Week 3 End by Yao Guan

After the success of the stilted support structure, we spent the remainder of the 2 days constructing a "hand crank" for the sanitation system. We predicted that this hand crank device was not a feasible solution for the sanitation system because it was expensive and it had more moving parts that can potentially break. Though we specified this concern to the NGO, they wanted us to continue the prototype and have a full documentation of its feasibility.

Construction was difficult because there were many more components in this hand crank than in the stilted support. First, we debated on how we should construct the hand crank. Everyone suggested many good ideas. Ultimately, we decided to construct the device from the center outward. Here are some pictures of the group working together to construct the hand crank:

 

Cutting down the flat wooden planks to combine into bigger pieces.

Putting all the components together to see if the crank works.

Putting all the components together to see if the crank works.

Building the inner part of the crank.

The construction was very labor intensive because there were many components that needed custom fabrication. It took 2 full days to complete this prototype and there were many setbacks because we didn't have the right materials. Despite the setbacks, we obtained invaluable experience working with Hakley. Some of which include clever construction methods and working with what you have.

Pictures of clever construction methods:

Using a wood piece and two nails to mark around the arc to enlarge the arc a few centimeters all across.

Add caption

Painting the ends of each bolt to precisely mark the drill hole on the other circular plate.

The purpose of the hand crank was meant to reel together the excess flexible tubing from the latrine unit. Even though we tried our best to build the hand crank, it did not turn/crank as well as we hoped. We were missing bearings to allow the hand crank to turn smoothly. Later, we found out that each bearing cost around $8 USD and we needed at least 3 of them, which is a total of $24. This is $24 more added to the original $50 crank. We documented and concluded that the hand crank is indeed not feasible. It was difficult to construct, it needed further adjustment to the reeling mechanism, and it is unnecessary expense added to the whole system. This concluded our time in the floating village.

After heading back to headquarter, we made a report documenting everything (prices, materials, construction methods, future improvements, etc...) about the prototypes we designed and constructed. The NGO was pleased with our results and thanked us because this allowed them to continue forward with the better designs.

Four days of hard work and many bug bites, this experience really bonded the team together. There were times when we got hurt and fell sick. There were ups and downs because we would get frustrated when things become difficult. Though this was a challenging experience, we learned many invaluable life lessons. I for one, got to experience what life was like as a Cambodian living in the floating villages. I lived, ate, worked, and celebrated just like other locals in the floating community. There were limited clean water, no hot baths, and constant bug bites. This made me appreciate what I have back in the States. It may sound horrible to live in the floating villages, but it was quite beautiful and there were many fun things to do. On top of that, the community was very welcoming and very peaceful. Everyone was always helping one another. I would recommend this experience to anyone who is willing to explore the world. Just look at this beautiful picture of the sunset and judge for yourself:

Sunset in Phat Sanday floating village