So I spent most of the day at Dr. Lipski’s office observing the way he handles his patients
So I spent most of the day at Dr. Lipski’s office observing the way he handles his patients
Last week I was figuring out how to cut the lenses to fit into the devices. I am happy to report that the pinwheel device is done and that I am waiting on more lenses from Bob to cut for the whale-bone device.
I will work out today exactly how I am going to do testing with Bob’s schedule; for example, will it be better to send people to Bob’s office or have him come for a couple days. I think that it will work out better that I bring people to his office when he is free. I can do my testing at any time and that way I don’t interfere with his business. Another thing to report from last week is that I did receive IRB approval. Once I finish the devices, it’ll be time to test. I have to say I am excited to finally see the devices in action. As I am waiting for the lenses to come in, I am working on a testing procedure that will be modified based on what I observe at Bob’s today.
I am also using the Clinical Optics and Refraction book from the library to modify the traditional diagnostic procedures and questions to my own devices.
While I am waiting for IRB approval, I have a few things to get in order before testing actually starts. I need to turn the general testing procedure into specific steps (like write out a formal step by step procedure for each subject), make the tools (cut the lenses), and recruit for the study.
Yesterday and today I focused on making the tools. The problem I have come across is how to cut the lenses spherically. I have done all that I could to avoid using the lens grinder made by Paden simply because he isn’t here to explain what to do and I’ve never used a router before. First I went to the staff at the PDL; they suggested a multitude of different things all of which involve their assistance. The catch is that they cannot help until next week…One of them suggested that I use the laser cutter which I thought was impossible because the lenses are polycarbonate. However, they said I could if I wrapped the lens in tape; one of the staff came up and showed me a way to do this. However, the method didn’t work as I was left with a charred and smelly mess. Theoretically (he explained), it should have worked but our laser cutter is in such bad shape that it failed miserably.
I need to make these tools now and the only option left (that I see) is to use the lens grinder. Thus I spent the past couple days ‘messing around’ with it and learning to use the device. The first couple of lenses were disastrous as I was more afraid of using it than anything else; it didn’t help that I was going off of watching Paden use it months ago. I made a ton of mistakes like trying to cut the lens in the wrong direction; the device jerked badly and I quickly adjusted what I was doing. After cutting a few lenses, I can say I have improved significantly. Once I get confident enough at using the device (probably tomorrow – that’s the goal), I will cut the new spherical lenses from Dr. Lipski. I only have one set of lenses currently due to ordering mis-communication but that’s only a temporary set-back.
Keeping this in mind (that I want to finish the pinwheel device first and in the next couple days- I’m already behind what I originally planned), I realized I had to come up with a modified procedure to cut the lenses. I used the laser cutter to make a template for just like Paden did for the spectacle shaped lenses. I cut a hole in the middle (with the laser cutter) so I could properly center the adhesive pad on the metal block (the one that holds the lens to be cut and the template). I used the laser cutter to make something that made the placement of another adhesive pad in the center of the lens to be cut. This is the tricky step because the lens is obviously curved and finding the center is critical to the placement of the cut. I took a couple of pictures to show my simple method:
I filled out the IRB application completely and the essay answers can be found in the drop box- go to Approtech then IRB and 2013 application. All of the documentation that goes with the application is there. I know editions are necessary but this is progress thus far. Whenever you get the chance, take a look at it even if it’s when you get back. I still haven’t figured out which targets I am going to end up using; I did make a colored astygmatism wheel (see below- it is not to scale but you get the idea). It works fairly well but I still prefer the standard bi-chrome chart (but that still leaves the problem with astygmatic patients). Additionally, for the other target option, I am thinking we stick with the astygmatism wheel (plain) and then have the bi-chrome test chart just next to it that way we can use it for refinement purposes right then and there without having to change targets. That way we also get a better gauge if the bi-chrome test has any measurable effect as compared to past results.
As a random side note, after playing with the tools and simulating what it would be like to be a patient and found out that my tool eyepiece is actually too large. When I tried to place it properly against my eye, I couldn’t because the tool hit my nose. Thus I have to make new ones that are smaller so that the patient can center the eyepiece so that they see through the center of the lenses (which is not really possible with the current prototype unless you hold it away from your face a bit- but this is a source of error that needs to be minimized for optimal potential according to Dr. Lipski).
