Sugar Cane Laminations

I did some micro-laminations with the sugar cane scrap following the same process as with the rice straw. I'm calling them micro-laminations but the larger of the two was bigger than my hand. The larger lamination became increasingly rigid as it dried and by yesterday it had become nearly solid. The scale of the sugar cane scrap is much closer to the size of oriented strand board and it seems to be much more promising as a prospect in manufacturing.

Composite Attempts

While pacing my kitchen wondering how I could make identical two-part molds to compress different composite combinations I saw a muffin tin...A more perfect composite testing tray has never been created. Two identical tins form a perfect two-part mold that provides uniform compression, a slight draft makes release easy and the non-stick surface ensures no material or adhesive sticks to the tray.

The six combinations pictured hanging below were: (left to right)

1. Thin Begasse & Wood Glue dyed with indigo

2. Rice Hull & Wood Glue

3. Begasse & Wheat Paste (flour,sugar,water)

4. Thin Rice Straw & Rice-based Glue

5. Begasse & Wood Glue

6. Rice Straw & Wheat Paste (flour,sugar,water)

The thin begasse compressed with wood glue was by far the biggest success in creating a rigidity although all the samples dried to a solid state. When I attempted to dye the begasse & wood glue sample with a water based indigo substitute the dyed portion of the sample lost all rigidity within a minute and nearly fell off. Although this might be perceived as a negative attribute, there may be a niche market for a rigid natural composite which dissolves in water almost instantaneously...

Once completely dry, the larger sample that I made became completely rigid and was able to hold the weight of several heavy books while spanning two desks (pictured above). The sample hardly deflected and I believe that it could have upheld much more weight.

Composites

Further investigation of our given materials by myself and my classmates has outlined one clear path to structure: composites.

Composites n. - engineered or naturally occurring materials made from two or more constituent materials with significantly different physical or chemical properties which remain separate and distinct at the macroscopic or microscopic scale within the finished structure.

Typically these "two (or more) materials" bring together different types of structure or adhesive to create a single, stronger material. Common examples of composites are concrete, fiberboard and carbon fiber. All of these materials combine a material of compression or tensile strength with a bonding agent which gives the whole composite the strength of the individual units being bonded. In the use of concrete the compression strength of individual rocks combine to create a solid road. Coincidentally there is another advanced studio within our department exploring the possibilities of natural fiber composites. The "Composite Studio" will be using bast fibers (mostly jute) in mat form which have been impregnated with a thermo-sensative bonding agent or needle-punched with a polypropylene mat that acts to bind the fibers in a heated press. The materials used in the composite class have been fully developed and the class is focused on reshaping and repurposing those developed materials. Our class is focused on the development of raw fibers into a 'repurposable', marketable material for industry or craft. Communication between our classes has been mutually beneficial and crossover with equipment, processes and purpose will be useful as we continue working.

Our Materials

The four materials we will be experimenting with and repurposing are: (from top to bottom)

Bagasse (Pulp from Sugar Cane)

Sugar Cane Scraps

Rice Straw

Rice Hull

Although all these materials are byproducts of Poaceae or grain plants, the structure, texture and behavior of these materials are all very different. Like all materials, these byproducts come with strengths and weaknesses that we will have to understand and consider in our constructions.

"All materials have their own qualities and qualifications. Each kind has laws of its own which demand considerate treatment at he artist's hand. You cannot expect to produce good works if you treat your materials without reference to their nature."

John Howard Benson

Creator of the RISD Seal

Micro-Laminations

During a discussion with my professor about the tensile strength of the ricestrawshe picked up one of the thicker strands and flattened it with a weight against my desk. The straw flattened to a ribbon and she picked it up and asked "Now, what could you do with that?" The lustrous quality of the straw reminded me of wood veneer and I wondered if straw could be laminated like veneer to give it structure. I made two tiny curvilinear jigs as if I was laminating wood veneer with apositiveand negative shape and opposing struts for alignment. I quickly layered seven ribbons of straw with wood glue, slid them into the jig on top of each other and clamped it tight. When I released the jig I found that the straw had adhered to itself and thus hadadopted the jig's curves. Although the structure wasspringyrather than solid, like the wooden laminations I am accustomed to handling, it was still promising to see raw, brittle straw take on structure and form with the addition of an adhesive and simple mechanical pressure. I did another test with a glued 'jumble' of straw on a wider jig and it was equally successful in retaining its shape and structural strength. This second test seemed more promising because it was less time consuming and would be easier to incorporate in a manufacturing processes. Although manufacturing still seems far off this is a promising first step towards structure.

