Monthly Archives: April 2024

Beyond Board Games: Exploring a 3D Printed Catan Boards’ Role in Creativity, Connection, and Vulnerability

Posted on by

Introduction

Top view of hexes (and an easter egg in the sheep tiles!).

Top view of hexes (and an easter egg in the sheep tiles!).

Few technologies capture the imagination like 3D printing. The ability to bring digital designs to life and hold them in our hands ignites a creative spark within us–or maybe just me. One of my first encounters with detailed 3D printed objects was at the Berkshire Innovation Center (BIC), an organization in Pittsfield, MA dedicated to investing in the local community. BIC’s passion and ability to embody childlike wonder left a lasting impression, particularly in the form of a blue, square-shaped chainmail pattern. Defying its angular components’ design constraints, the chainmail moved with remarkable fluidity, which was fascinating to a person like me with a strong spatial and tactile memory. It was incredible to see where negative space was needed for movement and the precision with which the chainmail was printed. This is where the allure of 3D printing lies with most people–the ability to transform concepts into tangible objects. Even seeing others’ projects can have a profound impact on creativity.

This all brought me to my dear friend Mo (Mohammad Faizaan ‘23). As I sat in Lee’s booth waxing starry-eyed over a 3D printed Catan board I saw online, he mentioned that he had experience with Williams’ Makerspace and could help make this dream a reality. (Thank you, Mo!)

Interpersonal Connectivity of Catan

3D printed Catan hexes, complete with my favorite detail--red silos for wheat storage.

3D printed Catan hexes, complete with my favorite detail–red silos for wheat storage.

Beyond its status as a game, Catan offers valuable lessons applicable to real life. While the basics of resource management and investment strategies are readily apparent, the game’s social dynamics are equally intriguing. Depending on the group of players, the game can take on vastly different tones. On one hand, I have a group that is very much into competitive play (you know who you are 😉) and is driven by the idea of winning at whatever cost, which features more individualistic motives and trading futures (because…you know…Williams). On the other hand, my preferred collaborative-based play has been lovingly dubbed “socialist Catan”–prioritizing mutual trades, collective advancement, and the fun of the game. But regardless of which group I play with, it’s always part of the fun for me to observe how different players navigate these dynamics and how they adapt to each situation—when to use the stick and when to use the carrot—which provides insights into an array of problem-solving approaches and interpersonal dynamics (and yes, I’m a psychology major).

The Joy of Sharing Worldbuilding

My daughter and I would paint on the floor and take pictures to remember the colors we used.

My daughter and I would paint on the floor and take pictures to remember the colors we used.

What started as a pursuit of visual appeal and a quirky gameplay experience unfolded into a heartwarming journey of discovery with my three-year-old. Stepping back from strategy, painting the stark white 3D printed pieces became an exploration of the ‘big picture.’ Discussing color, the significance of a base layer for depth, and her inquiry about why I painted the “pointy trees” one color and the “round trees” a different color led to conversations about the different types of trees and their similarities and differences. This colorful journey became a means for her to develop a general understanding of Catan’s terrains, insights into each terrain’s unique elements, and why they were crucial for settlement–to the point where she ensures each sheep hex touches a wheat hex “so they can eat!” I even snuck a little geometry in there, and, to this day, she proudly proclaims that “hexagons are the bestagons” (fun link if you’re interested!). Beyond strategy, economics, art, geography, and math, the process was a rich opportunity for sharing experiences, bonding, and transmitting knowledge to the next generation.

Struggles with painting and being vulnerable (but mostly the vulnerability part)

The detached tree hex still counts as lumber, so at least we're not 'missing the forest for the tree.'

The detached tree hex still counts as lumber, so at least we’re not ‘missing the forest for the tree.’

