Author: Jack Simon

Posted on

Recitation 4 Documentation – Jackson Simon

This recitation was a little more tedious to execute. The goal, again with my partner Ruben, was to create a machine (using stepper motors) that could draw, while being controlled by potentiometers.

The first step was to complete the circuit, since it was a lot of wires it was a little taxing, but not too hard (it really was just a lot of wires). The stepper motor was simple to connect, since it comes with a set of colored wires indicating what needs to go where; the tougher part was connecting the potentiometer to it and making sure it controlled its movements. However, it was not too difficult.

After completing the circuit, the next step was to connect Rubens’ and my circuits to what can only be describe as stepper motor holders, and attach the pincers that would hold the pens!

Video of stepper motor and code:

In the end it was quite fun to be able to make a machine that controlled the movement of the pens, even though we were the ones controlling the machines!

Question 1:

When thinking about what type of machine I would like to make using actuators that manipulate art, my first thought was about the massive 3D printers that are being worked on to be able to print whole cities: http://theconversation.com/print-your-city-3d-printing-is-revolutionizing-urban-futures-112365 . However, this does not seem too appropriate considering the actuator is a machine itself, and less controlled by humans. A simpler, and maybe unusual example that I came up with, was to use the same stepper motors to control puppets. All over the world puppets are used in theater, especially string puppets. I think it would be interesting to connect them to these types of motors (however, the number would be much higher than just two!). Maybe then the dynamic would change in the scenes, and maybe the movements would be more fluid.

Question 2:

I quite enjoy the Mechanical Mirrors: Wooden Mirrors project by Daniel Rozin.  It seems to me that sensors are the actuators, that lead to the spinning of some type of motor, to change the side of the wood (hence change its color to a darker shade for contrast). It is interesting, in comparison to the recitation exercise, that the actuator is another machine that reads the human, however in a very different way than the potentiometer. The sensor in the art exhibit discovers the values on its own, the potentiometer for the drawing machines uses the values that we force upon it.

Posted on

Recitation 3 Documentation – Jackson Simon

For this recitation the goal was to successfully use a sensor and have the values displayed on the Arduino’s Serial Monitor. Working with Ruben, we decided to use an infrared sensor (to detect the distance between the sensor and the first object it senses in its path).

The code was relatively simple: all that was needed was to make sure Arduino what pin the sensor was connected to. We then mapped its values to a smaller interval for ease of reading the values. Since we were able to finish this part relatively quickly, we decided to hook it up to a buzzer and have it activate if someone was close enough to the sensor!

Our code:

The values displayed:

The sensor turning on the buzzer (image, so no sound):

Question 1:

It was interesting to work with this type of sensor, because it can be quite useful in every day life. The goal was to make the sensor activate something once the distance requirements were meant, which is just like how some automatic doors work. These doors, in every Family Mart, allow for the consumer to walk in and feel welcomed (since once the sensor is activated it not only activates the doors, but the lovely Family Mart sound that I am sure we all know at this point).

Question 2:

I think code is compared to a recipe or tutorial because you have to follow the steps exactly the first time you use it to understand why it’s this way, and what each line of code actually does. Once you understand that, you can start to make your own recipes from previous experiences!

Question 3:

Computers are now used every single day, by most humans on the planet. A smartphone is basically just a tiny computer. Phones influence our human behavior in a drastic way: people are always glued to them and looking at other peoples’ social media, updating their own, or just doing random distracting things (with no real purpose). I would say computers have changed the way we communicate with each other drastically. Instead of talking face to face, we talk through FaceTime; instead of a lively debate over serious matters, we debate on who has the most likes. I am not saying that computers are necessarily bad, however, I do believe that the overuse of them leads to a sort of ‘dumbing’ (I use this word for the lack of a better term, however, I use it sparingly) of the general population.

Posted on

Project Name: iCups

by Ariana Alvarez and Jackson Simon

Project statement of purpose:

It could be said that the chief purpose of this project is communication, but communication as a concept is very vague, and leaves the mind open to much interpretation.  We try to turn communication and interaction something that becomes almost second nature, through the iCup. The purpose of iCups can be narrowed down considerably from this initial thought: iCups serve to revitalize and simplify communication between two beings who have trouble remaining in contact, or simply wish to keep the contact flowing seamlessly. To facilitate this, the cups interact with each other based on human command, or through basic use of the cup. It is important to keep up to date with loved ones who are in opposite corners of the world, and even with how technology is nowadays: it remains something that is hard to effectuate. I don’t think people answer messages as soon as they get them, and when they put it off it becomes easy to forget about it and never answer (at least in my experience). iCups makes it so that any message sent, even if it doesn’t end up being answered by the second party, makes it so the first party knows that their message has been received in a lucrative manner. Furthermore, it helps resolve the problem of feeling separated from loved ones, because any time both iCups are activated, it is almost like being in the same room as the counterpart (maybe even more so than Face Time, because it becomes something substantial, and not just a screen).

