Takeaways from a Semester of Making

Posted on May 9, 2017 by Chase

This semester I had the privilege of absorbing all that the Digital Making Seminar had to offer. Whether it was working with laser cutters in the Fab Lab or tinkering with Fusion 360 in the Armory, this class gave me unprecedented exposure to the making process.

Expectations Before the Course

Heading into this semester, I was under the impression that the content of this course would strictly deal with 3D printing and the technology associated with it. In that regard, our class had countless opportunities to explore Cura, TinkerCAD, and Fusion 360, among a few others. What I was not expecting – and something that I was pleasantly surprised about – was that we also gained insight into numerous making techniques. In other words, while I believed the class was going to delve a deep into one certain aspect of the Making Revolution, in reality it actually spanned a multitude of types, and some that I had never even heard of prior to the course.

I believe that I, as well as the rest of the class, benefitted more from this sort of kitchen sink approach since every week we were constantly learning something new and different from the week prior. Relating this observation to our final semester projects, having the ability to draw from a wide spectrum of making techniques allowed each group to develop incredibly unique products. Some groups utilized the programming aspects (such as with Arduino Unos and Raspberry Pis) while others incorporated the more manual techniques we learned, like laser cutting and soldering wires. Through this process, I learned that I greatly enjoy the constant learning. Also crucial to my enjoyment of the class was the fact that it was composed of not just College of Business students, but rather a conglomeration of engineering majors, art and design majors, business majors, and entrepreneurs in general. For me, I found this to be very beneficial. While the majority of times I struggled in the ideation part of the process in terms of devising practical and applicable products, students with more creative minds were able to fill the knowledge void. Similarly, if at times I struggled with certain technologies, the majority of the engineering majors in the class had previous coding, programming, or making experience and were more than willing in helping me to succeed.

3 Main Takeaways

1)The Maker Movement is for Real

Before beginning this class I had an inaccurate understanding of the Maker Movement. I thought it was still in its infancy, and I had no idea it was on the immense scale that it currently is. The applications it has on modern society are truly incredible, and I look forward to following its growth over the long-term future.

2) 3D Scanning and Printing

3D Printing has exploded and an exponential rate, and the possibilities it has, from at-home printing to construction, are limited only by one’s imagination. For example, just over the duration of this semester, 3D printing has been used to build homes in Russia, as well as the building turbines for GE. In the case of the house in Russia, it was 3D printed in under 24 hours, at a cost of only $10,000. Although some houses have had 3D printed parts printed remotely and then brought to the construction site, this house was built completely on-site, using a mobile printer. The GE turbine, on the other hand, is able to withstand higher temperatures and pressure than current market offerings. These are just two examples of the immense potential that 3D printing presents.

3) An Introduction to the Design Process

This semester definitely opened my eyes to the design process. From the ideating stage to rapid prototyping to receiving user feedback, our team learned a great deal about how to design a product, from beginning to end. I personally found the ideation stage to be the most difficult, as I struggled to devise creative yet applicable and practical solutions to everyday problems that we encounter. Overall, this class was a great introduction to the skills and technology used by makers around the world, and I look forward to cultivating this interest after college.

BCC Creations – Door Sitter: Our Experience in Making

Posted on May 7, 2017 by Brian Kobiernicki

Our journey of creating the Door Sitter was challenging yet intuitive. Though the three of us in BCC Creations were not engineers, we had used our resources, research and knowledge to create an efficient product.

Prior to choosing to create the Door Sitter we went through a couple of ideas in our brainstorming process. We had first started out with identifying problems that were occurring in our own lives or to those around us. Vishal had stressed on using the Design Thinking Method which was a problem-solving process that allowed us to build up ideas with no limitations. Our first idea was based on our teammate, Carter’s experience with the recreational facilities on the U of I campus. He had noticed how many of the sporting balls were not at the correct PSI and having a decide to test it rather than manually doing it would be efficient. Thus, we decided to create a product to regulate a sporting balls PSI and pumping the ball to the correct amount. However, the more in-depth we got and furthered our research we realized that the product itself would be very complex and the pricing of it may not be suitable for the target consumers. Furthermore, we thought the product would worsen the problem and reduce the efficiency and we wanted to create a product that would be beneficial for more consumers.