Another update for the week is that the lenses finally arrived at Dr. Lipski’s office (however I did not get the email until 1:30 which was after he closed for the day). Thus once I get back, I will be able to make the actual diagnostic tools. I want to re-size them though so that they do not hit the nose of the patient, especially before I cut the lenses.
When I come back, I need to make a ‘formal’ set of procedures and do a mini-trial run with perhaps some teammates to find out what works and what doesn’t (after the tools are ready to go). I have the bulleted list in another post which describes what I want to do, however I have not come up with instructions to give the subjects or figured out the where, when, who…etc. which will all need to be planned once the IRB application is accepted (I did not submit it yet simply because I want Professor Kim’s help with revisions and suggestions.
In summary, this week was mostly about figuring out a testing methodology and getting closer to the testing process. We now know that we want to test 2 different targets and all 3 devices for a total of 6 tests per subject. I tried out multiple targets ( see second picture) to see which combinations seem to work more effectively than others and I found that the duo-chrome is actually very helpful because there is the comparison factor between the letters with different background colors instead of almost blindly guessing with the plain clock from before. I thought I was going to be able to see Dr. Lipski again this week but circumstances did not allow for another meeting.
Colored Astygmatic clock- we can ask patients if they have a preference between the different letters of if there is a set of letters or lines which are more distinct than the others. In theory I feel like this could work but I want to ask Bob’s opinion first.
These were a few of the targets that were moderately successful- the one in the bottom left has a grid and a bulls-eye pattern that I expected better results from meaning the point of clarity would be easier to recognize, however this was not the case. Additionally, for an astygmatic patient, this type of grid could look incredibly skewed and be difficult to use; thus I stuck with the clocks. In the upper left, there are two rings with varying thicknesses and ‘hole’ sizes that I thought would look more like a ring when unfocused and then when in focus the gaps would be distinct. Again there was a problem recognizing that initial point but I did find that the thicker lines with smaller gaps gave me less trouble than the opposite conditions.
One thing that I did by accident is that I used one target like the plain circle targets and then then moved to scope to focus on the duo-chrome targets, made the adjustments based on color preference, and then read the prescription. This yielded much more consistent results than using the targets by themselves (minus the colored clock with letters- bottom left).
3 Tools, 2 Targets
Device1 : Pirate Scope
Device3: Whale Bones
1. “This is the tool you will use to diagnose your prescription. While I move the tool, you will be asked to identify when the target image becomes most “clear.” Clear should be when the image is sharp and well-defined. Be sure to differentiate between size and clarity. Focus on the boldness and blackness of the lines. At the clear point, the letters on the target with red backgrounds will be equally black and bold as those with green backgrounds. ” Please play with the tool, resting the fat end on your RIGHT brow-bone (the bone under your eyebrow), moving it in and out to determine for yourself what clear means.”
2. Let subject use tool for a minute or 2.
3. “To determine your prescription, I will start with the tube in the fully extended position. Rest the fat end of the tube on your RIGHT brow-bone. I will slide the inner tube toward your eye until the image becomes clear with the black lines well defined. Please indicate the initial clear point. Indicate if I go past the point of clarity. The image will get smaller and darker. I will then begin the process again. .”
4. Have subject use tool until 3 results are given for RIGHT EYE.
5. Have subject use tool until 3 results are given for LEFT EYE.
******The above procedures are taken and slightly modified from the senior design team’s instructions used in their experiments
Give the subjects 1 -2 minutes for their eyes to readjust before moving on to the next tool
Give the subject 1-2 minutes to readjust their eyes before moving on to the next tool
Whale Bone Design
For all 6 tests, the subject will cover the eye not being tested with their hand and asked to relax it. Additionally, these tests will be conducted under dimmed lighting. Once patient finishes these tests, they are sent to Dr. Bob Lipski’s station where he will used his preferred method of diagnosis to find the proper prescription of each subject. The measurements taken for each tool and target will be compared with Dr. Lipski’s assessment to find the tool and target which yields the best correlation. The goal is to be within 0.5 diopters of the proper prescription. Total testing time per subject will be approximately 20 minutes.
