Justin Downs
2008 Thesis
Interactive Telecommunications Program
New York University
www.johnhenryshammer.com
The end of Language and idea is always confusion; that is the good and the bad of our logic. The trick is where the thought lets you off into that confusion. If you are left in a desert it is not a good thing to wander, but to wander where there is treasure, that may not be so bad.
-Justin Downs
Will O’ the Wisps:
An Investigation of Energy to Function.
Technology comes from a rich mixture of need, logic and opportunity. To understand the possibilities of material and personal extension, the modes of human creation from logic to object have to be recognized and linked. Our beliefs control what we can see to create and our creations allow us to see what we can control. It is important not only to know where you go, but also how you get there.
Will O' the Wisps is a quasi-intelligent solar powered mesh network. The current project is an iteration of larger design principles and focuses on self-sufficiency and swarm intelligence. These techniques have recently been made feasible by advances in micro power, RF communication and ubiquitous power collection. The design and technologies are documented on an accompanying website as a knowledge base for future work.
How we perceive an object or need for an object is expressed in the creation of that object.
Modes of object creation are defined by our mental patterns. The reflection of a successful pattern can be gauged from its use.
Thinking about the method of technological design in terms of necessitated theology instead of linear inevitability will produce a more informed relationship between need and function.
Linking methodology with technology is necessary when creating a new object. There is an inherent relationship between technological limitations and the ideas and structures that form around that technology. In creating Will O’ the Wisp a continuation of design strategy was implemented, which reflect the ideas of:
1. How w social/psychological interpretation define the interactions and mechanics of technologies and their people.
E.g. The interpretation of the parts in a system or thing, define our use of that system or thing. If a rock is seen only as a rock it will never hammer anything.
2. Designing devices and actions that can be sustained by their surroundings, without the need of a larger structured network.
E.g. focusing on power derived from the environment (solar power, mechanical vibration etc.) and creating networks where a node can function without a constant link to the system.
3. Building methods that create a transparency of action and structure, allowing for a more accurate participation in a system. Making systems respond in real time, removing the bottlenecks of systemic participation.
E.g. the questionnaire on your level of consumer confidence would also become the article about consumer confidence.
4. Designing new networks and technologies based on the abilities of our cognitive/social processes, allowing others to follow and improve on design considerations through idea ownership.
E.g. using the way we inherently interact to facilitate a quicker learning curve and increased functionality through availability.
The Will O’ the Wisps project deals with these issues in an idealized state to test the feasibility of idea paired with current available technology.
The physical aspect consists of eight modules that will be deployed in and around a forest in upstate New York (summer 2009). Each module runs and performs its function with power derived from the environment (in this case solar). The networked system works together to move viewers (using sound) around an area in varying patterns, indefinitely.
The network is set up along the lines of swarm intelligence principles, where each module is a separate entity with its own guidelines of operation. The complexity and functionality of the system is created by the concurrent operation and interaction of these modules, producing complex behavior patterns from simple means.
The system’s overarching behavior is based on the expression of the individual modules programming. Each module is programmed to:
A. not have anyone near it;
B. help other modules draw people away from the first;
C. store and gauge how much power is required to complete these two tasks;
D. communicate the changes in the systems energy level.
Using these simple directives a complex behavioral system is formed.
In order to gauge and represent the changing energy concentrations of the system, the network employs a shared knowledge base. The energy levels are dependent on the sun's movement across the sky and the patterns of individual interaction with the modules (how often a user triggers a call). This is communicated to the individuals who interact with the modules by changing the tone and duration of the modules "call". Giving users a real-time feel of the fluctuation in the system and their effect on it. These techniques allow for a simply formed, robust self-descriptive system.
of WILL O’ THE WISP
With the creation of any object or system a multi- layered interaction forms. Along with the physical experiential use of a system, the knowledge and descriptive techniques that are learned from interacting with a system are stored and applied to future experiences. The historicity becomes a major component in creation and allows for it further context and use.
To this end a documentation process of the ideas and technological techniques used in realizing Will O’ the Wisp was created in the form of a web site.
www.johnhenryshammer.com/WOW2/
The current structure of the web site is used as a focal point of specific knowledge and not as a linear documentation. The data structure of the internet has created a new form of informational organization, instead of a closed reference of process, a nodal structure of information has developed.