I am no artist. This admission is not fueled by self-deprecation but rather an acknowledgment of my pursuit to overcome a slight strain of perfectionism. This project has been fun…and stressful. Even when David saw the finished product and expressed his admiration, encouraging me to write this blog post and share my experience with all of you, my initial response was tinged with embarrassment. The echoing thought in my mind: “It’s not good enough.” Those pesky white spots that were just surprisingly difficult to get paint to, the accidental detachment of a tree (oops), the crooked lines, and the colors that didn’t quite achieve a perfect harmony. It all seemed like a lot. 

I am also no blogger! Posting this article is even more terrifying! Sharing imperfect paintings is one thing, but sharing imperfect words?! Terror! Sharing this with you all is challenging for me. It shines a spotlight on my areas of vulnerability, whether it’s the brushstrokes that miss their mark, the sentences that might not be as polished as I’d like, or even my experiences as a parent and student. But if I tell my daughter, “You can do hard things, ” then I can too. So I hope that this post can shine a light on the amazing capabilities of the Makerspace and encourage a few of you to see what it has to offer. They are all wonderful people who are excited to help you discover a few new facets of yourself! 

Thanks for reading.

(3D printing files can be found on Thingiverse by creator JAWong.)

Thanks to David Keiser-Clark, Makerspace Program Manager, for providing me an opportunity out of my comfort zone, the patience to wait until I felt ready to post this, and allowing me to share my wacky love of 3D printing, games, and my life side-quest of normalizing vulnerability.

Before printing the 3D borders, but we were eager to play!

Before printing the 3D borders, but we were eager to play!

Architecture in Slices: 3D Printing for the Big Art Show.

Posted on by
The Arts 314 exhibit in the Big Art Show

The Arts 314 exhibit in the Big Art Show

In my first Makerspace academic project, I jumped into the deep end. My role was to support Giuseppina Forte, the Assistant Professor of Architecture and Environmental Studies, and her students by preparing exhibition materials for the end-of-semester campus Big Art Show. I supported her two studio arts classes “Design for the Pluriverse: Architecture, Urban Design, and Difference” (ARTS 314/ENVI 310) and “Governing Cities by Design: the Built Environment as a Technology of Space” (ARTS 316/ENVI 316). For ARTS 314, her students designed an architectural model of an outdoor community building, and for ARTS 316, they re-envisioned the Cole Avenue Rail Yard area of Williamstown into a river-side park. My role was to convert the students’ digital architectural designs into 3D-printed objects. What seemed straightforward quickly became a challenging—and amazing—learning experience filled with challenges and growth that I want to share. 

Prototyping

The first of many difficulties arose when I sliced, or readied, the models for the 3D printers. First, some files seemed to have problematic features deeper than the abilities of the FlashForge and Prusa slicer software repair algorithms. So, I spent some time learning MeshMixer and how to identify the Achilles heels of the models. In most cases, manually widening thin connections was sufficient. Second, some prints seemed impractical, if not entirely impossible. In some cases, these impractical features were easily removable without destroying the final product, like thin columns on B3. In others, features were inherent to the design, such as with A1, which posed a challenge for 3D printing due to its elevated, thin, and intricate spiral design. Finally, some prints, like B2, would just take an incredibly long time to print – up to 60 hours.

The models I would print. From top left to bottom right: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, S1, S2, B1.

The models I would print. From top left to bottom right: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, S1, S2, B1.

A prototype of A2

A prototype of A2

In a typical project, I would prototype each print and present them before starting any final prints. This helps to set expectations for what a 3D print looks like, how the pieces go together and allows me to get feedback on the prints. However, these prints proved particularly challenging to prototype for the above reasons. While I could get a couple of iterations of the simpler prints, many prints proved difficult to scale down due to their small and intricate details, and, in my mind, no prototype is worth 40 hours or 100 meters of filament because of the likelihood of repeated failed prints.

