Final Project “TAPO”: Liang

TAPO: Speak Rhythms Everywhere

Idea Evolution:

This project comes from the original idea that people can make rhythms through the resonant property and material of cups and interacting with cups. However, as the project progresses, it is more interesting and proper for people to input the rhythms by speaking than do gestures on cups. It also extends the context from cups to any surface because of the fact that each object has resonant property and specific material. So, the final design and function of TAPO have a significant change from the very raw idea. The new story here is:

“Physical objects have resonance property and specific material. Tap object gives different sound feedback and percussion experience. People are used to making rhythms by beating objects. So, why not provide a tangible way not only allowing people to make rhythms with physical objects around she/he, but also enriching the experience by some computational methods. The ultimate goal for this project is that ordinary people can make and play rhythms with everyday objects, even perform a piece of percussion performance.”

Design & Key Features:

TAPO is an autonomous device that generates rhythms according to people’s input (speech, tapping, making noise). TAPO can be placed on different surfaces, like desk, paper, ground, wall, window… With different material and the object’s resonant property, it is able to create different quality of sound. People’s input gives the pattern of rhythm.

System diagram

a) voice, noise, oral rhythm, beat, kick, knock, oral expression… can be the user input

b) using photo resistor to trigger recording

c) get rid of accelerometer, add led to indicate the state of recording and rhythm play


It is composed of several hardware components: a solenoid, a microphone electret, a transistor, a step-up voltage regulator, a Trinket board, a colourful LED, a photocell, a switch and a battery.






I used 3D printing enclosure to package all parts together. The holes with different sizes on the bottom are used for different usage, people can mount a hook or a suction. With these extra tools, it can be places on any surfaces. The other big hole is used for solenoid to beat the surface. The two holes on the top  side are used to show microphone and LED light separately. On each side, there is a hole for photo resistor and switch.

photo3 photo4

TAPO finally looks like this:

photo6 photo5 photo7 photo8 photo9


Final introduction video:

Conclusion & Future Work:

This project gives me a lot more than technology. I learn about how to design and develop a thing from a very raw idea, and keeping thinking about its value, target users, and possible scenarios in a quick and iterative process. I really enjoy the critique session, even though it is tough and sometimes makes me feel disappointed. The positive suggestions are always right and lead me to a high level and more correct direction. I realise my problems on motivation, design, and stroytelling from these communications. Fortunately, it gets much more reasonable from design thinking to value demonstration. I feel better when I find something more valuable and reasonable comes up in my mind. It also teaches me the significance of demonstrating my work when it is hard to describe and explain. In the public show on Dec. 6th, I found people would like to play with TAPO and try different inputs, they are curious about what kind of rhythm TAPO could generate. In the following weeks, I will refine the hardware design and rich the output (some control and digital outputs).


I would like to thank very much Ali Momeni for his advices and support on technology and idea development, and all the guest reviewers who gave me many constructive suggestions.

Final Project: Jake Marsico

Final Project,Submission,Uncategorized — jmarsico @ 11:45 pm

The final deliverable of these two instruments (video portrait register and reactive video sequencer) was a series of two installations on the CMU campus.


The version  shown in both installations had major flaws.  The installation was meant to show a range of clips that varied in emotion and flowed seamlessly together. Because I shot the footage before completing the software, it wasn’t clear exactly what I needed from the actor (exact time of each clip, precision of face registration, number of clips for each emotion).  After finishing the playback software, it became clear that the footage on hand didn’t work as well as it could.  Most importantly, the majority of the clips lasted for more than 9 seconds. In order to really nail the fluid transitions, I had to play each clip foward and then in reverse, so as to ensure each clip finished in the same position it started. To do that with each 9 second clip would have meant that each clip would have lasted a total of 18 seconds (9 forward, 9 backwards). These 18 second clips would eliminate any responsiveness to movements of viewers.

As a result, I chose to only use the first quarter of each clip and play that forward and back. Although this made the program more responsive to viewers, it cut off the majority of the subject’s motions and emotions, rendering the entire piece almost emotionless.

Another major flaw is that the transitions between clips very noticeable as a result of imperfect face registrations. In hindsight, it would require an actor or actress with extreme dedication and patience to perfectly register their face at the beginning of each clip. It might also require some sort of physical body registering hardware. A guest critic suggested that a better solution might be to pair the current face-registration tool with a face-tracking and frame re-alignment application in post production.

If this piece were to be shown outside the classroom, I would want to re-shoot the video with a more explicit “script” and look into building a software face-aligning tool using existing face-tracking tools such as ofxFaceTracker for openFrameworks.



Final Project: Note Cubes – Wanfang Diao

Assignment,Final Project,Submission — Wanfang Diao @ 3:45 pm


How we learn about our physical world? How we learn light? How we learn sound? How we get the basic concept of space and time?

As for me, I learned form experience. I learned from the experience of stack toy bricks and tearing them down. I learned from  tapping a stainless steel plate with wooden spoon. I learn from doing, learn from trials. Once I get the rule of game, I begin to create.

In this project, I want to make music notes more tangible and touchable, which can be experienced in a more intuitive way. I aim to build a very straight forward mapping relationship between “time/sound” and “space/light(or color)” , which can not only give children a concept of the structure  of melody but also give them access to  create  a piece of music.

Therefore, I designed the Note Cubes, a set of tangible cubes for kids to explore sound, notes and rhythm. By putting them a line or also stacking them (just like playing toy bricks), kids can let cubes trigger their “neighbor cubes “by colorful LEDs to play notes and then get a piece of sound or melody after a few time trials.

Note Cubes from Wanfang Diao on Vimeo.


This project has been shown at Assemble ( ) Dec. 2013.Here is the video about how kids play with Note Cubes!What I learn from the show is there should be more obvious signs to the trigger direction of cubes. And more shapes can be explored.


Public Show for Note Cubes2 from Wanfang Diao on Vimeo.

About tech:
There is micro-controller (Trinket), photosensors, speaker and LEDs in each cubes. Each speaker can play notes when triggered by LED lights from other cubes under the control of micro-controller.
The cube’s shell is made by hardboard by laser cutting.
Thanks for the help of Ali Momeni, Dale Clifford, Zack Jacobson-Weaver,  Madeline Gannon and my  friends in CoDelab!


Final Project Presentation – Mauricio Contreras

Assignment,Final Project,Robotics,Submission,Technique — mauricio.contreras @ 11:47 pm

My fourth and final milestone and final project presentation involved real time driving of the movement of a simulated robotic arm with a haptic feedback capable gestural controller. By this time, I was interfacing with an actual ABB IRB 6640 industrial robot, and my controller was a smartphone. The IMU of the smartphone allows to read its orientation, and thus allows for mapped gestural control of the position of the head of the robot based on the tilt of the smartphone on each of its own axis. The haptic feedback is provided by the smartphone’s vibrator. Through the development up until the 3rd milestone, I had concluded that even though I had implemented already the motion control system and vibration upon the robot touching “virtual walls” (preset coordinates beyond which motion is not allowed), with the smartphone vibrating upon touching the wall, the “quality” of the motion I was getting was not enough to make it a desirable sculpting tool. I then shifted the priorities of the project in order to get better motion characteristics, as opposed to exploring further on the haptic feedback side, which up to now is only binary (touch = max vibration, not touch = 0 vibration).

Motion experiments

The motion of the ABB industrial robotic arms is limited to receive targets (6 degrees of freedom points: 3 coordinates for position and 3 for head orientation/rotation) and the motion path between them cannot be interrupted. This means updating the next target upon real time variation of the driving variable (in this case the smartphone’s orientation) is essentially not possible. I say essentially because there is a parameter of the movement instructions called “zone”, which specifies how near the head of the robot needs to be to the current target being pursued for the instruction to be considered complete, and then move to the next one. “zone = fine” means the targets have to be reached precisely. “zone = zX”, where X belongs to a group of preset numbers, allows the robot to reach “near” the target (how near is specified by the different X). Upon reaching the “zone” around the target, the next instruction in the program starts being executed.