1
With the use of links a central recursion is allowed for, creating structures like the one found in a Wikipedia entry. The structure functions by allowing you to jump from link to link anywhere in the informational flow, according to what is applicable to your understanding. This turns the format from linear segments into concentrated ‘nodes’ of information. These nodes are what will become the “memes” of use for this project’s ideas.
Examples of Memes are tunes, ideas, catch phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation .
2
The web site describes different nodes of reference, which apply to the creation of the project in terms of:
Technology
Philosophy
Structure.
The web site also describes the informational aspects of the surrounding technologies:
Micro power
Gauging power needs
Energy collection
Storage of power
RF networks using the XBEE modules
Network design.
A new form of flexible technological design has to be investigated and created in order to address current material and social limitations. With the number of people alive today, there is a huge gap between available resources and personal technological function.
If the world population operated with the same material and social use as the average American ( an American lifestyle of 9.4 gha/cap could sustain only 1.2 billion [people]) 3we would need ~ 6 earths to sustain the level of consumption and production. This shortage, will likely lead to hostilities and a collapsing/consolidating of infrastructure.
So, in order to continue utilizing technology it has to adapt to a style of function that is more flexible, structurally autonomous and can function with reduced power needs.
These following design concepts move to address these issues:
CONCEPTS:
1.How social/psychological interpretation defines the interaction and mechanics of technologies and their people.E.g. the interpretation of the parts in a system or thing, define our use of that system or thing. If a rock is seen only as a rock it will never hammer anything.
Linking language to process:
The way you describe or think of an object shapes that object and all the methods of interacting with it must be realized as structural influences on that object.
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
-Werner Heisenberg
So in looking at an object or system the description and context that we have for the object must be considered. To do this, careful attention has to be paid to the method we use to describe the thing within a lexicon, because in the end there is no separation between them just a degree of difference.
The context of the object and the history that describes it are just as much a defining characteristics of the object as the material. You are never talking about something you are always talking with something.
One might perhaps suggest that the only case in which it is correct to say without restriction, that I can do a certain thing, is that in which while saying that I can do it, I actually do it, and that otherwise I ought to say “I can do it as far as……is concerned.”. One may be inclined to think that only in the above case has a person given real proof of being able to do a thing.4
This discussion in Wittgenstein’s Brown Book goes on to illustrate the process of understanding language and empirical based information. This information generated by a person and taken in by a person is interdependent only on the task at hand and its methodology, since understanding is constant to a task even if the method of description is different.
The difference, one might say, does not lie in the act of demonstration, but rather in the surrounding of that act in the use of the language.5
This allows for the usage of a non-description or a negation of logic in order to describe a cohesive form (you are talking about a thing with recreation even if your words describe (or don’t) something else).6
Concept Application:
Will O’ the Wisps is designed for a transmission arts organization (Free103point9) up in the Hudson valley in New York. Considering the contextual application of this project allows the distinction of the possible parts and methods that can be employed.
The Wave farm is primarily a center for the arts so this project is placed in that context. The main audience for the physical application, are viewers who visit the wave farm expecting to see music shows, transmission arts projects or just take a walk around the property.
This presented a range of design characteristics that the technologies had to address. The main interaction with the system had to be geared to this particular group of viewer and has to be:
Undirected and uncoordinated, so the network can be ready to interact with the user at all times.
Run without supervision, communicate or provoke response without background context and function in the area it is placed in for an extended time, without maintenance.
Using this context to shape the project, goals were formed in order to:
Test the possibility of linking the above design concepts with current technologies.
Create a contextual lexicon/database of use for these ideas and technologies.
Provide an interactive outside environment in order to investigate these problems.
The outside environment made the application to the wave farm ideal in testing these design issues in terms of solar power and extended communication. The main focus of the interactive environment was to create a feel of intelligence and interest to a user, which can be sustained over a large distance.
The interaction was based on a very simple call and response method that is akin to the call patterns of prairie dogs or other flock behaviors. In this way an area seems to take on a cohesive meaning and intelligence just from the aesthetics of simple coordinated noise generation.
The other context was that of the informational value, which documented art/tech projects create on the Internet. The context of the ideas and technologies that will be displayed in the Will O’ the Wisp application have a much broader audience and possible context than the physical application.
