In 2013, Devon, Jentery, and Bill’s class experimented with different microcontrollers, and they collaboratively built a 3D printer. In 2014, Devon, Jentery, and Bill worked with students to emulate early videogames in original arcade cabinets, build another printer, and experiment with MaxMSP for interactive exhibits. In 2015, Nina, Shaun, Devon, and Jentery’s class built their own “metaphors in a box” using laser cut materials and microcontrollers. They also explored 3D modelling with SketchUp and photo-stitching with Agisoft Photoscan. (The 2015 syllabus is available on GitHub.) Finally, in 2016, Tiffany, Danielle, Jentery, and I (Kat) conducted workshops on Arduino, Agisoft Photoscan, 3D structured-light scanning, 123D Design, and 123D Make. Near the end of the week, students explored how they could use these tools to develop their own projects. (The 2016 syllabus is available on Github.)

DHSI student, Padmini Ray Murray, working on #box, a light-emitting heart corresponding with Twitter hashtags

Research Leads, Contributors, and Support

Since 2013, the following researchers have contributed to the Physical Computing and Fabrication course at DHSI: Nina Belojevic, Tiffany Chan, Devon Elliott, Katherine Goertz, Shaun Macpherson, Danielle Morgan, Jentery Sayers, and Bill Turkel. The course was first taught by Devon and Bill in 2012. The Digital Humanities Summer Institute, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund supported this research.

A 3D printer built by students during DHSI 2013

Project Status

This project was completed in June 2016. The most recent version of our syllabus is available for download and reuse.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the Makerspace project, with the fabrication, physcomp, and projects tags. Featured image of Seamus and me scanning a spacecraft care of Danielle Morgan.

Model and Manufacture of the Electro-Mobile Skull Stick Pin (image care of Nina Belojevic, Shaun Macpherson, and Danielle Morgan)

Research Leads, Contributors, and Support

Since 2013, the following researchers have contributed to the Early Wearables Kit: Nina Belojevic, Tiffany Chan, Nicole Clouston, Devon Elliott, Katherine Goertz, Shaun Macpherson, Kaitlynn McQueston, Danielle Morgan, Victoria Murawski, Jentery Sayers, and William J. Turkel. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund supported this research.

The Kit Exhibited at Rutgers (image care of Danielle Morgan)

Project Status

This project was completed in October 2015 and exhibited at Rutgers University, with publications in Hyperrhiz and Visible Language and a CBC Radio interview that same year. The lab also created a public repository containing all files related to the kit. To learn more about the kit, see the stream of posts below. Please do not hesitate to either comment on a post or email maker@uvic.ca with feedback.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the KitsForCulture project, with the fabrication and projects tags.

To imitate Poulsen’s early experiments, we constructed a trolley and modelled the exteriors of a telephone receiver and transmitter. Next, we remade and tested various telephone parts to mimic Poulsen’s use of both a transmitter for magnetizing piano wire and a receiver for playback. Poulsen relied on existing telephone parts in his experiments. As such, we sourced receivers and transmitters available to him at the time (e.g., we ordered a few different Kellogg telephone parts from 1901).

Kellogg Transmitter and Receiver (photograph by Danielle Morgan)

To test the transmitter, we created a circuit using the transmitter, an electromagnet, and a battery, as described in Marvin Camras’s 1988 account of Poulsen’s experiment. Unfortunately, during our first few attempts, the transmitter would not magnetize the wire. To gain a better understanding of the transmitter and receiver, we experimented with building them from scratch. We turned to resources that were written for hobbyists and tinkerers, including Old-Time Telephones: Technology, Restoration, and Repair, by Ralph O. Meyer, and Bob’s Old Phones, an online resource compiled by antique phone enthusiast, Bob Estreich.

