Objectives

1. Develop an extension of the design concept from Project 1 which can accommodate a machine-production transformation, e.g. laser-cut, 3D-printing, or CNC routing of either physical parts, fixtures or jigs.  The forms may be 2D or 3D.
2. Extend the modeling process to include geometric forms which can be manufactured.
3. Develop a workflow including at least the following stages:
   analog gesture > digital representation > transformed digital output > analog re-representation > (optional) digital re-capture.
4. Apply the system to the production of an individual final artifact or successive evolving sequence of artifacts.  We expect at least one artifact per group member, e.g. each member may take responsibility for a single phase of a multi-step process, each member may produce their own final artifact, or any combination in keeping with the design intent.

Process

1. Tuesday 04.21.15
   1. Concept Commitment (in class)
   2. Work plan development with scheduled deliverables (in class)
   3. Develop test artifact(s) (for homework)
2. Thursday 04.23.15
   1. Review initial test artifact(s) (in class)
   2. Refine and develop final system (begin in class)
3. Tuesday 04.28.15
   1. Preliminary demo of final system (in class)
4. Thursday 04.30.15
   1. Final work session + trouble shooting (in class)
5. Tuesday 05.04.15
   1. Optional work session (by appointment).
6. Thursday 05.07.15
   1. End of Semester Show (10:00 am – noon): conversation with outside reviewers to discuss final projects
7. Monday 05.11.15
   1. Final Documentation and revision of all exercises and projects due on XSEAD

Deliverables

1. per group: design system
2. per group: functional demonstration
3. per group: documentation of design concept, challenges, implementation
4. per student: sample artifact(s)

Prior to the next class, please submit a short text write up with accompanying drawing images and a video link to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page.  Please be sure to create your project within the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked.

Prompt Questions

The following questions may not apply exactly to every project but are intended as a guide to our expectations for the detail of the project writeup. Please answer every question relevant to your specific project with text and graphics as appropriate.

Explain the conceit or ambition.

1. What was the theory of the process? How do the artifacts produced by your system embody the skill of human gesture and the potential of algorithmic control?
2. Does your system allow both experts and novices to explore constraints of a physical, material process?
3. Is the theory based on a simulated physical process? If so, how were the physical constraints of the materials and tools incorporated into the design system?
4. How does the user prompt balance global structure and local detail? Are there nested scales?

Reflection on the conceit and execution.

1. Did the development of more refined artifacts reinforce the conceit? How could the system develop further?
2. How do the designed artifacts differ from those produced with the related traditional crafts?
3. What are the decisions available to the person using the system?
4. How would practice influence decision making within the constraints of the system?
5. How would those decisions translate to other tools or materials?
6. How did the prompt stimulate the user to apply their expertise, i.e. their expert knowledge?
7. How did the prompt encourage novices to develop skill?
8. Was there a technique that promised to reward practice or repeated use?
9. When comparing multiple artifacts produced by the system, are the constraints of the system legible? Is there variety?
10. What failures would prompt further investigation?
11. Was there too much or too little information provided to the user? If too much, how could it be filtered? If too little, how could a simple process be extended to scaffold a richer prompt for the conceit?
12. Could the system benefit from further development of dexterous skill?

Clear text and visual documentation

1. Be sure to include: the Grasshopper patch file, representative prompt images, images of representative artifact (both in-progress and final), screenshot of Grasshopper patch.
2. Documentation of the time progression of the experience through video and selected still images.
3. Explanation of the logic of the Grasshopper patch to translate tool input to graphical feedback.
4. Were there interesting failures?
5. Can you visually relate the prompt and resulting artifact?

Objectives

1. Develop an articulable design concept to which the design process can be referenced. This concept may be based upon your successes and failures in the exercises, a motivating design conceit, an interest in specific material effects, or an inspiring artifact.  It is highly recommend to focus on a 2D approach at this point, e.g. low-relief form.  The concept should motivate the basic selection of material and tool process.
2. Prototype a custom instrumented tool.  The tool itself may be one of the conventional tools explored in the exercises with appropriate modifications.  The sensing modalities should be appropriate for the natural use of the tool.  Some possible tool augmentation sensors include accelerometers, contact sensors, bend sensors, microphones, light sensors, or strain gages.  For most sensors we will use microcontrollers for data acquisition.
3. Develop a real-time modeling process which responds to the tool data.  This should generate additional data which will constrain, guide, extrapolate, or otherwise extend the design intent of the tool user.
4. Develop appropriate visual or audible feedback to provide an augmented experience for the tool user.
5. Each group member should apply the system to the production of an individual artifact.