Literature and art, perspectives and context:

I do not recall the name of the apparatus, nor am I able to find it again through research, however I have had personal experience with this device. It is basically, two touch controlled boxes placed in different points of the world, and when you touch one the color of both of them change, therefore alerting the other person that you are there, saying hello, and safe. This was the main stimulation for the iCups project: something that could be in two different spots of the world, yet still allow interaction.

Physical Computing – Introduction, O’Sullivan and Igoe

How to make separate entities interact with each other, in a manner that makes what we see seem like it does what it’s supposed to? As in, do what first pops into the users head? We had to think about how we see computers, not just how computers see us. This text on physical computing allowed us to realize that there are better ways to go about the design and utilities of the cup, in ways that allowed interaction but still while being easy to use and understand.

Language of New Media, Lev Manovich (pages 27 – 48)

The next article that really helped, was to turn media into something programable. Since we decided to use displays for the ‘messaging’ aspect of the communication, how to turn the program into something that is transferable to media, a.k.a. the display. It was very helpful to understand that something that could be made by hand can be programmed into something almost artistic, or informational.

Project Description:

We started with the simple idea of cups being able to communicate with each other, to fulfill basic interactivity and the usefulness of the project. However, how to make them communicate? We started looking at different sensors, that could send a message to the other cup once activated, and although we pondered a pressure sensor and a density sensor, we decided to go with the temperature sensor. Even if the other sensors could make it possible for better timing with the messages (i.e. not just when a hot beverage is in the cup), they complicated the design and layout of the cup itself. After deciding on a temperature sensor, we thought we could just use some LED lights for a simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ communication system, however this seemed a little too similar to the interactive color boxes, so we decided to use displays (and add a button to add a possible message sent). Once the basic material was figured out, to make sure that the messages were sent to the correct cup (and not both) and only activated when a specific button or sensor was activated, through discussion and contemplation, we decided to use a relay system. This complicated things a little, even if in the long run it made the separation of the two cups (but still using one arduino) much simpler. Figuring out the code for this section was extremely complicated and nerve-racking. Although the relay itself should be simple to use, it kept glitching (still not fully known why) and not separating the messages from cup to cup like it should, and sometimes just making the message appear on both displays. The goal was to make the same messages (depending on how they were activated) send to one cup at a time, and not both: allowing for the illusion of ‘togetherness’. This way, the cups could fulfill their purpose: communication between two entities that are far away from each other, and that don’t necessarily have the time for actual conversations.

Project Significance: 

I believe the significance of this project lies in its simplicity. In the simple fact that adding the iCups cup holder to your cup makes it so that every time you have your morning coffee or tea, the other person receives a message and feels emotion regarding the fact that you are technically having a drink together, miles from each other. I was hoping to add more interactivity between the two cups (maybe even a tic-tac-toe game), however, the basic communication was laid out successfully, although there is always room for improvement. Maybe in a next version some sound system with a pre-recorded message could be added (as Jackson mentioned during the presentation), or maybe more possible messages sent on through the display. But I do believe the basic premise was well met. This project is intended for people who live far away from people they love, however, that does not limit its target audience in the least. However, it is of special value to that audience due to the fact that the idea of being with someone while you’re not actually with them is most likely to put a smile on your face.

Project Design and Production:

Besides the coding part (which was the main part of the production), where complications arose during the use of the relay and the multiple displays, a lot of the production resides in the cup holder itself. We decided to use the 3D printers, so that more precise measurements could be met. We wanted the button on the outside, as well as the display, and the temperature sensor and other wiring hidden within the cup. The first try ended up being just a bigger cup, with the button placement being too bulky and too in your face, making users think that it was the main part of the project when in fact it was the communication between separate displays. After revision, it turned into an actual mug, with the button in the cup handle itself. This was much better for user testing and ‘eye’ appeal. User testing lead us to realize that the goal of the cup itself was not understood at first look. We tried rectifying this with the second design, however, I do not think we completely made it easier for users to understand (although I am not 100% sure how that could’ve been done for a project of this type).

Conclusion:

Our goal with iCups was to bring people who find themselves far away from each other, in the same room. In some ways, we accomplished this: by allowing a communication system that goes directly to the other users cup, whether intentional or not. It makes you feel like you are having a drink in the same room as the other person, even if you haven’t seen each other in years.

I believe this was somewhat achieved, especially through the fact that the communication was made possible to be distinct between the two cups through the relay. However, I am not sure if the communication aspect is more interactive than useful, or vice versa. I feel like the usefulness of the cup could have been made bigger (through more or better messaging systems perhaps).