An amazing use of natural composites to create structure. The article below states that the chair is composed of 100% natural hemp fibers pressed under specific heat with an "ecological glue" as a binder. Milan's design week 2012 here we come.

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/13610/werner-aisslinger-hemp-chair.html

To begin my experimentation with the materials I sought to find what structure remained in the rice straw without the addition of any materials or adhesives. I began by taking the raw stock (which looks much like traditional straw) and separating the tangled mess into piles of smaller unique structures found in the mixed stock. The most structural pieces I found were long, dense stands of straw that once was the center of the rice stocks. The second group were dried, flakey sections of stock and leafs (pictured on left) that were brittle but clung to each other and could be clumped into balls and rolled across the desk like tumble weeds. The smallest pieces came off the other structures as small fragments and dust so fine it would blow away if I sneezed. Although this dust seems to have no structure now I think that with the introduction of a binder could quickly turn into a dense, homogeneous board. It seems critical to our experimentation that we not treat these mixed bags of stock as one unalterable material. There are distinct, separable structures within the raw stock (of all our materials) that have different physical and chemical properties. Whatever processes might fail to create structure using the whole, mixed stock may succeed with a select portion or combination. We need to investigate and understand our materials and their physical potential before we can build with them. I began to experiment and test the physical potential of the straw and found the most promise in its tensile strength. Although the straw is fragile when compressed or bent it seems extremely strong when pulled like rope. This strength, although not thought of as structure, is incredibly valuable. Tensile strength gives us thread, rope, cloth and knots. It can also be woven into composites to enhance its strength (eg. carbon fiber). Although this material strength is promising it still does not match most existing materials and more experimentation must be done.

Compression and tensile strength tests with clamps and weights.

The Problem of Structure

All useful production materials (metal, wood, plastics, rubber, glass) have one thing which unites them, structure. It is safe to say that without a solid/resilient structure these materials would be considered useless for the purposes of making something. Without the inherent structure of wood we wouldn't have trees, without the inherent structure of metal we wouldn't have sky scrappers, without the inherent structure of plastics we wouldn't have iPods or most medical equipment. Structure lies at the heart of all useful things, it may appear in different states but all useful things have it. Rope has structure as a strand, cloth has structure as a surface, and wood has structure as a volume. These are all different types of structure but are still structure nonetheless.

The challenge in this studio will be giving structure to four materials which in their current state have very little structure. Without establishing structure in these materials they will be reduced to the usefulness of packing peanuts or firewood. Lucky for us, most organic material has some inherent structure, without the structure of trees or flowers these living things would die out. Plant life adapted structure in evolution as it was needed. Oak trees have incredibly long, incredibly dense fibers of wood because they need to support a 500 foot tall structure. Bamboo and Sugar Cane have hard external walls because they need protect the nutrients inside.

The trouble with organic material's structure is that it is almost entirely dependent on the water and nutrients which regenerate it and hold it together. When living things die and water and nutrients leave the material it becomes weak and brittle. A living (or green) tree branch is up to ten times stronger than a dead (or dry) branch. This is especially bad news for our studio because the materials we have are not only dead, but have undoubtedly been trampled, processed, twisted, broken and have already begun decomposing as all organic matter does. The original structure which once existed in these plants is almost entirely gone and it is our charge to compose structure from this decomposing matter. It won't be easy but I believe that through the use of additional resources and creative design thinking we will ultimately be successful in making something from nothing. So to speak.

