Difference between revisions of "Team:Cambridge-JIC/Design"
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
<div style="width: 80%; margin: 30px 50px;color:#000"> | <div style="width: 80%; margin: 30px 50px;color:#000"> | ||
<h3>Environmental Impact</h3> | <h3>Environmental Impact</h3> | ||
| − | + | <p>This gives a brief overview of environmental considerations associated with OpenScope. However, we wished to gain a more in depth understanding of environmental impacts, both for us and others using the microscope. A full life cycle analysis was carried out using using the Eco Audit tool on the CES Selector Program [6]. The program allows for the energy use in MJ and carbon emissions in kg to be calculated for the product over its lifetime. The Eco Audit tool calculates these by taking into consideration the materials and material processing used, the use of the product, the power consumption (calculations for power consumption are given <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/73/CamJIC-Specs-Power.pdf" class="blue">here</a>) and any transportation involved.</p> | |
| − | <p>This gives a brief overview of environmental considerations associated with OpenScope. However, we wished to gain a more in depth understanding of environmental impacts, both for us and others using the microscope. A full life cycle analysis was carried out using using the Eco Audit tool on the CES Selector Program | + | |
<h3>Assumptions</h3> | <h3>Assumptions</h3> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| Line 113: | Line 112: | ||
<p style="font-size:90%"> | <p style="font-size:90%"> | ||
[5] Wittbrodt, B., Glover, A., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. and Pearce, J. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers.Mechatronics, 23(6), pp.713-726.</p> | [5] Wittbrodt, B., Glover, A., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. and Pearce, J. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers.Mechatronics, 23(6), pp.713-726.</p> | ||
| − | + | [6] <a href="http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/" class="blue">http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/</a>. | |
| − | [ | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
</div></div></section> | </div></div></section> | ||
| − | |||
</html> | </html> | ||
{{:Team:Cambridge-JIC/Templates/Footer}} | {{:Team:Cambridge-JIC/Templates/Footer}} | ||
Revision as of 03:03, 18 September 2015
OpenScope: Experience the Accessible
What are the current options?
Figure 1: Comparison of characteristics for several microscopes.
In fig. 1 it is possible to see that each microscope has several attributes making it highly creditable. It is well known that commercial microscopes are able to produce immensely high quality images and will always be indispensable, lab research tools. However, it can also be seen that they have several undesirable qualities, decreasing their appeal to some users. For comparison we have the low cost, light weight and easy to use newer alternatives. They have the traits that we wish could be seen in conventional microscopes. These microscopes are created to thoroughly fulfill their one objective: The FoldScope (a several use educational tool and potential diagnostic tool); The FlyPi (for fluorescence macro-imaging of Drosophila flies) and the smartphone microscope (for low resolution imaging using your phone). OpenScope aims to fill a gap in the field, competing to match not quality, but the use of a conventional microscope.
Environmental Impact
This gives a brief overview of environmental considerations associated with OpenScope. However, we wished to gain a more in depth understanding of environmental impacts, both for us and others using the microscope. A full life cycle analysis was carried out using using the Eco Audit tool on the CES Selector Program [6]. The program allows for the energy use in MJ and carbon emissions in kg to be calculated for the product over its lifetime. The Eco Audit tool calculates these by taking into consideration the materials and material processing used, the use of the product, the power consumption (calculations for power consumption are given here) and any transportation involved.
Assumptions
Materials and Processing: For each part of the microscope only the main materials, making up the majority of the part, were considered. Materials and manufacturing processes were collated from online and are accurate to the best of our knowledge. There is not an option on the tool for 3D printing as a materials process and so from the chassis said to be made by polymer moulding, the most similar process.
Transportation: All parts for the microscope are being sourced locally, many parts can be bought in bulk and it would assume the only transportation would be by light goods vehicles, travelling across England.
Use: We assumed the average person would use our microscope 4 days a week and use it for 2 hours each of these days. It was also assumed that the microscope would have a lifetime of 1 year.
Disposal: All materials that could be were recycled, the rest were disposed of in landfill
Most energy is produced from the materials used to make the microscope, at approximately 10 times that of the use energy. Some energy can be regained at the end of the microscope's life if the materials that can be are recycled.
