Jeff who? :D

@@pratwurschtgulasch6662 Jeff • 10 months ago

@@pavlepetrovic989 Jeff Besos?

@@pratwurschtgulasch6662 Jeff bingo?

@@gremlin1331 look on youtube for jeff who, it's pretty funny

Thanks - there is definitely more to say on this board and I'm feeling I need to write it down. If I find a few hours, I'll try to do so...

@@abitembedded Yes please. There are viewers of this channel that actually are interested in the fine details of FPGA programming.

I felt quite the opposite. I could see every detail of his hard work to the point where I got tired just listening about it :p but the result is worth it!

@@JayPixx i started questioning my entire existence. How is a mortal person able to achieve stuff like this !?

Not just programming the FPGA or the pi stuff, but creating/designing the whole board, too! Wicked engineering

We can try this i think since light is both a particle and a wave soo it might possible to move light particles using sound

​@@joshuapeligrinoWell, sound is just pressure waves, so you technically can change the speed and direction of light using sound to rapidly increase or decrease the pressure in an area. Not sure you would be able to meaningfully effect light this way, but it's an interesting thought. Would probably also explode when doing this, cause the difference between a sound wave and a shock wave is just the amount of energy involved...

I've seen demonstrations that look like an actual physical object. The way it works is that a mirror is placed a a 45 degree angle, and it's rotated very quickly. Above (or below) it is a fast screen that changes the images rapidly, so you'll get a different image depending on the angle you are looking at it from. That was over 10 years ago. There's really no commercial application for these displays. They are novel, but that's it.

There's a WAY easier method if you only need to create a hologram in the sense of a volumetric display (which is how it's shown in Sci-Fi). You can just shoot two infrared laser beams into luminescent smoke, and where they intersect, they create a dot of visible light (since only their combined energy suffices to cause luminescence). This way, you can easily build a whole hologram. It's a well known technique for at least 20 years now. The only reason why we don't use it more often is because there are very few applications where it actually makes sense. What's so impressive about the project in this video is that it's using an actual physical object.

@@joshuapeligrino Even if this is possible, if we trapped the light in the sound waves, it wouldn't be able to enter our eyes and we wouldn't be able to see it!

exactly. _100%_ true man

Same

Another computer engineering student here and I can only agree. The amount of knowledge to make this video is insane. Congrats!

my lab is like this: i get 1/4 of that 6:50 waveform, but with no suggestive names and i should figure out in 2 hours what it all does(i need to learn how a MIPS32 processor works). I kinda managed to figure out what memory and registers do and edit them a little to see if my understanding was correct, but then i had a lab about a fraction of a pipeline, i couldn't understand a thing. i am looking forward for the times when I need to do the code myself and simulate the waveform to my willing to fix my projects.

I’m not familiar with that, what is it?

Thanks Ben - big fan of your channel!

Hay Ben, waiting for your next video.

@@abitembedded I think you just need to adjust the frequency - Test the effects on a larger dot. Also, look for a means to hold the actual device, consider sound canceling. Funnel a single point, try salt, molten, I wanted to see your process to make a line used to make a cube.

@@abitembedded Have you tried with water droplets ?

@@abitembedded Truly excellent Dan. Much appreciate you sharing.

Thanks for the kind comments! I know of one other group that is currently building one of these based on my design. I've considered making a kit but the amount of work to do so is daunting and I have so many other projects to work on (most of which don't hit KZfaq :) )

@@abitembedded I understand, I would love to see more videos from you about the projects you do now, you have an amazing amount of skill, I can't imagine how much one would learn from just looking over your shoulder as you built this stuff, the FPGA design alone let alone all the hardware, and the GPU simulation. Your a one man show :)

Seconded! Awesome work.

​@@abitembeddedlook, seriously, One of The projects must be Doctor Who's Sonic Screw driver. Pleeeeeaaaasssseeeee

Make a kit

Same

It's said like the KZfaq video isn't the final product goal, and the project is what he's actually interested in.

@@asailijhijr that, as well as like he's trying to fit the description of what he did into 10 minutes so that people will actually want to watch it

totally dude. entirely right!

​@@rarebeeph1783yeah otherwise it's too niche and people won't watch it

I dont know if thats quite possible in this format, or at least on this scale🤔 I am not sure, I am not well educated or informed in this topic

@@skateraptor12 then why comment?

@@nathanielyoungman4454 haha he said balls

@@nathanielyoungman4454 because they're giving their opinion. you don't need to be an expert to share your thoughts

@@nathanielyoungman4454 Ofc, my mistake, if only the respectful and educated were able to comment the world would be a much better place

thanks!

That would be a cool living room peice

and then in the future we could play ygo like in the anime

that might be the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

It could use 2 of those spinning display things or something else on 2 sides and show the paddles then the particle is the ball lol

Would be amazing but I worry about what would happen as the ball approached the paddle. Would they start to interfere? I guess just give the objects a huge hotbox.

Yes! This!

Watch him solve the three body problem with some weird hermeneutic sacred geometry frequency thing

@@fitz3540hermetic?

"just some integer math"

Thanks! 👍

I'm also cheap - I wanted to make sure I understood that I can build this without spending a dime... :)

agreed! totally, totally true man

I imagine the biggest constraint to this method would be collision. The position of the number of balls would have to be shifted such that they never overlap the same X, Y, Z. This wouldn't work for more elaborate 3D models because there is only 1 dimension of 2 forces (gravity vs pressure on the Y axis).