So yesterday I had the opportunity to visit Dr. Bob Lipski’s office to meet, ask questions, and learn retinoscopy directly from him. To say I learned a lot is a complete understatement. I had no idea what I was expecting from the visit only that I had key questions to ask. What surprised me most was how much better I feel with the material I have been reading about because Dr. Lipski was so hands on in his approach. Throughout the session I was able to ask my questions and we got more in depth than I expected. One of the most important parts of my visit is that I have a much better appreciation for what the patients who we are attempting to help are going through. I asked Dr. Lipski to put me in the patient’s seat. He put different lenses in front of my eyes and had me try to read the chart on the wall. He did this for spherical and cylindrical lenses so i could better understand astymatism. He also then showed me what it looks like as he cycles through lenses which get closer to clear and crisp vision. One thing that shocked me is that Dr. Lipski indicated that he did not like using the phoropter; he said that it was just a fancy tool that apparently causes him to under-minus people a lot because of the distance between the patient’s eye and the lenses in the phoropter. I think this is an important factor to consider with our diagnostic tool. I asked him to show me what kind of difference such a distance makes just to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. He took two lenses in front of my eyes and told me to focus on the letters on the chart. He then proceeded to move one of those lenses away from my eye towards the screen and I watched the image get blurrier until I could barely make out a blob of a letter. Dr. Lipski said that this sort of error is worse for higher powered lenses like and 4 diopters in magnitude and above. This is good news for the pinwheel and whale-bone design as the maximum lens power is a magnitude of 3 diopters. I got to see that even with 6 inches between lenses of 3 diopter magnitude, the distance that that difference made was not that extreme. The scenario is when the lenses are stack one on top of the other; considering that the pinwheel causes a separation from one lens to another by a small amount (maybe .5 cm at most) and the lens powers are small in magnitude, I am becoming more confident in the potential of the pinwheel. It is important however that we make sure that with that device the patient has the handle part and holder on their face or very close to it to minimize the error caused by the distance between the lens and the eye.
Another thing I questioned Dr. Lipski about is the Duo-Chrome test as we are looking into it as a possible option for diagnosis. Apparently he uses this test quite frequently for his patients as a means of refinement of his diagnosis. He first uses the phoropter to get a general idea of a person’ s prescription, then uses retinoscopy and finally the duo-chrome test to refine the whole diagnosis. The test entails asking the patient to look at a target which has a solid red background on the left and green on the right with bold black letters centered across the middle. The patient is asked which black letters (which side) do they prefer based on how bold, clear, black, and bold the letters were. I paid attention to his diction here as from my readings I knew that the duo-chrome test results can be thrown off if a patient chooses a side simply because the background is brighter. I brought his attention to what he had said and he emphasized the importance of giving clear directions so that patients know what to look for. He said that this is especially important for patients in Guatemala because of the language barrier and the fact that some of the people have never had any sort of eye examination. This surprises me a lot because of the doubt from a couple sources about the duo-chrome test and its reliability. I asked Dr. Lipski what he thought of using the test as a more general form of diagnosis and he said that it was made simply for refinements. He went on to explain that if the eyesight is bad enough and a patient cannot even make out the letters on the target; when this happens both sides look equally atrocious and you would be left blind guessing. Considering that the pirate scope can give a general idea of prescription, perhaps we could use the duo-chrome test for refinement purposes for our own diagnostic procedure. I was more skeptical of the test itself because it is strange to thing that you can see the black letters more clearly based upon a color background but Dr. Lipski had me experience this first-hand with trial lenses. There was defintely a distinct difference between the letters on the green versus red background. He was insistent on saying that green is ok for a patient to prefer, red is bad knews, but no preference is exactly what you want to hear. From this, I think it is worth the effort to make some sort of target to use with the pirate scope, scaled correctly, to see what kind of difference it will make in our accuracy with that device.
Retinoscopy 101 Experience
One of the purposes of me going to see Dr. Lipski was to learn to perform retinoscopy so that I can verify results once testing of the new devices and/or new processes is begun. Plus it would be incredibly beneficial down in Guatemala for me to have that skill. Before the visit, I had done extensive research on retinoscopy and the process of diagnosis; however, reading and doing simulators does not really do justice to the challenges of performing it in person with a patient.
We started off easy as Dr. Lipski had me first use a model eye to get a better picture of how retinoscopy actually worked within the eye. He had me look at a the conditions of a normal eye where the light focuses perfectly on the retina after passing through the lens of the eye. He then selected extreme myopic and then hyperopic lenses so I could learn to recognize with and against motion with the retinoscope. The model eye was extremely large and the refractive abilities of the lenses so strong than it was not hard to pick up the patterns I was supposed to see. He then proceeded to show me what astygmatism looked like with the retinoscope by putting a cylindrical lens into the model. Using the streak retinoscope’s rotational cylinder in the base, I was able to orient the light streak along the two astygmatic axes. Dr. Lipski explained that the goal of retinoscopy is to neutralize the refractive error of these axes which are almost always perpendicular.