The technical applications of self-sustainable meshes, which Will O’ the Wisp is addressing have relevance in everything from the fields of data collection for biology/environmental science to city planning and home automation.
The idea of objects based on self-sustainability and a reduced dependence on larger social structures, speak to an implementation by a more individualized user group. These users include everyone from:
Grant supported biologists and low budget artists, to
Subsistence farmers and large landowners.
Two concrete examples, which these technologies will be applied to in the future are:
Employing network technologies to help monitor lion pride behavior in Kenya, by remote monitoring of water holes.
Coordinated watering and monitoring of soil properties on mid size farm/orchards.
The tools and thought structures presented in Will O’ the Wisp will help make this approach open to a greater range of individuals who do not have access, or want to depend less on larger classical structures such as:
Large academic/government institutions or corporate infrastructure and grid based services.
CONCEPT:
2. Designing devices and actions that can be sustained by their surroundings, without the need of a larger structured network.
E.g. focusing on power derived from the environment (solar power, mechanical vibration etc.) and creating networks where a node can function without a constant link to the system.
Originally energy consumption used for daily tasks revolved around the caloric intake of our bodies. With the advent of electricity and microprocessors, caloric demands have been greatly replaced by new electrical demands. We use this new power for our communication, organization and physical needs. An example of this progression is in auditory communication, eighty years ago to speak with a neighbor you would have to walk to the neighbors house expending caloric energy, now a cell phone call will suffice burning nothing but electricity.
In the last twenty years, personal use of electrical process has grown exponentially while becoming more individualized. This has created a plethora of small organizational devices that are paired with the individual's movements and habits instead of a larger social technology.
The original use of electricity was based on machines and devices that re-contextualized group space or events, such as outdoor lighting and industrial manufacturing. These processes used electricity in a macro application, providing the same service to many people.
This methodology was brought about by the needs of the technological process when creating electricity. Large plants and centralized cooperation were required to produce the amount of electricity that could be harnessed and used by an end device. This method allows for larger centralized stores of power to be produced.
The downside of this methodology is in the loss of power when there is a need to distribute it for a non-centralized use. As you can see in the chart below more than half of the generated power is lost in transmission.7
With the advent of micro powered devices these old paradigms of power creation do not have the same appeal.
Electricity is now used on a very individualized scale creating new applications and devices. And with this scale new methods of powering these devices are becoming feasible.8
Concept Application:
This design concept was implemented in two areas in Will O’ the Wisps, the power collection system and the system architecture.
Power collection system:
Will O’ the Wisp tests the ability to perform a function using environmentally derived energy in the form of solar power. The goal in energy collection for use in a function or object is to take energy fluctuation over time on the input and turn it into a constant flow on the output. To this end, the system uses two photovoltaic panels to power the logic, communication and sound generation.
The photovoltaic energy is stored using two methods, a bank of NIMH batteries and a bank of super capacitors. With this method the modules can function in their environment as long as their parts last without being effected by any socially systemic variables.
System architecture:
The second application is in using a method of mesh networking or swarm theory to derive the overall functioning of the system. One of the main goals of this project was to investigate the possibilities of linking up the new mesh technologies provided by the XBEE ZIGBEE protocol and hardware with the older idea of swarm intelligence and "self" organizing systems.
Overview of swarm intelligence:
“SI systems are typically made up of a population of simple agents interacting locally with one another and with their environment. The agents follow very simple rules, and although there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave, local interactions between such agents lead to the emergence of complex global behavior. Natural examples of SI include ant colonies, bird flocking, animal herding, bacterial growth, and fish schooling.”9
The technical opportunities:
The new XBEE modules are micro powered Radio Frequency communication devices that allow the transferring of messages over distances wirelessly. They support a full range of low power operations linked with persistent routing tables and sleep modes. This allows the modules to be run off of battery or intermittent power supply while keeping the integrity of the overall network.
Having the ability to function independently and reconnect with a network is necessary when dealing with uncertain power sources and interrupted functioning. Redundancy in a system is also key to the continued operation of these networks and can be accomplished through the overlap of function by multiple modules. This combines and allows spreading of the power needs over a multitude of objects, creating a more stable working environment and function.
