1. Narrative description.
    1. Force Simulator.
    2. Our project inspires wonder by creating an unexpected and seemingly impossible result through gesture. Children will be able to make things fly remotely.
    3. Location: Slanted wall room or hallway.
    4. When approaching the experience, the visitor would see either a box or an empty fixed glove that they can put their hand into. When they place their hand in the box/ glove, the object on the opposite side of the table would immediately react and begin to levitate. With simple gestures and positional changes,
    5. Kids being able to realize that they are making things fly. We think this would be very exciting for them, and cause much desire to return to the machine.
  2. Technical outline.
    1. Short summary of the first-draft technical solution. Using a leapmotion, we will send hand y coordinates to tell the output, either a fan or an electromagnet, to raise or lower an object in a closed environment. There could also be a small display, from the leapmotion output, showing a “sci-fi” hand mimicking the user’s motions.
    2. What kind of materials, structure, and mechanism? We need acrylic to make the bounding box, wood for the main module container, and cloth sheets for secrecy.
    3. What kind of sensors, actuators, and algorithms? The primary sensor would be the leap motion controller. To cause the object to levitate, we would either use an electromagnet or a fan. This levitation mechanism would be moving on a xyz axis based on the hand positioning.
    4. What are the key technical challenges? Getting the fan or electromagnet to reach the desired effect of continuous levitation.
  3. Project management.
    1. Designated individual responsibilities, as applicable. Warren- Electromagnetic effect and voltage calculations. Soonho — Leap Motion and Housing
    2. Objectives for the proof-of-concept demonstration. Floating magnets with variable height based off of current. Leap Motion input translated into some sort of meaningful data.
    3. Objectives for the first on-site test. Functional interaction between leap motion and electromagnets
    4. Known unknowns and contingencies. What cannot be decided now but may be revealed by a proof-of-concept test? What will be the possible alternatives from which to choose? Materials for building the housing units for our components. Method for moving around the magnetic rig.
  4. Budget outline.
    1. Identification of any special materials to be purchased or obtained.
    2. Bill of materials, including approximate quantities.
    3. Approximate cost estimates and total spending.
    4. If you exceed the amount promised from the course budget, please explain how the group will negotiate out-of-pocket spending.

 

Part CostxUnit Quantity
Uxcell Electromagnet 12.50 2
Leapmotion 70 1
Total 95

 

  1. Timeline. Please specify dates for the following milestones:
    1. Proof-of-concept test to clarify known unknowns. 10/30
    2. Design of custom parts. 11/3
    3. Purchasing of special materials or parts.11/3
    4. Fabrication of custom parts.11/10
    5. Mechanical and electrical assembly. 11/17
    6. Programming. 11/24
    7. Lab testing and debugging. 11/24
    8. On-site testing (see Fall 2017 Calendar).
  2. Sketches.
    1. Isometric or perspective view of the overall device or installation. Please include scale and units. Roughly a two foot module held on a table. There will be a bounding box in front of the electromagnet array that will be designated for gesture interaction, roughly a 1 foot cube.