Our next idea had helped lead us to our final idea, a Chores Alert System. We thought it would be useful to those in the dorms with roommates, they would be alerted through a text whenever a chore needed to be accomplished. Though we all liked the idea we had continued brainstorming for more possibilities which led us to the Door Sitter. All three of us lived in apartments and had the realization that when we left during school breaks we had no way of checking for breaking and entering which had happened to many of our friends. So we came up with the idea of creating an affordable yet efficient alarm for an apartment that would be able to detect an intruder and sent a text message to the roommates of the apartment.

Making

Once we finished brainstorming and settled on our problem to solve, it was time to determine how we were going to solve that problem, and how we could actually make that solution work. Fortunately for us, we had the MakerLab and Fab Lab at our disposal, not only for the physical components but also their expertise.

We knew that we wanted to 3D Print the housing for the system since we were familiar with the MakerLab, knew we could have multiple iterations, and the general low cost of 3D Printing. Before we could start designing the housing, we had to know what physical components our alarm system would need to function. Only after we settled on the technologies and hardware we were using could we design the housing.

Hardware

Initially, we planned on using an Arduino since we had used one and had experience programming it from our Blinker Boxes during our time at the Fab Lab. We thought we could use an Arduino with a bluetooth module to send notifications, but later decided to use a Raspberry Pi with Kootek Wifi adapter from the Maker Lab. To detect motion, we used an ultrasonic sensor from the Fab Lab. This allowed us to detect motion within a specific range that we were able to physically adjust to about 10 feet at a 120 degree angle. We also picked up male to female jumper wires to connect the Raspberry Pi, sensor, and breadboard together. We powered the device through mini-USB rather than a battery, and ultimately decided against the piezo sound buzzer. To interact with the Raspberry Pi, we used a keyboard, mouse, and monitor from the MakerLab.

Software

Once we acquired all the hardware for the security system, it was time to make the system actually work. We first had to load an operating system (Raspberrian) onto the device so that we could put in the Python code. We were fortunate to have Charlene’s friend lend us his technical skills with the programming. We used Twilio as a service to send the text message notifications to our phones when triggered by the motion sensor. To design the housing, we initially started using Fusion 360 since we had used it for the tutorial homework and our in class workshop with Jeff Smith, but we instead used Tinkercad for its simplicity. Although it is a relatively simple program, Tinkercad provided all the functionalities we needed, with far less complication.

The entire “making” process flowed very well. As the software was being programmed, we were simultaneously physically putting the hardware together. Once we knew how much space the hardware was taking up, we were able to design, print, and refine the housing. The MakerLab provided a great meeting place to work on the project together in addition to supplying the Arduino, wifi adapter, keyboard, monitor, power cord, and mouse. The Fab Lab was also a great outlet to receive advice from and supply us with the sensor, breadboard, and jumper wires.

Feedback & Testing

Given that security product solution is heavily user dependent, receiving feedback and testing the security “door sitter” was vital to allowing us to make adjustments to make the product function properly. The initial tests we ran ourselves focused on getting the device to accurately function as we created it. Functions such as the sensor detecting motion, ensuring the programmed Python sent the text message to a phone, and even connecting to wifi internet connection were processes that were refined by our testing. The range at which our ultra motion sensor detects motion was one capability we spent hours adjusting on our product. The ultra motion sensor has the capability to detect motion for a 120 degree 30 feet radius. We ultimately adjusted the sensor to only detect within 8-10 feet after much consideration about how our product is practically used. Since our the product is meant to run perpendicular with the entryway of a door, we did not want it to trigger a false alarm from movement far away. Taking practical considerations such as false alarms, how the product is used, and what makes most sense for the user were our primary goals when testing the security door sitter.

