1. Critical Design Review 05/12/2006 Team Members: Andrew Shabashevich, Greg Penoyer, Jessica Pierce, Tony Kukla, Bill Dugan, Gaurav Sanghi, Piyush Aggarwala Team Mentor: Dr. Edward Hensel Kate Gleason College of Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology Automated Bubble Elimination System #P06219

2.  Design and build a stand-alone system to reduce the number of bubbles on a contact lens and in the water cell 75% Bubble Reduction 75% Bubble Reduction  Design the system with potential to be integrated into the automated production line (freedial) machine at a later date Keep the same dimensional constraints Keep the same dimensional constraints Keep the same power/operating sources Keep the same power/operating sources Operate within current cycle time Operate within current cycle time Comply with Wet Vision Inspection requirements Comply with Wet Vision Inspection requirements Mission Statement

3.  Conducted background research  Brainstormed for concepts  10 initial concepts tested qualitatively  Chose 3 for quantitative tests in SD II Ultrasound, Rotary Motion, Recirculation Ultrasound, Rotary Motion, Recirculation Test with and without degassed water Test with and without degassed water  Designed Test fixture Senior Design I Milestones

4.  Assemble/Install Test Fixture  Assess the 3 concepts in more detail: DOEDOE Settling time/Time studySettling time/Time study Cost Benefit AnalysisCost Benefit Analysis  Quantitatively prove concept feasibility  Propose final solution to B&L Objectives for Senior Design II

5. Test Fixture Set-up Sliding Stage Water Cell

6.  Test fixture used with Bausch & Lomb one-up vision inspection system stand  Fixture is modular to quantitatively test all final concepts  Fixture is easy to adjust and modify during testing Design Test Fixture

7.  Create bubbles on a contact lens  Take a before picture of the lens  Apply Test  Take an after picture of the lens  Run the images through wet vision inspection algorithm  Record bubble count and bubble area Testing Procedure

8. Rotary Motion Module Parameters Varied Teflon Head Water Cell

9. Rotary Motion Testing Results Non degassed, De-ionized Water Degassed, De-ionized Water Before After

10. Ultrasonic Module Parameters Varied Ultrasonic Tip Water Cell

11. Ultrasound Testing Results Non degassed, De-ionized water Degassed, De-ionized water Live Run with Degassed, De-ionized water Before After

12. Recirculation Module Parameters Varied Inlet/Outlet Tubes Water Cell

13. Recirculation Testing Results Degassed, De-ionized water Before After

14. Results – Percent Bubble Reduction

15. Results – Bubbles Remaining on Lens

16. Cost Benefit AnalysisUltrasound Cost  Cost of the fixture=$1380  Ultrasound wand =$2,500  Total= $3880Benefit  Cycle Time=2 Sec  Settling time of the lens=< 1 sec  Total bubble count reduction % = 99.3 Rotary Motion Rotary MotionCost  Cost of the fixture=$1380  Motor and Teflon head= $50  Total= $1430Benefit  Cycle Time= 4 Sec  Average settling time of the lens= 12.3 sec  Total bubble count reduction % = 98 Cost  Cost of the fixture=$1380  Pump and tubes= $1120  Total= $2500 Benefit  Cycle Time= 4- 12 Sec  Average settling time of the lens= 4-10 sec  Total bubble count reduction % = 41Recirculation

17.  Ultrasound Consistent bubble reduction: Consistent bubble reduction: < 1 average bubbles per lens < 1 average bubbles per lens Settling time < 1 sec Settling time < 1 sec Less moving parts Less moving parts   Operating Conditions Frequency – 20 kHz Frequency – 20 kHz Max. Power – 15 W Max. Power – 15 W Tip Diameter – 14 mm Tip Diameter – 14 mm Concentric to the water cell Concentric to the water cell 0.25” below water line 0.25” below water line Recommendation Time (s) Power (W) 15 11.52

18.  Method for eliminating over 99% of bubbles on a contact lens  Technical package Background Research Background Research Vender Research Vender Research  CD package Complete test data Complete test data Test fixture design package Test fixture design package Detailed feasibility test reports Detailed feasibility test reports Deliverables

19. Questions? Acknowledgements: Matt Place – Bausch & Lomb Sponsor Kevin Beebe – Bausch & Lomb Sr. Process Engineer Travis Fisher – Bausch & Lomb Mechanical Engineer Tom Natalie – Bausch & Lomb Advanced Engineering Manager Prof. Edward Hensel – Mentor Prof. Satish Kandlikar – RIT Professor