Exploring Interactivity in the water

a Architecture & Digital Media

Exploring interactivity in the water

Odyssefs Nikolaidis

Introduction page 8

Foreword page 7

Contents 4

Bibliography page 52

PART III: Future Chalenges page 44

PART I: Technical specifications of the device page 14

Conclusions page 48

PART II: Operation and Observations page 30

5

6

Details of the structure

FOREWORD The present project on the behaviour of a digital device in an environment simulating the natural environment of jellyfish, emanates from my interest in the embodying of digital media in nature.

The aim of my project is to examine the opportunity of interaction between the device and the environment. The principal question was if a way of communication between the space (water) and the object (digital device), in which the latter behaves, is possible.

Additionally, I investigated whether the device can, at any moment, perceive the activity in the space, without the human intervention and adjustment.

This examination was based on a series of experimentations on the behaviour of the device constructed by three movable arms connected to the main body which carries a capsule with the electronic equipment. At a first stage, by altering the properties of the embodied digital media, I studied the changes of the behaviour of the structure in the environment, whereas in a second stage I examined whether the device was able to affect the environment and interact with it. All these experimentations took place in a tank containing 850 litres made for this reason.

In terms of structure the thesis comprises an Introduction, three Parts (I-III) and Conclusions. The Introduction presents the historical and theoretical background, and information about my inspiration.

Part I is devoted to the presentation of the technical specifications of the device. Part II presents how the device works and the observations.

Part III explores future challenges of the device. The thesis closes with Conclusions and full bibliography.

London, September 2010

7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

a. Historical and theoretical background

10

The disposition for experimentations with the constants of the space that prevails now, awaits the digital revolution of the last decade to operate, but it has its roots at the dawn of the 19th century1 . The idea of the machine and the mechanically powered parts, which derives from the industrial revolution, is the basis for the vision of a flexible architecture.

A significant point of reference is Villa Girasole (figg1-3)2, built by the engineer Angelo Invernizzi in 19353 . This building revolves with a speed of 4 mm/s., following the daily orbit of the sun. This, which was until then stable, immobile and adamant, is converted into a mechanically powered one. This is an early example of incorporation of the electromechanical technology in architecture.

The idea of the mechanical movement and the functionalism was adopted from the movement of the Metavolism of the decade of 60s and from Archi-grams as well4 , and it was evolved to the idea of the functional modification. Their vision for a future city inhabited by the society of the mass culture, was characterized by constructions of big scale, flexible and easily expanded, which can permit an organic development. The characteristic pattern of Walking City of Archigrams is a city, consisting of smart buildings-robots, which carry parasitic capsules and can move themselves within the city5 . This insect-machine is a literal translation of the residence, something that was abjured by Le Corbusier6 . Their designs, although they are eccentric and utopian, they demonstrated the inclination of their era to pass from the static architecture to an architectural style that can be transmuted and that they start to adapt. The deficiency of the proper technology render ‘stable’ the works of the metavolists, such as Nakajin Capsule Building, Shizuoka Press and the Broadcasting Center.

For basic studies on the subject see: Frampton K., Modern Architecture: A critical history.

2 Figures reproduced from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/1935-housefollows-sun.php 3 Frampton K. and Galfetti A., Villa Girasole: The Revolving House.

4 Sadler S., ‘New Babylon versus Plug-in City’ in Exit Utopia: Architectural Provocations, pp 57-67.

5 Frampton K., Modern Architecture: A critical history, pp 250-7.

fig.1

fig. 2

fig. 3

1

fig. 4

Other structures influenced by this movement, such as the Centre George Pompidou were constructed but only in terms of the shape7 . The form of these buildings clarifies the inclination for the development of an architecture with movable and changeable parts. These buildings give the impression of having parts, which can be detached and can change their position, so that new parts can be added on their upper part. They are buildings, whose creators wanted them to be easily expanded and flexible, but the level of the technology at that time did not allow this innovation.