When they are not, you get a scissoring effect, however he assured me that it is rare to occur. If the scissoring effect is observed then glasses cannot be used to fix that patient’s eyes. I asked Dr. Lipski about how common astygmatism was and he answered that almost everyone has some form. He said that in Guatemala, astygmatism is a huge problem and that most of them have ‘with the rule’ astygmatism meaning the axis is 180 degrees. Conversely ‘against the rule astygmatism’ is at 90 degrees but is less common. I then proceeded to ask about how to recognize cataracts and other abnormalities in the eye while performing retinoscopy and how to get around them. By using this one plastic lens and a marker on the model eye, he simulated the conditions of cataracts and had me pass the retinoscope over it to see how ‘funky’ it the reflex appeared. Dr. Lipski laughed a little and said that there was no magic to it but that you simply do the best that you can to see around or through the issues. You cannot always help a patient and when that happens you simply have to move on to those that you can.
Anyways, the purpose of my visit was to learn spherical retinoscopy not diagnose astygmatism. He had me pay attention to the speed, brightness, direction, and width of the reflex as the retinoscope is flashed across the eye. Just like my readings indicated, Dr. Lipski explained that it was easier to look for width motion first and then move on from there by adding more positive lenses. When the reflex is slower and dimmer, the refraction is far from neutralization. Thus the goal is to cycle through lenses until the speed increases (to infinity), you have slight width motion, the line of the reflex is at its peak (as in no line, just illumination of everything), and the reflex was at it’s brightest. This is when you recognize the correct prescription. After doing a couple diagnoses with the model eye, he made it much more challenging.
Next Dr. Lispki took a seat in the patients chair and use the retinoscope on his eyes so that I could develop the proper techniques. He said that one of the most important things is alignment; the beam of the retinoscope needs to go straight through a patients pupil. Dr. Lipsky had me pivot around different ways and I saw how easy it is to make a mistake in recognizing the reflex properly if you are not properly centered. He then instructed me on working distance and how with spherical prescriptions, it is of the utmost importance to subtract the working distance at the end. From my previous research, I knew that this is because you are looking for a person’s prescription for focusing at infinity and not at the distance you make the diagnosis thus it must be subtracted. The working distance is usually 1.5 diopters but he said that since I was shorter, I could be all the way to the 2 diopter range but was not entirely sure. Anyways, he allowed me to experiment with the retinoscope to see the actual reflex and to get more used to using the tool. As I was doing this, Dr. Lipski pointed out that I had the tendency to lean in too much which affects the working distance, a common mistake for a beginner to make; thus I adjusted and continued.
While I was moving and rotating the beam of the retinoscope across his eye, I noticed that the streak and the reflex did not always line up. From my research, I knew that this meant he had astygmatism so I inquired about it once I found the proper axes; he was surprised I was able to detect it and find the axis because his prescription is so light and the astygmatism so minor. As expected, retinoscopy on an actual person is much more challenging; the reflex is smaller to see, you have to balance holding the lens in front of the patient’s eyes without hitting them in the face or dropping it too low, you have to keep the retinoscope moving at a moderate pace so you don’t completely constrict their pupil, maintain your alignment with their eye and the light of the retinoscope, not to mention getting past the challenges caused by imperfections in the eye…Needless to say there is a lot going on all at the same time. However, after a little bit of toying around, Dr. Lispki said that he wanted me to diagnose his eyes but only focus on the spherical aspect.
As I worked through the process, I told him everything that I observed and he walked me through the process. It was challenging but a lot of fun. I was able to see the width and against motion as I cycled through the different lenses until I found neutralization. This point was not as clear and definitive as I had anticipated, however it could simple be from inexperience. Dr. Lipski then proceeded to put random contacts into his eye and repeat the process. The first contact I had a bit of trouble. After explaining my difficulties and what I was observing, Dr. Lipski said it was probably because he was staring too long and the contact became too dry. He said that dry eye is a common problem to run into and it can make diagnosis hard. He said that it is important to remind patients to blink and relax. From this he transitioned into another common problem encountered during retinoscopy; that is that patients need to focus on something distant behind the diagnostician. Patient (especially children) try to look directly into the light of the retinoscope. The second this happens, the diagnostic becomes almost impossible and then your working distance is messed up. Overall: don’t let it happen. While I was diagnosing his eyes, Dr. Lipski accidentally did this to me and I watched the once bright reflex turn almost orange and disfigured. The second that his gazed shifted behind me again, all returned to normal.
After this, I was able to diagnose his eyes with and match the prescription of the contacts he had put in his eye (this was the second random one). Dr. Lipski said that as long as one gets within 0.5 diopters of the ‘actual’ refractive error, then you have done your job. He said that this is a reasonable amount of error for our purposes based upon the needs of the people in the underdeveloped areas. I asked him at what refractive error does a person truly need glasses. His answer: a normal person can function with a refractive error of up to roughly 1 diopter.
Overall, this was an awesome visit and I would be glad to take advantage of his invitation to return and see how he handles patients. I want to listen to the kinds of diction and such so that I can get a better gauge of what is effective and correct in the diagnostic procedure and then mimic it for our own. Plus he told me I could work with actual patients and I can work on astygmatism because I was able to pick up the spherical quickly (or at least that is what Dr. Lipski indicated).
1. wait for lenses to come in (Dr. Lipski ordered them)
2. get more familiar with retinoscopy
3. make a properly scaled duo-chrome chart…then test
4. put together the prototypes and test them out
5. explore the cross-hatch target idea- Dr. Lipski sort of liked this one but I have a feeling that the duo-chrome is a better option if it is one at all
6. evaluate what direction is working best and test some more
This is a great source for all sorts of diagnostics and optometry in general. I was more focused on the section which explains the theories and practice of the duo-chrome test as we are looking into it for a possible change in our own diagnostic procedures.
While last week was about hand prototyping in the PDL with raw materials, the most important highlights of this week were learning to prototype with the laser cutter and I even got a chance to learn about the 3D printer.
I had absolutely zero experience with these apparatuses until this week and am proud of the learning curve that took place in such a short period of time. What surprised me was how intricate these machines were to set up and how one little error can actually do a lot of damage. I probably learned more of what not to do than what to do, but both are equally valuable.
From a design standpoint, I became more familiar with some features in SolidWorks that I was unaware of after talking to Sam. Additionally, I learned how to link different aspects of a design so that it is more efficient to make changes; I figured this one out the hard way after having to break apart the whale-bone design to make in the 3D printer simply because of the structures that I wanted made. This is because if I had tried to print the design as one single piece, the prototype would have turned out wrong as the piece was asymmetrical and would have printed as a warped model. As a result, I made a new design with snap in parts so that I could assemble them into what I wanted. This part of my week is where I learned about the entire design process. For example, I learned about tolerances; this important aspect is something I completely forgot so when I tried to piece my model together it didn’t work. I then proceeded to use clamp a drill-bit to the table and turned the parts by hand to expand the holes to the proper size (I didn’t want to waste material plus I prefer to work with my hands anyways) so I wouldn’t crack the plastic. Although I ‘messed’ up making this model because rings were thicker than I had planned (measurement error), I made a new one using the laser cutter anyways and screwed the parts together. I am overall unhappy with how the ‘whale-bone’ design is coming along and may manipulate it around more next week.
Moving on to a different design though, I finally assembled the pin-wheel type design properly. Last week I simply had the wheels rotating on a nail with hot glue. Not surprisingly it constantly fell apart so I decided to find a better way to stabilize the model. Another problem was that once all of the wheels were stacked together, the wheels stuck together which will be a problem if the whole purpose of the wheels is to allow for single step transitions for lenses. Additionally the wheels rotated too freely on the nail- they could wobble back and forth and any imbalance in the weight caused them to rotate incorrectly.
To address these problems I planned to put the wheels on a larger diameter screw with washers in between. Since I made the holes too small in the design in SolidWorks for any of the longer screws to fit, I ended up using a drill to expand the holes. However, I had to drill halfway through each side to avoid cracking the wheels because of the brittleness of the material. Anyways, I made the changes to the prototype and secured the whole thing with a bolt on the end. Although the fit was far superior and more secure (not to mention safer without a sharp end) with the screw, the problem of the wheels sticking remained. I discovered the solution to the problem accidentally by playing with the extra bolts and the wheels during my lunch break. Although the bolts are thicker thus increasing the space between the lenses that will fit into the wheel, they allow the wheels to all rotate independently. Additionally since the fit is tight, there is some resistance to the wheels spinning to that once the lenses are in place, there will be no problems with them falling to balance the weight of the lenses (what I mean by this is if there is one lens which is more massive than the others in the wheel due to the curvature and the resultant additional volume, there is no worries of the wheel rotating freely down on its own so that the most massive one can only sit on the bottom). This means that the diagnostician will not have to hold to wheels in place as they cycle through the lenses. This was my original intent for this design so I am content with the prototype thus far.
