I think we can all agree this is pure internet awesome, but few will will find as much value in it as I do.

<via Art or Science>

via Zach Lieberman: Interactive Art on Vimeo.

When Five Ton Crane was commissioned to build an art car version of The Nautilus, the classic submarine from 2000 Leagues Under The Sea, I knew there were going to apertures involved, I could have never guessed it would be this big. As we started talking about the project a few things started to become clear.

First, this was a great opportunity to wholly revise my original aperture designs to make them more durable and more precise. I’d learned a few nifty techniques since I built my first set of apertures in 2007. Second, not only were we going to use apertures in the windows, but we also wanted to incorporate a big one into the door, which we were estimating would need to be about 4′ in diameter. Third, since incorporating a huge aperture into the door was going to be a major challenge all the other elements if the door would need to be designed around it, so it only made sense that I would build the entire door. Fourth, I would need to add some new elements to the project to keep it interesting for myself so I decided that I’d not only custom machine the hinges, but I’d also motorise the aperture in the door, and use a RFID system to control the locking mechanism. Oh, and I’d need to build two of these doors, one for each side of the sub (only one aperture though).

The four small aperture windows went together easily, and as gorgeous and cool as they are, honestly, they are so deep in the shadow of the 4′ door aperture that they are hardly noticed.

I was really amazed at how well the 4′ aperture worked, in fact, this large one is mechanical smoother then the small ones. See each of the blades needs to overlap several other blades. If you image the blades being very thin and flexible then you can see that when they are all stacked up atop each-other the stack is very thin and there is not a lot of torsion on the blades. Now since these are made of brass, the material can only get so thin before it lacks the strength to be constantly twisted without deforming. Usually I use a brass in the 0.03″ range. This thickness works well when they are small but works even better when it’s large, because the important metric is not the material thickness but the ratio between the thickness and size of the blade. I also found a new much stronger method to attach the pins to the blades (this is the hardest part of the design).

The motorization of the large aperture was surprisingly easy. I used two small DC motors with spur gears and nice torque mounted on either side of the cam ring. I then welded chain around the cam ring turning it into a giant gear. It worked the first time I tried it. I controlled the two motors with an Arduino and a motor shield, two limit switches and a few lines of code. I then modified an old positioner and inserted a set of buttons, so that when you pull the handle of the positioner it trips the buttons and turns the motors.

The RFID was super easy. I got a D12 RFID reader, hooked it up to another Arduino, and used it to flip a 40A relay attached to a 30 lbs pull automotive solenoid. The solenoid was coupled to a super beefy industrial latch. The latch keeps the door closed until is sprung by the solenoid, when to door is closed it pushes the spring latch back into its locking position. Just like the trunk on your car. I love the result. The door is rock solid closed with no visible way to open it. Then you wave your fob by the reader and the door literally pops open. When you close the door there is solid, satisfying snap as it latches in place.

The hinges are one of my favorite parts. Not only did they come out really nicely but they are so smooth and stable, and add just enough friction to give opening the door some nice tactile feedback. I modeled them on old harpoon heads and went to great lengths to hide all the welds. I love when I catch people staring at them and wondering out loud how they are put together.

]]> http://www.almostscientific.com/2011/11/15/the-nautilus-aperture-door-2011/feed/ 1 http://www.almostscientific.com/2011/11/13/%e2%80%9cresistance-is-futile%e2%80%9d-reading-science-fiction-alongside-ubiquitous-computing/ http://www.almostscientific.com/2011/11/13/%e2%80%9cresistance-is-futile%e2%80%9d-reading-science-fiction-alongside-ubiquitous-computing/#comments Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:36:08 +0000 Alan http://www.almostscientific.com/blog/?p=2621 An interesting read on the relationship between science fiction and technological research and development by Paul Dourish

Read the whole paper here.

Reading research literature as in some ways “fictive” is not intended to denigrate or dismiss it; rather, we want to draw attention to the ways in which both science fiction and the research literature are founded upon acts of collective imagination, and that any [...]]]> An interesting read on the relationship between science fiction and technological research and development by Paul Dourish

Read the whole paper here.

Reading research literature as in some ways “fictive” is not intended to denigrate or dismiss it; rather, we want to draw attention to the ways in which both science fiction and the research literature are founded upon acts of collective imagination, and that any imagination of a possible future is grounded in expectations, frustrations, and understandings of the present. One might go so far as to suggest that this is not simply a reading of scientific practice alongside popular culture, but rather a recognition that scientific practice cannot be entirely separated from the popular culture upon which it draws and to which it contributes.

…

So the distinction we might draw is not between research that involves social and cultural factors and research that does not, but rather between research that acknowledges these factors and research that suppresses, ignores, or denies them. Ironically, what we achieve through an engagement with science fiction is a series of reminders about scientific fact.

Most people who work in corporations or academia have witnessed something like the following: A number of engineers are sitting together in a room, bouncing ideas off each other. Out of the discussion emerges a new concept that seems promising. Then some laptop-wielding person in the corner, having performed a quick Google search, announces that this “new” idea is, in fact, an old one—or at least vaguely similar—and has already been tried. Either it failed, or it succeeded. If it failed, then no manager who wants to keep his or her job will approve spending money trying to revive it. If it succeeded, then it’s patented and entry to the market is presumed to be unattainable, since the first people who thought of it will have “first-mover advantage” and will have created “barriers to entry.” The number of seemingly promising ideas that have been crushed in this way must number in the millions.

What if that person in the corner hadn’t been able to do a Google search? It might have required weeks of library research to uncover evidence that the idea wasn’t entirely new—and after a long and toilsome slog through many books, tracking down many references, some relevant, some not. When the precedent was finally unearthed, it might not have seemed like such a direct precedent after all. There might be reasons why it would be worth taking a second crack at the idea, perhaps hybridizing it with innovations from other fields.

This quote is from a great essay by Neil Stepheson published in the World Policy Journal.

There are tons of good thoughts to be had about many issues while reading this essay, but what really resonated me with is the quote above. I’m a voracious consumer of on-line information, and any time I have an idea I immediately google/wiki it and dive into all the links. While I love all the information and influence I get on-line I’m also constantly fighting the impulse to set aside a design/idea/concept because someone has “done it” already. I often have to tell myself out loud “It’s you execution that’s valuable/original/worthy not the design/idea/concept its self.” 

Yeah, it was also posted on-line, but its still cool to see your work printed on real paper.

Sweet!  We love the Ardunio!

(via Triangulation)