. We had many components working. At the same time, many of these components were not at full capacity or function. Please, see list below:
- The frame was constructed and panels mounted. BUT: our initial desire to have the sides clad with a material to hide the inside was unrealized. (note: we were happy with this result, because it allowed one to peek into the mechanical workings of the surface)
- There was, at one point, an enormous Peggy board with hundreds of solder connections. BUT: only 40% of the LEDs would light up. Additionally, this process involved ordering several re-orders of broken, fried, or malfunctioning parts.
- The gears were constructed and integrated with the frame. BUT: we wanted the gears to be hidden within the frame in order to have a continuous “belly.” However, the gears had to be constructed such that they penetrated the belly. (note: we were satisfied with this result because it hinted at the mechanics and the interior workings of the object)
- The motors moved. BUT: Once inserted into the frame, the motor at the “hip” was not capable of moving the weight it held. Also, the motor programming was troublesome at the end. We were able to move the motors one at a time with computer controls. But as a result, we did not have any full movement.
- The camera programming was functioning. BUT: Coordinating the information with the other components was unrealized, and the camera was unused in the final version of Simon.
This list may seem like an extensive amount of qualified successes (others may even call them failures). In my opinion, this project was not a failure at all. The term failure is definitive. Yes or no. On or off. Success or failure. To reduce the class’s extensive work to a question of success or failure is an attitude that ignores the goals of the class. Moreover, this question is belittling of the project because it an outsider questioning, “What does this project do for ME?” Is our project a failure if it does not do anything for a stranger or a passerby? No. The project of Simon and the project of smartsurfaces as a class is not to satisfy the passerby. The goal of the class, using the project of Simon as a vehicle, was to expand the student through interdisciplinary work.
Some may argue that our project was a failure because it was not an immaculate composition of in-put/out-puts. It would have been great to see all of our parts work together. It would be fantastic to approach Simon and have him wave or nod hello. I am disappointed that we were not able to reach this ultimate realization of Simon, but I am also aware of the many success we did have along the way in terms of production and fabrication. Moreover, I am aware of the other intangible successes and lessons learned through the process.
But, in many other ways, Simon is a success. One success of our group was the ability to produce many of our components that functioned in isolation. The coordination of these parts in production was just as great as the coordination of these parts in completion. Simon, and all of the projects, are mattes of process. The group, as a coordination of individuals, was just as much a worthwhile project as a big metal and plastic thing that moves. Our group morale, work ethic, and process was as carefully crafted and managed as Simon, and we learned through this process as well. In fact, this can be traced to our groups’ initial presentation. While others presented the groundwork for their objects/surfaces, our group presented the groundwork for our team’s dynamic. It is very important then to see our success through this groundwork also. Did we acomplish those initial goals? Did we respect others’ ideas? Did we listen? Did we learn new skills? These questions are equally important in the determination of success, based on our group’s process.
Because of the many successes we had in fabrication, despite the inability to coordinate them into one all encompasing vessel, and our teamwork goals, our project is a success. We acomplished significant the work (physical) and working (team).
Filed under: final project, team projects, team work strategies | Leave a Comment
Translations from digital to physical poses problems consistently. The precision of the digital cannot be replicated with manual labor. As a result, there needed to be significant amounts of decision-making done once there were tangible pieces. Although this complication seems relatively obvious, it always seems to be overlooked in the planning stages of a project. This project served as an important reminder of this fact, but also stands as an example of onsite/real-time decision making and designing. We were able to over come unseen obstacles in fabrication.
One benefit of the digital drawing was that all team members could work simultaneously on various components of the project and reference the same base information regarding the physical smartsurface object. We were able to avoid delay or linear working methods, because we used the centralized plan. We also took advantage of digital files by using digital fabrication tools such as the laser cuter and the CNC router. Yet, the centralization of this digital information also posed challenges. When bringing components together, there were challenges when one component was different than the digital master plan.
While using digital technology was an expedient way of fabrication and coordination, it also posed problems in terms of individual component realization and also the joining of components.
Filed under: final project, materials and assemblies, team projects, team work strategies | Leave a Comment
welding documentation
In order to build our frame, we welded 1/8″ angle aluminum. Below are some images from this process.
Filed under: final project, materials and assemblies, team projects | Leave a Comment
final project status update
Product:
Currently, our group has constructed the frame of our surface, planned our gear mechanisms, and started the basic code. Specifically, I have been involved in the framing team. After determining the over all shape, material thickness, and hinging hardware, the frame team bought all these materials. Our first challenge was to turn the drawings, and basic models of our form into a full-scale frame. We had not built a frame version of our form, only massing and proportional models, so we needed to resolve details such as bracing, corner detailing, curve angles, curve attachments, and hinge location etc. We also anticipated the hinge locations and pre-drilled holes for our hinges to be attached through. The following step was to weld the various pieces together. This process was slower than anticipated because we had to weld two triangular frames per panel and then join the two sides with several small bracing members. Lastly, we attached the joints and constructed the full “body.” An unforseen characteristic of the hinge and joints is the stress that results from four joints being all connected in the center of the torso. With all the joints fixed, the center is pinched and does not lay flat but “hunches” forward instead. This will hopefully not pose any problems to movement or motors.