In the same era, one step forward was the British dreamer-architect Cedric Price8 . His ideas, which are applied to his designs for the Fun Palace (1961), introduced the notion of the interaction between the building and its user in the architecture. It was a proposal for an evanescent multiprogrammed recreational centre open 24 hours per day, which merges the technologies of communication and typified metallic elements to generate one machine capable to adjust to the needs and the desires of the user. It proposed a venue for entertainment, where the visitors could participate or watch a variety of activities. He himself describes it, as an ensemble of parts and not as a building.

Cedric Price, as the Metabolists, spoke about an architecture that adapts to the environment and the user.

A more recent example of a building which reacts with its environment is the Arabic Institute (1987) by Jean Nouvel, where multiple sensitive ‘photographic’ diaphragms are controlling visuality9.

Nowadays, the development of digital technology enables us to fulfill a great part of visioners architects ideas. What now seems to be utopia, speaks about an architecture which constitutes a part of one ensemble with interconnected constituent elements, which not only does it adjust, but also it affects and causes itself alterations to this interconnected environment.

We live in an environment where all the things undergo a constant change. Every entity is in a relationship of interaction with the others. The sun interacts with the earth, the earth with its inhabitants, the inhabitants with each other and with their environment. All the things in this world are interdependent with each other and everything can be altered, for the elements around it can be modified. Continuously, a result of action and interaction is discernible. In this type of relationship, matter, energy or information is transported. A human action has mainly double character. It contains energy and intention for action. The time for these interactions varies. The answer (reaction) to the action can be given the same moment, in real time, or after a long time-period (e.g. the reaction of the earth to the fires comes in the long run, with flooding, while the human reflexes react immediately to the danger).

Hays K. Michael, Architecture – Theory – since 1968, pp 6-35, and 126-145.

Zenetos T., Ψηφιακά Οράματα και Αρχιτεκτονική, pp 9-13.

8 Price C., The Square Book.

9 Big Brother: Architecture and Surveillance, Ed. National Museum of Contemporary Art. 6

7

11

b. My Inspiration 12

The central idea for the device was a creature of the marine natural environment, the jellyfish. More particularly, it is an invertebrate, a mysterious animal and one of the less understood creatures of the planet. It does not have a brain and the control over its movement is limited. However, it can use its hydrostatic skeleton to accomplish movement through contraction-pulsations of the belllike body. The device consisting of a series of arms able to sink and emerge imitates the movement of the jellyfish. The movement of the device recalls the smooth and gentle behavior of its living archetype. The environment of water is a very challenging one since it requires extra efforts for the device to float, to balance and to operate. Furthermore, the environment of water brings to mind an environment of zero gravity and thus the study of movement in the space under these conditions acquires new dimensions. Additionally the conjunction of electronics with the water environment made the whole effort even more fascinating.

Univercity of Westminster, MA in Architecture and Digital Media

13

fig. 1

fig. 2

fig. 3

fig. 1: The Jellyfish, photo reproduced from http://www.jellyfishs. com fig. 2: The device, a “mechanical jellyfish�. fig. 3: Astronautes, photo reproduced from http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic-art/

PART I

Technical specifications a. The device.

16

The whole construction is made, mainly, of materials, collected from the workshop except for the parts made of Plexiglas, the weights and the acrylic spheres, as well. The choice to work with materials supplied by the workshop was a conscientious decision. The restricted range of the materials was a challenge and the solution, therefore, of each problem acquired a particular importance. The device consists of three arms, each of them 35cm long. Adjoining arms are placed in an angle of 120 degrees on the horizontal level.

Parts of the device Each arm consists of 12 straight parts of 2.2mm bronze diameter. Their length varies and is the following: 4 X 35cm long, 4 X 6,4cm , 2 X1,2cm, 1 X 33cm and 1 X 6cm.

For the assembly of these parts 35 joiners were used of 3 different types with diameter: 2.8/3.5/5.5mm.

Furthermore, 5 parts of 3mm bronze diameter were used.

Two of them were 7.5cm long and the rest 2.4cm.

13 springs (expanders) were employed, 7 of them are extended ones, 5 pieces of 8.0 x 3.18mm, 1 piece 4.8 x 44.5mm and 1 piece 5.2 x 25mm. The rest 6 are compressed springs, 4 of 4.2 x 17.5mm and 2 of 5.2 x 17.5mm.