Although there were many problems while figuring out the code, the cups themselves still act as a mediary between the two people. I think it is a very nice thing to have, for example, I do not necessarily talk to my grandmother as much I should, and the iCups would make it so she knows I’m alive, okay and safe. It is hard to rebuttal the fact that loved ones care about you, therefore they probably would care about hearing more from you: the iCups facilitate that issue.

However, I will say that the final code could be made much better, and also adding more messaging systems would make it so that it feels even more like you are in the same room, drinking coffee together.

Posted on

Recitation 2 Documentation – Jackson Simon

For this recitation, we were making circuits again. We were going over previously viewed ones, but also making a new one: an interactive game. My partner (whom I unfortunately cannot recall her name, or find her on WeChat…) went through the first circuits very easily and quickly, without encountering any issues (the Fade circuit with an LED, and a toneMelody circuit with a buzzer). Once we hit the third circuit, we had to slow down a little bit: this was the interactive game. However, it still proved easier than expected and we were able to make the fourth circuit (the four player game) between the two of us, which involved a tremendous amount of wires: it looked like a spaghetti circuit!

The first circuit, the Fade circuit, was extremely easy since the code was provided through Arduino, and we both recalled how to make it just from looking at the Recitation schematics.

For the second circuit, again we were able to make it simply, it was to connect a buzzer to a new kind of tone code, one with a melody (although still a pretty annoying and repetitive sound).

For the third one, however, even though we encountered no problems (other than figuring out which resistors were needed for the circuit), we still had to stop and think which wire went where. But again, the code was provided and we figured it out easily enough, it was a big mess of wires though! We successfully played the game, and it registered both buttons. It was just a matter of making sure everything connect to the correct ground and input lines we made.

The last circuit was by far the hardest. We had no trouble with the wiring, and were able to connect it together using two breadboards (and we realized we only needed one buzzer), but it turned into a big mess and we were afraid that it would not work (but it did!). The code was by far the hardest part, but it turned out to simply need a copy paste of the other player codes, adding the number of LEDs, switches, and players into the game (I don’t know if I would have figured this part out so easily if I hadn’t had the partner I had). But we were successful and made a four player button game!

 

We were able to make every circuit easily enough, and steadily enough; however, for the last two we did have to stop and think for a minute before proceeding to connect everything: but we did it without any mistakes.

Question 1: I think interaction requires: input, computing, but not necessarily an output (for example, music listeners do not have an output every single time they interact with the input of sound, however they most definitely internally compute said input). However, in these cases there was clearly an output from the circuits and code (light, sound, or game results). I feel like the fade technology is used very frequently: for example, in a light dimmer.

Question 2: We used a 10k resistor with the push button because of the necessary change in voltage input into the switch (otherwise I believe it would short circuit or fry, although I am not 100% sure).

Question 3: I don’t know what I would do with that many lights, a festival seems like the clear option, however, in an every day situation I believe we can easily refer to billboards as a use for that many lights!

Posted on

Recitation 1 Documentation – Jackson Simon

For the first recitation we were asked to build simple circuits and link them to a pre-made Arduino code. Apart from building the circuits, we soldered wires to a switch, to make it easier to connect to the breadbox. The assignment was meant to enlighten us as to how to use the circuit board, and connect it successfully to the Arduino, and have the set code work with that circuit. I hoped to have a better grasp of the Arduino system itself, and borrowed the schematics given to us for the recitation to fulfill the requirements (as well as Arduino’s pre-made codes). This was with my partner, Emma Rose.

For the first one, we needed to connect a speaker (buzzer), and successfully make it turn on and make sounds. At first all the wires and notations on the schematics were confusing, but we quickly became accustomed and it turned out to be quite simple to connect the voltage regulator to the rest of the circuit. We accomplished the circuit!

The second circuit turned out to be even simpler, once we got accustomed to the voltage regulator and the differences between “input” and “ground” on the switch: it was basically just adding an LED to an already made circuit, foregoing the buzzer.

The third one, we at first thought was the hardest because we thought we had made a mistake in our initial setup; but it was just a matter of turning on the console part of the Arduino code and actually turning the potentiometer to see the difference in “energy flow”, or voltage: silly us!

At first we may had been a little overwhelmed, but we quickly figured the circuitry out and were able to make every single one successfully and with very little trouble, it was quite fun!

Question 1: The interactivity in these circuits were in the switches (or the knob in the case of the potentiometer). Without this added part of the circuit, I don’t think it would be fair to call it interactive, even of a low kind, because the computer did all the work. However, with a switch (or a knob), something else comes into play: the human aspect. This incorporates a simple, yet effective, interactivity for turning on sound, light, or regulating voltage.

Question 2: By turning circuits into something that can light up, or make sound, with the help of an outside entity, I believe this turns the circuits (the design and computing of it) into art. For example, with Remo Saraceni’s piano stairs: the person walking up or down the stairs becomes apart of the system and interacts with it in a way to make music, a.k.a. art.