Here we will keep all the information regarding the final testing of our POC


Introduction

In this final test of our POC we will thoroughly test how the machine handles different types of frozen tissues. These different types of tissues will represent the different aspects of prostate tissue, only at a more extreme degree.



Samples

The test will be performed in 5 different types of tissue.

Chicken (pålegg)

Description of the meat

Pig lung

Description of the meat

Pig heart

Description of the meat

Image

Pig liver

The liver tissue is an extremely soft tissue. This made it difficult to make samples, but the samples spread out nicely and became samples with a nice surface and height for milling. The main problem with the liver is that even frozen, it is not fully solid. This made our current extraction method quite bad as "popping out" became "mushing".

Pig kidney

The kidney tissue is, compared to the other types of meat, very dense. It was also comparatively smaller, and therefore difficult to create big enough slices from. It also had internal structural differences which makes drilling its middle different from drilling its sides. 


Preparation of samples

To make the tests as uniform as possible we created a template slice in paper. The size of the template was derived from the size of the drill-bed. 

1. The slices are placed on the cutting board and dried with a paper towel on both sides.


2. The slices are cut to shape with a very sharp scalpel.

3. The cut slice is placed between metal plates with a non-stick material in between the metal and the meat.

4. The slices are pressed flat and placed in the freezer


The testing procedure

1. Make sure the system is calibrated


2. Extract 1 sample from the freezer

3. Place sample on drill-bed

4. Install drill bed

5. Update Camera Overlay

6. Record freezer temperature


7. Turn on vacuum and cooling system


8. Cut following samples

 1. 1 circle (standard)

 2. 2x2 matrix of squares

 3. 1 edge sample

9. Turn off vacuum and cooling system


10. Record freezer temperature


11. Extract the samples and time the process

12. Photograph extracted samples and remaining slice for quality inspection


Results

Test 1 - Chicken

SamplesBefore ImagePre-freezer temperatureTimePost-Freezer temperatureQuality inspectionStatusComment
1

-18.03:43-15.8

Success


2

-18.73:42-15.8

Fail

Slice loosened from plate during second sample cut

3

-18.03:57-18.1

FailSlice loosened several times during cutting, but restuck as well
4

-18.19:00-15.9

SuccessThe samples proved difficult to extract from the slice. This is due to the bed being uneven and the margin to between the drill-height and the bed thus being too big.
5

-22.28:59-17.1


Is turkey


Calibration was off which led to the third sample to not be cut.

Moved the third sample to allow for lower margin between cuts.


Test 2 - Liver

Before this test we made some improvements to the drilling process. We gave each cut its own drilling height to account for the crooked bed.
We also added some insulation to our tubes to keep more heat in the system.

SamplesBefore ImagePre-freezer temperatureTimePost-Freezer temperatureQuality inspectionStatusComment
1

-17.515:05-14.4

Success

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: Like frozen pudding.


Medium difficulty removing sample 1

Hard difficulty removing sample 2

Easy difficulty removing sample 3

Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: Hole in the middle did not stop vacuum gripping from working.

2

-15.709:18-13.1

Success

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping


Extraction: More difficult as the slice was thicker. The frozen liver does not act as a block, its resistance is more like really hard ice cream.

Medium difficulty removing sample 1

Hard difficulty removing sample 2

Easy difficulty removing sample 3


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: Thicker slice than a prostate would be.

3

-20.509:18-10.0

Fail

Cutting: Shifted slightly during first cut, but remained fastened during the rest of the procedure. May be because we turned the vacuum on slightly later than the earlier trials.


Extraction: In the thinner regions of the slice, extraction was easier. In the thick middle regions, it was as difficult as before.


Easy difficulty removing sample 1

Hard difficulty removing sample 2

Easy difficulty removing sample 3


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: The input tube for cold air seems to have a clogging somewhere, as the stream of air was significantly lower than earlier trials.

4

-17.809:18-12.4

Success

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.


Extraction: Sample 2 was still difficult to remove, due to the livers soft nature.

Easy difficulty removing sample 1

Hard difficulty removing sample 2

Easy difficulty removing sample 3


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: To get a better assessment of the quality of the cuts regardless of extraction difficulty, we decided to also take a picture of just the cuts as well.

5

-16.5Aborted-19.0

Fail

Cutting: The slice was too thick for our mill-bit. This resulted in the drill pushing with parts that wasn't cutting and that resulted in sliding.


Extraction: No extraction was done


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: To counter the problems we had had with the cold we put some dry ice into the box.


Test 3 - Kidney

SamplesBefore ImagePre-freezer temperatureTimePost-Freezer temperatureQuality inspectionStatus

Comment

1


Aborted

Fail

Immediate slipping. Maybe due to thickness of slice being bigger than height of mill

1



Aborted

Fail

Immediate slipping. Definitely due to thickness of slice being bigger than height of mill

1
-15.812:07-13.0

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping. Due to the thickness of the slice, we saw it necessary to only drill 70% through the slice. We wanted to try drilling from both sides, but to do that we need to drill deeper through so that we are able to see the cuts.


Extraction: No extraction was performed as we only cut 70% into the slice.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: After 2 failed attempts due to the slice being too thick, we decided to reduce the cutting height and only cut 70% through the slice.

Depth: 14

2


Aborted

Fail

Immediate slipping. Maybe due to too high milling speed.

Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)

2
-12.8Aborted

Fail

Cutting: Some good cutting, but once the slice thawed, it stopped working. The slice lost grip of the plate, but then reattached later in the procedure. 


