## Project description

**Name of your project**: Automated microscope

**Name of your author**: José Ocampo L. E.

---

**Brief description of your project:**
:::success

The overall goal is to create a low-cost (~500 EUR) automated microscope optimized for diagnosing neglected tropical diseases (Chagas, dengue, zika, etc.) and also for reading Pap smear samples for cervical cancer screening in rural settings. By automated, we mean:
- XY motorized scanning of samples.
- Autofocus function.
- Linked with computer vision algorithms for *in situ* diagnosis, from sample analysis.

:::

---
**Current status of your project**:
:::success
The microscope platform is part of my PhD research and I have currently built a first prototype. The first prototype has the following characteristics:
- Brightfield inverted microscope.
- Optical resolution ~0.6 $\mu m$.
- Motorized movement in three axis with a postitioning resolution of ~0.3 $\mu m$. We can move in an area of ~40x20 mm.
- Live sample imaging. We can capture high quality digital images and video.
- Cost: ~500 EUR.

We are working on a second prototype in order to fix some issues of the first prototype and to add some other features:
- We want to be able to scan areas of 50x25 mm (cervical cytology samples are big).
- Reduce weight.
- Solve some issues with motor control.
- Change inverted setup to a conventional setup.
- Add fluorescence microscopy capabilities.
- Add limit switches to define a "Home" position.
- Mount a fan for cooling the Raspberry and a touchscreen for visualization and control.
:::

---
**References to your project documentation**:
:::success
I started working on the different aspects of the project (optics, mechanics, electronics, software) some time ago, and I haven't been able to document most of the work done. For the Open Hardware Academy, I started a [Github repository](https://github.com/jossoca/OHA_micro) where I will be pouring the work we have done, in order to achieve nice documentation.

:::

### Share a link to the peer review you did before
I reviewed Nemo's [SpotiStation documentation](https://hackmd.io/@nyiDX_5FSJmjWwMqic4ZQQ/HJ7xlhIZj).
### Share link to the peer review you have received
I got some nice feedback from Nemo: [peer review](https://hackmd.io/@CaptainNemo/B11Uh6ZZo).
## Share general feedback to the academy
#### What did you learn and/or experienced that was useful to progress in your project
- All the resources (lots of OSH projects, links, OSH journals) shared by the organizers and by the participants were really useful and interesting to me.
- Some of the exercises were great for reflecting on my own project and for developing some organizational/planning skills.
- I also liked the peer review dynamic, since we get some feedback and we are encouraged to look deeply into some other projects.
#### Do you find that the estimation of 4 hours per week is fair to be able to perform the exercises?
- Lessons were easily reviewed in an hour. Reflecting about the exercises might also take another hour. Working on the project can consume any amount of time, and keeping the pace of the lessons along with the project can be a bit frustrating (of course, it depends on the characteristics of the project).

#### What things can we improve for next rounds?
- I know there are a lot of Github tutorials out there, but I think that a lesson on Github's basic aspects that are to be used in the Academy could be useful.
- Trying to define projects for all participants during the first sessions of the course may help to keep everyone involved till the end.