To do this a multiplicity of objects have to work in tandem to complete a function. A new solution to this problem is the realistic application of Swarm intelligence and Swarm robotics utilizing off the shelf mesh network technology (Xbee RF devices). This allows for the completion of larger functions or jobs with limited power supply.
The will O’ the wisps implements this using a restricted protocol and modularized approach to over all system function. Making the system non-dependent on the singular modules functioning and basing it instead on a critical mass of modules being able to interact.
This is accomplished by making the system protocol have the maximum amount of flexibility and action with the least amount of data transfer. The protocol is also onside dependent in case there is not another module to receive, preventing the sending module from getting hung up or causing erratic behavior.
CONCEPT:
3. Building methods to create a transparency of action and structure, allowing for a more accurate participation in a system. Making systems respond in real time, removing the bottlenecks of systemic participation.E.g. The questionnaire on your level of consumer confidence would also become the article about consumer confidence.
In making systems it is important to be accurate in the description or the ability of a system to describe itself. This allows the user to feel their impact and relationship to the system while operating in it. A cohesive system is then created that can self correct or stabilize itself along the parameters that are useful to the designer.
The ability of systems and logic to be multi representational has to be taken into account when trying to achieve this. It can either misrepresent a system or can be a very useful tool for designing a protocol or dealing with a time-based problem. The representation just has to be recognized and used as part of the system it is talking about.
The importance of this transference of meaning does not come from an external structure and cannot be defined by one, or else the system is incomplete. Therefore, any system that is “real” or inclusive incorporates human logic and will always be true and incomplete. This is the basis of Gödel’s Theorem and is a key element in system design.10
So all systems have to be described from the inside and that description has to be realized as having an effect on that system.
Concept Application:
The users experience in Will O’ the Wisp is one of discovery about the system and their interaction in it, these experiences unfold together as a parallel process. The changes and methods of the system can be understood in real time by the actual participation in it.
The interaction with the system was designed to be multi layered and immediate. There are two primary ways of interaction:
The first is a focus on the physical auditory interaction the user experiences when hearing a noise in the woods.
As you come into the proximity of a module a message is sent out to the other modules requesting a noise to be made, this is done in order to draw the person from the first module. The modules are spaced far enough apart so they are just on the edge of the viewer’s perception.
That way the modules will always keep on the periphery of consciousness, allowing them to be negotiated by the users emotive state more than the physical presence of the module. With this approach, the user needs no prior knowledge of the system to start an interaction with it. Curiosity will be the first interface of the system.
The second is based on the auditory output of the modules.
The call is set up to change based on the energy concentration in the system. The network uses a shared knowledge base to represent the changing energy concentrations in the system. The energy concentration is based on the sun's movement across the sky and the patterns of individual interaction with the modules. This is communicated to the individual by changing the tone and duration of the modules "call" giving users a real-time feel of the fluctuation in the system and their effect on it. Over the course of the day the overall systems sound fluctuates back and forth in tone according to which modules have more energy. This is akin to the change in the call heard in a prairie dog colony or the warnings of crow flocks.
This could be gleaned from a prolonged interaction with the system or a cursory explanation of the call. The second layer is laid on top of the first empirical aspect and does not need to be used to interact with the system but allows for a deeper understanding of it. It also changes in real time so you can hear your direct effect on the system.
In this way a range of systemic states can be denoted with a simple interface of duration of sound.
CONCEPT:
4. Designing new networks and technologies based on the abilities of our cognitive/social processes, allowing others to follow and improve on design considerations through idea ownership.E.g. using the way we inherently interact to facilitate a quicker learning curve and increased functionality through availability.
When the parts of a system are understood there is a greater ability to expand or improve upon that object or system. The methods of technological classification and description allow for the understanding and future use of that technology. 11
Concept Application:
This was addressed in two ways:
First to keep the actual functioning and ideas of the system accessible.
Second was to make the material and technologies that go into the project as open and clear as possible.
First all the ideas and technical function are being documented on a website that will act as a centralized reference node for the project. Its structure is based on the wiki approach to informational organization, employing a heavy use of links and self reference. This makes an information system that is based on information depth instead of a linear format. Benefits of this approach are:
An ability to add almost infinite references making a small amount of text very expansive.
An approach that allows the user to delve as deeply or as shallowly as they need.
Integrates well utilizing web based information.