This week I also looked into other diagnostic alternatives after Professor Kim approached me with the idea of the focus-able cross hair described in a few other posts. There will be more on this to work on next week and will serve as my focus for the first part of the upcoming week.
One other thing that happened this week is that I was able to contact Dr. Bob Lipski and arranged to visit his office this week to learn retinoscopy and observe what he does/how he performs his job. I am definitely looking forward to it.
Yesterday Professor Kim told a story about properly aligning images on a TV with a cross-hair of some sort to properly focus the images. It would be so much easier if we could find some way to do something similar with our diagnostic device. That got me searching on the internet and I found a few things here and there but nothing that substantial. Most of what I could find was about combining autorefractors with some other form of technology that still required subjectivity but in aligning something in order to measure aberrations in the images on the retina and wave distortions. Anyways, I started looking through the pirate scope and wondered if (yes this may be ridiculous however) we could draw some sort of shape like a square thinly on the lens and have that same image say 20 feet away. One of the problems that we had with the scope is recognizing that point at which an image is focused versus when it just gets smaller. If we have the patients align the two images and then tell us the point at which the square drawn on the lens is larger than the printed square 20 feet away, then we know that the prescription is too positive at that point. Perhaps an option to explore??
On another note, I tried retinoscopy for the first time on Sam and considering that he does not have glasses and I diagnosed him as a -0.25 diopter, I am excited that I will be able to learn for real with Dr. Bob Lipski next week.
Today was not necessarily that productive with regards to the goals or ProSEC as only a single new prototype was created and actually built; however it was incredibly useful for me as I learned to use an important tool: the laser printer. In the morning, I spent time protyping with the PVC pipes after sketching the wheel design that was sparked during the meeting last week with Haley, Jamie, Professor Kim, and Dr. Lipski. Anyways, I forgot about the fact that once you have more than two disks to rotate, the centroid of rotation is in a location without any material (this is the nature of using pvc pipe rings). As I was brainstorming a way to make some sort of cross-hair or simply switch materials, Professor Kim walked in and suggested that I use the laser cutter or 3D printer to accomplish the task more efficiently. Considering how long it was taking to sand the pvc rings to match up better to reduce the wobble that would have been created on the rotational point anyways, I followed his suggestion. One thing that he mentioned that I hadn’t considered is that I am still focusing on a proof of concept model. This goes back to my previous post about how I need to focus on the big picture more. Anyways, I spent some time making a model in of each part in SolidWorks. This included the wheel itself (in which the lenses fit), a rod around which the wheels rotated, a eyepiece with a handle for the patient to hold, and a nut to secure the wheels on the rod to the eyepiece. After struggling for a bit with the program simply because it has been awhile since I have used it, I was able to make all of the parts and produce a reasonable assembly in SolidWorks. I then proceeded to learn how to use the laser cutter for prototyping purposes. Jordan guided me through the entire process. I ended up having to change my design slightly in order because of the nature of the laser printer (no rounded pieces like the handle I had made) as only linear cuts are possible (this also meant that I wasn’t able to cut a rod but I just used a nail with hot glue to piece it together in the end). Jordan taught me about how I had to make drawings in SolidWorks and save them as the proper type of file for the laser printer software to read. He then showed me how to import those drawings and work with them in the software; alignment, color, line type, filly type…all were important to the process. He taught me the proper format and then moved on to teach me the proper way to set up the printer (power, speed, tools…etc.) based on the fact that I was cutting acrylic. I was surprised how complicated the process was but I feel reasonably confident that I can run the printer on my own for acrylic sheets of .22-.23 inches after the repeating the process multiple times first with Jordan’s guidance and then on my own. In the end, I learned a lot and I have a nice prototype to manipulate and perform experimentation. I already notice that I may have problems with rotating each wheel independently as they like to move as a group because of the friction and pressure between them. Perhaps in the next design I will have some sort of thin fixed barriers between each of the wheels so that one wheel’s motion does not affect the others.