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: The cooling system completely failed. This led to the slice thawing quite quickly, as hot air was drawn through the slice.

2
-19.4

Aborted

01:01

-17.5
Fail

Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately. First and last row of holes are not covered. That could be a reason. Many holes also seem clogged. This could be a reason.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: We will clean the holes in the vacuum bed and see if it improves the grip.

2
18.1

Aborted

00:44

-15.0

Fail

Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately. It did not help cleaning the vacuum holes. 

First and last row of holes are not covered. 


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Other: Maybe the slice is simply too small or too slippery.

3

-17.3

Aborted

00:47

-14.8
Fail

Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately.

3
15.4

Aborted

01:36

-13.9
Fail

 Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately. We tried cutting not as deep and at half speed, but to no avail.

Cutting speed: 0.1 (x, y), 0.5 (z)

Cutting depth: 15

3
-16.919:07-7.7

Success

Cutting: Even though the sliced almost thawed, the quality of the cut was still good.


Cutting depth: 14

Power: 100 (instead of 50)


Other: The increased time spent sucking our air has been increased due to the drilling speed being 0.1. This sadly pushed us beneath the -10* goal. Due to the slice being relatively thawed we became curious to whether the temperature sensor was right, so we check with an infrared thermometer, which said the plate was 0*. This definitely needs some looking into later.

4

-21.0

Aborted

00:45

-18.6
Fail

Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately. This slice was slightly thicker, so we think the mill head may gone too deep and crashed


Cutting depth: 16 


Cutting speed: 0.1 (x, y), 0.5 (z)

4
-19.3

Aborted

00:46

-18.4
Fail

 Cutting: No cutting. Slice lost grip immediately. The slipping may be caused by kidneys being too hard and small, thus giving increased resistance and being suctioned less to the bed. 


Cutting depth: 14 


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)

4
-19.8


-9.5

Success

Cutting: Same result as the successful sample 3 test. Milling went without issues, but the cooling box is not able to keep up. This could very well be due to our styrofoam box having lost a lot of ice, and our new tubing system being a lot less effective.

What we know for sure is that kidney is millable at 


Cutting depth: 14 


Cutting speed: 0.1 (x, y), 0.5 (z)



5

-1619:27-4.8

Success

Cutting depth: 15 


Cutting speed: 0.1 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Although the end temperature is the lowest yet, it is a lot more accurate to the temperature in the freezer. There is still a lot of frost on the drill-bed.

It is also worth mentioning 

Other: It seems that we may have been too hasty with our testing. As the temperature sensor has been at the bottom, the temperature reading has probably been misguiding. When we started testing our freezer was full of really cold air. As we went on testing, the cold air was sucked out and replaced. But as the tubes froze, less and less cold air went in and more and more cold air disappeared from the box, leaving only a little reservoir below the suction area where our sensor was. 



Test 4 - Lung

After the third test we moved our temperature sensor in order to get more accurate readings. This resulted in overall lower start temperatures from here on out, but gave a much more correct estimation. The temperature sensor now sits in the theoretically warmest spot in the freezer, so everything should be colder than the temperature recorded. 

SamplesBefore ImagePre-freezer temperatureTimePost-Freezer temperatureQuality inspectionStatusComment
1

-17.012:47-14.6

Fail: Broken mill

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: So far the easiest one to remove.


Easy difficulty removing sample 1

Easy difficulty removing sample 2


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 16


Other: The temperature dropped to -10, but then sank to -14.6 This is probably due to this being the first test of the day and the tubing needed some time getting cold. 

The milling bit broke. After it was done drilling out sample 2, it went down into the bed, instead of up. We are really not sure why it did this. Nothing in the settings indicate why it did this.

2

-12.4


(Slice measured to be -17)

Aborted

4:14

-7.0


(Slice measured to be -20)

Fail: Broken mill

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 16


Other: Mill bit broke. Drove into the bed.

2

-13.3

(Slice measured to be -18)

12.25


-3.5

(Slice measured to be -20) 

Success

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

3

-11.1

(Slice measured to be -18)

12:25

-8.3

(Slice measured to be -21)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15

4

-5.28:54

-3.2

(Slice measured to be -17.7)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

5

-11.6


(Slice measured to be -17)

8:54

-4.3


(Slice measured to be -17.5)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.



Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 


Test 5 - Heart

SamplesBefore ImagePre-freezer temperatureTimePost-Freezer temperatureQuality inspectionStatusComment
1

-11.0


(Slice measured to be -22)

12.24-6.3

Partial Success

Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Almost perfect cut. Seems to have slipped during the first cut, but then been stuck the remainder of the procedure. Could have something to do with frost.



Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.2 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

2

-12.5

(Slice measured to be -16)

08:54

-10.1

(Slice measured to be -21)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.


Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.4 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

3

-6.4

(Slice measured to be -18)

07:44

-5.9


(Slice measured to be -19)

Success

Cutting: Cutting: Slightly off calibration. Otherwise perfect cut. No slipping.


Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.6 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

4

-8.7


(Slice measured to be -16)

7:09

-5.0


(Slice measured to be -17)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.


Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 0.8 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

5

-6.5


(Slice measured to be -14)

6:49

-3.5


(Slice measured to be -16.5)

Success

Cutting: Perfect cut. No slipping.


Extracting: No extraction was performed, as we only cut halfway through.


Cutting speed: 1.0 (x, y), 0.5 (z)


Cutting height: 15


Other: 

  • No labels