Practical Measures

We've evolved our modules to a couple of variations. The smaller cylindrical variation allows more directional flexibility. Both modules' diameters are based on our available joint modelling material (38mm ping-pong balls). The narrower module, left is based on the diameter necessary to fit six cylinders onto a ping-pong ball, allowing regular branching in all three axes, or any obtuse angle from the joint.

We'll use acrylic tubing for manufacturing these, although in our imaginations they could be formed of sheet stock in situ. I expect our initial model to resemble a habitrail.

The broader module, shown flattened on the right, shares the 38mm diameter of the joint. These will allow us to create relatively gap-free "finish" surfaces. We've sized them so, lengthwise, they will be compatible.

Above is a layout sample for manufacture. It would be relatively easy to customize these modules for specific angles by moving the relative positions of the joint nests (ie holes).

1 module used for extesion: ability to connect with each other to increase length

connection questions: 1) dealing with small gaps. How do we seal?

2) Can we just assume engineering will take care of it?

our module continued

Scale

Creating "fabrics" with our module (or more like planes.)

This would allow us to grow in all different directions.

x,y,z structure

The Flat Module

The fill module will probably be punched from flat stock. The dashed line represents the lap line for rolling and securing. The teeth on the end will help units lock together.

Module model

Module A "Joint"

Module B "Fill"

The Module, Part 2

Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. What does this mean?

It means: Simplify.

If you want a lot of stuff to work together, you need a lowest common denometer. You want the most options for angular branching so your forms aren't limited to right angles? Look to your (or your geeky friend's) dice bag:

The more surfaces, the more options, until you get a sphere.

So, a sphere is a very robust, simple form. What about the JOINT? Sure, the sphere could be the joint, if you poke holes into it, and your fill coule be sticks or planes with sticks sticking out of them and you're back to Tinkertoys. Or...

What if the joint is an inherent aspect of the fill?

Congratulations. We've just reinvented the burdock.

Neat things, unless you're trying to get them off the flanks of a squirmy, wooly dog. They inspired the invention of Velcro . So, what if you made burdocks with teeny, tiny hooks? Hooks so small, they wouldn't catch on fabric? What if you made those hooks smart, so they'd release on command?

Congratulations, we just thought up spider feet.

Spider feet are "smart" velcro. When the spider wants to move, unconscious controls make these little micrometer-scale hairs release. It all has to do with Van der Waals forces, which I am in no way qualified to explain.

So! Spider feet, spheres, burdocks- where's this going?

What if the "robot" came down to a matrix of smart velcro? Smart velcro that essentially broke down to "yes" and "no" binary commands? Movement would be progressive and cooperative between two surfaces, a ripple of "yes" commands, meaning grab and hold, propelling the skin (and the form within) forward across another skin/form, while in its wake leaving a trail of "No", meaning release, commands? The possibilites are infinite.

If this was on an electronic scale, could this smart velcro also devote a percntage of its binary transmission to transmitting data? So a structure is also a computer with human interface?

Someone probably already came up with this idea. GMTA?