Process

1. Tuesday 03.17.15
   1. Brief Firefly introduction.
   2. Finalize project ideas and groups.
   3. Each group must have a single agreed idea before the end of class.
2. Thursday 3.19.15
   1. Project proposals due.
   2. Due: a paragraph of text detailing the overall concept.
   3. Due: a sketch of the instrumented tool (hand-drawn is fine), and a sketch of the user experience, e.g. first-person view of the work area.
   4. Develop an outline of all major open questions and project milestones, develop a plan for division of labor among group members (in-class).
3. Tuesday 3.24.15
   1. Due: formalized work plan including project schedule.
   2. Due: preliminary design drawings for instrumented tool, at a level of detail suitable for fabrication, including structural, sensor, and electronic subsystems.
   3. Begin fabricating parts and testing sensors (in class).
   4. Due: preliminary Grasshopper sketch implementing user experience graphics and preliminary process model.
   5. Discuss connection of sensor input to graphics (in class).
4. Thursday 3.26.15
   1. Due: first prototype of instrumented tool.
   2. Begin evaluating performance and acquired data (in class).
   3. Due: working prototype of generated visual feedback and computed process model.
   4. Begin testing user experience with real tool data (in class).
5. Tuesday 3.31.15
   1. Work session.
6. Thursday 4.2.15
   1. Final project review: discuss system and artifacts in class.

Deliverables

1. per group: augmented tool
2. per group: functional demonstration
3. per group: documentation of design concept, challenges, implementation
4. per student: sample artifact

Prior to the next class, please submit a short text write up with accompanying drawing images and a video link to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page.  Please be sure to create your project within the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked.

Prompt Questions

The following questions may not apply exactly to every project but are intended as a guide to our expectations for the detail of the project writeup. Please answer every question relevant to your specific project with text and graphics as appropriate.

Explain the conceit or ambition.

1. What was the theory of the process?How do the specifics of the tool relate to the specific graphical prompts?  How are the tool gestures re-interpreted algorithmically?
2. How does the theory embody the constraints of a physical process?
3. Is the theory based on a simulated physical process? If so, how were the physical constraints of the materials and tools incorporated into the animation?
4. How does the prompt balance global structure and local detail? Are there nested scales?

Reflection on the conceit and execution.

1. Did the outcome support the conceit? How should the theory develop?
2. How do the designed artifacts differ from those produced with the related traditional crafts?
3. What are the decisions available to the person using the system?
4. How would those decisions translate to another craft medium?
5. What was the verbal prompt to the user? How did the verbal prompt affect the outcome?
6. How did the prompt stimulate the user to apply their expertise, i.e. their expert knowledge?
7. How would different tempo affect the outcome?
8. Was there a technique that promised to reward practice or repeated use?
9. What failures would prompt further investigation?
10. Was there too much or too little information provided to the user? If too much, how could it be filtered? If too little, how could a simple process be extended to scaffold a richer prompt for the conceit?
11. Was adding sensor input to the simulation process effective? Exactly how do inputs map to forces or internal processes?

Clear text and visual documentation

1. Be sure to include: the Grasshopper patch file, representative prompt images, images of representative artifact (both in-progress and final), screenshot of Grasshopper patch.
2. Documentation of the time progression of the experience through video and selected still images.
3. Explanation of the logic of the Grasshopper patch to translate tool input to graphical feedback.
4. Were there interesting failures?
5. Can you visually relate the prompt and resulting artifact?

In this exercise students will create a digital drawing machine and project it onto a physical canvas to prompt a physical, hand drawn sketch. Students will create an algorithmically generated pattern and project it onto a 2’x2’ canvas, to prompt fellow classmates in free-hand sketching experiments. Patterns should be informed by fundamental compositional techniques (e.g. translations, reflections) and computational processes (e.g. agent based behavior, particle simulation, physics simulation, point attractors). Patterns should also be time-based exhibiting emergent behaviors, narrative arc, and/or rule based growth. Students should share their drawing prompt with at least two partners. Students may use their choice of drawing implement including pens, markers, brushes, etc.

Objectives

In this exercise students will:

1. Develop parametric control of design workflows using Grasshopper.
2. Enhance physical dexterity with information-rich visualization.
3. Learn the basics of projection mapping.
4. Explore dynamic patterning.

Process

1. Thursday 02.19.15
   1. Mount and calibrate workstation projectors (Begin in Class).
   2. Introduce Grasshopper (Begin in Class).
   3. Generate a test sketch with 100 items in a pattern (For Homework).
2. Tuesday 02.24.15
   1. Introduce agent based, physics, and evolutionary design strategies in Grasshopper (In Class).
   2. Develop time based drawing prompts for digital projection (For Homework).
3. Thursday 02.26.15
   1. Test drawing prompt with partners (Begin in Class).
4. Tuesday 03.03
   1. Discuss final drawings and prompt generation (In Class)

Deliverables

Artifacts: 

1. Hand Sketches drawn by partners (2 minimum)

Documentation (can include drawings, images, videos):

1. Documentation of the logic of the digital drawing prompt (diagram, screen capture, video).
2. Documentation of the physical drawing process (image, video).

Prior to the next class, please submit a short text write up with accompanying drawing images and a video link to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page.  Please be sure to add your project to the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked.

Resources

Help with Grasshopper: If you are just getting started it is worth skimming the manuals linked on the rhino resources page.

Download and help for “Agent” Plugin: Resources for Alex Fischer’s plugin. Download for grasshopper component, help files, and video tutorials.

There is no silver bullet for making a high fidelity copy of a physical object in a digital modeling environment. Most processes take careful planning, understanding of technological constraints, and significant post processing to achieve suitable results. The following discusses relevant considerations and workflows for reverse engineering using Rhino’s modeling environment.

Rhino’s Bias

Rhino is a native NURBS surface modeler. This means that Rhino can very efficiently handle complex, free-form surfaces and smooth curvature. The majority of Rhino’s tools are oriented toward surface manipulation. Although Rhino can accommodate solid modeling with polygon meshes, its toolset in this regard is limited.  This is important to consider when reverse engineering or preparing a file for rapid prototyping since many scanning and printing workflows generate or require high density polygon meshes. Because of this distinction, a significant part of the workflow requires knowing when and how to translate between NURBS Surfaces and Polygon Meshes in Rhino.

Approaches

There are three main approaches to reverse engineering using Rhino and the resources available in the IDeATe Lab.

1. Manual Reconstruction > Authors can build accurate reconstructions of physical objects using a combination of Rhino’s native commands. This workflow typically involves taking careful measurements of an object and importing scaled images to trace key information. There is usually a base layer of construction drawings that support the creation of 3D surfaces. Benefits to this workflow include full control of modeling accuracy and level of detail, ability to generate NURBS geometry directly. Drawbacks include time-consuming multi-step operations, limits to the level of complexity and surface detail one can realistically model.
2. 3D Scanning > Authors can use a table top or hand-held 3D scanner to reconstruct an object. Benefits to this workflow include high-resolution mesh output (depending on the scanner), relatively low setup and processing times, the potential for minimal post-processing of mesh. Drawbacks include the need for expensive dedicated equipment, limitations in size and surface quality of scanned objects.
3. Photogrammetry > Authors can use a series of overlapping photographic images to reconstruct a physical scene using software like Autodesk’s 123D Catch. Benefits to this workflow include the use of simple and accessible equipment (camera), relatively low capture times, the ability to capture irregular and complex geometries. Drawbacks include inability to capture reflective surfaces, need to extract objects from scene, often significant mesh post-processing.

Example File

I have uploaded a folder with example  files that illustrates best practice and useful commands for reverse engineering using Rhino and 123D Catch.

FAQs

• Rhino can import and export .obj and .stl files for mesh editing and rapid prototyping
• Use PictureFrame to import images into Rhino.
• Use CageEdit to apply custom global transformations to complex objects.
• Use Check to analyze mesh before printing.

Resources

123D Catch: A free app from Autodesk to create 3D scans using a camera.

