This week, the team continued working on the prototype build and made significant progress toward completing our first functional version. After finishing most of the machining and assembly, we were able to put together the first full prototype and immediately started evaluating it. We also took the feedback from our internal SLDR and began integrating those suggestions into both the physical design and the presentation we will give on the actual review day.

Most of the technical effort this week went into assembling the prototype. With the main components now machined, we focused on putting everything together and checking whether the design adjustments from last week translated well into the physical build. While doing this, we identified a few areas, mainly related to fit, alignment, and fluid delivery, that could need revisions before the final presentation.

At the same time, we continued updating our SLDR slide deck. This involved revising our system diagrams, cleaning up sections that changed after the internal review, and making sure the presentation clearly reflects the current state of the prototype. The goal was to keep the documentation fully aligned with what we have built so far.

Some of the key takeaways from this week were:

• Successfully assembling the first full prototype and using it to evaluate system fit and overall configuration.
• Applying the internal SLDR feedback to improve both the prototype and the clarity of our system explanation.
• Planning on testing the initial prototype once fully assembled before the SLDR

This week, our team shifted from planning to hands-on development as we began physically building our first functional prototype. After incorporating the feedback received during the Prototype Inspection Day, our focus centered on translating the refined design ideas into a physical prototype and preparing the documentation and presentation materials needed for the upcoming System Level Design Review (SLDR).

Most of our technical effort was directed toward prototype building. We began machining and assembling the primary components of the device, ensuring that the design adjustments suggested by coaches, particularly those related to fluid delivery and electrode positioning, were properly integrated.

We also dedicated significant time to developing our SLDR presentation. This involved organizing our current progress into a document, updating our diagrams, and reviewing the information from our PDR to update any decisions that we changed during the process.

Throughout the week, the team collaborated closely to maintain alignment between the build process and the system-level requirements. The main takeaways were:

• Ensuring that our machining plan stays synchronized with the functional requirements established during PID.
• Strengthening the clarity of our prototype for SLDR, particularly regarding fluid flow pathways and electrical integration.
• Identifying potential bottlenecks in the assembly process so we can adjust the timeline before SLDR.

These insights helped guide our priorities going forward. Over the coming week, we will:

• Continue machining and assembling the remaining prototype components.
• Begin preliminary fit checks and dry assembly to ensure full system compatibility.
• Finalize the SLDR presentation

Overall, this week marked an important transition from design refinement to physical implementation, setting the foundation for both a successful SLDR and a promising first prototype iteration.

This week, our team participated in the Prototype Inspection Day. Since the PID serves as a checkpoint for evaluating progress and direction, our goal going into the event was to communicate where we currently stand in the development process and gather useful feedback to guide the next iteration of our prototype.

We presented two forms of prototypes:

• A structural prototype created through 3D printing, which allowed us to demonstrate the geometry and expected assembly of our device.
• A testing demonstration video using the Smith + Nephew Werewolf probe to show the method we will use to evaluate tissue effects once our own functional prototype is ready.

Through multiple presentation rounds and Q&A sessions, we received feedback from coaches across disciplines. The main takeaways were:

• Clarify some design considerations related to how we should deliver fluid flow on our device.
• Refine testing methods to ensure consistent measurement of tissue effect.
• Update our timeline to reflect machining, assembly, and iterative testing more precisely.

This feedback provided clear direction for our next steps. Over the coming week, we will:

• Finalize material procurement for machining.
• Begin assembly planning for our first functional prototype iteration.
• Develop structured testing protocols to evaluate tissue effect once the prototype becomes operational.

This week, our team spent our time gathering data and a first stage structural prototype of our device for the upcoming Prototype Inspection Day on Tuesday, November 4th. In class, we were provided all the important details of this benchmark event, which are summarized below:

• 15 minute presentation to a set of 2 judges + a 10 minute Q&A
• Repeated presentations 3 times
• Take notes in the presentations to keep track of feedback
• Content
  • Define the goal of the prototype
  • Define the uses of the prototype
  • Define the type(s) of the prototype
  • Define the hypothesis associated with the prototype
  • Define the experimental plan with the prototype
  • Create and present a schedule for procurement, construction, and testing of the prototype and/or future prototype iterations

Our Plan

In discussing what we wanted to present in our PID presentation, we had to base the decision on what we had accomplished thus far. Since we had developed CAD drawings of our first iteration of the functional prototype (our deliverable to Arthrex), we decided that one prototype that we could present is a structural prototype of what we expect our first iteration to look like once we receive materials and complete the machining and assembly process. Therefore, we 3D printed these structural drawings to present at the PID.

To demonstrate functionality (provide a version of a functional prototype), we decided to use our designed testing methods for our future prototypes on the competitive market on the surgical device market, the Smith + Nephew Werewolf Probe. We did this for a few reasons. First, as discussed last week, we wanted to demonstrate that we could electrically map wire layout and PCB design of an RF Hemostasis probe to the AR9800, per the Arthrex scope of work. However, in order to go from there, we tested this device on meat to see the type of tissue effect that would be achieved with the design and materials used by the competitor. As we will discuss in our PID, the evaluation of future functional prototypes will be determined by metrics such as the depth of penetration of tissue effect and the area of spread on the surface of that effect. These will be measured with AR9800 power level as the independent variable and the time of coagulation as a constant.

More Photos from Functional Testing

Wish us luck this upcoming week at our PID!