Crunch Time

For prints with exposed, flat surfaces like A4, printing upside down provided a smoother finish and allowed the prints to peel off of the plate more consistently

For prints with exposed, flat surfaces like A4, printing upside down provided a smoother finish and allowed the prints to peel off of the plate more consistently

However, dilly-dallying in this “half-prototyping” stage created a problem. Since I was hesitant to review an incomplete set with everyone, I mentally stayed in the prototyping phase, not starting any of the final prints. Instead, I spent this time optimizing the prints that I hadn’t been able to prototype. I ran tests to maximize the quality of the print while minimizing the filament used. While I can’t say that this time was wasted, since many of the optimizations helped me later, in hindsight, I wish that I had paid more attention to the time and started my final prints sooner, as I could have prevented much of the stress in the final time crunch.

 

 

I found that I was able to go as low as 8% infill on solid prints before jeapordizing structural integrity.

I found that I was able to go as low as 8% infill on solid prints before jeapordizing structural integrity.

The final week and a half of the project was a combination of epic stress and stellar production. It started with David Keiser-Clark, the Makerspace Program Manager, asking me if I thought it would be possible to finish and deliver the prints before the start of the show in nine days. I panicked. I had become so immersed in solving the technical issues that I had lost track of the delivery date. I sat down and figured out that the total printing time for this project would take ~240 hours. Had I immediately started two prints on the two working printers and ran them 24/7, the prints would have only finished three or four days before the deadline. I immediately put two prints on the printer and responded to David, cautiously telling him I thought I could finish them in time. 

A spectacular failure of one of the prints

A spectacular failure of one of the prints

My estimates couldn’t have been more wrong. My first two prints should have been relatively quick and easy, but when I returned to collect them I was greeted by two spaghettified clumps of white PLA. I reran both prints, praying that they were flukes, but of course, they weren’t. Within 5 minutes, both prints had failed again. I did a 20-minute calibration of both printers and reran the prints: the print in the FlashForge was successful, but the Prusa failed again. Time was slipping away, and only one printer was operating reliably. 

 

Removing Roadblocks

All four printers running smoothly!

All four printers running smoothly!

I reached out to David and explained the issue. He helped me configure the two out-of-commission Dremel printers, which seemed to be my saving grace. However, I transferred my slices to the Dremel and found that many of the round prints were larger than the Dremel’s base plate. This, combined with the fact that the Dremels struggled with finer detail in test prints added to my stress. However, after examining the models, I found that I could cut the larger files into smaller pieces, print them, and then later assemble and permanently glue them together. 

The final print of A2 and the tops of S1 and S2, unfortunately printed in different sizes.

The final print of A2 and the tops of S1 and S2, unfortunately printed in different sizes.

Six days before the show we had four working printers. The Prusa had been fixed (twice) and was churning out the finer detailed prints. The FlashForge was working on a piece of the largest print, which I had cut down to 30 hours (from 48) by increasing the layer height to the maximum of 0.3mm (75% of the nozzle diameter). Both Dremels were printing the remaining pieces of the largest print and we had received permission to use the Science Shop’s Ultimaker for A1, which was the most challenging, longest-running, and most likely-to-fail print in the entire project. For a moment, it looked as if the project would be done comfortably in time, with several days of cushion to spare.

Using natural supports used less filament, took less time, and failed less than vertical supports

Using natural supports used less filament, took less time, and failed less than vertical supports

One day later the situation flipped on its head. The filament for the Ultimaker, ordered in advance, failed to arrive. Three prints in the Makerspace failed. The filament roll on the FlashForge got tangled and caused a jam, the Prusa had spaghettified, and one Dremel printed the house sans the roof. I was able to find and solve a problem within the Dremel slicer software and recalibrate the Prusa, but for now, the FlashForge was out of commission. 

In hindsight, I had not anticipated the variance in scaling among different slicing softwares. The Dremel software defines its x-axis differently than the FlashForge software, which resulted in pieces that scaled poorly with the rest of the model. 

A copy of A1 printing on the FlashForge 1 day before delivery.

A copy of A1 printing on the FlashForge 1 day before delivery.

