3D Printing Microphone and Loudspeaker Holders for the Interferometer

When Better Apparatus Makes Better Science

Some physics experiments are difficult not because the underlying idea is especially complicated, but because the equipment makes the effect difficult to see.

Wave interference is a good example.

The theory can be stated quite simply: when two waves meet, they combine. In some places they reinforce one another, while in other places they partially or completely cancel. However, demonstrating this clearly with sound waves requires considerably more care than writing the explanation on a whiteboard.

The loudspeakers must remain in the correct positions. The microphone must be held at a consistent height and angle. Components must not move accidentally when students adjust the apparatus. Cables must not pull equipment out of alignment, and the arrangement must be sufficiently repeatable for different students to obtain similar results.

This is why we have been designing and 3D printing purpose-made holders for the microphones and loudspeakers used with our interferometer at Philip M Russell Ltd.

Good alignment can turn a frustrating experiment into one in which students can clearly detect the pattern, understand what is happening and connect their measurements to the physics.

What Is an Interferometer?

An interferometer is an instrument used to investigate what happens when two or more waves overlap.

Interferometers are most often associated with light. In an optical interferometer, a beam of light may be divided into two paths and then recombined. Tiny differences in the distance travelled by the two beams produce a pattern of bright and dark regions.

The same basic principle can be investigated using sound.

In a classroom sound-interference experiment, two loudspeakers can be connected to the same signal generator so that they produce sound waves of the same frequency. Because both speakers are receiving the same signal, their waves have a stable relationship to one another.

A microphone is then used to detect the sound at different positions.

At some locations, the waves from the two loudspeakers arrive in step. Their compressions arrive together and their rarefactions arrive together. The waves reinforce one another, producing a larger signal.

This is called constructive interference.

At other locations, the waves arrive out of step. A compression from one source may meet a rarefaction from the other. The waves then reduce one another, producing a much smaller signal.

This is called destructive interference.

By moving the microphone through the sound field, students can detect alternating regions of greater and smaller amplitude. These regions form an interference pattern.

Path Difference and Interference

The pattern occurs because the microphone is not always the same distance from both loudspeakers.

At one position, the microphone may be almost equally distant from the two sources. At another position, the sound from one loudspeaker may have travelled farther than the sound from the other.

This difference in distance is called the path difference.

Constructive interference occurs when the path difference is a whole number of wavelengths:

Path difference = nλ

where:

• n is 0, 1, 2, 3 and so on

• λ is the wavelength of the sound

Destructive interference occurs when the path difference is an odd number of half-wavelengths:

Path difference = (n + ½)λ

Students may be able to quote these conditions, but that does not necessarily mean that they understand them.

A practical demonstration gives those equations a physical meaning. Students can move the microphone, observe the signal increasing and decreasing, and recognise that changing position changes the path difference.

The mathematics is no longer simply something to remember for an examination. It becomes a description of something they have actually observed.

Why Sound Interference Can Be Difficult to Demonstrate

Sound-interference experiments can be surprisingly demanding.

Unlike a diagram in a textbook, a real classroom or laboratory contains walls, tables, cupboards, equipment and people. Sound reflects from these surfaces, creating additional waves that can interfere with the intended pattern.

The two loudspeakers may not produce exactly the same output. One may be angled slightly differently from the other. A microphone may point towards one speaker rather than remaining equally aligned with both.

Even a small movement can affect the result.

Students may also adjust the apparatus while attempting to take measurements. A loudspeaker can be knocked, a microphone stand can rotate or a cable can drag a sensor away from its intended position.

The result may still contain interference, but the pattern becomes much harder to interpret.

This can create an unfortunate teaching problem. The experiment intended to clarify the theory may instead convince students that interference is unpredictable.

The physics is not the problem. The experimental arrangement is.

The Importance of Holding the Loudspeakers Securely

For a useful demonstration, both loudspeakers need to remain stable.

Their separation should be known and should not change during the experiment. Their sound-producing surfaces should face in the intended directions, and ideally their centres should be at the same height.

A general-purpose clamp can sometimes hold a loudspeaker, but it may grip the casing awkwardly, obstruct part of the speaker or allow the unit to rotate.

There is also a risk of overtightening a clamp and damaging the loudspeaker enclosure.

A purpose-designed 3D-printed holder can support the loudspeaker at several carefully chosen points. It can be shaped to match the dimensions of the particular unit and can include:

• A stable base

• A cradle fitted to the loudspeaker casing

• A fixed centre height

• A controlled angle

• Cable clearance

• Attachment points for a rail or laboratory stand

• Rounded edges to make it safer for students to handle

The holder should secure the loudspeaker without covering its cone or interfering with the production of sound.

Once both speakers are mounted in matching holders, it becomes much easier to place them accurately and reproduce the same arrangement in future lessons.

Designing a Better Microphone Holder

The microphone presents a different set of problems.

It may need to move through the interference pattern while remaining at a constant height. Its angle should not change as it is repositioned, and students should be able to move it without holding the microphone directly.

Holding the microphone by hand is rarely satisfactory.

The student’s hand and body can affect the sound field. The microphone will move slightly while a reading is being taken, and its height may change from one measurement to the next.

A 3D-printed microphone holder can solve these problems.

The design can include a close-fitting clip or cradle that supports the microphone without pressing against sensitive controls. The holder can then be attached to a sliding carriage, measuring track or conventional retort stand.

A good microphone holder should allow the microphone to be:

• Positioned at the same height as the centres of the loudspeakers

• Moved smoothly along a measured line

• Kept at a constant angle

• Removed easily when needed

• Replaced in exactly the same position

• Protected from being dropped or knocked

Cable management is also important. A microphone cable that hangs loosely can pull on the sensor and change its position. A small guide or strain-relief feature can keep the cable under control without gripping it tightly.

From Measurement to 3D Model

The first stage of the design process is careful measurement.

The loudspeaker and microphone dimensions need to be checked with callipers. It is important to identify where the equipment can safely be supported and where the holder must avoid switches, connectors, sound openings or moving parts.

The holder can then be designed using computer-aided design software.

This involves more than drawing a box around the component. The design needs to consider:

• The tolerances of the 3D printer

• The thickness and strength of the printed walls

• The direction in which the part will be printed

• The stresses placed on clips and joints

• Whether the component needs to slide in or snap into position

• How easily the apparatus can be assembled by students

• Whether the design can be printed without excessive support material

The first printed version is rarely perfect.

A clip may be slightly too tight. A base may need to be wider. A mounting hole may be in the wrong position, or a cable guide may need more clearance.

That is not a failure. It is part of the engineering process.

Designing scientific apparatus usually involves producing a prototype, testing it, identifying weaknesses and improving the next version.

Prototyping, Testing and Improving

Once the first holders have been printed, they can be tested with the actual equipment.

Several questions need to be answered.

Does the loudspeaker fit securely without being difficult to remove? Does the microphone remain stable when the carriage is moved? Are the sound-producing surfaces obstructed in any way? Can students adjust the equipment without loosening the holders?

The complete experiment must then be tested.

The loudspeakers can be connected to a signal generator and the microphone linked to an oscilloscope, computer interface or data-logging system. The microphone can be moved through the sound field while the detected amplitude is recorded.

If the design is working well, the maxima and minima should be easier to locate and repeat.

It may then become clear that the holder needs another small improvement. Perhaps a reference mark is needed so that the microphone position can be read more accurately. The base may benefit from a groove that fits a particular track, or the loudspeaker holders may need an alignment guide.

One of the major advantages of 3D printing is that these alterations can be made to the digital model and a revised part can be produced without starting the entire manufacturing process again.

Improving Repeatability

Repeatability is one of the most important reasons for producing dedicated holders.

In a scientific investigation, students should be able to repeat a measurement under the same conditions and obtain a similar result.

If the loudspeakers move between readings, or if the microphone angle changes, it becomes difficult to know whether differences in the results are caused by the physics or by the apparatus.

Stable holders allow the main variables to be controlled.

The speaker separation remains fixed. The microphone height remains constant. The direction of the components is preserved, and the apparatus can be returned to a known starting position.

This makes it easier for students to investigate questions such as:

• How does changing the sound frequency alter the spacing of the interference pattern?

• What happens when the loudspeakers are moved farther apart?

• How can the wavelength be estimated from the positions of maxima and minima?

• Does the measured wavelength agree with the value calculated using wave speed ÷ frequency?

• How does the detected amplitude change as the microphone moves through the pattern?

The experiment can therefore move beyond a simple demonstration and become a meaningful quantitative investigation.

Making the Pattern Easier for Students to See

Sound waves are invisible, which creates an additional teaching challenge.

Students can see water waves in a ripple tank and can observe light and dark regions in an optical interference pattern. They cannot directly see compressions and rarefactions moving through the air.

The microphone and data-logging system act as a way of making the invisible pattern visible.

As the microphone is moved, the changing amplitude can be shown as a trace, a graph or a numerical reading. Students can mark the positions of maxima and minima and relate these positions to the geometry of the apparatus.

Well-designed holders make this process much clearer because the microphone can be moved in controlled steps.

Instead of watching a fluctuating reading while somebody waves a microphone through the air, students can collect an organised set of measurements.

Position can be plotted against amplitude. The interference pattern begins to appear on the graph, giving students a visual representation of the sound field.

Adapting the Apparatus for Different Students

Purpose-made apparatus is especially valuable because it can be designed around the students who will use it.

A holder can include larger adjustment handles for students who find small screws difficult to operate. Clear reference marks can help students position the microphone correctly. Components can be colour coded or labelled to show where each part belongs.

The apparatus can also be arranged so that students spend less time struggling with clamps and more time thinking about the science.

This does not mean removing all practical challenge. Students still need to make decisions, measure carefully and evaluate their results.

However, unnecessary mechanical difficulty should not obscure the concept being taught.

A student investigating wave interference should be concentrating on frequency, wavelength, phase and path difference—not trying to stop a loudspeaker from falling over.

3D Printing as Part of Laboratory R&D

The microphone and loudspeaker holders are part of a wider approach to laboratory research and development at Philip M Russell Ltd.

Not every useful piece of educational apparatus can be purchased from a catalogue. Commercial equipment may be too expensive, designed for a different experiment or insufficiently flexible for a particular group of students.

3D printing allows us to create parts that match the equipment we already own and the experiments we want to teach.

It also brings several disciplines together:

• Physics identifies the measurements that need to be made.

• Engineering determines how the components should be supported.

• Computer-aided design turns the idea into a model.

• Materials science influences the choice of printing material and structure.

• Testing reveals how the design performs in practice.

• Teaching experience determines whether the finished apparatus actually helps students learn.

This is one of the most satisfying aspects of developing apparatus in-house. A small printed component can improve not only the appearance of an experiment but also its reliability, safety and educational value.

Personal Reflections: Small Improvements Can Make a Large Difference

It is easy to focus on the most impressive parts of a laboratory—the signal generators, oscilloscopes, sensors and computers.

However, the success of an experiment often depends on something much simpler.

A holder that keeps a microphone at the correct height may not look as sophisticated as the electronic equipment connected to it, but it can make the difference between a clear result and a confusing collection of readings.

Over many years of teaching physics, I have found that students are much more likely to understand a difficult idea when the apparatus behaves consistently.

When the experiment works, discussion naturally moves towards the science:

Why did the signal become smaller here?

Why are the minima separated by this distance?

What would happen if we increased the frequency?

When the apparatus is unstable, the discussion instead becomes:

Has the speaker moved?

Is the microphone pointing the right way?

Why is the reading different from the previous one?

Good apparatus does not replace good teaching, but it creates the conditions in which good teaching becomes much more effective.

Conclusion: Designing Apparatus Around the Learning

The purpose of 3D printing microphone and loudspeaker holders is not simply to make the interferometer look neat.

The holders improve alignment, stability and repeatability. They make the sound-interference pattern easier to detect and allow students to collect more reliable measurements.

Most importantly, they help students connect the theory of superposition, path difference and phase with a real experimental result.

This project is a useful reminder that innovation in science education does not always require an entirely new experiment. Sometimes it means looking carefully at an existing experiment, identifying what prevents students from understanding it and designing a practical solution.

A microphone holder may be a relatively small component, but when it keeps the apparatus aligned and the experiment repeatable, it can make a difficult wave concept considerably easier to understand.

That is the real value of laboratory R&D: not simply making equipment, but making science clearer.