Working Process:
Our working strategy was to arrange our goals as a group, and then divide into smaller teams to focus on specific objectives. When meeting as a group, one of our strengths is to identify these goals with a timeline in mind. We work in the long-term and short-term range by scheduling large group meetings, and also smaller team meetings. The large group and smaller team format are more effective because they allow simultaneous production. The only drawback to this strategy is that teams become disconnected from the progress of other small teams. However, this is resolved in the large-group meetings, which we have been scheduling bi-weekly. Another management strategy that has been successful is having our goals and schedule written on a white board that we can revisit at our meetings. By doing this, everyone in our group has an idea of the big picture and also we can ensure that no goals are over looked.
Filed under: final project, team work strategies | 1 Comment
game of the name
We are constructing the frame, developing hinges, and starting to write the computer codes. Our character is materializing. Beginning with the first prototype, we started to wonder if we should name our character. It seems appropriate to name our smartsurface because our goal is to develop a character. A name could tie the character together. It would also make talking about the smartsurface of as whole simpler. I have identified various naming trends in an attempt to clarify our naming options.
The non-specific name: These names are generalizations that imply the object can be understood as “anyone.” An example of this is the character Guy Montag, from Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. This character’s name suggests that the character’s situation could happen to anyone.
The fun, non-sensical name: Naming the object a fun name gives a whimsical title. Also, an advantage to this naming type is that there are not any loaded meanings because the word is new. Several examples of this are: Furbie, Koosh, Wale, and Roomba (an unmanned vacuum rover).
The loaded image: Using an image is the opposite of the non-sensical name. It is specific and given by loaded content. The product chases an idea captured in a different object or idea. For example, Red Bull, Monster, and Mountain Dew.
The mash-up: Mashing up two known words, is an attempt to use the loaded understanding of two words in a new way to create a new meaning. This is a hybrid of the fun name and the loaded image name. For example: craisin, spork, wi-fi, and texmex.
The human name: This strategy gives the smartsurface a personification by relating it to an actual person. Examples of these names are any typical names for people, Robert, Tom, Alice, Susan…
I am not sure if our group will choose to name our smartsurface. However, the outcome of naming the smartsurface in a long-term projection would be the branding and association of the name with the object. This is the most powerful result of naming, because the name becomes able to stand-alone on a general scale as a reference to the smartsurface.
Filed under: final project, team projects | Leave a Comment
prototype no.2
For our 1/2′=1′ scale model we used the following building materials:
-piano hinges, cut to size
-plywood
During fabrication, certain decisions were made regarding its assembly:
-The bulk of the joint hardware sits in the folded area between each plywood panel. [see fourth image above; bottom left]
-The base is made of 3 panels with joining hardware on the rear of the base. [see image 5 above; bottom middle]
Both these decisions were made with the intention of maintaining a consistent, and surface-like reading of the “belly” of the character.
Filed under: final project, materials and assemblies, team projects | Leave a Comment
revisiting the form
As we continued our preparations for prototyping, we revisited the original seat-function of our character. Specific issues, such as the durability of solar panels and the stability of the surface as a backrest, brought changes to the design. We studied a few variations of our original seat and worked toward a character that was “standing up”. By dividing our surface into three vertically oriented panels, we could expand the bottom segment and treat it as a base for structure and storage of mechanics. We also settled on a scale, as we changed form. The character will be at the scale of a person in order to interact as an individual and have a substantial presence. Another decision we made earlier, but worth noting, is that we rounded the sharp angles of the head and arm members.
Filed under: final project, team projects | Leave a Comment
Filed under: final project, implications and applications, materials and assemblies | Leave a Comment
emotional surfaces
THE “BLANKIE,” THE WESTERN WALL, JERUSALEM, BRAILE
Filed under: final project, implications and applications, materials and assemblies | Leave a Comment
staging the work
Our group began our design process by establishing our own goals for our team and for our project. Our team teams core values were: craft, context, purpose, humane, and experiential. By defining these parameters first, we aligned our attitudes toward teamwork and hopefully established a rule set that we can refer to if there are any team conflicts. We also discussed our personal interests in the class and in our academic disciplines. In my opinion this exercise was our first idea generation phase. One idea we discussed was biomimicry. In my opinion, the only interesting thing about biomimicry is the emulation of biological systems and processes in terms of how they work and their function or program. The direct imitation of biological form seems to be a safe answer to the questions of form in biomimicry- how can you argue with millions of years of evolution? The interest we discussed directed our research and discussions to follow. These two discussions are the extent of our first meeting.
This was very different from the other groups’ meetings that day. In my opinion, the difference between our approach and other approaches is the attitude toward the final product. In my opinion, our final product will be an object that is situated in contemporary discourse about the expectations and capabilities of sustainable technology. Our approach was supportive of this attitude because we forced ourselves to establish our own position and attitudes first. Some groups seemed to start the project by working directly towards a product. This left their product lacking purpose or direction.
After establishing our values and interests, we worked to define our goal for the smartsurface. We decided to investigate a smartsurface that had “character”. The element of character would provide the smartsurface with the potential to connect with people who interact with it. How does a surface wave at you? What does it mean if it is “looking” at you? What meaning does technology have to us? What is your favorite surface? Can you be emotional about technology?
Filed under: final project | Leave a Comment
Search
Recent Entries
Categories
- final project (10)
- implications and applications (4)
- in-class work (1)
- materials and assemblies (6)
- task 1 (1)
- task 2 (2)
- task 3 (1)
- task 4 (3)
- team projects (14)
- team work strategies (5)