Rhino Tools: A collection of resources related to reverse engineering in Rhino.

Rhino Reverse: A plugin for Rhino designed to aid Mesh to NURBS translation and handle high polygon count meshes.

When: Wednesday, February 3rd from 1:30 – 4:30

Where: MMH 303

What: Intro to Firefly and in depth coverage of vision and Kinect components.

Bring: a laptop with Rhino and the latest version of Firefly installed.

In teams of four students will create a high-fidelity, digital reconstruction of a found object (or fragment of an object). Object choice should be based upon observation of a compelling texture, geometry, or surface quality of the object. These observations should directly extend from the students’ previous observation and practice with hand-tools from Exercise One. Each team will then digitally transform (e.g. morph, tile, aggregate) their reconstructed object and rely on digital simulation of hand-tool paths and CNC produced patterns/templates to assist in producing a new physical artifact by hand.

Example 3D Scan of ornamental carved stone.

Objectives

In this exercise students will:

1. Negotiate basic translations between physical and digital constructs.
2. Experiment with 3D scanning and photogrammetry reconstructions.
3. Understand important paradigms in digital, solid and surface modeling in Rhino.
4. Practice physically outputting a digital model through 3D printing.
5. Use CNC outputs to assist in intricate hand-work.

Process

1. Thursday 01.29.15
   1. Release Exercise Three and discuss objectives and workflow (In Class).
   2. Form working teams (In Class).
   3. Teams should locate a found object with an interesting texture, global geometry, or surface quality. Discuss how these characteristics relate to the students’ extendable observations about tool and material behavior from Exercise One. Anticipate how the chosen object implicates certain tool and material strategies (For Homework).
2. Tuesday 02.03.15
   1. Introduce 123D catch and basic Rhino modeling strategies (In Class).
   2. Make a digital reconstruction of the object using reverse engineering techniques – e.g. photography, 123D Catch, 3D scanning, Rhino Modeling (Begin in Class).
3. Thursday 02.05.15
   1. Introduce 3D printing workflow in Hunt lab (In Class).
   2. 3D print the reverse engineered copy of your object – at a smaller scale if necessary (Begin in Class).
   3. Make a generalized model (in Rhino) of your reconstruction that can be morphed, tiled, or augmented to construct a new artifact. Careful translation between polygon mesh and NURBS geometries may be required (Begin in Class).

1. Tuesday 02.10.15
   1. Simulate anticipated tool paths and workflow in rhino to inform digital shape refinement and physical production (In Class).
   2. Laser cut templates and patterns to aid in hand-tooling of new artifact (In Class).
   3. Physically produce a new artifact that expresses the intent of your digital investigation (Begin in Class).
2. Thursday 02.12.15
   1. Discuss artifacts and drawings from Exercise Three in group review (In Class).

Deliverables

For the in-class review, please be prepared to discuss your findings, including  sample artifacts and documentation of the key translations in your team’s workflow.

Artifacts: 

1. 3D printed model of your reverse-engineered object.
2. Hand-tooled object extended through digital processes.
3. Templates used to produce final object.

Documentation (can include drawings, images, videos):

1. Documentation of the physical digital translations of the exercise.
2. Documentation of the digital simulation of physical tooling processes.

Prior to the next class, please submit a short text write up with accompanying drawing images and a video link to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page.  Please be sure to add your project to the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked.

Resources

123D Catch: A free app from Autodesk to create 3D scans using a camera.

Rhino Tools: A collection of resources related to reverse engineering in Rhino.

Rhino Reverse: A plugin for Rhino designed to aid Mesh to NURBS translation and handle high polygon count meshes.

Intro video 123D Catch, Autodesk

In teams of three, students will fabricate four table-top frames to mount electronic peripherals (e.g. digital projector, Microsoft Kinect, and external monitor) for real-time sensing and visual feedback. Throughout the semester, these workstations will provide a physical context to explore the possibilities of augmenting physical dexterity with digital tools for novel hybrid design and fabrication approaches.

Example frame configuration with Kinect and Projector

Objectives

In this exercise students will:

1. Confront the importance of physical context in high-skill domains.
2. Consider the potential to augment physical work spaces with digital tools.
3. Interact with the basic hardware/software for sensing and visualization.
4. Begin to calibrate translations from digital to physical space.

