OpenVirgle Papercraft idea
Paul D. Fernhout
yesterday and today.
It might help OpenVirgle/OSCOMAK/SKDB progress to start creating
"validateable" designs as a way to test and refine our information support
infrastructure and also promote a community doing real things.
By validateable, I mean we can build them and simulate them. And of course
the designs should also be fun to validate too, so we have the creative
energy to keep doing this and to attract more contributors.
So, the suggested approach is to focus on "paper model" building at first,
or as it is sometimes called, "papercraft".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercraft
This is approachable, in part as it is cheap and fun (for many).
Working to support that would help motivate further development of both the
community and the supporting software infrastructure.
There is also a natural progression to more complex designs incorporating
non-paper parts a little at a time.
The rest of this email explores this idea.
=== alternatives
In thinking about a first focus for OpenVirgle/OSCOMAK/SKDB I first thought
"SpacePod". But that is hard to validate, at least right now. :-)
http://code.google.com/p/openvirgle/wiki/SpacePod
For my BFI proposal, I was thinking "Permaculture homestead with eco-house"
but that is still hard to validate on any budget.
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/msg/93d306d211e1c467
I've suggested before focusing on the "Bicycle" (the same thing helped out
the Wright brothers: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
"They gained the mechanical skills essential for their success by working
for years in their shop with printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other
machinery. Their work with bicycles in particular influenced their belief
that an unstable vehicle like a flying machine could be controlled and
balanced with practice."
And, while I think that focus has a lot of potential down the road even for
small budgets (including design information with expired copyrights that has
returned to the public domain), I still think that is too hard as a first
step, given limited fund for validation, even as valuable as a free
reference on making and repairing bicycles would be globally (especially in
poor-in-material-goods countries). Plus, with my kid's age, that is
inaccessible to us to do together much.
My wife suggested clothing, which I like for a few reasons -- clothing
design in general is not copyrightable (even if paper patterns are)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p11s03-algn.htm
""If you had designers copyrighting everything they did, all this would go
away for the average middle-class person like me because the originals would
all be too expensive," she says, adding that the democratization of high
fashion is good for everyone because it keeps the marketplace alive with
fresh ideas."
What a different sentiment then for computer software or music. :-)
There is a growing subculture of young people making their own clothes again
with fancy sewing machines that take the drudgery out of stuff like sewing
button holes. But still, these designs take time to validate and this is not
that accessible for parents with young kids or very limited budgets.
On the other hand, for easy to validate designs, I mentioned "Origami" but I
feel that is too limited.
===== papercraft
But it turns out origami is really just a subset of a larger area that is
sometimes termed "papercraft". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercraft
"Paper models, also called card models or papercraft, are models constructed
mainly from sheets of heavy paper or card stock as a hobby. It may be
considered a broad category that contains origami, and card modelling, with
origami being a paper model made from folding paper (without using glue),
and card modelling as the making of scale models from sheets of card on
which the parts were printed, usually in full colour, for one to cut out,
fold, score and glue together. They appear to be generally more popular in
Europe and Japan than in the United States."
Papercraft in turn is a sort of subset of build contraptions at home using
common cheap things like paper, straws, tape, toothpicks, and so on. Mr.
Rogers and many others have big books on this kind of stuff. Both school
teachers and homeschoolers are big on it too. :-) So there is potentially a
vast audience worldwide -- including people with a computer and printer
(even at work :-) but with a tiny budget for toys for their kids.
Even just with paper, consider this amazing model:
http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/entertainment/papercraft/realistic/yzf-r1-2007/index.html
"It has been eight years since YZF-R1 made its debut as the second
Realistic Paper Craft model, attracting attention of many fans. A paper
craft model of the 2007 YZF-R1 has just been released with upgraded specs
like the actual machine. Try the new YZF-R1 paper craft!"
Just look at that picture! And the page links to downloadable instructions
with documents you can print out and cut into pieces and then assemble to
make that very realistic motorcycle model. And by the way, there might be
few jobs in it for people who get good at this to make models of real
products for advertising, like that Yamaha motorcycle one (hopefully
allowing derivatives and use in OSCOMAK under the GFDL, of course. :-)
Doing a brief survey last night, it appears there are hundreds of papercraft
sites (and a few books) each with proprietary paper models. There is a
German club site with thousands of models, many taking from old
expired-copyright documents -- but you need to pay to join the club. so it
isn't freedom oriented in that sense, even if the collection size is impressive.
From Wikipedia: "Printed card models became common in magazines in the early
part of the 20th century. The popularity of card modeling boomed during
World War II, when paper was one of the few items whose use and production
was not heavily regulated. Micromodels, designed and published in England
from 1941 were very popular with 100 different models of architecture,
ships, aircraft... But as plastic model kits became more commonly available,
interest in paper decreased. The availability of numerous models on the
Internet at little or no cost, which can then be downloaded and printed on
inexpensive inkjet printers has caused its popularity again to increase
worldwide. Home printing also allows models to be scaled up or down easily
(for example, in order to make two models from different authors, in
different scales, match each other in size), although the paper weight must
also be adjusted in the same ratio."
Anyway, so I am thinking that could be a first project focus for OpenVirgle
and OSCOMAK/SKDB (one that is very stay-at-home parent friendly, for me and
Doram). It is something that could easily keep us busy for a long time but
with tangible results, even if just with toys for our own families or gifts
for others. Imagine -- we could build an entire OpenVirgle community to
scale from paper (or paper plus cardboard plus odds and ends around the
house). Or make it adaptable to arbitrary scale to interoperate with toy
people from various commercial sets.
== a test of the idea
As a test, I downloaded the instructions for an Iroquois Longhouse and built
it with my family:
http://www.susankae.com/free_resources.htm
I thought that would be an appropriate first thing to do given the new quote
by Tadodaho Chief Leon Shenandoah
http://www.oscomak.net/giving_thanks.html
(since he was Iroquois, or as such people call themselves "Haudenosaunee"
which simply in a sense means "human beings" in his mind, but also means
more literally "People of the Longhouse".)
We had a lot of fun making the Longhouse as a family. :-)
Two pictures:
* One is just paper toys except for a mistake in the corner:
http://openvirgle.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/paper_longhouse_and_paper_toys_smaller.jpg
* The other picture mixes paper toys and similar scale other toys:
http://openvirgle.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/paper_longhouse_and_other_toys_smaller.jpg
=== Imagine an Iroquois Longhouse on Mars
Imagine an OpenVirgle community done that way, improving our technological
capacity for collaborative design all the way. For example, there is no way
to add images to the wiki, so I used the Code Project SVN for now. That
should be improved.
And here is where Doram's strengths in graphics design may come in mighty
handy -- designing great paper models or images to go on them. :-)
Plus, eventually, I'd like to be able to support using the paper designs in
a virtual 3D world you could play in on the computer as well as print out
the designs -- another form of "validation". But that is a bit of
programming and more design to unify the virtual, the paper, and the plans.
And as the paper designs get more complex and varied, they push us to
support more and more on the computer -- eventually moving to designs with
more household items from paper towel roles to bottle caps to eventually
wood and so on. And at anytime people can branch out into studying paper
making machinery and so on.
If you want to have a real metaphor for papercraft -- think "sheet metal"
fabrication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet_metal
Hey, I was hanging out yesterday with a friend who is semi-retired and does
sheet metal; maybe that helped provide the inspiration? :-) Anyway, so there
is a serious physical analogy.
=== Digression on the Volkswagen
Yes, that is a paper Volkswagen ("people's car") parked by the Longhouse in
the pictures. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
"Adolf Hitler had a keen interest in cars even though he did not drive. In
1933, shortly after taking over as leader of Germany, he asked Ferdinand
Porsche to make changes to his original 1931 design to make it more suited
for the working man. ... Changes included better fuel efficiency,
reliability, ease-of-use, and economically efficient repairs and parts. ..."
Whatever else can be said against the Nazis(*) the Nazis accomplished
miracles of design and recycling. You can perhaps see why the better parts
of the Iroquois spirit and values (as regards diversity and sharing) matter
so much to keep in mind, even for "smart people"?
(Yes, I know the Iroquois still made war sometimes -- but they were at least
trying to move beyond it in some ways.)
Anyway, set's hope we can do better minus the strong leadership. From:
http://www.eviloverlord.com/
"Evil Overlord, Inc. Planning your Future, One Step at a Time."
Anyone get that joke now? :-)
[Sheesh, a few big genocides using advanced technology over the centuries
(plus a lot of little ones) and this guy doesn't give up on that topic, does
he? Doesn't he know you can still kill people with sticks and stones too?]
=== digression on dirt and a new metaphor, taking down scaffolding
Please ignore my slovenly stay-at-home Dad housekeeping these days as
documented there in the pictures; the dogs track in so much dirt this time
of year and it's hard to keep up, even if I feel it adds something to this
old/new diorama picture and boosts my child's immune system. :-)
http://style.uk.msn.com/family/parenting/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5580457
"The researchers believe that exposure to dirt ‘boosts happiness’ and
strengthens the immune system. We look at the reasons why getting dirty is
thought to improve health and wellbeing."
I'm also just busy. busy. busy these days (along with a lot of the rest of
the world http://www.reprap.org/ :-) helping take down the intellectual
scaffolding of global capitalism (even Google, in that sense :-) one myth at
a time in a controlled safe manner where no one gets hurt:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/
"And behind each successful project stands the CDI team - a talented group
of professionals with decades of experience dedicated to absolute perfection
on each new project." :-)
And unlike the easier time CDI has with demolishing vacant structures, it's
much harder if people (even at Google :-) still mistake that scaffolding for
the pre-scarcity and post-scarcity building full of abundance that the
scaffolding surrounds these days, and likely always did. :-) And I'm
definitely hoping for its removal or minimization in a controlled way, not a
big crash like these where usually people get hurt: :-(
"Images of catastrophically collapsed scaffolds"
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=scaffolding+collapse
Or, as is said here:
"Seven laws of Money"
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Commerce/RATNA/june2.html
"7. There are worlds without money. They are the worlds of art, poetry,
music, dance, sex, etc. the essentials of human life. The seventh law is
like a star that is your guide. You know that you cannot live on the star;
it is not physically a part of your life, but rather an aid to orientation.
You are not going to reach this star, but in some sense neither are you
going to reach your destination without it to guide you."
Well, maybe we're going to live on (or closely orbiting) that star someday,
as that book was written before the world wide web or the F/OSS movements.
:-) While some things may always be in short local supply, and some things
may always be rationed, at least we can work towards a planet (or planets
:-) where everybody gets for free the frugal basics of fresh air, clean
water, organic food, quality shelter, 3D printing, and healthcare, and also
has a song in their heart. :-)
"All I Really Need" by Raffi
http://www.last.fm/music/Raffi/_/All+I+Really+Need
(That song is also on Raffi's Baby Beluga CD, a cherished gift we got from
relatives.) As with the linked video on that page, maybe the sincerity
matters more that the quality of the sound engineering right now. :-)
=== Onwards, or anyone got a better idea?
Onward to that abundant future on Earth and Mars and the Asteroids and the
Stars by redefining the meaning of bureaucratic paperwork, I say! :-)
Well, at least I'll suggest that as a trial balloon. :-)
"Making an Origami Balloon"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR2PsdKt5IA
And something fun and stay-at-home parent friendly. Many of the projects
Doram lists here could have a paper equivalent:
http://code.google.com/p/openvirgle/wiki/List_of_Possible_Projects
And we could even make paper solar panels for Mike and paper centrifuges for
Bryan. And certainly, within a year of dedicated work, we might have a big
community both on paper (so to speak :-) and on the internet.
And from there, following Bryan's comments on Debian, there might be many
eyes and hands and minds to help out with moving to a next step with real
clothing, bicycles, permaculture homesteads, seasteads, and eventually real
space pods and beyond.
As is said here:
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/JOKES/laws.lst
"Murphy's (First) Corollary: Whenever you set out to do something,
something else must be done first."
Still, we must also bear in mind:
"Finagle's First Law: If an experiment works, something has gone wrong."
What do people here think of an initial papercraft etc. model building focus
to get things rolling faster?
It might take all our different abilities, plus maybe some lurkers like in
this story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fool_of_the_World_and_the_Flying_Ship
(I being the chief "Fool" for the moment of course, in my flying OSCOMAK
SpacePod, even though I already have my Princess. :-)
--Paul Fernhout
(*) My mother's house as a teenager in Rotterdam was firebombed in WWII
during the attempted Nazi "settlement" of Holland (or in other words,
"invasion", though it would have been termed "settlement" had the Germans
won WWII, no doubt). Her family was forced to flee with not much from their
house, but fortunately they could live in their separate store. I'm not sure
if that firebombing was done by the Germans or the Dutch resistance. I've
heard it both ways. Though in the end what does it matter? So, in a sense, I
am trying to fight that fire of war now with ... paper? :-)
Bryan Bishop
> What do people here think of an initial papercraft etc. model
> building focus to get things rolling faster?
The lack of functionality in a foldable paper model. An origami
structure could, supposedly, have flappable wings pulled by a paper
tab, and to some extent thus be mechanical (or really that sounds like
a stress mechanism or something). But I am wondering about the general
ability to simulate it, if at all. I suppose it'd be better if we just
considered Rube Goldberg machines, and papercraft is a subset of
rube-goldbergs. These are typically simple to model, needing only
newtonian physics. So that's an option.
And what's more important: models of houses within the database, or how
to build a house, as general rules? In the case of rube-goldbergs, you
don't assume that your loyal henchmen copying your designs are going to
have the same resources, so to some extent this is more a database of
principles and approaches. Suggesting that a worthwhile program to
write for SKDB would be one that can help select implementations of
common household items as providing some functionality (for example, an
equation describing the motion of a stack of dominoes crashing) in
order to match a general design. This was the idea of the JVM in the
first place methinks (besides crossplatforming issues), the concept of
having a layer that describes how to build it, and then leaving the
actual implementation up to some cycles on the end computer, if the
user isn't fortunate enough to have an exact standardized
implementation of FabHat or whatever materials we happen to have laying
around the house. Btw, this doesn't change anything, we'll still dump
3D models and goldberg designs into SKDB, but it would be good to work
on a few python scripts that can work with the semantic data and
suggest alternative implementations, which the user can then select for
based off of materials he knows he has that are like that (requiring
inventory).
[But, of course, I will always encourage anybody just looking at the
general designs behind a package or project, and then coming up with
their own implementation on the spot. The 'matter compiler' is not
intelligent, it's no replacement for imagination and intuition. Though
I do expect you to submit new intuitions to be encoded into the
database ...]
- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
mike1937
approach. I'm looking into it, including the blender thing Bryan
suggested which looks promising.
On May 14, 3:22 pm, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
wrote:
> * The other picture mixes paper toys and similar scale other toys:http://openvirgle.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/paper_longhouse_and_other_t...
>
> read more »
Bryan Bishop
> Thats a very good idea, but I tend to favor the purely 3D sim
> approach.
That's hardly necessary in many, many scenarios. Like differential
equations to describe dynamic systems. Exponential growth models. What
about situations involving biomolecules that have been experimentally
confirmed to do x, y, and z, but not their actual 3D shapes and
structures?
mike1937
> > approach.
>
> That's hardly necessary in many, many scenarios. Like differential
> equations to describe dynamic systems.
appropriate (I've got nothing against you guys doing it, I just
wouldn't). Obviously metadata and text and more are still needed.
Actually, for starting out, I favor doing more of the research type
articles we have already been doing, and will continue to write them
now that AP tests are over, chem yesterday was my last one. But I can
certainly see how some (Paul :-) get bored and want to do more
graphical things (I'll admit I'm swinging from internet addiction into
a guitar playing phase, independent of the type of work I'm doing; so
expect my participation to wax and wane).
What do you guys think of using VRML? I just downloaded the plugin and
learned some of the syntax in about five minutes, I don't think thats
too much to ask of our users.
Having a 3D tour of all of the more tangible projects we create would
be very cool, and inspire people to help, in time. Heck, making a
simple strategy game could be pretty fun a while down the road.
Bryan Bishop
> What do you guys think of using VRML? I just downloaded the plugin
> and learned some of the syntax in about five minutes, I don't think
> thats too much to ask of our users.
I used VRML back when I was doing scramjet CFD simulations a few months
ago. Users shouldn't learn VRML; let blender.org handle that.