WEEK 9, SUMMER 09

With plans for the October exhibition in full production mode, we have been steadily generating the full scale gravity screen while organizing the general layouts of the projects, the rooms, and the structures.   With an elongated, slender linear design, we hope to cantilever many projects, to appear as if they were floating.   This has entailed a couple days in shop, trying to create sufficient tables to hold the weight of the many interactive models.  After several designs and prototypes we think we have a sleek, steel winner. 

The compositional layout is still in its infantile state, and Im sure that its organizational evolution holds great promises for a working exhibit.

WEEK 8, SUMMER 09

This week started with a finalization of the specs and hardware for the working homeostat!  With the design for placement and security of all the motors, we are now able to start constructing the mechanics that will rest below the homestat floor.

Next we took a closer look at the hardware for the connections on our full scale screen.  While the large metal washers looked cumbersome, and produced a clinking noise when the screen was raised, the smaller metal washers just simply couldnt stand up to the weight, resulting in slipping right through the holes.  We concluded that a 1-3/8″ bendable thin plasic washer worked best, both structurally and aesthetically.

With the full scale strips and the washers perfected, we began to reassemble the patterning, or layout of the screen.  These new “recipes” as we describe them are allowing us to test which hardness of rubber works best in different areas of the screen.  After many different recipes were designed, we are leaning towards of network of bands where the hardest rubbers are found at the top, the center, and the bottom.  The other rubbers are dispersed somewhat evenly, where the harder bands are on the top, and the softer towards the bottom.  While we are satisfied with the elasticity of the performance, we are somewhat curious as to the possibility of the desired curve.  As we manufacture the longest of the bands (the center band), and begin to realize the geometry of the screen, only  then will we better understand its limits.

A big chunk of the week was devoted to the design and organization of the Reflexive Architecture Machines Exhibit that will take place in October.  This exhibit will not only include work on the Gravity Screen, but also the Open Column, and projects by Matt Hume and Nick Bruscia.  The exhibit focuses on and deals with gravity, elasticity, moisture, and heat.  We are working to showcase the projects in a sleek, informative light. 

WEEK 7, SUMMER 09

This week we worked on determining what system would create the strongest, most resilient connections.  After testing the full scale bands in every possible composition, we had to reexamine how they would be joined.  The hardware at present is quite bulky, and uncooperative aesthetically, but structurally achieving our goals.  A simple screw and washer system holds the heaviness of our ever expanding test study.  With only about a fourth of the screen realized, its weight is uncompromising.  Watching the screen grow and morph from week to week is very exciting, finding hopes of new possibilities and new outcomes.  The shape and the network is constantly evolving, as is the way we think about how it should perform.

 WEEK 6, SUMMER 09

This week was devoted to creating different prototypes to determine the geometry and the composition of multiple elastomers in every individual band for our full scale screen.  This entailed using our most desirable mold in various number of experiments.  With the insertion of removeable walls into our existing molds, we were able to arrange the different hardnesses of rubbers into many patterns.  Most of the pours were linear, where the different strenghts were found in full legnth bands down the center.  The goal is to create maximum stregnth without losing any stretch.   

WEEK 5, SUMMER 09

We started off the week with a test pour of a strip of the full scale screen!  A mold for this “strip” was generated after a a rectangular piece of rubber was bent in opposite directions.  This motion not only changed the shape and aesthetic, but also helped the screen to work better structurally.  The curvealinear panel allows for this temporary cantilever to hold itself up, and carry weight.  Although we are still tweaking the shape and scale, we think we are headed in the right direction. 

As we move into full scale production, we have to really understand the possibilities and limits of each of the different hardnesses of rubber.

WEEK 4, SUMMER 09

A move to a combination of two different hardnesses of rubber was the next step in creating a screen that would not only respond well to gravitational forces, but also retain its structural tact.  With several studies of fusions of 10, 20 and 30 shore hardnesses, we were better able to understand not only the stregnth of each rubber, but also the significance of its placement in the screen itself.  The screen molds were divided into four quadrants, and then two hardnesses of rubbers were poured.  Opposite quadrants share the same rubber composition, so a horizontal and vertical were better defined.   

Process; multiple elastomer pour (two screens).

Multiple elastomer screen, horizontal band (white 10,) vertical column (amber 30.)

WEEK 3, SUMMER 09

6/1-6/5  This week was dedicated to aggregation stratigies, particularly, in rooms and thresholds.  The aggregation strategies were very telling, particularly about how we need to shape the system in order to create openings and enclosures.  It looks as through a combination of all the studies might be a good juncture and starting point for a mixed aggregational type. 

The desired aggregational system should factor direction, order, size, height, proximity and permeability.

WEEK 2, SUMMER 09

5/26-5/29  Aggregation is key.  To start off the week we digitally redrew the individual screen in several different ways in order to find a replication of the screen that we could animate in 3D studio max.  We came up with two renditions, one that is composed of bands, and has four compartments, or connections for each node.  The other trial works more as a whole unit, where the spaces are “subtracted” from one material.  Both are  further being explored in material quality and aggregation. 

Rubber is such a dynamic material that a move into the digital was somewhat disappointing.  Although computing allows us to apply forces on objects and generate realistic effects, we realized it would be hard to capture the rubber’s actual movement and form.  The physical model (homeostat) is so compelling that we now strive to make the digital work just as well.  Digitally recomposing the form constituted an effort to reimagine the screen.  With such commands as stretch, bend, taper, and wave we created a series of aggregations that acted almost realistically.  However, rubber’s active tendencies were impossible to be recreated. 

We finish out the week taking a closer look at what the aggregations mean for the spaces they will inhabit.  These aggregations are creating intensities that we need to define and promote with placement and form of the screens.  Direction, enclosure, height and porosity will all be examined.

WEEK 1, SUMMER 09

5/18-5/22  The gravity screen summer session has resumed.  With a full schedule ahead, we will be tying up loose ends to previous investments while redesigning and constructing small, and eventually a full scale model of the gravity screen.  This week has entailed  rethinking the existing homeostat; design, configuration, and aggregation.  This is essential to the full scale prototypes form, function and aesthetic.  We are working to create not only a series of patterened gravity driven screens, but more importantly, interactive space; responsive architecture. 

Splitting our time between website production and homeostat reconstruction, we realized it was a crucial time to consider changes in the form the screen would take.  A new study and design created a mold for the inner screen that was completely connected, and noticeably smaller than the outside screen.  In the existing homeostat, all of the screens are the same size.  Also the structural form is being questioned, currently the plan of the system shows a circle.  Talk of a more linear plan, where the screen will look and act more panel-like has been brought up.  The shape that holds the screens directly affects the type of enclosure created.  The round plan makes a tighter, multi-directional enclosure, while the liner plan will create a galley feeling where the enclosure exists as repetitive “wall” conditions.