My dissertation focuses on the nanoManipulator,
an interface to an Atomic Force Microscope
that uses virtual reality techniques
to give scientists deeper understanding and better control of
their experiments.
Although the nanoManipulator has been in regular use for
six years, producing results in physics, chemistry,
and biology, it is not well-suited to being run over the Internet.
As the scientists we work with produce
good results with our tools,
they have attracted off-site collaborators.
We have undertaken to give these distant scientists
network access to our equipment and experiments,
creating a collaboratory.
As a NIH National Center for Research Resources,
we have funding to determine
the usefulness of this "distributed" approach to science,
buying our collaborators computers rather than plane tickets.
In my dissertation, I address the problem of distributing our
application over today's Internet --
a wide-area network without Quality of Service guarantees.
Although bandwidth and loss are concerns,
the critical problem I am attacking is latency.
There are three levels at which one can discuss latency.
Ideally, I would like to reduce latency as much as possible.
So, at the lowest level,
I ask how the application and the network can adapt to
one another's state to ameliorate congestion,
which is one of the principal causes of latency.
Is a scientific application like the nanoManipulator
amenable to the same kind of multi-dimensional adaptation
as audio and video streams?
If we can't reduce latency, I want to restructure the
application to be more tolerant of latency.
What is the best distribution of functions between sites?
What alternate display and control methods can mask latency?
If all else fails,
I ask how to make the user explicitly aware of latency.
Can a human be trained to adapt to latency?
From the specific problem of the distributed nanoManipulator,
my dissertation generalizes to broader problems in distributed systems.
How can adaptive applications be structured?
What are the tradeoffs involved in using particular adaptation
strategies, and how can we tell whether they are
worth implementing?
What techniques have been considered for other problems that
should be moved across the ``wall'' between disciplines into the
common vocabulary of researchers in distributed visualization?
-
Beyond Audio and Video: Multimedia Networking Support for
Distributed, Immersive Virtual Environments.
K. Jeffay, T. Hudson.
To appear in Proceedings of Euromicro 2001.
-
Experiments in Best-Effort Multimedia Networking for a Distributed
Virtual Environment.
T. Hudson, M. C. Weigle, K. Jeffay, R. Taylor.
Proceedings of SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking 2001.
-
Enabling Distributed Collaborative Science.
T. Hudson, D. Sonnenwald, K. Maglaughlin, M. Whitton, R. Bergquist.
Video Program of ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work 2000.
-
In Situ Resistance Measurements of Strained Carbon Nanotubes.
S. Paulson, M. Falvo, N. Snider, A. Helser, T. Hudson, A. Seeger,
R. Taylor, R. Superfine, S. Washburn.
Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 75 No. 18, 1 November 1999.
-
The Virtual-Reality Peripheral Network (VRPN) System.
R. Taylor II, T. Hudson, H. Weber, J. Juliano, A. Seeger.
UNC Chapel Hill Tech Report TR01-20.
-
Concurrency Control for Collaborative 3D Graphics Applications.
T. Hudson.
UNC Chapel Hill Tech Report TR01-021.