With the above information, I considered the following alternatives for improved motion, grouped mainly in two categories:

A. Better target generation
1) Low pass filtering of the orientation
2) Keep a reception buffer with at least one more target than the current instruction (for “zone!=fine” to work well)
3) Smart generation of targets based on gesture recognition

B. Optimization of movement commands parameters
1) Setting of correct speed, step size and zone.

Out of all the available options, I started by B.1. The original motion to compare against is the fixed speed (max), fixed step size (usually 5-10 cm) and zone=fine of the first motion test, as shown in the video below:

The main progress in this direction was achieved considering variable step size in each axis based on the change of magnitude of the rotation in that axis. Also, variable speed, based on the max of the absolute values of all rotation components. Static weights were applied so that the largest step size would be around 10 cm. and the speed varies between 0-100%, with the max speed of the robot being 200 mm/s (in the manual mode of operation which is what I’ve been allowed to use). The result of these parameters may be seen below:

The resulting motion, albeit keeping its piecewise nature, seems to be much better suited to precise yet responsive control, with very little motion being performed when the rotation is near 0 (smartphones own axis aligned with the worlds coordinate system, as described here) and larger displacements being performed due to higher magnitude rotations. This resembles the way humans work on a physical piece in the sense that when precision is required movements are slow and short/local, whereas the movement between areas of precision is by definition non precise and therefore is optimized with greater speed and less accuracy. This parameter optimization was shown in the final project presentation. The final precision reached, along with smartphone vibration upon touching virtual walls (“sandbox”) was shown both in free air and also with a very simple demo. It consisted in a pencil being attached to the arm’s head and a canvas layer on top of a table, where people could draw (safely, since a “sandbox” was created which would not allow the robot to pierce through the table or adjacent wall). A video of the presentation was taken:


The overall goal of the semester was to give a step towards an overarching ambitious project for my degree, related to being able to sculpt with a robotic arm. For this class the goal was to get acquainted with the workflow around the robotic arms present in dFab, the Dept. of Architecture digital fabrication laboratory. The factual outcome would be to use the same software that previous users are familiar with and be able to connect a gestural controller and haptic feedback capable device to drive the robots. As stated this was achieved, but the following was learnt during the project:

  • Responsiveness: real time driving of the robot seems to be crucial in order for the user to feel she/he is in actual control of the robot. The slower the response time, the harder it is to relate one’s own motion to that of the robot in an intuitive way.
  • Quality of the motion: The piecewise motion obtained due to the constraint imposed by the ways the robots are programmed (the lowest layer accessible to the user being RAPID) greatly reduces the quality with which users seem to regard the quality of the motion. “Dumb” and “robotic” were adjectives used repeatedly by users/observers. Even when good parameter choice for motion commands aided the situation, this is a key aspect to address in future development. There are other robots which are made to more closely resemble human arms and allow better real time interaction, but my degree is based on architecture and on the practical side of things I want to explore and also give dFab a creation tool useful and tuned to their setup, which means using the ABB robots. My intuition tells me that A.3, smart target generation, may provide the greatest improvement and is the next step I intend to explore in future courses.
  • Mapping: the final setup maps smartphone orientation to position of the robot’s head. Whereas it proves the concept of gestural control, it is indirect (as opposed of driving position with position which was the original intent) and the final degree of control available to the user seems far from what is desired. Presentation observers had a really tough time trying to draw on the paper provided. As it is now, the controller more resembles a 3 degree of freedom joystick, and very likely an of the shelve one that would be better in some sense could be purchased. Again my intuition tells me direct mapping (position to position and orientation to orientation) is required for “natural” control, and since my research so far points that stand alone positioning through an IMU is not solved (at least in free air) and cannot be applied to the project, seems like external sensor based technologies, such as visual motion capture (“mocap”) are necessary.
  • Why?: the question came back again from many observers in the presentation. Since the example application was drawing, many commented on the fact that humans can draw much better than the robot did. To this I replied yes, absolutely, since a naturally feeling motion has not been achieved yet, but more importantly, because the idea of using an industrial robotic arm is in tasks that would be impossible or at least very difficult for a human to do directly and cumbersome to do with a power tool, like bending/milling/etc. very hard/large materials, and that with precision and speed. Essentially, a big industrial robotic arm is made for high power/high precision/large sized applications, so anything that needs a very powerful hand tool, a position hard to reach and very high precision work in either/both scenarios a robot, with the correct instructions, can do better than bare hand. I think now that it is essential to somehow preserve the high precision nature of the robot, but still explore the liveliness of human physical sculpting. A way to do this is with a mixed analog/digital instruction set, such as in drawing software which mixes free form drawing with a mouse, but also allows for precise mathematical operations to be performed on top of that. This is tried and true for sculpting in the virtual world (any CAD software), hence it is likely that some of it can be translated in a useful way to the physical world. I intend to build this mixed human driven/software enhanced toolkit.