13 cable ties were also used of 200mm x 3.6mm, 3 weights (sinkers) of 25gr.

A series of screws in 3 different types of diameter.

3 nuts and 6 washers of 4.5mm.

Finally, an acrylic sphere with 6cm diameter is placed on the edge of the arm.

17

Snap-shot from manufacturing

18

The central part, on which the three arms are connected consists of: 15 bronze parts, 9 of these have 2.2mm diameter and 6 have of 1mm. The length of these 9 parts is of two categories: 6 parts are 10.5cm long and 3 parts with 6.5cm diameter and both these two categories are of 2.2mm diameter.

The rest 6 parts are 6.5cm long and have 1mm diameter. For their connection, 52 joiners were demanded with 4 different types of diameter: 2.8/3.5/5.5/5.7mm.

Four acrylic spheres were used, 3 of them have 7cm diameter and one 10cm diameter. In the laser cutter a part of plexiglass 3mm thick was cut creating an inscribed circular shape with 9cm radius and three edges placed at angles of 120 degrees.

A part of silicon polytube with 4mm diameter was used, 3.4cm long. A bronze part of 3mm diameter and 200mm long, operating as an axis transmitting the kinesis.

2.4m. Nylon polyamide filament (fishing line) of 0.4mm diam, 3 rubber washers with 13.0 by 3mm in dimension.

For the achievement to waterproof the central sphere, which contains the electronic equipment of the device, silicon and cyanoacrylate glue were used.

19

20

21

Device adjustment: Side view

22

The capsule secures that voulnerable electronics remain “dry�.

Electronic equipment: One Arduino Duemilanove One PP3 (9 volt) battery, 48mm by 25mm by 15mm in dimension.

One Uni-Directional Flexible Bend Sensor FLX-03. The sensor measures 1 / 4 inch wide, 4 1 / 2 inches long and 0.19 inches thick. It has original resistance of approximately 10,000 ohms (10K). Range of resistances of the FLX-03 sensor may vary between 10K and 40K depending upon the degree of the flex.

One HS-77BB Low Profile Servo with size – in millimeters – 43.94 x 22.86 x 24.89 One also breadboard 2 X 7.5cm.

The type of the material used, but also their number affected particularly the weight of the construction and it was a challenge to achieve the navigability of the device. Moreover, the presence of the vulnerable electronic equipment intensified this challenge and it was absolutely necessary for some parts of the device to remain above the surface of the water. Thus, to avoid any short-circuits, every effort has been made to eliminate the possibility for water influx. 7 acrylic spheres with different diameter were used to secure the desired navigability. The arms are anchored on one side to the frame of the central part of the device and they have free the other end. They have the ability to move vertically, as a pendulum, inscribing a bowed movement of 40cm long. The length of the angle they can cover is 80 degrees above the horizontal axis and 110 degrees below it (totally 190 degrees). In the lower part of the arm 3 weights (sinkers) of 25gr each have been placed connected to 5 extended springs (expanders) with dimensions 7.9 X 28.6cm. The weighs are connected to 0.6 fishing line 0.4mm diam. of 25gr. They move across the arms and by changing the centre of gravity they cause them to float or to sink. For the emersion of the arm the presence of the acrylic sphere with 6cm diameter is necessary and it is located to the edge of the part. The role of the springs is to help the weights to move back to the initial position allowing the arm to emerge.

fig. 1: Servo HS635HB: photo reproduced from: Hitech official website. fig. 2: Arduino Duemilanove: photo reproduced from:Arduino official website. fig. 1

fig. 2

23

24

The length of the angle the arms can cover is 80 degrees above the horizontal axis and 110 degrees below it (totally 190 degrees).

25

26

To attain a sufficient degree of balance for the device in the water, several variations and modifications were tested, not only for the arms, but also for the central part. Parts were added and deducted several times and the whole structure was under constant reexamination. Variable ways of the connection between the parts were applied. Also experimentations in the transposition of the centre of gravity of the construction were made observing the behavior of the device.

27

The typology of the connection of the constituent parts and the selection of the specific materials for the creation of the device enable every part to adapt extremely easy to the needs of the system or to the changeable conditions.