Furthermore, we tested the door sitter ourselves, collaborating with class members, and finally our team member Brian had his roommates test the door sitter within their daily routine. The feedback we received focused on two aspects of the door sitter. Firstly, where to install the product was something that was not intuitive to users outside of our team. It was not necessarily clear what location to velcro the door sitter box worked best. Another point that was brought up with the door sitter sensor location, was “what if a user has pets such as cats in the apartment? Would that trigger false alarms? “. We resolved this issue by creating an installation instruction manual, that would be given with the product for users who purchase the door sitter. The instructions tell the owner to use the provided velcro to put the door sitter on a wall perpendicular of the entry way that the user wants to be detected. It also has recommendations such as to install it high above if a user has pets.

Secondly, our classmates suggested that a user could easily forget to arm the door sitter before leaving there room / apartment. Our product is currently armed by simply plugging in the power cord. As in once a user wants their residence to be monitored they simply plug in the power, and after a 1 minute delay there motion sensor is monitoring the entry way. Although we could not figure out a low cost way to arm and disarm the door sitter remotely in the event that a user forgot to power it on, we did create a notification system that texts a user to let them know the system is on. This way a user can know based on their message history that the security system is armed, and the text message becomes a part of their daily routine

The feedback we received was generally positive, in that the Door Sitter was helpful in providing peace of mind and information regarding college students area of residence. Most importantly the critical feedback we received was beneficial, because it led to us improving our product by making it seamlessly fit into a user’s life.

Final Product

Our final product The Door Sitter, provides a solution to the need for low cost residential security. The Door Sitter is a personalized sensor set up by door(s) or window(s) to an apartment/house. When the Door Sitter is armed, it functions as an alert security system by immediately notifying resident (s) if and when there is someone that has entered the interior of a home. The Door Sitter notifies resident(s) when motion is detected via SMS text message, so that they are aware of what is happening within their residence and can alert authorities if need be,The customized 3D printing housing unit and instructions makes the Door SItter easy to set up with velcro, and more importantly keeps users mobily connected to the security of their home by knowing if and when someone has entered. Our product effectively monitors and notifies users of activity in a home. The immediate information the Door Sitter provides, gives users peace of mind knowing that they do not have to worry about a break in when they are away from their residence. Furthermore if there is a residential break in, with the alert system residents now have the information to be able to respond. Door Sitter can solve a need in that college students and property owners, have the ability to respond to a residential break with a low cost option for a security system.

Certainly, the BCC team learned quite a bit this semester in terms of the capabilities and process of solving a need through 3D printing, While we are satisfied with the progress we made in creating our own effective product that can help solve an everyday need, we also know that the product is far from perfect in terms of taking it to market. Do to the cost we did not pursue the potential of adding a camera to the Door Sitter. We do think finding a low budget camera to add to the exterior of the housing unit, would be useful in allowing a user to know not just that there is someone in their residence but who. Finally the actual cost of our product is a factor that we need to analyze more if we wanted our product to be on the market. The door Sitter costs roughly $50-$60 per unit with the all of the components. The feedback we received from our presentation suggested that even if we sold the Door Sitter at cost for $50-$60, that price tag still is a bit expensive for our target market of a college student. In our research we found that most in home door monitors are high tech and range from $120-$250. So while the Door Sitter would be a low cost option in comparison to what most security systems entail, we may want to pursue alternative components in collaboration with Jeff Ginger at the Fab Lab to make our product less expensive given our target market.

Overall our team BCC creations, made a product that solves a need with the Door Sitter. We worked over several project ideas, learned new softwares such as Fusion 360, and went through many iterations of the design making process to create a solution. Using 3D printing and the Maker / Fab Lab to create a functioning and tangible final product, was beneficial in providing our team hands on experience of the capabilities of this technology and the maker movement.

Door Sitter Presentation from Brian Kobiernicki

A Semester of Making

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Brian Kobiernicki

When I enrolled in the BADM 395 Digital Making class, I was really not sure what to expect. I had learned about the class while enrolled in Professor Vishal’s BADM 350: IT for Networked Organizations class and thought it might be worthwhile to take. Prior to the first day of class, I had never been to the Maker Lab. In fact, other than seeing a quick demonstration several years ago, I had no experience with 3D Printing or really any form of digital making. My main motivations for taking the class were that 1) I wanted to learn more about the Maker Movement which I knew little about, 2) it would introduce me to many of the resources available at the University that few students take advantage of, and 3) I like the emphasis on learning, growth, and sharing rather than cramming and examination. The fact that the class counted towards my IS/IT major was certainly an added bonus.