Process

1. Tuesday 01.27.15
   1. Develop and fabricate laser cut connectors for 80/20. (In Class)
   2. Assemble four table-top frames using 80/20 aluminum extrusion and hardware. See schematic model in resources for details. (In Class)
   3. Clamp frames to work tables. (In Class)
   4. Compile McMaster Carr order for additional parts. (In Class)
2. Thursday 01.29.15
   1. Mount peripherals to frame. (In Class)
   2. Run and fasten cords for all mounted peripherals. (In Class)
   3. Update necessary software on lab Ultrabooks. (In Class)
   4. Run demonstration sketches for Kinect and projector. (In Class)
   5. Test and calibrate all peripherals using Grasshopper. (In Class)
3. Tuesday 02.03.15
   1. Submit project documentation to XSEAD.

Deliverables

1. Four completed workstations including assembled frames, mounted peripherals, and organized cords.
2. Complete test calibrations for projector and Kinect using IDeATe Ultrabooks.
3. For Tuesday (02.03.15) elect a small team to submit a single exercise post to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page. The post should include a short description of the workstations with accompanying images of the fabrication process and calibration. Please be sure to add the project to the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked. Please be sure to create your project by first navigating to the appropriate pool and selecting “Add new project to pool”, otherwise it won’t be linked where we can find it.
4. Please upload any original design files (e.g., Rhino, SolidWorks, Illustrator) to the Contributions folder in the course Google Drive folder, using reasonably descriptive names so your peers will be able to modify them as needed.  You have also be granted edit access using your Andrew IDs, please let us know if there is a problem.

Resources

Schematic

See attached Rhino model for frame assembly and peripheral specs. (3D Model)

Specs

Projector: BenQMX620ST

Kinect: V2 for Windows 

AR Sandbox by Oliver Kreylos, UC Davis

1. Introductions
2. Brief course overview, in two parts
3. Survey questions
4. Logistics:
   • Card access
   • Web site
   • XSEAD
   • Blackboard
   • Safety
   • Machine qualification
5. Exercise 1 introduction
   • Introduction of tools
   • Notebooks
   • Pair formation
6. Room re-organization
7. Begin exercise 1

The Blackboard area for the course should now be available, please let me know if there are any problems.  We have uploaded one reading to the Blackboard files area: Pye_Nature+and+Art+of+Workmanship.pdf

Please come to class Thursday prepared for physical experimentation and documentation as per Exercise 1: http://courses.ideate.cmu.edu/physcomp/s15/16-455/exercise-one-tool-taxonomy/

Just to recap, this should include the following:

1. wear appropriate clothing
2. draw a few notebook diagrams as per exercise item 1.III (expected tool forces and trajectories)
3. find and understand some tool tutorials and expert references as per item 1.IV
4. prepare a simple work plan as per item 1.V

The plan for Thursday is Exercise 1, section 2: applying your tool to material to fabricate a simple form, reflecting on the physical and intuition processes, and documenting the process in video and sketches.

Please take a look through the syllabus sometime soon; it explains the course motivations in more detail and has a more detailed outline of the assignments: http://courses.ideate.cmu.edu/physcomp/s15/16-455/syllabus/

In pairs, students will be assigned a hand-tool related to a historically significant craft in the domain of ceramics, metal-work, or wood-work. Students will investigate their tool through physical experimentation, direct observation, and background research to develop intuition about hand-craft’s complex interplay between physical dexterity, material affordance, and tool geometry. Work will be conducted in pairs with students taking turns actively practicing use of the tool and observing their partner through careful documentation.

Objectives

In this exercise students will:

1. Gain historical and tacit knowledge about the use of hand-tools.
2. Develop a feel for proper tool grip and attack.
3. Understand the bias of specific tools toward specific geometries/outcomes.
4. Compare exemplary artifacts, produced by craftspeople, to physical experimentation in class.
5. Develop techniques of observation to extract general principles of potential tool use in fabrication scenarios.