28

The device by its nature contains easily adjustable parts which makes its development more friendly. The continuous additions and alterations influenced continuously its balance and its stability. Due to the increased final weight, the addition of three more acrylic spheres, with 7cm diameter, around the central frame of the main sphere, was necessary. They are connected in such a way that enables them to move freely, around their axis. When the device is out of the water these spheres hang on by the central part of the structure. When the device enters the water, the spheres, due to the opposing force of the water, emerge turning to the central sphere and they close as petals of a mechanical flower, without the need or the contribution of any mechanical factor.

29

In the centre of the construction, the sphere accommodates Arduino Duemilanove, the servo, the battery, the breadboard and a small number of cables, as well. The dimensions of the sphere were proved ideal for the placement of this electronic equipment. The gathering of all these elements in the centre of the construction facilitates the easier treatment of the weight and secures its navigation. The unhindered movement of the arms enables the construction to find its balance inside the water with great easiness, even if the surface is disturbed. It demonstrates, in this way, its ability to adapt to some of the alterations of the environment in the tank. The ease of its response to the waves seems to be contradictory considering the weight and the nature of the material it incorporates. The force of the water gives the impression that the construction is light and at a great scale smoothly adjustable inside to this environment. The observation of the behavior of the device was carried out up to this point, without the activation of Arduino Duemilanove.

PART II

a. Operation

32

For the conversion of the device from a simple mechanical structure to a digital mechanical one, I used one Arduino Duemilanove. Thanks to the use of a sensor (the arduino does not bear one) the device has the opportunity at a first stage to collect inputs from the environment. At a second stage the platform processes and evaluates these data and send the outputs for which has been programmed.

The use of a Flexible Bend Sensor –connected to the lower outer side of the main capsule – seemed to be the best choice for the collection of information for the movement of the water in the tank.

The aim of the project is the collection of information from the environment and the transformation of this data to movement for the parts of the device. The proof for successful collection, processing, and transmission of the information is not other than the bowed movement of the device’s arms.

A vertical axis, a bobbin, Nylon polyamide filament (fishing line), sinkers and springs (expanders) have been used as parts of a mechanism which enables the device to extend and collect its legs.

A vertical axis in the centre of the lower part of the sphere, has the responsibility to transmit the movement to the legs of the structure.

This axis penetrates the capsule and is connected to the main axis of the servo. A silicon polytube, of 34mm length and 4mm diameter, filled up with grease has been attached to the sphere and the axis passes through this tube to enter the capsule. This polytube secures that the capsule remains waterproof whereas the axis remains able to turn left and right according to the commands of the arduino. A washer has been used to secure that the grease will remain in the tube. A bobbin is connected to the axis 15cm from the lower end of the axis in such a way that the servo turns the axis and the bobbin together right and left.

Three different pieces of stretched fishing line are used to fold the legs of the device. The one end of each one of the fishing lines is attached to this bobbin and the other one is connected to the legs of the structure.

Each leg has three sinkers attached to expanders. The movement of the sinkers across the legs of the device changes the centre of gravity and forces the legs to sink. The expanders force the sinkers to return back to the initial position according to the commands of the Arduino.

33

34

The sensor has the ability to “capture� the movement of the water, in terms of pressure towards the surface of the sensor. For the simulation of the movement of the water created in nature by the waves, a water pump turning 3000 liters per hour has been used. Depending on the declination of the sensor from its vertical position Arduino receives different inputs. The concept of the whole process is that whenever the sensor detects the movement of the water, the servo turns the axis and the bobbin in the right, the fishing lines wraps around the bobbin and forces the sinkers to move towards the end of the legs. The centre of gravity moves towards the end of the legs and the legs of the structure sink. As result the change of equilibrium state changes activating a whole process of interactions with the environment in the tank. Once the sensor turns back to its initial vertical position Arduino, it lets the axis of the servo to move in the left, the fishing line looses and the capsules lead the legs to the surface. Additionally the expanders which are connected to the sinkers draw them back forcing them to move towards the centre of the legs.

The movement of the legs, whilst the main sphere remains in the surface, almost stable, reflects in some way the movement of the jelly fish, which was the initial source of my inspiration for this device.

In the opposite page snap-shots frm the device operating.

