Minutes 6

Meeting Group 2 Meeting 6

Date 16/03/2015

Venue Bioincubator A14

In Attendance Adam Jones (Secretary)Samson Anene (Leader)Alexander Antia (Financer)Mohammad Bin Umar

Apologies Tanyawat Panusopit - Absent with illness

Agenda:

1) Previous minutes (09/03/2015)

The minutes of the previous meeting were discussed and the group suggested improvements based on the feedback received. It was agreed that we should make a more concerted effort to properly act on feedback given to us and make notes of our improvements. We have also been asked to keep a more accurate account of our budget by properly justifying the reasons for each spending decision. We were criticised for not linking our progress from week to week. This has proven to be fair criticism looking back at our previous minutes and so from this point onwards the group will ensure a comprehensive and continuous record is maintained.

2) Previous Actions

Week 1 – Grinder examined and disassembled. Photographs of each part were taken and all components were measured.

Week 2 – Micro prep of various metallic and ceramic components, including hot moulding and polishing. Optical microscopy carried out on ceramic components.

Week 3 – Mechanical testing of metallic components. Research using CES software to identify polymeric components. IR testing of various other components.

Week 4 – Spring sample prepped for XRD testing following feedback that the sample was too large to be used. Sample then tested. FTIR results were collected from the previous week’s testing.

Week 5 – Micro prep done before XRD carried out on ceramic part. SEM tests carried out on metallic components. XRD results from the previous week also collected.

3) Actions

- AJ and SA began work on the written report to be marked at the end of the project. Previous minutes were examined to build up a picture of the project as a whole to be set out in the opening sections of the report.

- SA carried out analysis of a small metallic component which had been unsuitable for testing due to its awkward geometry. He judged the component to likely be made of stainless steel based on its relatively high density, lustrous appearance and basic mechanical requirements (as a screw-threaded tightening bolt).

- AJ gathered actions from previous minutes to build up a continuous progress report of our progress in this set of minutes. This was necessary due to previous sets of minutes not referring accurately to their predecessors, as pointed out in the feedback from last week.

- AA and MBU analysed data obtained on each component to build up a final list of the materials and manufacturing processes used to create the original product. This involved analysing data from SEM, XRD, Vickers hardness and finally interpreting the FTIR data which has been waiting for analysis for 2 weeks.

4) Health and Safety

There were no significant health and safety risks.

5) Budget

This week no further funds were expended. However, justification of spending from previous weeks is still needed and this will be outlined below:

This table represents the total spending of our group so far, and no further spending is planned in the coming weeks.

Micro Prep (1 run) 250

Optical Microscopy (2 samples) 200

FTIR (3 samples) 375

XRD (1 sample) 125

Mechanical Testing (1 run) 100

SEM 250

Our total spend is therefore £1300, placing us well under-budget.

XRD was required to analyse the ceramic components of the grinder. We had planned to carry out SEM on these samples too but we judged it to be unnecessary following a convincing set of results from the XRD test. Micro prep was required as a precursor to this round of testing.

FTIR was used to analyse all three polymers present in the grinder, hence the need for 3 separate samples to be tested.

Mechanical testing was carried out on the polymers and metals present to give early indications of what the materials were likely to be.

Optical microscopy was used to analyse the ceramic components of the grinder. This did not eventually prove to be useful as the XRD gave us the final identification of the ceramic, so unfortunately this was a wasted investment of funds.

Future Plans

The group will now work together to produce a written report of our findings and to finalise a proposal with suggestions for improvements to the product.

We will also now begin work on the presentation element of the project to ensure the information we present will be accurate, concise and relevant.

Appendices

Week 5Action: SEMSEM of the cylindrical body metal in the plane of the metal:Backscatter:

Scan:Spectrum:

Spectrum indicates the material is stainless steel. The exact grade is unknown, as the equipment does not allow for that degree of precision.

SEM of the cylindrical body metal perpendicular to the plane of the metal:Backscatter:Scan:

Area on which following spectrum was taken:

Spectrum:

Spectrum indicates the material is stainless steel. The exact grade is unknown, as the equipment does not allow for that degree of precision.

Area on which following spectrum was taken:

Spectrum:

This spectrum is for a darker area on the scan. It indicates that the dark areas are particularly high in chromium.

Metal cover (shiny metal):

Spectrum indicates the material is stainless steel. The exact grade is unknown, as the equipment does not allow for that degree of precision. The lustre of the surface is likely due to polishing.

Spring:Backscatter:

Scan:

Spectrum:

Area on which following spectrum was taken:

Spectrum:

Spectrums indicate stainless steel. The second was done to confirm the results; the sample was mounted in an electrically active resin, and so there was some distortion.Ceramics:

It is aluminium oxide from the results of XRD that Nik Reeves- Mc Laren sent us. He mentioned it in the email:

Hi Group 2!

Please find a jpeg attached showing the data collected for your specimen. In summary, the XRD data were matched against the ICDD Powder Diffraction File database of reference materials, and the following matches identified:

1. White ceramic piece: alpha-alumina, corundum.

Also, just a note confirm that the spring sample supplied previously was too small for analysis.

Best regards,--Dr Nik Reeves-McLarenResearch and Teaching Fellow

Method of manufacture:

Most likely that is it sintering because the sintering process focuses on the mechanical and physical properties of the ceramics such as shapes, density and porosity which are important properties to consider when using it as a component in the grinder. [reference: MAT2310 lecture 8, Hajime Kinoshita, 2014]