Rapid, Android. See the Future CNC course website and ABB’s full reference for further information on RAPID.


I would like to thank very much Mike Jeffers, Madeline Gannon, Zack Jacobson-Weaver, Ali Momeni, Jeremy Ficca, Joshua Bard, Garth Zegling and CMU’s Manipulation Lab for their incredible support to this project.

Final Project Milestone 3 – David Lu

Assignment,Submission — David Lu @ 11:49 pm

Milestone 3: make the hardware

Final Project Milestone 3 – Mauricio Contreras

Assignment,Final Project,Robotics,Submission,Technique — mauricio.contreras @ 10:26 pm

My original 3rd milestone had to do with connecting a haptic feedback controller with the simulation of robotic motion, which by this time had turned into real motion, and the device chosen as described before is a smartphone since it provides an IMU and a vibrator, all with a standard and well proven programming API.

Limitations of IMU standalone motion tracking

My original intent was to use the device’s IMU to track position and orientation, each in 3 axis, providing effectively 6 degrees of freedom. My pursuit is for a very natural gestural interaction that would mimic one’s own hand orientation and position in space, to be imitated by the robot changing it’s own head position and orientation. My assumption was that standalone positioning based on integrating the accelerometer’s readings twice was a method that must have been solved by now, and I started searching for code. Yet, to my surprise, it seems this is not true and the constraints lie mainly on the double integration, the first of which leaves a constant error, and hence the second multiplies that constant with time, meaning the error grows linear with time! The drift most algorithms (at least the ones available on the web) render is even of tens of centimeters per second, which is completely unusable for the application in mind. In the case of orientation, this is completely different because there is only one integration to be made, plus there are at any given time 2 vectors of reference against which to correct: gravity and the magnetic north. To sum up, whereas one can get very accurate orientation from an IMU, linear positioning is still very much a work in progress, the underlying reasons being physical more than technological.

This immediately cut 3 degrees of freedom from my ideal application, the most important ones at that (the assumption being that one can probably use tricks to change the head’s orientation but use real degrees of freedom for it’s position, as opposed to the other way round. This is pure intuition though). I faced the decision of changing technology to visual tracking or keep using the IMU, now only with orientation. Even though kinect based motion tacking seems to be pretty plug&play these days, I had no previous experience and decided the semester was too advanced to have a setback as not being able to show anything functional in the end, whereas I was already somewhat acquainted at this time with the smartphone workflow I had developed. I decided then to stay on this path.

Orientation based linear motion control, first tests

I devised a TCP/IP socket based client (Android smartphone) – server (robot controller) application. It uses the smartphones orientation (software sensor provided by Android based on fusing the raw information from accelerometer, gyroscopes and magnetometer/compass) in each axis to generate steps that offset the robots head position in each axis.

The motion result was pretty much just as cut as what I had obtained with hardcoded targets, which left me with a feeling of disappointment. See video below, and please notice how unnatural this piecewise movement feels.

This piecewise motion is not related to the smartphone input information, but to the way the robot is controlled. Through the trials, becoming acquainted with people who have done extensive work with the robots (Mike Jeffers, Madeline Gannon, Zack Jacobson-Weaver, Ali Momeni, Jaremy Ficca, Josh Bard, Kevyn McPhail, up to then) and online research, I came to know that at least ABB robots, being developed for industrial use, are aimed towards rigid precision. This means motion commands are based on targets and are not meant to be interrupted in the middle, which is exactly what is required for responsive gestural control (real time interrupts). The next and final milestone shows the way of how I’ve dealt with this limitation.

Final Project Milestone 2 – David Lu

Assignment,Submission — David Lu @ 11:21 pm

Milestone 2: make my computer understand the sensors

It was working but then I tore everything apart and forgot to take documentation, oops. BRB putting everything back together.