For a touch map you'd want to add a skin attenuating beat frequency to the signal. Edit: Nevermind, he mentions that the paper covers that.

look up ultrahaptics, looks like they make what you are describing

@@Mildain2000 Just the refresh rate alone would be an issue even if it was possible. You're constrained by the physical speed. This is why volumetric displays will always just be things like LED's layered together. But volumetric displays are honestly not that cool for viewing anything but basic shapes, because they obviously have a limited depth, and images of things will have near and far depth of fields, and focused or blurry details. So you'd really only get a narrow range of depth and then it'd just be a cut off to become a flat wallpaper of the rest of the things in the background. This would pretty much break immersion. About all a volumetric display would be good for is things like the medical field where you want to view sections with physical topology, but you can already get that in VR or AR. For home use, it would only ever be good for giving UI elements a pop out effect. Another issue with volumetric displays is working in the 3D space itself. A simple mouse and cursor won't do. Even a touch screen wouldn't do, because eventually you'd have elements overlapping, so you'd still be limited to a 2D field of selection. Needless to say, we're not getting volumetric displays any time soon, and we'd be pretty disappointed in the practicality of it anyways. The only ones that make sense are holographic displays.

thank you so much for your kind comments!

indeed. precisely right dude

Except this is Ph.D level...

This is what I was thinking. I was like, alright physics, I can keep up with this, simulations, alright yeah I kinda understand, fpga, I know what that is, 6:46, jesus christ what does this guy do knowing this much about so many different disciplines, what the hell is this

Thank you! Interestingly, the math to move more balls doesn't seem to be more complicated than adding together the "waveforms" for moving individual balls - certainly on my list of things to do...

@@abitembedded and ? Can it be done ? Video when ?

@@AndroidFerret It's all about time :) Given all the recent interest, I think I have to prioritize coming back to this project. But I do have another project on the go right now...

@@abitembedded I'm glad the algorithm shoved you into my recommendations! Subscribed to see more awesome, well documented projects!

Thank you! It was about four months, working about an hour every night, somewhat more on the weekends

@@abitembedded Incredible! What is your background?

@@abitembedded I really need to know your background and education. You're doing things I dream of doing but are so interdisciplinary I don't know how to approach. Please answer.

@@thek3743 I'm a computer engineer

@@abitembedded hey keep doing love your stuff

You're from the future?!

It's not a "hard" hologram like what you're thinking. If you were to try to touch it you would stop the small ball from moving and the image would be completely lost. You would also probably loose the ball from just putting your hand near it and disturbing the sound waves.

@@GeassChicken "color television is just a silly dream" - geasschicken 1941

Complete strawman depiction of what he's just said, VK. Poor show.

@@Opossum412 I think he's just sarcasticly saying the equivalent of "you're a party pooper". But who knows, maybe he's serious.

9:42 he says that apparently if you use other frequencies you can stimulate your nerve handing and feel like you are touching even though you are just caressing thin air

Very neat - thanks for describing the methods you used. I truly miss the times when you truly had to understand how a processor worked and had low level access to the registers - give me a 6502 or 6805 anyday :)

That is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said to this engineer :)

@@abitembedded I didn't just mean it, I did it :) I'm an engineer too and you are deserving all the appreciation :) I also do appreciate your time to describe all your work in a video and inform people about such a thing. Thumbs up :)

There's already a paper describing it, so there's prior art. Either the team of scientists already filed the patent, or it's not patentable anymore.

I think what usually happens is the university owns the patent on this. Maybe 25 years down the line we will get them released, like 3D printing was. Think patents last 20 years. 5 is for improvements that enable it to be commercially viable.

Well according to him only about an hour every day for 4 months and more on weekends. So like 160 hours give or take?

Best of luck - I'd love to hear how that goes

yup :)

I did try moving the boards apart to reduce the possibility of reflections and still see the distortions. It turns out the original researchers see them as well and "they're working on it" - hopefully they'll publish a paper on their solution!

@@abitembedded well I'm well below this project, but would some sort of dampening help?

Could the distortions be related to signal quality, air quality, or manufacture quality of the transducers?

Yes please do this

I second this. That would incredible.

Can it have 2 or more particles doing separate things at once ?

@@a_3718 theoretically yes, but the closer they get to each other, the more they interfere with each other, either causing a collision or an ejection

It may be possible to do this, however there are only two planes of transducers which is a hard constraint on the maxima and minima of the resultant pressure waves and their ability to isolate particles without interfering with the other and with a fixed radius for each transducer, further clarity is impossible because you cant decrease the diameter easily. If you had a second set of transducer planes, with a normal vector orthogonal to the original set, it would help fix this problem as you could use the second set of planes to help flatten unwanted interaction between the two pressure wells, sort of how noise cancelling works in avionics for the pilot's headset.

You might be able to tune the software for this. From what I understood from the video the inertia of the ball isnt being accounted for. You might be able to slow it down more agressively with software.

It’s the inertia. You can clearly see it when drawing the square - each edge describes a loose “S” due to over shooting. Aerogel would make a lighter particle.

@@Speaking_on_mute good idea, aerogel. @boggless2771 had a good idea about correcting for the overshoot in software too, I assume by an early stop and a brief counterforce. I saw that done in a sort of custom robot painter which was having a similar problem.

Your proposed software corrections would be effective, Im certain. They would not be easy to implement, I suspect, and would be intensive at runtime.

@@Speaking_on_mute yeah, I'm not sure it's really worth it, it's really more of a puzzle than a practical device. Interesting challenge though.

Thanks - the frame rate on the camera was 29.97 FPS. The frame rate of both the circle and butterfly was 10FPS - it really does look like this (maybe a bit better) in real life :) No camera tricks involved - I could do a longer exposure and get a more complex shape on film but to the naked eye, it certainly wouldn't look as good...