Second the project was designed using components that are easily obtainable and easy to assemble. Only DIP package parts were used (so no special soldering techniques would be needed) along with parts that are available from the major electronics distributors. A focus was also on trying to keep the cost of the parts down so multiple modules could be constructed and the materials would be available to a wider audience.
And last
The technological blocks are dealt with modularly in order for them to be “cut and pasted” into many different projects.
To test the feasibility of the design concepts using current available technology. Provide a knowledge base for the ideas (memes) involved.
CONCLUSIONThe tested technologies of micro power, RF communication and ubiquitous power collection are supportive of the overall design theory and technique. The tools:
Xbee modules
Super capacitors
Solar panels
Atmel microcontrollers
Paired well in designing low power modules that have extended communication capabilities. The systems of power storage and battery charging need further testing to achieve the best results in terms of harnessed solar power and battery life.
The Xbee networking protocol may also be changed to investigate expanded functionality. The design principles are interesting and fruitful techniques that continue to be applied to my production in meaningful ways. They were harder to apply in terms of intent with this project because of the open ended “goal” of an interactive arts installation. But it did allow me to focus on the technical and aesthetic component of these ideas.
In each new application of these principles I learn and experience new modes of object creation. This project is based off ideas I had in creating the Sola-System, which is a solar powered stereo system.
http://www.johnhenryshammer.com/projects/solaSystem/
That project gave me a clear insight into the idea of direct power to function. It employed no power storage capabilities at all, but works extremely well. From this I was curious to see if the same design techniques could be applied to larger functions with coordinated group behaviors as demonstrated in the Will O’ the Wisps project.
The work with the Will O’ the Wisps has highlighted a deeper interest in the methods of micro power collection and storage, I think the next application or further investigations will be along those lines.
1
For example here is a passage from a New Oxford American Dictionary (web edition):
“technology |tek?näl?j?|
noun ( pl. -gies)
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry : advances in computer technology | recycling technologies.
• machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge.
• the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
DERIVATIVES
technologist noun
technologize verb
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Greek tekhnologia ‘systematic treatment,’ from tekhn? ‘art, craft’ + -logia (see -logy ).”
The definition is described linearly with references from top to bottom. Allowing a further use of reference only by starting at the top of another linear reference.
But with the organization principles of information that the internet creates a central recursion is allowed for by the use of links, like the structure found in the Wikipedia entry (all words in blue are links):
Technology is a broad concept that deals with an animal species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment. Technology is a term with origins in the Greek "technologia", "τεχνολογ?α" — "techne", "τ?χνη" ("craft") and "logia", "λογ?α" ("saying").[1] However, a strict definition is elusive; "technology" can refer to material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology".
2 Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene. Cox and Wyman Ltd., Reading, Berkshire, Great Britain, 1989, 192.
3 How Many People. Available athttp://www.optimumpopulation.org/HowManyPeople.Summary.pdf
4 Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations.’ Harper and Row New York, New York, 1958, 80.
5 Ibid., 116.
6 For instance the description of lighter or darker can be applied to the size of an object because the resulting context denotes the usable physicality and logic of the statement, not the reference. This allows a object or system to be approached in reference to itself, without worrying about an infinite regress, because the contents of the object are held in it own existence.
The most important point then in these investigations, is not the taxonomical approach to understanding individual structures of logic/language, but the focus on how we can create lines of useful delineation. Often times the lines of negation that define an object or process are forgotten about. This leads to recursive assumptions of use that codify starting points, like electricity from wall sockets or Art as a thing separate from use. Knowing when a lexicon is free of content and has become unstuck to the use of that expression or system is key in assessing the use based elements of an object.
This confusion of lexicon and action can lead to major design problems when left unacknowledged. This is apparent when dealing with larger social structures that are often confused with the service they link themselves with.
Macroeconomic theory is a good example of this confusion and has a direct repercussion on object creation. Economics is a system of power based on language. Economics 101 texts discuss the fundamental axioms of economics as general “laws” that are made by the overlapping of subjective truisms on human character with mathematical methodology. The main goal is to provide a nice graph, which equates to acknowledged stability and justification.
The Law of demand; all else equal, consumers buy more of a good during a given period the lower its opportunity cost (relative price), and vice versa.
-Ralph T. Byrnes and Gerald W. Stone, Jr., Macroeconomics, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., New York New York, 1992, 58.