Before sending the contact mic signal into the computer, it needed to be amplified. ArtFab had some piezo preamps lying around but they required 48v phantom power and I didn’t want to deal with that so I made my own preamp.

Final Project Milestone 2 – Mauricio Contreras

Assignment,Final Project,Robotics,Submission,Technique — mauricio.contreras @ 10:02 pm


My second milestone was about simulating the motion of a robotic arm within the software workflow that had been explored in the first milestone (Rhino + Grasshopper + HAL). Upon getting acquainted with the capabilities of these pieces of softwares and understanding more about the possible constraints and needs of the instrument, I realized that REAL TIME driving of the robotic arm was a major requirement. Just imagine sculpting with your arm moving with a few seconds lag after your movement intention and you’ll see why. The software workflow described above is great for offline materialization of 3D designs, but not necessarily for real time control. Even though feasible, people from the lab commented about possible lag issues, which made me want to try out the real motion of the robot, even with simple commands, as soon as possible. I found procuring the tools to run in my own machine rather difficult: All of them are Windows only, so at first I got a virtual machine from Ali Momeni with everything preloaded, but it ran excruciatingly slow (even when I changed my computer to the latest Macbook Pro). Then I tried creating my own virtual machine from scratch, and installed Rhino and Grasshopper with success. Yet HAL’s developer webpage was down and I had problems procuring tutorial training for it. When I asked for help with this, people recommended to learn the former 2 tools first and then use HAL. This seemed reasonable but I was under time constraints (by choice) to test the robots motion as soon as possible with a configuration that would generate the least lag, and evaluate if that optimal setup would prove to be responsive enough to match the target application of the instrument, which is sculpting.

Early motion tests

I then turned to writing my own RAPID code, and quickly was able to generate a routine to move the head of the robot in a square in the air, as shown in the following video.

The routine was based on offsetting the current location by steps in each axis, but also waiting for a digital input state before each small step. Since the robot accepts 24 V digital inputs, I would have had to use a power source or do a conversion circuit from the standard micro controllers 5/3.3 V outputs. That is not difficult but I assumed that the DI of the robots had pull down resistors and just made it wait for DI=0 before each motion. Since the shape was completed that thesis was proven. Also, the motion seemed “cut”, as if doing start-pause-restart in every step, as opposed to a seamlessly continual motion that would have occurred either if the lag on processing the digital input was very low or depending on motion configuration of the robot (i.e. there may be other motion commands that would output less of a “cut” motion). I removed the wait for DI statements with no appreciable effect, hence the motion commands were the issue. To see the effect of this when driving the robot with gestures, and based on previous code for motion (FUTURE CNC LINK), I started writing a TCP/IP socket based client (Android smartphone) – server (robot controller) application, which will be outlined in the next milestone posting.


Up to this milestone, just getting access to the robots themselves and being able to move them in a hardcoded fashion I consider a success by itself, yet it is clear that new, unforeseen difficulties have appeared.

Final Project Milestone 1 – Mauricio Contreras

Assignment,Final Project,Robotics,Submission,Technique — mauricio.contreras @ 11:45 am

My first milestone was to procure myself all the software tools necessary for at least simulating motion of a robotic arm within a framework which has been previously used by Ali Momeni. Namely, this means interacting with Rhinoceros 3D, the Grasshopper and HAL plugins, and ABB RobotStudio. I’ve now got all this pieces of software up and running in a virtual image of Windows (of the above only Rhino exists, as a beta, for OS X) and have basic understanding of all of them. I had basic dominion of Rhino throuh previous coursework, and now have done tutorials fro Grasshopper by and the Future CNC website for HAL and RobotStudio. I’ve got CAD files that represent the geometry of the robot, can move it in freehand with RobotStudio and am learning to rotate the different joints in Rhino from Grasshopper.

Update (12/11/2013): added presentation used the day of the milestone critique.

Final Project Proposal – Mauricio Contreras

Assignment,Mid-Semester Report,Submission — mauricio.contreras @ 1:13 pm

Next Page »
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
(c) 2017 Hybrid Instrument Building 2014 | powered by WordPress with Barecity