Univercity of Westminster, MA in Architecture and Digital Media

35

b. Observations

36

Arduino gave me the opportunity to change the settings for the operation of the sensor and of the servo. I examined the level of the sensor sensibility. As for the servo I tried to control through the code, the speed of the axis rotation, the range of rotation and also the time of reaction of the device in its environment. When I altered some of the settings I observed the behavior of the device in the tank.

Initially, I would like to examine the behavior of the device without using any source producing waves and the way the device affects the environment and is affected by the latter.

When I increased the sensibility of the potentiometer, I observed that it can capture even the most insensible pressure in its surface from water movement. Under these conditions the behavior of the device could be described as problematic since its reactions could not been explained in the ostensible calmness of the water in the tank. A noticeable impressive imprint has been observed on the skin of water by the nervous vertical reversible movements of the acrylic spheres, which seemed to be doubtful whether they wanted to sink or to float.

The vibration of the device created by the continuous waves (which have been produced by the device) it was enough to increase the pressure on the surface of the potentiometer, forcing the servo to work more intensively. As the patterns of the water reached the sides of the tank they were ‘reflected’ and returned back, creating a new source of stimulus for the sensor. Thus, in this way, an almost endless circle between action and reaction has been emerged, enabling the device to interact with the environment as it affects the environment and at the same time the latter affects it.

37

Univercity of Westminster, MA in Architecture and Digital Media

38

The next step was to experiment with the speed of axis rotation. In a low speed of rotation, gentler patterns (waves) could be observed having more space between them. Since the legs were moving slowly they seemed to react with delay in the stimulus (wave) which had a higher speed. Under these conditions the device seemed not to participate in the process of reaction with the environment. On the contrary, in a high speed of rotation, the patterns of water tend to be closer to each other, and since intense waves create intense source of stimulus for the sensor the space between these patterns tend to be closer and closer. Since the patterns created by the device and the patterns reflected from the sides of the tank have opposite directions, the first diffuse into the latter creating a quite surprising and unique artificial imprint on the surface of the water. The faster the device reacts, the more detectable is the reaction between the device and the environment. And thus, it is clear that the device participates and not just reacts with delay.

Changing the range of rotation of the axis form 1800 to 3600, the patterns on the surface of the water are moving with lower speed since the time required for the spheres to emerge increases. This happens because more fishing line wraps around the bobbin forcing the legs of the device to sink deeper in the water and thus they need more time to emerge. It was observed that as the legs covered more distance in the water some kind of nominal propulsion was developed and thus the device moved for a few centimeters from its initial position in the water. Surprisingly, the device moves towards an unexpected direction. These movements recall the contraction-pulsations of jelly fish as the device simulates the movement of jellyfish in its natural environment.

39

40

The next stage of the experiment was to change the time needed for the sensor to respond. The default setting for the sensor was to respond in 150 miliseconds which will be understood as real time response. I altered the time for response to 1, 5 and 10 seconds.

With 1 second as time for response, the delay in the response is apparent and seems to disconnects the interactive opportunity of the device since the response could be described as accidental and seems to be unjustified. For example, when the pump created waves in the water, the legs of the device moved following the waves in the surface of the water, however, without any sign of reaction. After 5 or 10 seconds, depending on the settings, the legs responded disturbing again the surface. This disturbance could be proved a new source of stimulus which will activate the device again after 5 or 10 seconds. The observation of the device interacting after a few minutes, under these conditions, makes us not to be sure which is the stimulus activating the process of action, reaction and interaction. It seems more likely that it was programmed to work periodically, ‘isolated’ to any change in the environment.

41

42

Afterwards, the use of a pump turning 3000 liters per hour gave me the opportunity to examine the reaction of the device in an environment with waves. However the intense disturbance produced by the pump did not allow the observation of water patterns produced by the device in the surface of the water since these patterns were diffused immediately.

Thus we assume that the device works properly in calmer conditions.

The device reacts but any interactivity between the device an the environment has been lost since the stimuli produced by the device could not be recognized as such.

43

Univercity of Westminster, MA in Architecture and Digital Media

PART III

Future challenges

46

In the future, a challenge dealing the characterization ‘smart’ could appear. What could be ascribed to it, how it could be able to be adjusted by itself and to be reorganized via the interaction with its environment.