This statement leads to a graph on the next page (page 59) explaining the price of water in relation to the number of consumers. The effect of this kind of systemic reasoning is a divorce of meaning from object or experience that Wittgenstien talks about in terms of the tangible outcomes of lexicon.
What happens in this description is the extrication of the foundations of want into an abstraction, which is then universally applied in an unrealized standardized application (of formula and graph). From this an internalized language of economics is created, which is based on its own constructs and not on the systems it is supposed to represent (such as the ability and need to make steel, wheat and houses).
This leads to systems that become misinformed and hobbled because of the weight of meta data that is accumulated around the action it is supposed to be. This is easily seen in a report on the stock market that gives a loss of faith in stocks that is seen in the next report on the stock market, and so on.
The recent implosion of the banking industry (2008) shows the methods and cycles of misrepresentation and the traction that is caused by the actual “forces” it is hoping to navigate. Not to say all economics is bunk just the method of describing what it is and therefore what it can accomplish has lost effect.
A good solution to this disassociation is the process of micro lending such as the site http://www.kiva.org/
provides. This process directly links the language of money to what it purports to represent (a stock pile of capital or resource). The notion of conversation around a transfer of resource becomes very immediate and the repercussions of a failure in the system has less of a chance to be seen as a failure of the language (like “a loss of faith in the stock market”) but will directly represent the actions that are focused on (the person you lent resource to did not give it back). This is one example of looking at an object or system with a clarity of language, another is using a rock to pound a stake into the ground which is more immediate but sometimes harder to see when building.
7
source: https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg
8 But even as the techniques of energy use have changed the description and method of energy creation have not.
The dominant mode of operation in the U.S. and other large object producing societies (such as Europe) are to condense modes of usage into large services with users renting the service or product. This has in effect created design and organization to be based on a super structure of socialized use and less on the specifics of individual need. The strategies of consolidation and centralization that made the industries of steel and electromagnetism flourish also redirected the power structures, object creation and social expectations of everyday life.
An example of the difference in approach is apparent in the design of metropolitan streets. The map below illustrates the evolution of New York’s street technology.
Source: www.lib.utexas.edu/ maps/new_york.html
system created by and designed for a specific functionality based on the temporal usage of individuals. The roads are meandering and join together the shared interests of people, which are created by a “use based” knowledge. The roads toward the end of the time scale (J-L) are very different, they are designed for a usage based on a long term socially referenced construct. The roads are laid out at ninety degree angles and have a rhythm of large avenues to smaller connecting side streets. The new design of the road object in the later map, justify the increased energy expenditure of ninety degree angles and straight lines in a couple ways.
The justification is based on the utility of railroad and comprehensive signage that allows for a usability of the streets and transportation without a personal familiarity. This advantage comes with a greater ease of single point design, an increase in the inability to individually design a situation and a greater dependency on the interlacing of common goals or life patterns. This methodology of use is very important and takes precedence in a hyper-consumer society where ownership is based on social means and not specific objects.
So as you increase the scope of the system, the power needs go up (subway systems and accurate signage) and a very cohesive social effort has to be established to keep the technological advantages running. The problem of good design then becomes one of representing personal use or function in terms of the larger system. The combined issues of a reduced ownership and a greater dependency on social investment has solved some issues (like city transportation) but also created some problems and confusion.
The increased emphasis on social means has decupled the problems of functional object into descriptions of social context. The use and benefits of technology are linked to the overall “health” of the society it operates in more than ever. For instance there is a constant focus on the lack of available energy in the world, when there is enough energy to do anything we can think of. From the sun to nuclear we have energy at our disposal, but not the social cohesion necessary to coordinate it into a usable form. The major fault with this is not the method of energy collection but the recognition of the surrounding social structure that needs to be in place in order for the system to happen.
The two pictures below illustrate this comparison. The first is a price chart of oil from 1970 to 2005 the second is the average solar radiation during that same period. When you are able to take human structure out of the energy source you are able to stabilize the function and reliability to a greater degree. This is a major design decision that isn’t addressed on a national level because the social structure never focuses on just the material methods.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/world_the_world0s_oil/html/5.stm
source: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/maunaloa_solarradiation.jpg
The problems of human society are much more complex and intangible than the questions of energy. So in order to provide a smoother functioning of object the dependence of that object to a larger social structure has to be lessened as much as is feasible. If a product is design to be sustained by its environment a smoothing effect on function and economy is felt. For instance during a period of social instability (war or financial instability), the ability to receive the benefits of everyday technologies like lights, clean water and food technology dramatically reduced the overall fallout from social upheaval.
The other effect of tethering object use and life span not to the actual object, but to the service provider, causes very tangible problems of waste. Such as:
Material waste produced by the constant changing of service. Replacing a non-broken object because a service agreement has changed (from cars to computers, cell phones and even tv’s).
Waste from an unwillingness to fix an object for the above reason or just a incomprehension of function.
Less personal innovation, if the object is not seen as owned there is less chance that the owner will try and modify or improve upon it.
A restriction of use, based on the availability of the supporting social structure.
So there are many reasons to try and recouple the energy needs of an object with the environment in which it resides.
There are many ways of addressing this issue from social strategies like Mutualism (a brand of political philosophy that started with P.J. Proudhon (c 1840) in France and Josiah Warren(c 1841) in the U.S. ( http://mutualist.org/) to more object based design such as Freeplay Energy. Which is one of the leaders in providing new compact devices for micro energy creation and application. Freeplay Energy’s devices once bought depend only on human interaction to power them effectively un-tethering the user from any special economical or social dependencies. You can take them and use them as long as they last. The downside is if an internal part breaks like other devices the whole thing would probably have to be scrapped, which does put a barrier up in terms of ownership.
Another two examples of design along this idea of pairing power with function are:
http://gizmodo.com/5041019/high+flying-solar-power-zephyr-glider-breaks-own world-record-with-35-day-flight.
The Zephyr glider which is a great example of pairing power with function. This unmanned glider is able to stay aloft indefinitely by employing photovoltaic cells on its wings powering itself better the higher it flies. Unfortunately the cost and efficiency of solar panels limit its payload capabilities. The research into micro powered devices and energy collection like the Nanosolar (http://www.nanosolar.com/) company are giving more choices for this kind of power/function pairing.
And
The Slocum Glider.
http://www.webbresearch.com/slocum.htm
This research device employs the change in the oceans temperature to provide the locomotion for its journey. Long range and endurance using environmental energy (Thermal Engine), the thermal glider can be deployed at a maximal depth of 2000 meters for a period of 5 years at a 40,000 kms range.
Source: http://www.webbresearch.com/slocum.htm
This ability of long-term use and meshing with the intended environment are key components in creating functional ownership and management of our technology.
9 Beni, G., Wang, J. Swarm Intelligence in Cellular Robotic Systems, Proceed. NATO Advanced Workshop on Robots and Biological Systems, Tuscany, Italy, June 26–30, 1989.
10 The ability to use a system to lie or represent itself in a multiple of ways is a key ability to functioning in a “time based reality. ” The structures of inclusive or nested logics are seen not just in humans, but in flora fauna and other fights against entropy as well. One a clear example is shown in ravens and their ability to pop in and out of levels of logic or to “lie”. In the article “Deceit of the Raven”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/magazine/04IDEA.html
The author describes a raven that has its food constantly taken away by an alpha raven. To solve this problem the raven steps out of the first level representation of getting food from hidden spots to the second level representation of showing “false” spots to the alpha raven. In doing so the first raven is giving back the idea or lexicon of the alpha raven in no less a real way than when he was getting the food without the deception. But in this case, with the result of the other raven not being able to catch up in time or representation to take the “real” food. This allows what the first raven wanted to do without reason in the first place, which was to eat.
But if you asked the raven why he wanted to eat or why he was lying he would not answer you with any meta response so in a realistic sense there is no division of task and no regress in the system.
With human representation we abstract out our decisions and paths of logic in ever widening circles. With the implementation of our different technologies we are able to supercharge our various logics allowing for the creation and solidification of previously temporal abilities (For example, recording a voice or speech structure and disseminating it without the original user being present). This allows for a collapse of complexity, because just like the ravens our actions are based on use. So when you take a lie or representation away from use it can lead to great confusion.