Preliminary Research

As part of this course we will be traveling to Costa Rica to work with the students and educators at EARTH University. In preparation for our trip each student was asked to research one aspect of Costa Rican life (health,education,etc.). To communicate our research to the class we were also asked to complete two 11"x17" info-graphics and to present our findings to our classmates. I chose to research education and this is what I found:

Material Potential

As I stated earlier the majority of our class will revolve around reconstituting agricultural byproducts into real products or materials with value. This process of reclaiming so-called "waste materials" and making them into useable materials is called "up-sourcing" and it is a great way to reduce our impact on the Earth while continuing to produce viable materials. This idea of up-sourcing can be traced back to the Native American tradition of using every part of every animal killed to reduce environmental impact while increasing food and goods. It is a great way to be green and I am excited to start working with the materials we have.

Throughout the semester we will work with four primary byproducts: sugar cane husks, sugar cane pulp, rice straw and rice hull. I will post labeled pictures when I have access to the materials. All of these materials are natural byproducts of different agricultural processes and have very little use beyond burning them for fuel. It is our goal to experiment with these materials and transform them into viable material samples that could some day be used in an industrial process to create goods. Sounds easy right...

Peabody Museum Trip

Today we traveled to the world famous Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. In an effort to understand the traditional uses of agricultural byproducts in the craft culture of Central American we studied the museums extensive collection of baskets, mats and other objects made in the region. Materials ranged to banana leaves to native reeds and were fabricated using a variety of weaving and knotting techniques. It is unlikely we will be making anything that resembles these ancient artifacts but it is fascinating to know the tradition and inspiring to see the creative construction potential of these materials.

Independent research board of Root Capital financing.

They are an amazing social endeavor find out more at
http://www.rootcapital.org/

Response (3)

Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship, by Paul Light

Light gets it right where Martin and Osberg seem to miss the point. Reading Light's case for a loser definition of social entrepreneurship immediately after responding to Martin and Osberg's case for a tight definition was well-timed. Nearly all of Light's arguments against an exclusive definition seem to match my own in the response below. The chapter of his second section "Too tight for its own good" might as well have been the title of my last response. Getting sucked into language and the lines that we can draw between similar intentioned organizations does not help us focus on positive impact people and projects are creating worldwide. Light suggests that in the end it is not about labels but about real progress and fostering future generations to create positive social change no matter what you call it. I couldn't agree more.

In rereading many similar ideas and much similar language from these two articles I am reminded that they are written for a school of business. These attempts at a definition are being made within the business realm where tools like language can be vastly more important than in a classroom. Businesses frequently leverage language like litigators to manipulate and confuse people who are not as familiar with it. And maybe in a crazy (business) world of contrived value and false equity we need a contrived definition of social entrepreneurship to ensure its good reputation isn't wielded by those companies who do not truly seek positive social change.

Response (2)

Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for a Definition, by Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg

Matin and Osberg's definition of social entrepreneurship is watertight. Beginning with their definition of entrepreneurship, its roots and how it comes to define social endeavors with the same innate drive, Martin and Osberg have literally drawn lines through the fields of "social engagement" and boxed in a very good definition for social entrepreneurship. However, their case for why a definition must exist is extremely weak. In fact, after reading their essay I feel more than ever that a definition between social services, social activism and social entrepreneurship need not be so black and white! Beyond Martin and Osberg's pragmatic definition of what would encompass entrepreneurship versus social entrepreneurship their argument for why a definition should exist is because without a Webster definition it "would leave the term social entrepreneurship so wide open as to be meaningless." (Martin & Osberg, 36) The meaning of social entrepreneurship or any other social endeavor lies in its purpose and its impact, not how well we can label it. Surely whether we call an independently operated school for AIDS orphans "social entrepreneurship" or a social service its impact, its value does not change! So why (literally) draw lines between people and organizations with the same aims are striving for the same positive change. It seems very counterproductive to divide any two organizations with words when so much social progress it achieved through the uniting of people and ideas. There are distinctions to be made between entrepreneurship and activism but they should not come at the expense of the social catalyst of collaboration.

Martin and Osberg also seem to suggest that entrepreneurs are only given the title once they are successful, without success "we call them a business failure." (Martin & Osbreg, 36) But since when does the size or perceived success of any professional define what his or her proper title should be. We do not strip a actor or actress of their title because they are not famous or noteworthy... Definitions and titles can be very useful in understanding what something is and how to distinguish it but in the case of social entrepreneurship I can see no need for divisive definitions and titles.