The Augmented Functionality of the Physical Models of Objects of Study for Remote Laboratories

  • Mykhailo Poliakov
  • Karsten Henke
  • Heinz-Dietrich Wuttke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 22)

Abstract

Remote laboratory is an important and rapidly growing component of distance learning systems for engineering specialty. The labs allow for remote users to enter the data of technical experiment that is transmitted to the server where it is converted into control signals of physical and (or) virtual model of the object of the experiment. The level of remote laboratories in engineering education largely depends on the level of models of objects of study that they use. The use of physical models in remote laboratories has identified a number of issues for the creators and operators: they have a limited range of experiments with the physical model, the complexity of modernization and the high cost of new models, and others. The aim of the present work: to improve, to extend the scope of existing physical models. The goal is to be achieved through increase/add functionality of the physical models through the use of augmented reality, augmented virtuality and augmented behavior of the object of study. The work describes the variety and the advantages of hybrid models and interfaces to enhance the functionality, lists examples of added functionality.

Keywords

Remote laboratories Physical models Augmented functionality 

References

  1. 1.
    Azad, A.K.M., Auer, M.E., Harward, V.J. (eds.): Internet Accessible Remote Laboratories: Scalable E-Learning Tools for Engineering and Science Disciplines, Engineering Science Reference, 645 p. (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gravier, C., et al.: State of the art about remote laboratories paradigms - foundations of ongoing mutations. Int. J. Online Eng. (iJOE) 4(1), 1–9 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Remote and virtual tools in engineering: monograph/general editorship, Karsten Henke, Dike Pole, Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine, 250 p. (2015). ISBN 978–966–2752–74–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomes, L., Bogosyan, S.: Current trends in remote laboratories. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 56(12), 4744–4756 (2009). doi:10.1109/TIE.2009.2033293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    GOLDi-labs cloud Website: http://goldi-labs.net
  6. 6.
    Richir, S., Fuchs, P., Lourdeaux, D., Millet, D., Buche, C., Querre, R.: How to design compelling virtual reality or augmented reality experience? Int. J. Virtual Reality 15(1), 35–47 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terkowsky, C., Jahnke, I., Pleul, C., Licari, R., Johannssen, P., Buffa, G., Heiner, M., Fratini, L., Valvo, E.L., Nicolescu, M., Wildt, J., Tekkaya, A.E.: Developing tele-operated laboratories for manufacturing engineering education. Platform for eLearning and Telemetric Experimentation (PeTEX). Int. J. Online Eng. (iJOE) 6, 60–70 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v6s1.1378. REV2010, Vienna, IAOE, Special Issue 1
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Cao, M., Li, Y., Pan, Z., Csete, J., Sun, S., Li, J., Liu, Y.: Creative educational use of virtual reality: working with second life. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 34(5), 83–87 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hughes, C.E., Stapleton, C.B., Hughes, D.E., Smith, E.M.: Mixed reality in education, entertainment, and training. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 25(6), 24–30r (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaf, F.M., Pereira, C.E.: Integrating mixed-reality remote experiments into virtual learning environments using interchangeable components. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 56, 4776–4783 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milgram, P., Colquhoun, H.: A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. In: Ohta, Y., Tamura, H. (eds.) Merging Real and Virtual Worlds, pp. 5–30. Ohmsya Ltd., Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vlada, M., Albeanu, G.: The potential of collaborative augmented reality in education. In: The 5th International Conference on Virtual Learning, ICVL 2010. Targu – Mure, Romania, 29–31 October 2010, pp. 39–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Int. J. Virtual Reality. http://www.ijvr.org
  15. 15.
    Maiti, A.A.K., Maxwell, A.: Variable interactivity with dynamic control strategies in remote laboratory experiments. In: International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation, REV2016, Madrid, Spain, 24–26 February 2016, pp. 399–407 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, M., Maiti, A., Maxwell, A.D., Kist, A.A.: Augmented and mixed reality features and tools for remote laboratory experiments. In: Int. J. Online Eng. (iJOE) 7, 45–52 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v12i07.5851. Vienna, IAOE
  17. 17.
    Poliakov, M., Larionova, T., Tabunshchyk, G., Parkhomenko, A., Henke, K.: «Hybrid models of studied objects using remote laboratories for teaching design of control systems». Int. J. Online Eng. (iJOE) 9, 7–13 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v12i09.6128. IAOE, Vienna
  18. 18.
    Parkhomenko, V., Gladkova, O., Ivanov, E., Sokolyanskii, A., Kurson, S.: Development and application of remote laboratory for embedded systems design. Int. J. Online Eng. (iJOE) 11(3), 27–31 (2015). IAOE, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poliakov, M., Larionova, T., Wuttke, H.-D., Henke, K.: Automated testing of physical models in remote laboratories by control event streams. In: 2016 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (IMCL), 17–19 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA. 94 p., pp. 10–13. IEEE 978-1-5090-1197-1/16/$31.00 ©2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mykhailo Poliakov
    • 1
  • Karsten Henke
    • 2
  • Heinz-Dietrich Wuttke
    • 2
  1. 1.Zaporizhzhya National Technical UniversityZaporizhiaUkraine
  2. 2.Ilmenau University of TechnologyIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations