Which item did you test?

Did you successfully make the item?

Do you have any suggestions for how the instructions and/or documentation could be improved?

Did you try using the finished item?

Do you have any suggestions for how the design could be improved?

What did you find useful or not useful about the platforms the designs were hosted on?

Would you be willing to do this sort of test again, to help humanitarian aid?

If you responded "yes" or "maybe" to the above, and would like to be notified of future test opportunities, please share your name and email:

How could we make the test experience better for you?

If you have any ideas for how we could improve the experience of distributed testing for humanitarian items, we'd love to hear them! If there are partners, organisations who might be able to help, please let us know. Thank you!

Contact us at info@humanitarianmakers.org if you'd like to share further or have any questions. Also, welcome to share photos of your testing on Instagram or any social media, tagging @H_Makers, #humanitarianmakers so others can see too!

No, I've tried to print it only.

write the dimensions on the top of the design.

it's useful to see the item designed and printed in the attached pics

make an event and ask makers to test a lot of items. AFAD they might help with camp refugees to test the items for you with the instructions "not makers" doing all the tests, to get feedback about the using part of the process.

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

No (though I haven't used them in a medical setting

It the infill and resolution were in the google doc, you could see which items could be printed at the same time

I broke the first two I did trying to get the raft off - a warning to be gentle doing that would have been helpful

I'm just using it for demo

I broke the first two I did trying to get the raft off - a warning to be gentle doing that would have been helpful

I'm just using it for demo

Not every design has the same instructions

Photos on the list of items

Not every design has the same instructions

Photos on the list of items

Not every design has the same instructions

Photos on the list of items

Should include the orientation for printing

Needed orientation of design

Tensile tests show the hook failed at approximately 11kg when printed using PLA using default settings. Consistent print quality across multiple machines (Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es)

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

No suggested improvements

Would be good to get a sense of part scale.

Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.

Documentation was fine.

Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose

Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). Requires high resolution printing – this part has very small details. Excess support material required post op. cleanup in the clamping slot and tab. Clamping tab broke easily.
One staff member printed with polycarbonate filament, resulting in a stronger clamping tab.
It appears that the clamp was originally designed for plastic injection molding - a redesign of the part might be necessary for 3D printing applications. Determine what materials these clamps are typically made from when plastic injection molded. Determine strength and flexibility requirements of clamping feature. Confirm that the physical dimensions are correct.

Would be good to get a sense of part scale

Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.

No suggested improvements.

Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose

Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). All printed parts appear to be have good strength. Functional requirements need to be determined (may be incorrectly sized for nebulizer tubing). Part solid fill and sealing to address porosity. Placing the part flat on the build plated resulted in excess post op. cleanup of support material causing distortion of round features.
Standing the part on the build plate with the continuous through hole running in the vertical direction reduced the amount of support needed and minimized post op. clean up of support material.

Would be good to get a sense of part scale

Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.

No suggested improvements

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). This part requires very little strength to function properly. This part printed well on all machines when placed vertical on the build plate. Placing the part on the build plate with bell mouth down results in excessive support material removal during post op.

Would be good to get a sense of part scale.

Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.

Incubator Corner Support

No suggested improvements.

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). Basic strength tests were successfully performed using simulated frame rails to stress the printed part. The Makerbot 5th Gen uses an infill of 10% in default settings. This appeared to be fail easier that the other samples. We suggest that these parts are 3D printed with at least 20% infill. Parts were produced in various positions to determine the amount of support material required to produce the part. Placing the part on its end with the rail slots running vertical allows the part to be printed with very little support material resulting in an easy clean up.

Would be good to get a sense of part scale.

Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.

Child Specula and Otoscope

I didn't have a lens or electronic parts, but the plastic parts work fine.

No items worked as advertised

The platforms are all great.

Maybe when posting files make a zip file of all the files an option too. The otoscope was a bunch of files but no zip of all of them.

I will be bouncing this project off of anyone that I think can help.

Will do.... more printing is in progress

I used cura, then Slice3r. Had issues with converting specs from instructions to these softwares so that would print fine on the 3D printer (Monoprice Maker Ultimate). Wasn't sure what support would be necessary and for which parts of the otoscope (seemed some didn't need any and some did). Also when uploaded stl files into the software, didn't automatically align with software printer bed. Manually had to adjust which wasn't good enough for some prints. This is most likely ignorance/lack of technical know-how on my part; however this is what I had trouble with.
Be insightful to have information that shares how the chosen thickness/structure for various parts were determined. So that as a producer I could add or subtract depending on what force I know my context will apply. Maybe this can be done regardless if not specifically pointed out in instructions?

the specula seems odd to 3d print (cost, time). Be easier perhaps to 3d print or carve a mold then use form fitting material to make the specula. this material could be locally sourced from whats available? coated papermache even?

photos are always helpful, better if can see the electronic parts better and have more specs on part size on the bom without going to a link, perhaps even a rating on how important that actual part is to be exact - what is the room for modification and still work well?

shared on whats app so far

Instructions seem good, I didn't get to that point as the assembly of the components had issues. One thing that is missing from the documentation is the 3D print material used and nozzle size.

Firstly I love the idea of this project and its goal. The design overall is nice and simple and the component set minimal.

The tolerances seem to be to small and some of the parts too delicate (LED Mounts shield). I would suggest enlarging the screw thread so the design can be printed with larger nozzles to save time on the build and improve durability.

I would suggest having a Parasolid source file for people to edit.

Also to avoid reprinting the spectaculars for each use you can dip them in natural latex to recreate biodegradable sleeves for this component. I did this in two coats and it worked well, Less than a one minute process with around 30 mins curing time (in two 15 min sessions). Photos will be sent to Naiomi of the build.

I used Wevolver (2). its a great place to host files and instructions with a branching function, Looking forward to them building a comments system for there new platform.

If you had ready made component sets for sale I think more people will test the products.

If the products are designed with maximum print-ability (less tight tolerances) for a range of printers distribution will be more seamless. There is an African made 3D printer made of e-waste this could potentially be a bench mark. AB3D (African Born 3D Printing) website is down at the moment though.

Documentation was not given for future reference

Was successfully printed but no bags for testing purposes

Can be made to hold more than one bag or multipurpose ; locking mechanism for accident and emergency situations

Print setting information provided was useful

providing IV bags for testing

Yes, and it worked for the described purpose

More sizes should be made available.

Information provided was useful

Wrong circuit design
Resistor bigger than hole
Error margin specified small

Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose

Tolerance should be bigger than specified (the holes came out smaller than expected making it difficult to assemble)
Easier to assemble as done in legos

Wevolver was okay to use

Assembling should be made easier