The device could be in case to re-provision and redefine (feedback) itself. It could also be able to store preceding actions in its memory and, during the procedure of the processing, to recall data from its memory, to compare, identify and exclude imitating the way simple live organism’s (susch as insects) memory functions. Thus, it could be able to estimate how to react. Progressively, it will be able to ‘learn’. Similarly, it possibly will be able, at every moment, to redefine the way of the action- reaction. Thus, the device will not operate with a given model of behavior, but it will function subjectively, without repeating the same reactions to the same stimuli. Under these conditions, it lends to the interaction the ‘unexpected’, every experience becomes unique. At the present stage, this device does not incorporate the reasoning of the artificial intelligence, due to the incapacity of its creator.

The closer the smart object will approach the way simple live organism’s memory functions, causing more stimuli, the experience of the interaction becomes more complete.

47

35

48

49

CONCLUSION The architecture we know until now, changes, through the digital technology, in order to generate a new experience, the experience of the interaction with the space. The device is an example of something that interacts with its environment and demonstrates the potential of allowing that to happen. The examination of this interaction showed that a complex behavior between the device and the space in which the latter is activated begins to emerge. This space and the device have an active relationship.

The tank is converted into an interactive space. This suggests that this ‘communication’ between digital media and the environment is a surprisingly challenging procedure enabling us to perceive and explore the space, understand the potentials and the relations of it with the objects. Things that were neither planned nor anticipated arise.

The potential of incorporation of digital technology in the physical environment has been detected. The digital media are able to become a part of a mechanism the function of which is based on the interaction of these media with the environment. To conclude there is a space for the digital media not only to receive and analyze inputs, but also to export outputs and thus to create an endless circle of interaction with the environment.

Finally it could be stretched out that the dreams of visioners architects of previous decades seem to be, not attainable but surely more familiar.

50

Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to the supervisor of my dissertation Mr Richard Difford, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and the Built Environment University of Westminster. I am most grateful for his help, support and guidance during my research. It is thanks to his teaching and guidance during my MA course in Architecture and digital media at Westminster University during the last year, concluding with this dissertation, that I feel richer in knowledge and experience.

Similarly, I would like, to express my warmest thanks to my parents for their constant love and encouragement throughout the years. I am deeply indebted to them for their endless support and unwavering faith in me.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bullivant L., Responsive Environments: Architecture, Art and Design, Harry N. Abraams, New York, 2006.

Bullivant L., Architectural Design - 4dspace: Interactive Architecture, Wiley-Academy, London, 2005.

Dourish, P., Where the Action is, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 2004.

Frampton K., Modern Architecture: A critical history, Thames and Hudson, 1992, London.

52

Frampton K. and Galfetti A., Villa Girasole: The Revolving House, Accademia di Arch. Mendrisio, Mendrisio, 2006.

Gausa M., Guallart V., Muller W., Soriano F., Porras F., Morales J., (edd.), The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture, Barcelona, 2003.

Goulthorpe, M. (ed.), The possibility of (an) architecture (collected essays), Routledge, London and New York, 2008.

Hagan S., Digitalia: Architecture and the Digital. The environment and the avant – garde, Routledge, London and New York, 2008.

Hays K. Michael, Architecture – Theory – since 1968, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachuetts, London, England, 2000.

Liakopoulos – Legendre, G., ijp: The Book of surface, Architectural Association, London, 2003.

Price C., The Square Book, Wiley Academy, England 2003.

Sadler S., ‘New Babylon versus Plug-in City’ in Exit Utopia: Architectural Provocations, Prestel Verlag, Munich, 2005.

Weinstock, M., The architecture of emergence: The evolution of form in nature and civilisation, Wiley, 2010.

Zenetos, T., Ψηφιακά Οράματα και Αρχιτεκτονική, Libro ΕΠΕ, Athens, 2006.

Big Brother: Architecture and Surveillance, Ed. National Museum of Contemporary Art, Athens, 2002.

53

54

www.odyssefs.tumblr.com

Univercity of Westminster, MA in Architecture and Digital Media