Three days before the show, I had somehow managed to print A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, and B3. We fixed the Dremel and set the most structurally fragile and complicated print (A1) to run overnight on all four printers. This would be our last chance. 

One day before the show, our final prints were completed: the Prusa and FlashForge succeeded, while both the Dremels failed. Of the two successful prints, the Prusa created a beautiful, highly detailed print. Unfortunately, I woke up with the flu and didn’t get to say goodbye to the prints, nor could I go to the Big Art Show. However, I got to see pictures and I was proud to support the students’ architectural work for the show, but, to me, the greatest value of this project was not in the prints themselves, but in the lessons that I learned and that I will take with me into my future work both in and out of the classroom. Specifically, I developed confidence in my ability to solve technical problems in a new medium while working under pressure and improved my capacities in project management.

The final collection of pieces

The final collection of pieces

Murphy’s Law

The Arts 316 exhibit in the Big Art Show

The Arts 316 exhibit in the Big Art Show

Murphy’s Law states that when something can go wrong, it will. Doubly so when you are under a time crunch. In hindsight, most of this pressure could have been avoided had I made an effort to timeline the project before the due date was imminent. When printing, you have to strike a balance between quality, material used, and time. Before the time crunch, I was trying to maximize quality and minimize the material used. However, the instant time became the driving factor, I swapped those priorities. All in all, it worked out, but if I had managed my time better I likely could have delivered just as good of a final product with less stress. 

Post Mortem

During this project, I discovered how fragile 3D printers are. We had four printers in the Makerspace, and I had to do a total of eight mechanical fixes. At some points, I felt completely defeated. It seemed like every successful print was counterbalanced by an awful grinding sound or a jammed PLA feed. This was not the first time I had ever 3D printed, but it was my first time tinkering with 3D printers. Admittedly, at the start of the project, I was so scared of breaking something that I barely opened the side panel before asking for help. The silver lining of the printers breaking so often was that I had the opportunity to learn how to fix them. During the project, David took a few hours to show me around each printer, explaining how they work and where they usually fail. This paid itself off in dividends. By the end of the project, I was more than comfortable repairing every single printer we had and reached a point where I didn’t even have to tell David when they were broken, likely saving him more time than it took to help me figure out how all of them work. I’m excited to take this experience and apply it to my next faculty project in the Makerspace.

Pixels or Petals? Comparing Physical vs. Digital Learning Experiences

Posted on by
Fig. 1: Isabelle Jiménez and Harper Treschuk outside the Williams College Makerspace located in Sawyer 248

Fig. 1: Isabelle Jiménez and Harper Treschuk outside the Williams College Makerspace located in Sawyer 248

Learning has not been the same since COVID. Just like the vast majority of students around the world, my classes were interrupted by the COVID pandemic back in 2020. After having classes canceled for two weeks, and in an effort to get back on track, my high school decided to go remote and use Google Meet as an alternative to in-person learning. Remote learning did not feel the same — this included using PDF files instead of books for online classes, meeting with peers over video conferencing for group projects, or taking notes on my computer and studying only digital material for exams. I cannot say that I was not learning, because that would not be the best way to describe it, but I can say that something rewired my brain and I have not been able to go back. Due to COVID and other factors, the use of simulations in schools may increasingly supplant hands-on learning and more research needs to be done not only on the implications for content knowledge but also for students’ development of observational skills.

Fig. 2: Sketchfab provides a digital view of the 3D model of a lily, accessible via an iPad interface. This interface allows the children at Pine Cobble School to engage with and explore the object in a virtual environment.

Fig. 2: Sketchfab provides a digital view of the 3D model of a lily, accessible via an iPad interface. This interface allows the children at Pine Cobble School to engage with and explore the object in a virtual environment.