This is apparent in the saturated technologies of representation, instead of looking at the layers of meaning and logic that go into our systems (like the stock market or the channels of news) we condense various informational streams into internally codified rituals. We read the newspaper or watch TV with the same remove as listening to an action or thing in a non-representational or “real” form and we apply the same methods of interpretation to them.
This leads to some problems:
We don’t see ourselves in the action so we have no concept of our contribution.
We believe the representation is happening in real-time and is imperative because of that.
We have an idea of proximity to the viewed event even if none exists. This is because in our perception the event effects us, or is seen as (at some later time, no matter how short that time) effecting not what we see but our logical derivations of that act.
So in the case of media we address issues of global scale with personal anger or invest in global causes to fix our personal fear. Neither one is very productive in the long run and is very much a human condition. So the ability to address this human pattern, the methods of informational output have to come from a tangible effect the user has on the system they are looking at (like a Rube Goldberg machine that revels it connection and function as it works). Otherwise misdirected feedback or non-applicable usage patterns will form like the alpha raven not being able to catch up in time or the permanently disenchanted philanthropist.
11
The current choices to describe power and resource were designed and brought into use in the 1800’s starting with industrialization and the concurrent burgeoning of consumerism. The structures of production divorced the everyday person from notions of owner to notions of consumer. When the methods of making and production turned from a holistic manufacturing of object to a segmented manufacturing of object, the workers labor became valued only in relation to the other parts of the social network that built the end object.
This caused ownership to be transferred from the artisan and craftsman to the manager or coordinator. Formally this organization was only seen on the scale of large projects mostly having to do with war or religion but with the advent of the basic mechanization of individual processes (or the hyper extension of selected parts of self) a new method of value creation was made. This is not an inherently good or bad thing but must be considered.
This notion of product creation and ownership solidified for me in Mexico, when I was as a kid. I didn’t have the vocabulary for it at the time but I understood it explicitly from watching a man who sold coconuts on the side of the road to the general populace for drinks. The method of his business was to climb up the surrounding trees and knock down coconuts. He then had a machete that his logic realized as a tool for splitting hammering and shaping the coconut in a manner that represented the needs of a functioning human hand while providing a source of water to drink.
In six to ten steps the man was able to identify a resource/need, extend himself in the form of a machete and produce a sellable object. All this time he was the sole proprietor and creator of the object and collected money for the labor and logic he implemented. The value wasn’t in the scarcity of the coconut because they were available to anyone but in the methodology of being the labor coordinator and source. This is in stark contrast to the methods of social structuring that evolved out of the industrial revolution where the object is partially owned by a multitude of people.
Ownership has now become the ability to evaluate the balance of part to object and object not to owner but to consumer and consumer to the social network of everyday interactions that are now emphasized as ownership (or what you can own, such as the topics of advertising: being a good neighbor, being attractive, being influential, being able to bend or break normal social taboos without repercussions). These are the products of current ownership and are based not on the objects of creation but on the consuming of social services. This causes drawbacks if you want an objects base functionality (if a can opener, the ability to open cans) to be apparent so people can expand on it.
So in today’s market of object creation the modes of social structure need to be examined and judged for how they effect the creation of objects and your ability to own or use them. Keeping in mind the differing techniques used when the process of object creation is social or personal.
Techniques in making objects personally replicable:
Provide a knowledge base detailing the parts and function.
Using methods that require less initial learning (relying on preexisting
skills).
Using parts that are easily available.
Take a modular approach so the knowledge can be reused.
Techniques in making objects socially replicable:
Being aware of price, keeping it affordable for the people you want to own it.
Having technical support always available, keep the service running no matter where the user is.
These techniques have been implemented with success from yo-yos to larger scale products like linux (http://www.linux.org/) and the Arduino (http://www.arduino.cc/) platform.
Beni, G., Wang, J. Swarm Intelligence in Cellular Robotic Systems, Proceed. NATO Advanced Workshop on Robots and Biological Systems, Tuscany, Italy, June 26–30, 1989. Byrnes, Ralph T. and Stone, Gerald W. Jr., Macroeconomics, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York New York, 1992, 58. Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene. Cox and Wyman Ltd., Reading, Berkshire, Great Britain, 1989, 192. How Many People. Available at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/HowManyPeople.Summary.pdf Oxford American Dictionary. Available at http://www.oxfordamericandictionary.com Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations.’ Harper and Row New York, New York, 1958, 116.