We began by building a simple pencil carbon transmitter, similar to several of the earliest transmitter designs. This version would transmit sound into a set of headphones or a speaker, but it was not nearly strong enough to magnetize the piano wire. Next, we tried a basic carbon granule transmitter, following Henry Hunnings’s 1878 design (Meyer, 16). Early transmitter patents relied on only one point of contact between electrodes, thus limiting capacity. In contrast, Hunnings’s use of carbon granules between the two electrodes ensured multiple points of contact and increased capacity.

Hunnings’s transmitter still wasn’t reliable, since the carbon dust particles tended to pack together with use. In 1886, Edison improved Hunnings’s design by replacing the carbon dust with carbonized hard coal, since it was less prone to packing (Meyer, 17). We attempted making our own simple carbon granule transmitter, which was also far from effective. Much like our pencil carbon transmitter, it was simply not strong enough to impress sound onto piano wire.

Inside a Kellogg Transmitter (photograph by Danielle Morgan)

In 1890, Bell engineer Anthony White introduced the solid-back transmitter. This design became the transmitter of choice for manufacturers until the 1930s (Meyer, 18). More than likely, this transmitter would have been the kind Poulsen used for his magnetic recording experiment. It was much more difficult for us to replicate, since it was more complex and many of the parts are now very difficult to source. However, having gained a basic understanding of the transmitter’s design, we decided to restore the solid-back transmitter we already had at our disposal: we replaced all the copper wiring, cleaned out the dust inhibiting capacity, replaced screws to tighten the grips on the diaphragm, and repaired the plastic cover, which keeps the carbon granules in place. With this approach, we were able to magnetize sections of the wire by shouting into the transmitter as we ran the electromagnet along the wire. We were also able to test for imprinted magnetic fields by dabbing iron fillings along the wire to see where they would cling.

Iron Filings Clinging to Recording on Wire (photograph by Danielle Morgan)

Once we knew that the wire had been magnetized, we attempted to play back the sound by running the electromagnet along the wire again, this time connected to the telephone receiver. We occasionally heard small clicks when we ran the electromagnet over heavily magnetized sections, but the sound was hardly high fidelity.

In the Magnetic Recording Handbook, Camras states, “if only the telegraphone had given loud, clear, reliable sound, it would have met with public acceptance. But the reproduction was weak and spotty” (6). Presumably, Poulsen’s initial experiment with playback would have been even weaker and less reliable than playback on a telegraphone (a device he exhibited in 1900). Even so, we are pleased with our success in magnetizing the wire and prototyping the recording trolley. What’s more, we recognize the impossibility of remaining true to Poulsen’s first experiments, and the contingencies of the recording process made us even more aware of differences over time. We weren’t there, but we better understand there now.

Post by Katherine Goertz, Danielle Morgan, and Jentery Sayers, attached to the KitsForCulture and Makerspace projects, with the fabrication tag. Images for this post care of Danielle Morgan. Research based on “Making the Perfect Record” (published in American Literature).

Throughout this prototyping process, we’ve used a 3-D scanner (or structured-light scanner) to produce models for experimentation. For the skull stick-pin, we made and then scanned a wooden skull as a model for fabrication in acrylic. For the magnetic recording experiments, we scanned late-19th-century telephone receivers and transmitters. Using those scans, we reduced the 3-D models to 2-D parts that we cut with a laser and then assembled back into wooden iterations of the originals. For other projects, we are making casting moulds by splitting the digital scans in half and then either fabricating them or carving interiors with various CNC machines. We can then fill the moulds with an array of materials. This approach allows us to retain more nuanced surface features, including grooves or cracks. It also allows us to work with materials such as metals.

Unfortunately, the scanning process doesn’t always go as easily as planned. For instance, scanners such as ours (an LMI HDI 120) frequently face difficulties picking up smooth textures, including metal or plastic. As you can see in the image below, the initial scan saw almost nothing when we first scanned the telephone transmitter’s plastic casing.

One way to address this problem is to add texture by dusting the object with talcum powder, for example. If we are using a rotary table, then we also place the object on its side or at another angle. This way, the light hits it from a slightly different direction. As the image below suggests, I placed the transmitter on a piece of paper to add contrast. While this approach resulted in more angles, it also scanned the paper as though it were part of the transmitter. Since I didn’t want the paper to be part of my final scan, I selected and deleted the sections of the object that didn’t seem to belong. In the image, the section highlighted in yellow is about to be deleted. Moments such as this one remind us how 3-D scans aren’t exactly “copies” of originals. They are edited throughout the remediation process.

Software such as FlexScan3D (which we use often) also allows you to combine several partial scans to fill missing parts. However, in some cases the software will consistently miss the same spots on the object. In such situations, we use the software’s “fill” option, where you bridge specific sections to indicate where a wall should go. In the image below, I’ve placed several bridges across the midsection of the transmitter.

If the holes or occlusions prove too difficult, then we sacrifice some precision by applying the “smooth finish” function. While the object retains the same shape and most of its features, some intricate details are lost. Below, you can see a finalized version of the telephone transmitter where I applied a smooth finish.

By digitizing 3-D objects, we’re able to not only remake them in a variety of ways but also create files that allow others to access remediations of historical objects and then interact with them without concerns about damaging surfaces, forms, or composition.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the KitsForCulture and Makerspace projects, with the fabrication tag. Images for this post care of Katherine Goertz and the MLab.

First, I used an HDI 120 3D scanner to digitize the telephone receiver into a 3D model (STL). I then exported the file and opened it in Autodesk 123D Make, which allows you to take 3D models and prep them for fabrication, or in our case, cutting the object into 2D parts using a CNC laser. In 123D Make, I was able to slice my model of the receiver into rings, which I could then cut from one sheet of wood.

Once the rings were cut, I stacked and glued them back into the shape of the model. I also sanded down the finished model to smooth out variations in texture. Pictured below is the original Kellogg receiver with unassembled rings (from my first attempt) and the remade receiver.

As we move forward with prototyping Poulsen’s prototype, we plan to investigate how replicating historical materials affects their function. While replicating form is fairly straightforward in the digitizing process, it is much more difficult to remake surfaces and other fine-grained details, especially across materials.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the KitsForCulture and Makerspace projects, with the fabrication tag. Featured image for this post care of Katherine Goertz and the MLab.

To introduce the first workshop on “Kit-of-Parts” construction, with students we discussed the notion of moving between bits and atoms. Specifically, we highlighted the difficulty of moving between a tactile object and a version of that object stored as bits of computer memory. To demonstrate such movement, we provided each group of students with the parts of a 3-D model that we laser-cut in the Lab. We intentionally chose models of extinct animals in order to draw a correlation between our own work, which involves replicating objects that we cannot access or hold in hand, and their own learning objectives.

Before the groups could assemble the object, we asked them to arrange the parts as they might see them on a computer screen. While several groups arranged them categorically or according to size, one group chose to arrange their pieces symbolically into the shape of a flower. Once the pieces were laid out in front of them, most groups were able to predict what kind of animal their parts would create. At the same time, the students also pointed out certain pieces of the 3-D puzzles that did not immediately seem to belong. Once the students were allowed to assemble their puzzles, they were able to recognize how those seemingly useless pieces helped the puzzle take on another dimension, beyond what they could see in the 2-D form.

After the students assembled their models, we walked through some of the techniques, such as printing, cutting, milling, routing, scanning, modelling, and rapid prototyping, we use for research in the Lab. We also discussed how prototyping objects could be helpful for research in the humanities, and we encouraged the students to consider how it could be useful in other areas as well.

For a physical example of rapid prototyping, we provided students with sample kits, but we also brought along a few printed objects to view. While most of the students were familiar with 3-D printing, most hadn’t considered the limitations of the process. While passing around 3-D sculptures, students pointed out imperfections in the surfaces of the objects. These observations opened up opportunities to discuss the kinds of issues that emerge while remediating an object from the computer into tactile form and back again.

We based our second workshop on Hannah Perner-Wilson’s “Kit-of-No-Parts” construction. Perner-Wilson contrasts her concept of Kit-of-No-Parts with Kit-of-Parts development in industry, where “discrete components . . . function as modular parts within a coherent system” and are “optimized for speed, efficiency, and repeatability of assembly.” For Perner-Wilson, “the Kit-of-No-Parts approach emphasizes building outside of these systems.” (For details, read her MIT Architecture and Planning thesis, which she filed in 2011.) In order to prepare for the Kit-of-No-Parts workshop, we cut six interlocking square pieces for each student. We then asked the students to continue working in their groups and to use all of their pieces to form an object that would address a specific problem or serve a communicable purpose.

While the Kit-of-Parts workshop provided the students with a specific end goal, the Kit-of-No-Parts forced them to come up with their own object to not only imagine but also prototype. For the most part, we found the presence of the extinct animals from the first workshop influenced the direction of their imagination during the Kit-of-No-Parts workshop. While they built several different prototypes, each group designed their object with their animals in mind. For example, a house was made to shelter a woolly mammoth, while a dance floor was created for a dinosaur party.

We ended our discussion with the students by touching on the practicality of rapid prototyping. By building an object using only residual media (e.g., discarded cardboard), the students were able to practice the same method we use here in the Lab during the early stages of our research. After these activities, the students were quick to point out ways that rapid prototyping could help those of us at the MLab identify key issues we may encounter when moving between bits and atoms.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the KitsForCulture and Makerspace projects, with the fabrication tag. Featured image for this post care of Katherine Goertz and the MLab.

In his new book, Conversations in Critical Making (CTheory Books, 2015), Garnet Hertz includes an interview with Jentery that explores the Kits project in general, and the Wearables Kit in particular. You can read the conversation between Hertz and Sayers on ctheory.net or in the open-access, PDF version of Hertz’s book. The Kits are also referenced in Rebekah Sheldon’s chapter, “Object-Oriented Ontology and Feminist New Materialism,” in The Nonhuman Turn (Richard Grusin, ed., U. of Minnesota P., 2015). Sheldon describes the Kits as a “compelling alternative” to distant reading. Elsewhere, Jentery’s Scholarly Research and Communication article, “Why Fabricate?” (Issue 6.3, 2015), focuses more generally on the MLab’s ongoing fabrication research, including ways to remake technologies that no longer function, no longer exist, or exist only as illustrations or fictions.

This month, UVic published a short article detailing the Wearables Kit. The university also featured the Kits on its homepage. On October 29th, CBC’s All Points West (90.5FM Victoria) hosted Jentery for a conversation with Robyn Burns about the Kit and our work at the MLab. Soon, we’ll be launching the Wearables Kit online, together with publications in Hyperrhiz and Visible Language.

Post by Katherine Goertz, attached to the KitsForCulture and Makerspace projects, with the fabrication tag. Featured image for this post care of UVic and the MLab.

Although we are not surprised, we learned that hardly any—and arguably no—CAM research space in Canada or the U.S. is based in the humanities. Some of the research is located in libraries, a bit of it is interdisciplinary, and a significant minority of it is anchored in art history and fine arts. Still, we are left wondering not only how humanities scholars might engage CAM and CNC research but also how humanities approaches to fabrication infrastructures might differ from, and overlap with, those of other disciplines. In other words, what should humanities spaces for digital fabrication look like? As CNC and CAM research expands, we imagine this question will be of considerable importance to fields such as digital humanities.

For now, you can download a spreadsheet (screengrab below) containing the data from our environmental scan. If you see an error, if you notice a research space is missing from our list, or if you’d prefer a format other than XLSX, then please let us know. Thank you!

Download this spreadsheet

Post by Katherine Goertz and Danielle Morgan, attached to the Makerspace project, with the fabrication tag. Featured image for this post care of Nicole Clouston.