Last week, Williams College students Isabelle Jiménez ‘26 and Harper Treschuk ‘26 visited the Makerspace to start a project for their Psychology class, “PSYC 338: Inquiry, Inventions, and Ideas” taught by Professor Susan L. Engel, Senior Lecturer in Psychology & Senior Faculty Fellow at the Rice Center for Teaching. This class includes an empirical project that challenges students to apply concepts on children’s curiosity and ideas to a developmental psychology study. Isabelle and Harper decided to analyze the ideas of young children following observations with plants, more specifically: flower species. The students plan to compare how two groups of similarly aged children interact with flowers. The first group will interact with real flowers and will be able to touch and play with the plants (Fig. 1), and the second group will interact with 3D models of the plants using electronic devices (iPads) that enable them to rotate and zoom in on the flowers (Fig. 2).  By analyzing the interactions of children with real and simulatory flowers, they hope to extend existing research on hands-on and virtual learning to a younger age range. Valeria Lopez ‘26 was the lead Makerspace student worker who assisted them in creating the necessary models which will be covered in this blog post. 

I was excited to learn about Isabelle’s and Harper’s project and quickly became involved by assisting them in using Polycam 3D, a mobile photogrammetry app. This app enabled us to quickly create three-dimensional digital models of physical flowers. We opted for photogrammetry as our method of choice due to its versatility—it can model almost anything given enough patience and processing power. Photogrammetry involves capturing a series of photos of an object from various angles, which are then processed by software to create a coherent three-dimensional digital model. To meet our project’s tight deadline, we decided to experiment with smartphone apps like RealityScan and Polycam, which offer a user-friendly approach to 3D object creation. While our standard photogrammetry workflow in the Makerspace provides greater precision, it requires more time and training because it uses  equipment such as a DSLR camera, an automated infrared turntable, a lightbox, and Metashape software for post-processing. Despite initial setbacks with RealityScan, we successfully transitioned to Polycam and efficiently generated 3D models. These models serve as educational resources for children, and since precise accuracy wasn’t necessary for this project, using a mobile app proved sufficient. This rapid approach ensures that the 3D models will be ready in time for the educational teach-in Isabelle and Harper are organizing at Pine Cobble School.

Process

Fig. 3: This scene features a daffodil placed atop a turntable, all enclosed within a well-lit box to enhance visibility and detail.

Fig. 3: This scene features a daffodil placed atop a turntable, all enclosed within a well-lit box to enhance visibility and detail.

We began our project by utilizing the photography equipment at the Makerspace in Sawyer Library to capture images of flowers in vases. Initially, we were careful to avoid using the provided clear glass vases because translucent and shiny objects are more difficult for the software to render correctly into accurate models. With the guidance of David Keiser-Clark, our Makerspace Program Manager, we selected a vase that provided a stark contrast to both the background and the flowers, ensuring the software could differentiate between them (Fig. 3 & 4).

Fig 4: In the foreground, a phone is mounted on a tripod, positioned to capture the flower's movement.

Fig 4: In the foreground, a phone is mounted on a tripod, positioned to capture the flower’s movement.

Setup

Our setup involved placing the flowers on a turntable inside a lightbox and securing the smartphone, which we used for photography, on a tripod. 

Troubleshooting

Fig. 5: Isabelle and Valeria (Makerspace student worker who participated in this project) analyze the 3D models in Polycam.

Fig. 5: Isabelle and Valeria (Makerspace student worker who participated in this project) analyze the 3D models in Polycam.

Our initial approach involved seeking out a well-lit area with natural lighting and placing the plant on a table with a contrasting color. However, we soon realized that the traditional method of keeping the phone stationary while rotating the subject wasn’t optimal for smartphone-designed software. While this approach is commonly used in traditional photogrammetry, our mobile app performed better with movement. Recognizing this, we adjusted our strategy to circle the subject in a 360-degree motion, capturing extensive coverage. This resulted in 150 pictures taken for each flower, totaling 450 pictures. Despite initial setbacks with two different photogrammetry apps, our second attempt with Polycam proved successful, allowing for more efficient and accurate processing of the models (see Fig. 5).

Results

Fig. 6: An alstroemeria flower model, which is one of the final models uploaded to SketchFab. The users will be able to interact with the object by rotating it in a 360 degree manner.

Fig. 6: An alstroemeria flower model, which is one of the final models uploaded to SketchFab. The users will be able to interact with the object by rotating it in a 360 degree manner.

We did not expect to need to do so much troubleshooting! In all we spent 45 minutes loading and testing three different apps, before settling on one that worked successfully. We are extremely happy with the end results. As a final step, I uploaded our three models to SketchFab to ensure that the children could easily access them across different devices (Fig. 6).

Next Steps

  1. Engage with Isabelle and Harper to gather their general impressions on the kindergarteners and first graders’ interactions with the real and digital 3D models while still maintaining complete confidentiality of the results.
  2. Take the opportunity to delve deeper into mobile photogrammetry tools and document the process thoroughly. Share this documentation with other makerspace student workers and the wider community to facilitate learning and exploration in this area. 
  3. Collaborate with other departments on similar projects that utilize 3D objects to enhance educational experiences, fostering interdisciplinary partnerships and knowledge exchange.

Whittle by Whittle: Zilkha Center Garden Signs 

Posted on by

When I was a prospective student, I recall my host bringing me near the Class of 1966 Environmental Center (“Envi Center”) to meet some of their friends. While passing through, I noticed a group of students picking apples from a tree and pulling weeds in the garden beds. As I took an apple from their bin and had a bite, I was incredibly overjoyed to see a garden after just having started one at my high school. Now, as a student and summer intern, I had the opportunity to see the hard work that goes into the maintenance to make the gardens a community space for all. This is why, when Christine Seibert, the Sustainability Coordinator at the Zilkha Center, reached out to the Makerspace for a project to make signage for the Envi Center gardens, I jumped at the opportunity to support this project!

Garden Beds behind the 1966 Environmental Center

Pre-project photo of the Garden Beds (without signage) behind the 1966 Environmental Center

The garden beds are an integral part of the Envi Center. Under the Living Building Challenge certification, the building is required to operate as a net-zero energy and water space, with 35% of the surrounding land area in food production. The beds are supported by the Center for Environmental Studies (CES) and the Zilkha Center (ZC), and maintained by ZC interns and Williams Sustainable Growers (WSG). Additionally, Landscape Ecology Coordinator Felicity Purzycki advises overall orchard maintenance.

These gardens provide opportunities for community building, food production, and help teach students new skills. With these goals also come challenges. While talking to Christine about the signage project, she mentioned how garden interns already have a lot to do maintaining the gardens. This has made it difficult to find bandwidth to create signage about what is being grown and share meta information about the gardens. In addition, the current wood cookies used for signage are beginning to fade. For more than four years, the Zilkha Center has wanted a more permanent and prominent solution to identify and distinguish plants grown; this will also help ZC interns and other people to know what is ready—or not—to pick. The new signage will cover three areas: identifying the perennial and annual plants, teaching people how to use the gardens through the honorable harvest, and when certain items are ready to be picked. 

Yoheidy sits with her series of laser engraved wood slabs. She later added a laser engraved metal QR code label that directs users to the hosted video tour.

Yoheidy sits with her series of laser engraved wood slabs. She later added a laser engraved metal QR code label that directs users to the hosted video tour.

Inspiration was taken from a project recently completed by Yoheidy (Yoyo) Feliz ‘26, who engraved wood slabs to make signs for visitors going through the virtual exhibit tour at the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe’s exhibit in Stockbridge. Those wood slabs were sourced from Hopkins Memorial Forest which is also where our project’s journey began!

