Machines that Draw

We were given two weeks to create a scribble bot (without tape) and a drawing machine. I'll admit that I was initially skeptical that I would be able to accomplish these tasks - but I did! The first machine I worked on was the scribble bot. In class I came up with the idea of using a cup to essentially throw in all of the major components and then anchor the markers on the outside. That, I would soon learn, was the easy part. The difficult part was creating a propeller that would stay on the device. Ultimately, I tried several different approaches including a (dangerous) piece of pencil, a piece of styrofoam, and (my final design) the lid of a cup. You can see the evolution below.

Afterwards, it was time to make another drawing machine. I decided to use my laser cutting knowledge to make a couple of different spirographs. To make the gears, I used inkscape. Here are some pictures of the process:

 Now to answer some questions:

1. What did you learn from the first activity that helped in subsequent iterations?

One of my first discoveries, with regard to the scribble bot, was that the easiest way to deal with all the wiring was to throw the components into a cup. This would make sure that they were contained and decrease the risk of them breaking. I ultimately carried this idea through to my final prototype.

2. Did historical examples influence your design? How?

Yes, I saw the scribble bots that were made before our class and I also looked to my classmates for ideas. I used what I saw to make informed decisions about how I should approach problems like finding a good propeller. I initially used a small sharper object for my propeller, but after seeing that my peers had propellers with larger surface areas, I gave that a try and it worked significantly better.

For my spirograph, I definitely relied on examples I had seen in class and online on DIY sites.

3. What about your design worked well/didn’t work well?
My design was very stable, but the downside of that was that if the markers were balanced just right, the scribble bot wouldn't move because the markers were stable enough to resist the motion of the motor. If the markers are moved just a little bit the machine will begin to draw again. When it does move, it moves pretty slowly and in an unpredictable way (which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it!).

Overall, my spirographs turned out well. One issue though was that many of them broke when I was detaching them from the extra acrylic after laser cutting. This made the designs they made less smooth.

4. What expectations were realized or changed in your process? Were you surprised at anything?
I was definitely surprised that the propeller was so difficult to make. When I was using a broken pencil for it, I actually had to cover my eyes when I turned the motor on to make sure I wasn't hurt by the propeller (which would fly off). I was, however, ultimately able to make a successful propeller.

I also underestimated the amount of materials I would need. Luckily my friends had a ball of rubber bands and other random supplies that I was able to use. At one point, my drawing machine was too light, so I took a small pill bottle and filled it with water to weigh it down. There was definitely a lot of bricolage and creativity in this project.

5. What materials or processes would be useful to extend your drawing machines capabilities?

Tape and propellers would be extremely helpful for the scribble bots. The spirograph was pretty straightforward (and there isn't much room for changes), which I think is the beauty of it.

Trading Card: Charles M. Schulz

Maker Trading Card

For my maker trading card, I picked Charles M. Schulz, the maker of the famous Peanuts cartoon. I picked Schulz because the Peanuts are very special to my family, especially my grandfather, who is an artist and a maker in his own right (he's built a house and a couple of boats along with some other side projects). Growing up, I always watched the Charlie Brown TV specials and my family has collected various cards, ornaments, etc. that have made the Peanuts significant to me.

I chose to represent Schulz as I believe he would represent himself: as Charlie Brown! Growing up, Schulz, like Charlie, was snubbed by his peers. He was a very private person who had a special relationship with his dog, Spike (who is believed to be the inspiration for Snoopy). I chose to use a cartoon of Charlie Brown looking out over the water because I felt like it represented Schulz and his unique perspective and take on the world. I included Charlie Brown's famous phrase "Good grief" because of its significance throughout the cartoon series.

Answers to Questions:

1. How did the investigation of makers relate to your conceptions of what it means to make?

I think I initially thought that making had to be something 3 dimensional. What I ended up discovering through my research and throughout this class, is that making can result in digital artifacts as well as 3D ones. Schulz made thousands of cartoons in his life that were the result of hard work and significant thought. To me, that constitutes making!

2. Did you have any discoveries/controversies over your maker?

I previously didn't know much about Schulz, but most people do express their lives in some way through their work, so I wasn't surprised to learn that he was a Charlie Brown "outsider" figure. I knew my grandfather really loved Charlie Brown and I was surprised by how much he and Schulz have in common. Both came from working class families and served their countries. Both were quiet makers who loved expressing themselves through their art.

3. What similarities and differences to find with the maker that you focused on both now and into your future?

Not sure if I am interpreting this question correctly, but I think Schulz and I are similar in our dedication to our work. As I mentioned on the back of his card, he only took 5 weeks of vacation in the decades of work he did on Peanuts and I am pretty devoted to my school work and my hobbies. I think we also both have thick skins - Schulz's cartoons were rejected by his high school yearbook and I have had several rejections (and am sure I will have several more!) before I am deemed "successful." One of my takeaways from him is that I think he was always making for himself - not to please others - and that's why his work is so great and relatable. I will try to remember this when making in the future.

4. How can learning about other makers create greater understanding and respect across all forms of making? Is this form of respect important? Why or why not?

I think learning about other makers generates greater understanding and respect because you develop an appreciation for the work other people do. Everyone is good at some things and weaker in others. If we are exposed to people who do something well, we respect them even more knowing it's a personal weakness of ours.

I think this respect is important because we need to respect each other in order to relate and learn from each other. Understanding and respect allow us to learn from others and become better makers ourselves. Understanding and respect also make us decent human beings.

Knitting!

I was very excited to knit - I've done it once before when I was younger and I remembered the basics, but I had never started and ended it myself. We worked by playing the video and then pausing it to catch up. Out of the three of us, Julie had the most knitting experience, which shows in her swatch.

Our swatches (mine is on the right)

Once I got the hang of the basics, the knitting was relatively easy. The only problem I had was that I kept (somehow) adding more rows each time. The video told us to do 15 by 15, but I ended up with at least 30 "new" stitches. I also had a good number of holes throughout and I made my stitches really tight, which made knitting the next row pretty difficult. The next time I knit, I will try to make looser loops for better results. I also will try to stop making more rows. This experience was very instructive in that I learned how to knit (which is very fun and relaxing!), but it also showed me that I can google almost anything and find a good video to demonstrate it. One of my goals going forward is to try to do more of this self-guided learning on my own.

The knitting squad

Made my lopsided swatch into a sleeping mask!

Concrete Lab

Over the course of a couple months I made my concrete formwork and eventually poured the concrete into it to make my slab. But, before I even made it, I had to learn more about how to make my formwork and I had to choose whether I should use the CNC mill to create my negative or if I should use fabric. We started down in Digifab again - this time to learn about the CNC mill, which we could use to make our form. After a demonstration, we were passed a bunch of foam samples to see what the possibilities might be. Then, we went down to see the CNC mill in action.

CNC bed

Setting up the different cutters

Starting to cut

The finished product

After seeing what the CNC mill could do, Marcus explained our other option: using fabric. He explained that the CNC mill would probably get us a more accurate result, but that the fabric could surprise us in some interesting ways. Ultimately, I decided to use fabric, so I could try out my laser cutting skills I gained from the lab 1 demonstration. I definitely learn better by doing, so I saw this as a great opportunity to see how much I had retained from the laser cutter demo and feel more comfortable using the machine.

I ended up making what I thought at first was a flower, but ultimately looked more like a sun. (Side note: A nice byproduct of my laser cutting were several pieces that I used to make dog tags for my friends). I chose a nice simple design because I figured it would be easy to tell what I was going for.

The next step was to attach my cut-out to the framework that would physically hold the concrete. It took me a couple of tries to get good at drilling the holes, but soon I had secured my form work and I began to pour the concrete. After smoothing it over several times with a water-concrete mix, it was ready to sit.

I came back the following week and was pleasantly surprised that my concrete slab turned out as an almost perfect replica of my shape. I wasn't sure if the masonite was strong enough against the concrete, but it was! This experience was one of my favorites in Making for the Masses because I was able to see a project through several stages and learn from those around me. I now feel super comfortable using the laser cutter (which I'm sure will come in handy in the future) and I have more hands-on building experience (which I cannot get enough of!). Working in this open and collaborative environment helped me learn so much about the making process. Check out the finished product below!

My concrete sun/flower!

Paper Airplanes

Today in Making for the Masses, we learned about the differences between crafting and mass producing. We first looked at crafting in Tom's example (ceramics) and how that evolved into mass producing. Overall, it was a really interesting discussion because I had never really thought of mass produced things as comparable to crafting in quality.

After the lecture, it was time to test out how three methods (craft production, mass production (assembly line), and mass production (after changes to our assembly line)) work with paper airplanes.

