Week 7 was all about finishing up and tweaking our prototype to make it as optimal as possible. Coming into this week, we had assembled and tested our medium-high fidelity prototype with mixed results of our application method. We were really hoping we could resolve these issues quickly and move onto a high-fidelity, deliverable prototype. Unfortunately, we did not expect that testing and tweaking would take as long as it did.

We started by testing the how adding a second roller would affect the application. For ease of implementation, we did not connect the second roller to the belt-pulley, so it was free-rolling. This actually ended up scratching the emulsion rather than helping it be applied, so we abandoned this idea.

We also tried to modify the platform to minimize the surface area in contact with the film while still providing support. This would allow us to ensure that the film is flat. At the same time, it would minimize the amount of emulsion that coats the other side of the film. This definitely did help our device avoid coating the underside, but did not optimize our application.

We also tried to modify the hand cranking technique we used. Initially, we were cranking all 6 feet of film at once. Due to the nature of our belt loop, the film would turn upside down before the emulsion solidified, leading to clumps of the liquid and an uneven coating. Therefore, we tried to crank the film for 3 feet, let it cool for about two minutes, and then continue coating. Unfortunately, this led to the film having many gaps and scratches when we restarted the application. This left us with two poor options to choose from, so we set out to think of a third.

From what we observed, stopping midway through the coating would always cause problems, but we noticed that cranking all 6 feet was only a problem because the gelatin wouldn’t cool fast enough. What if we could reduce the cooling time so that it would not be an issue? It would be difficult to implement a stronger or colder cooling system than the fan we were currently using, so we decided to try to reduce the volume of liquid dispensed per distance of film. This would thin out the layers of emulsion so that they could solidify faster.

To implement this, we laser cut a smaller gear and a corresponding rack and placed it on our machine. This gear was so so so small that we had to use acrylic instead of wood to prevent the teeth from chipping. We tried this, and our results were so much better! They were not perfect, but they were much more consistent and the liquid cooled much faster. It did not cool fast enough to solidify before it went upside down. To solve this, we tried reeling the film backward once all 6 feet were covered so that the liquid would essentially be spread twice. This seemed to really help the consistency of the application and produced our best sample yet. Unfortunately, we struggled to maintain the same level of consistency from trial to trial, but we are confident that this was the best method we used.

Once we had this data, we began compiling this information into documentation and our presentation. Unfortunately, we spent so much time trying to perfect the application method, we did not have a chance to polish our design to be completely usable for our client. It would not be a deliverable product. Initially, I was pretty sad about this fact because I felt our team had really committed to finishing the project. When reflecting on our time in SEED, I learned so much new mechanical and practical knowledge as well as gained new skills such as laser-cutting and the X-carve, that the incomplete project certainly did not feel like a failure. I am proud of the work that we did and am sad I won’t get more time here in the OEDK this summer. I hope our project will be continued in the future, perhaps making this project a trilogy!