Christian Paul 376 591 Semester 1/2012

Group 9

“Come up with a natural process” you say. It’s

easy enough. But to find something that

interests you, that really inspires and motivates

you, is not a task that comes easily. I’m not a

creative person, that much is clear. But the first

thought that occurs when I hear ‘natural’ is

the natural elements. Wind, water, earth and

fire. They are without a doubt the most natural

things in this world. And of those elements,

there is one that seems more beautiful than

any other. Fire is powerful and destructive,

Earth is strong and unyielding, wind is light and

Waterfall

IdeationA Mass of Motion

Earth is strong and unyielding, wind is light and

unpredictable. But water; water is magical.

So now I have an element, but a process? To

me a process involves movement. So I’ve

narrowed Rain? A River? They seemed a bit

too constant. Then I found what I was looking

for, A mass of motion, water churning, falling,

spraying, all in an epic beauty that could not

be replicated artificially.

But a waterfall is more than one process;

it’s several pushed together.Essentially, if we follow the water through its

natural motions, there are three broad ‘states’

we can classify the liquids movement under;

calm and flowing, freefalling, and a chaotic

maelstrom at the bottom.

CALM

IdeationProcess or processes?

So it seems fairly obvious that I should

follow, at least in part, this sequence

of events within my model. By

combining these contrasting

concepts, I can emphasise the

radical changes in state that occur

within a waterfall

FREEFALL

CHAOS

Three processes, so contrasting, fit

together to form one continuous

process. Because of this, the entire

model is inevitably linear in the

sense of time as the water moves

through the various processes. At

the same time, the contrasting

elements still need to maintain a

sense of common purpose and

feeling.

The key is contrast between

processes

IdeationCalm. Freefall. Chaos

Well why not!? After I’ve found a model that

I’m moderately happy with, why change?

Because moderately happy is not happy

enough! And because (more seriously) I

wanted a shape that more emphasised a

dramatic change between phases. I isolated

the two sections (out of the original three)

that seemed most appropriate: the freefall,

and the chaos.

The calm is pointless; the action

happens in the freefall and the

chaos

IdeationDramatic Change

This shape almost directly follows the flow of

water as it falls and collides with the bedrock

underneath which forms the chaotic churning

region at the bottom of every waterfall

IdeationIdea Accomplished

For my particular model, the given “contour”

method was rather pointless, especially when

there is a much easier method present. Draw

a profile curve, and revolve it. Which gives a

perfectly symmetrical shape. While a slightly

distorted shape was at first appealing to me, I

later learnt that there was little point: the

aesthetic benefits gained by distortion were

minimally noticeable and outweighed by the

large amount of extra work in panelling when

compared to a symmetrical shape.

While the conventional methods aren’t

effective, the Revolve command is.

DesignShape and Revolve

DesignPanelling Ideas

Panelling for each section needs to be

different, but at the same time related.

By splitting the two sections and panelling

them independently, we can maintain a level

of distinction between the two ‘processes’.

The only problem with this idea is that the two

sections no longer join perfectly, due to the

offset cause by panels. This process was easily

remedied just by creating a specific joining

piece, which also doubled as a stand.

By using simple spikes

(pyramids), and by offsetting

the outer panelling grid, we

can create this whirlpool

effect.

DesignPanelling

Ridges which clearly show

directionality and motion of the

water in freefall

DesignVirtual Creation

While perfect in a virtual world, in the

real world Physics hate everythingThe advantage of having a symmetrical

shape is that the panels can be repeated, so

in reality, I only had to unwrap and adjust a

dozen panels or so, then simply duplicate

them.