I was hoping to learn how 3D Printers work, how to design objects for 3D printing, and different types of 3D Printing. However, I learned all of this and much, much more. I learned about the Maker Movement, different types of fabrication, design, product development, and prototyping, just to name a few topics. I have never considered myself a very “creative” person, so this course challenged me to think outside of my comfort zone. Working through the projects helped me develop some creative skills and further refine my problem solving skills. I am now more comfortable working on product development, a skill that is transferrable to many other processes such as project management. In addition to this, I was introduced to and learned about the following topics.

The Maker Movement:

The first few weeks of class served as an introduction to the Maker Movement. We covered topics such as intellectual property concerns and the success of open source software and devices over paid or closed services. It is here where we learned the learning aspect of the Maker Movement and the importance of learning, sharing, modifying, and most importantly: doing.

Design:

One of the most important facets of making is design. Design for America led us through a workshop to demonstrate the importance of meaningful design. Instead of creating a product and finding demand, we should find a problem and design a solution. Through our readings we learned that products must be desirable, viable, and feasible.

Tinkercad and Fusion 360:

Learning Tinkercad was very easy. Vishal demonstrated the open source online software and we designed our team logos. Even though the program is pretty simple, it makes it very easy to design objects quickly. Our first experience with Fusion 360 was through tutorials before class. Following this series of videos by Lars Christensen, we are able to create a box/housing with a lid. It demonstrated how powerful Fusion 360 really is. We were lucky to have Jeff Smith from Autodesk teach us even more the features available. For my group’s final project, we ended up using Tinkercad rather than Fusion 360 because of its simplicity.

Fab Lab:

We spent three consecutive weeks in the Champaign-Urbana Fab Lab. Although I had soldered in the past, it was my first time in several years. It was a great way to practice making circuits and soldering them together. I was also able to code an Arduino for the first time, which sparked my thought process as we brainstormed ideas for our final project. Finally, I also used a laser engraver for the first time. This introduced me to Inkscape, another open source software (have you noticed a theme yet?) that allowed us to take silhouettes and have them etched into the wood and cut through to form edges.

Prototyping:

The remainder of the semester focused on prototyping. Although I have been through mock product development phases, this was the first time I have gone from identifying a problem to presenting a final, physical working product. David Kelley says “Design is an iterative process” and I found that to be very true. Our prototype went through many versions starting with a sketch on paper to the final version. Between adjusting our coding on the Raspberry Pi to changing the design of the 3D printed housing to adding and removing functionalities, we spent a lot of time refining the project to best solve the problem of a lack of security on campus while addressing the needs of users. Somewhere in the middle of things we were able to learn about 3D scanning, something we could turn into a business idea as Arielle Rausin has. I was able to scan my head and 3D print it. By the end of the semester, we had been able to design, test, refine, and produce a final security system alternative.

An added bonus of the class was being able to go up to Chicago for a day. We visited Deloitte for a presentation on Deloitte’s tech trends and a consulting workshop. We also visited the Deloitte Greenhouse, a space where clients can come in and run through workshops to problem solve and create connections across many levels of their own companies. It was a really unique space and I’m glad I was able to see it. After Deloitte, we drove over to mHUB, a collaborative space where member companies can work on developing and manufacturing products. This is the epitome of the future of making. Members can work together, building off of each others skill sets, have access to collaborative and shared workspaces, and take advantage of a significant amount of expensive, advanced equipment. It was really cool to see Making on a commercial scale.

The end of the semester is bittersweet. While I’m excited for the summer and to be interning again, I am going to miss this class. We formed such a great community together and learned a lot from Vishal, all of our guest speakers, and each other. I’m glad I was able to enjoy this class and challenge myself these past few months.

Digital Making at the Makerlab- Spring2017

Learn. Make. Share.

Tag Archives: Digital Making

Takeaways from a Semester of Making

BCC Creations – Door Sitter: Our Experience in Making

A Semester of Making