Process

1. Tuesday 01.13.15
   1. Experiment with the tool in your hand, testing for different grips, developing an intuition for balance and gross motor skills related to imagined use of the tool (In Class).
   2. While your partner is experimenting with his/her tool take some time to observe and take a first pass at documenting their movements through sketch, video, and camera (In Class).
   3. Draw a diagram in your notebook that visually describes your intuition regarding the interaction of forces between the hand, the tool, and the material worked by the tool. Draw the trajectory of the tool in use and the resultant material subtraction or deformation from such use (Begin in Class, Finish for Homework).
   4. Investigate your given tool to better understand how it is used using the questions listed below as a guide and document your findings in your notebook (For Homework).
   5. Based upon your investigation and experimentation prepare a plan to physically experiment with your tool using a small material sample during the next class. In your notebook document what you want to make, the techniques used to achieve your goals, and the precedent artifacts related to your ambitions (For Homework).

Questions

How has the tool historically been used? What materials it is used with? What types of artifacts has it helped produce? What other tools are often used with it? What is the proper grip(s) for the tool? What techniques are commonly used to control the tool? Has the tool been replaced in any way by industrial machinery? What trades / guilds use this tool? What geometries or patterns does the tool bias?

2. Thursday 01.15.15
   1. Based upon your experimentation and investigation produce a series of physical experiments that test your intuition about your tool (In Class).
   2. While your partner is experimenting carefully observe and document their work (In Class).
   3. Practice use of your tool and produce samples more aligned with your intent (For Homework).
3. Tuesday 01.20.15
   1. Practice use of your tool and produce a refined sample demonstrating your intent (Begin in Class, Finish For Homework).
   2. Draw a more refined tool diagram based upon your observations to date. Your drawing may incorporate digital media. (For Homework).
4. Thursday 01.22.15
   1. Discuss artifacts and drawings from exercise one in group review (In Class).

Deliverables

For the in-class review, please be prepared to discuss your findings, including showing drawings and sample artifacts.  Please refer to the prompt questions above for specific discussion points.

For the artifacts: a series of physical artifacts that evidence exploration of material and tool constraints.  For the “final artifact”,  something showing the development of technique where intention and result combine.

For documentation: evidence that you are developing techniques of observation and analysis.  Examples: video, drawings, photos.  The final diagram should be a visual explanation of the overlapping constraints of physical dexterity, tool, and material affordance.  Please remember your initial sketch which documented your initial expectations.  Please include at least one example of historical artifacts produced using the tool.

Prior to the next class, please submit a short text writeup with accompanying drawing images and a video link to the XSEAD site as discussed on the Submissions page.  Please be sure to add your project to the appropriate ‘pool’ as linked.

Resources

General
The Nature and Art of Workmanship, David Pye  (See Blackboard)
The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert (University of Michigan Archives)

Metal
The Key to Metal Bumping, Frank T. Sargent (Course Reserve)
TM Tech Video Tutorials (YouTube)

Wood
Understanding Wood: A Craftsman’s Guide to Wood Technology, Bruce Hoadley
The Complete Manual of Woodworking, Albert Jackson and David Day (Course Reserve)

Ceramics / Plaster
Plastering Skills,  F. Van Den Branden and Thomas L. Hartsell (Course Reserve)
Ceramics Handbooks Series, UPenn Press

A Spring 2015 undergraduate course at Carnegie Mellon University.

Tue/Thu 10:00AM-11:20AM, Hunt A10

Human dexterous skill embodies a wealth of physical understanding which complements computer-based design and machine fabrication.  This project-oriented course explores the duality between hand and machine through the practical development of innovative design and fabrication systems.  These systems fluidly combine the expressivity and intuition of physical tools with the scalability and precision of the digital realm.  Students will develop novel hybrid design and production workflows combining analog and digital processes to support the design and fabrication of their chosen projects.  Specific skills covered include 3D scanning, 3D modeling (CAD), 3D printing (additive manufacturing), computer based sensing, and human-robot interaction design. Areas of interest include architecture, art, and product design.

This course is part of the new Integrative Design, Arts, and Technology (IDeATe) program at Carnegie Mellon University and makes use of the new IDEATE@Hunt Collaborative Making Facility in the lower level of Hunt Library.  The course is a new elective offered under the Intelligent Environments and Physical Computing concentrations.  The prerequisite is one of the appropriate IDeATe portal courses or instructor permission.