Consideration of tabs had to be taken on

several counts:

• As the panels are 3D, each panel

FabricationPreparation - Tabs

• As the panels are 3D, each panel

needed to be fixed closed into its shape

• Consideration for joing the panel to the

one behind or in front, to create rows

• Joining the rows above and below each

other

Sure, the model is solid. But its not a

model, it’s a Lantern! Which means

light!For the top ‘freefall’ section, there was no

alteration needed for light. I simply punched

holes through the peaks for light during the

actual assembly (although in hindsight, using

the FabLab to cut the holes would have been

easier and more uniform)

FabricationPreparation - Lighting

For the bottom ‘chaos’ whirlpool section, by

removing the section of the panel that was

underneath the protruding spike, I was able

to direct light out of each spike while still

hiding the lighting system itself.

FabricationNesting

FabricationAssembly Instructions

50 LEDs is just too many. Fairy lights

provided an elegant, easy to use

solutionThese lights are an excellent alternative to

LEDs, purely because of my intention to have

each closed 3D panel illuminated

independantly. Not only would wiring 50 LEDs

been highly difficult and time consuming, it

also would have been very expensive. These

party lights came already wired, in a single

line, at a fraction of the cost of so many

individual bulbs.

FabricationLighting

The sacrifice however, is that the lights need to be

comprehensively assembled INTO the model as it

comes together. They need to be merged with the

structure completely. Which makes assembly

slightly more complicated, and often clumsy.

FabricationThe Progress

FabricationFinal Assembled Lantern

How may representations and their material counterparts be mutually dependant?

Well, after going through the entire process of ideation, design, and fabrication, it has become fairly obvious that

these two mediums are highly dependant upon one another, most noticeable when we begin to consider the

limitations of each medium.

Admittedly, the limitations of virtual design alone are generally fairly minimal, what with technology and programs

that are available to us. Utilising these tools, we can create almost anything, and are generally limited by our

imaginations. However, when we combine this process with actual forming these designs into the physical world,

we must stop and look closer to consider the physical possibility of that which we have designed. For example,

while a design program is powerful indeed, the ones utilised for this assignment would not take into consideration

the general physics of the model, such as whether it would support its own weight or whether it would even hold

together. Another problem to consider would be two or more components occupying the same space. In RHINO,

this is no problem, however in the virtual world it is quite clearly impossible.

When thinking in the reverse direction, our physical models are often limited by the capability of the program to

Reflection

When thinking in the reverse direction, our physical models are often limited by the capability of the program to

actually create and map the components, and more importantly, our skill with the program as designers. While we

do have the capability to make alterations to our model without need of the design program, such a process

would be highly tedious and time consuming at best. And also often not as accurate, as a computer program

does not make human error. The design program makes alterations and corrections to our physical model quite

easily in the sense that we can alter, for example, a panel that was not created properly, and simply have it recut.

Also possible without using the computer, but difficult and not as precise.

The two processes are quite capable of functioning independently of one another, however, if we intend on using

these tools together, the limitations of one must always also be applied to the other in order to guarantee success.

What are the learning outcomes of this subject and its relevance to your further studies and future?

There is more than one lesson to be learned from this subject, in fact there are probably dozens. However, there

are a few keys ideas that have been highlighted that I believe will be of great relevance to myself in the future:

Possibly one of the most useful practices throughout the course was prototyping, and testing. Such a crucial

phase that often got neglected or forgotten due to time constraints, but which is so critical to ensuring a high

quality of final work, and to minimise “hitches” that we may encounter, particularly during the fabrication phase.

As a prospective engineer, the idea of tabbing (and therein the greater idea of physical feasibility) was one I

found highly interesting. It was a technique that was crucial to the actual creation and assembly of the physical

model, and was something that had to be well executed, otherwise the evil physics monster would come and

tear your model down. The process of finding a way to ensure support and physical structure was most

applicable to my area of study.

Time management! Of all the things, I think I most struggled with this. To be on such a definite, and pressing

Reflection

Time management! Of all the things, I think I most struggled with this. To be on such a definite, and pressing

timeline was difficult to cope with, mostly due to the way I tend to leave things to the last minute. If anything, the

subject has simply given me a better appreciation of ensuring things are done properly and on time.