The sugar maple that provided logs for the signage

The sugar maple that provided logs for the signage

We received Sugar Maple logs claimed from the old grove across from the sugar shack with the support of Josh Sandler, Interim Hopkins Forest Manager. This tree fell two years ago, and had not yet been repurposed; the tree was part of the maple sugar grove that has a long history of being used for maple sugaring in Hopkins Memorial Forest. The logs were harvested with the help of a chainsaw by caretaker Javi Jenkins-Soresnen ‘25 who has a lot of experience in forestry.   

Logs into Lumber 

Sam Samuel '26 creating a temporary sled guide to saw logs into planks with bandsaw

Sam Samuel ’26 creating a temporary sled guide to saw logs into planks with bandsaw

Once we received the logs, we had a series of sessions in the Williams Hopper Science Shop with Makerspace Program Manager David Keiser-Clark and Instrumentation Engineer Jason Mativi. Our goal was to mill the logs into 35 planks measuring 4″x20″ with approximately a 1″ thickness. We purchased cedar posts—that had formerly been telephone polls—locally from the Eagle Lumber sawmill in Stamford, VT. In the end, we were able to create exactly 37 planks, leaving us with precious little room for error.                

Given the unevenness of the natural logs received, the first step was to build a sled (a platform) that would stabilize each log as we sliced them into planks with the bandsaw. We affixed each log to the sled with a couple screws (carefully avoiding the path of the bandsaw blade), sliced to create a flat side, then rotated the log 90 degrees and sliced again. After making two contiguous flat sides, we were able to slice the log more conveniently by using the bandsaw fence and tabletop. 

Completed lumber that was then left to dry for a week.

Completed lumber that was then left to dry for a week.

After cutting each plank, we let them dry for a week; this allowed them to shrink and to cup or curl (warp) a week. Before drying, the maple measured between 8 to 20% moisture content. Typically when letting wood dry, you want to stack your lumber with spacers to allow air flow to all sides, and allow it to dry for six months or more. Because we were short on time, we used spacers and placed weights on top of the stacks, hoping to aid them in drying flat. After a week of drying, we were able to visually see shrinkage and some warping. 

We then used the wood jointer to create one flat edge; this process created a nearly perfectly flat and square edge that was perpendicular to the wider section of the board. We then placed that flat edge against the fence of the table saw to create a second clean edge parallel to the jointed edge. We used the jointer again to create a nearly perfectly flat surface on the wide side of the board. Next we used the thickness planer to flatten the top face of the plank and be parallel with the bottom face. This work resulted in creating beautiful rectangular sugar maple planks that were both parallel and square. We repeated this process for each board.

Engraving

After we had jointed, sliced, and planed the maple logs into boards, Mativi and David taught me how to use the Epilog Laser Helix engraver to make a Welcome sign, informational signs for the Rain Garden, Solar Meadow, and Picking Sign, and also 31 plant identification signs. It was my first time using a laser engraver and I had to be conscious about placement, size, as well as laser power and speed. Using CorelDraw (software), I centered each sign’s text to the middle of the engraver platform, which ended up being 12 inches on the x-axis and 9 inches on the y-axis. I worried endlessly about placement and sizing so I first experimented on matboard. Despite my experimentation, I still had some underlying issues given varying thickness and placements that are evident in my very first attempts at engraving. Each laser engraving requires 15 to 20 minutes, and I often repeated that process two or three times to burn a deeper image into the wood.

Plank inside of Epilog Laser Helix after one round of engraving

Plank inside of Epilog Laser Helix after one round of engraving

First batch of completed planks for plants

First batch of completed planks for plants

 

Next Steps

Sam Samuel '26 rounding corners with belt sander

Sam Samuel ’26 rounding corners with belt sander

I expect to complete laser engraving all of the signs within the next two weeks. The next step will be to affix the signs onto cedar posts; Jason Mativi has already cut those into 48” lengths including a spiked tip to make it easier to drive them into the ground. The final steps will include sanding the sharp corners and adding a natural Walrus tung oil preservative to better show the grain and improve longevity. It will be exciting to see the signs all over the Envi Center gardens!