Run #1 – Craft Production:
- What did you observe about the process?
The process was pretty hectic and disorganized. Everyone was working at different speeds and with different outcomes (some planes were great and others were lower quality). There was definitely a learning curve and people got better the longer they did it. The quality overall seemed to decrease throughout the exercise as the people who were less skilled rushed to keep up with the other workers.

- Did all the aircraft take the same amount of time to produce and test?
No, because of the different skill levels of the people producing and testing, some planes were made very quickly and others lagged behind. This ultimately resulted in the fewest airplanes produced compared to our next two trials.

- If not, to what can you attribute the variation?
I think the variation can be most easily attributed to the different skill and experience levels of the workers. Some workers were better at producing the airplanes and better at shooting them into the trash can than others.

Run #2 – Mass Production, Assembly Line 1:
- How did the assembly line process differ from the craft production process?
Now that we were starting to work together, we saw each other as more of a team and tried to figure out the best way to utilize our expertise in different areas (e.g. quality of production, throwing abilities, etc.). This round was still not perfect (there was definitely some bottlenecking at certain people), but overall we were more efficient and more collaborative.

- What were the implications for the workers?
While we were more efficient, there was definitely more stress on individual workers to deliver their folded part to the next person on the assembly line. At the same time, people were encouraging of each other's efforts, so we had a supportive, but also demanding environment.

- What are the implications for the process as a whole?
The process was definitely more efficient because we were able to play to different individual's strengths and weaknesses and create more airplanes in the same amount of time. The quality of the airplanes, however, decreased, which was interesting because mass production usually increases quality. Quantity increased, but quality was sacrificed in the process.

Run #3 – Mass Production, Revised Assembly Line:
- What recommendations did your group make and why?
We recommended that 2 people should work at each step of the process and each make 2 folds. We decided to do this because when 1 person made 1 fold, it seemed pretty wasteful of their time. This decreased the number of people working on one plane and increased quality. In general, we tried to organize our team better, so that we understood what was going on.

- Did the recommendations improve the line? If so, how? If not, why not?
The recommendations did improve the line by increasing our quality and our quantity. Because there were fewer people working on one airplane, we could make more. Also, quality increased because people were able to take their time more and make their folds precise.

- What effect did the recommendations have for the process as a whole?
The process became more efficient and the team was definitely more collaborative. Everyone had a better idea of what was going on and what needed to be accomplished. Overall, this process was most successful.

Tinker Toy Lab

This week in class we received an assignment to a certain part of a company (e.g. manufacturing, engineering, marketing, suppliers, etc.). Ultimately, two companies were created with one in the bigger room and one in the smaller conference room. I was out in the bigger room where the company functioned more like a bunch of smaller companies.

As a company, we had to receive information from the customers about what they were looking for and then communicate that to our engineers who would make a detailed engineering drawing to give to manufacturing (me) who would then send it over to the suppliers. From the very beginning, we were in trouble. Our marketers did not get a very clear message from the customers and told us that we were creating something with wheels that rolled. Our engineers struggled to come up with an engineering drawing (what they did produce was a 2d stick figure car) and to figure out which materials they needed, which slowed the process down. Unfortunately, instead of helping them, most of us just pressured them to move faster and then proceeded to stare into space and wait for them to finish.

When the drawings and supplies finally got to our suppliers, we ran into more hurdles because accounting and the suppliers could not agree on a price. We spent at least 40 minutes just talking with the suppliers before we realized that there were other suppliers we could talk to. Finally, we got the parts to manufacturing (me), but the parts seemed pretty random and we didn't even have 4 wheels. After more negotiations (we got 4 wheels!), we had about 5 minutes to assemble and test our device. Naturally, 5 minutes was not enough time for quality to go over all the issues with it and we definitely made a lower quality product than our competitors.

What I learned from this exercise is to be wary in larger companies of splitting responsibilities into different departments. It probably works better in real life because there are multiple projects, so a department is always working on something, but in our simulation, there was so much wasted time where multiple departments were stalled waiting for another one. This also caused some departments to be resentful of the other ones and instead of helping, they just became more impatient.

The other team was much more successful because their departments worked together to help each other fulfill the requirements. Their suppliers also were more reasonable about costs. Overall, their culture was very different and they saw each other as one entity instead of competing roles. I will try to remember to foster a strong culture and make communication a priority when working on projects in large groups.

Picture of our final prototype: