Hi Olga, No problem. Unfortunately I did not win the EuroMillions this time, so this project is going to have to go on hold ;-)
Obviously I don't really have any idea about how the mechanics and electronics _could_ work in reality, but somehow, as I mentioned, there would be a feedback system so the machine responds to the operator in a variety of ways which are still a bit blurred in my mind. Infact it's not looking like such a great idea. Very sketchy in other words. James. The sensors just sense objects passing them, so _if_ the operator is collecting up these objects and packing them (as what happens with the machines I've been working on) there will be less to be detected (for example one box containing 750 objects). It might be more beneficial to do away with the packing of them, or better still, the operator (well actually I was not operating the machine at all, just packing its produce) might unpack objects and place them onto a conveyor for the machine to do something with (in which case, what?) - who knows? this is a bit of a problem. Or maybe the operator could wear a motion capture suit? I would not want though, for the operator to be able to influence the machine to such an extent as resulting in idleness ( - or maybe ??), it would be a symbiosis of the needs of the machine(or the company's profit) and the needs of the operator. The machines can produce various items, the setter sets up the machine with moulds and settings and what-have-you. the same machine could be easy or difficult depending upon the product in production. i find often it takes me an hour atleast to adjust to a different machine/product combination. so it is easy to make hard work of it if you don't know the easy way of doing it. (ie when i was struggling and dropping things i was told it was 'an old womans machine' (yes, but some of the old women have been doing it for 25 years)). *(1)= the machine stacks the objects (punnets), an output example is 25 per stack, three stacks per row, 2 rows. operator might then combine three stacks and place these into box containing: 3 x 4 of the operator's stacks (not forgetting polythene box liner). It would be interesting for an interactive artwork that the operator (ie Joe Public) might have to interact with it for atleast a couple of hours! so yes there is the mechanical sound of it. maybe a brain scanner might sense the operator's mood and try to incorporate music to lift operator's mood, or if it was really clever, work out how to antagonize the operator but only to the degree the operator can use that as a means to increase productivity. better stop before i ramble any longer. On 13/5/2009, "Olga" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi James, > >Sorry for the late reply! >Did u get that lottery? >The idea sounds cool! For some reason it resonated a lot with the >images of Chaplin's 'Modern Times', the imperfections of the operator >making the rhythm come to life. But that's the very mechanical side of >it.. For what I understand you would mix those mechanical sounds with >bips activated by sensors on the belt. But this would let you only >play with rhythm. How would you make the system generate different >textures of sound? > >Thanks for sharing this! > >-- >Olga >http://www.ungravitational.net >http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