 

Embroidery for the Business: Turning Logos Into Real Objects

Branding is often discussed in terms of websites, social media graphics, printed leaflets and signs. These are all important, but they exist mainly on screens or sheets of paper.

Embroidery is different.

An embroidered logo becomes part of a real object. It can appear on a work shirt, an equipment cover, a bag, a jacket or a piece of fabric made for a particular project. Instead of simply displaying the company identity, the object begins to feel as though it genuinely belongs to the business.

At Philip M Russell Ltd, the embroidery sewing machine gives us another way to combine design, technology and practical workshop skills. It enables us to take a logo created on a computer and turn it into something physical, useful and durable.

That sounds simple. In practice, however, producing good embroidery involves much more than loading a design and pressing a button.

Branding That Can Be Touched

A printed logo can look excellent, but embroidery has a different character.

The raised threads catch the light. The design has texture. It feels permanent rather than temporary. On clothing or equipment covers, embroidery can also withstand repeated handling and, when produced correctly, regular washing.

That makes it particularly suitable for practical businesses.

A tutor, technician, photographer or camera operator wearing a neatly embroidered garment immediately looks more professional. A branded cover placed over a piece of equipment makes the item appear to have been designed as part of a complete company system rather than purchased and covered as an afterthought.

Embroidery can be used on items such as:

• Polo shirts and work shirts

• Jackets and fleeces

• Caps

• Equipment bags

• Protective covers

• Storage pouches

• Camera and microphone cases

• Boat-related fabric items

• Demonstration apparatus covers

• Workshop aprons

The logo does not need to be enormous. In many cases, a small, carefully positioned embroidered mark is more effective than a large design.

From a Screen Design to Thousands of Stitches

A logo that looks perfect on a computer screen does not automatically make a good embroidery design.

Computer graphics are created from pixels or mathematical shapes. An embroidery machine works with individual stitches, thread direction, stitch density and changes of colour.

The design must therefore be converted, or digitised, into a set of instructions that the embroidery machine can follow.

These instructions determine:

• Where the needle begins

• The direction in which the stitches run

• The type of stitch used

• The density of the thread

• When the machine changes colour

• Which parts of the design are stitched first

• Where the machine trims the thread

• How the fabric is held stable during the process

This is an important part of the design process. Poor digitising can make even a good logo look untidy. Letters may become difficult to read, circles may appear distorted and large areas of stitching may cause the fabric to wrinkle.

Embroidery is therefore not simply sewing. It is a form of digital manufacturing.

The finished result depends on the quality of the original graphic, the digitising, the material, the thread and the machine settings.

Why Simpler Logos Usually Work Better

Detailed logos can look impressive on a website, particularly when they include shading, fine lines or small text. Unfortunately, many of these details do not translate well into thread.

Each line must be wide enough to stitch reliably. Each letter must be large enough to remain legible. Very small gaps can close up as the threads overlap, while subtle colour gradients are difficult to reproduce using conventional embroidery thread.

This is why simple designs usually work best.

A strong embroidered logo normally has:

• Clear shapes

• Bold lettering

• Limited colours

• Good contrast

• Few very fine lines

• Enough space between individual elements

This does not mean that the design has to be dull. It means that it needs to be designed for the manufacturing process.

The same principle applies to many of our other projects. A design should not merely look good in theory; it must also work reliably in the real world.

When adapting a company logo for embroidery, it may be necessary to create a simplified version. Small wording might be removed. Thin outlines may need to be thickened. Closely spaced elements may need to be separated.

The embroidered version should still be clearly recognisable, but it does not have to be identical to the version used on a website or printed document.

Testing Thread Colours

Choosing thread colours is more complicated than selecting colours on a monitor.

Screens produce colour using light. Embroidery thread reflects light, and its appearance can change depending on the angle from which it is viewed. A shiny thread may look bright under workshop lighting but quite different outdoors or under studio lights.

The colour of the material also affects the result.

A dark blue thread may stand out clearly on a pale grey polo shirt but almost disappear on black fabric. Gold thread can look particularly effective on dark materials, although the exact shade must be chosen carefully to avoid appearing too yellow or too brown.

For this reason, test stitching is essential.

Before embroidering a finished garment or specially made cover, it is sensible to produce a sample using similar fabric. This allows us to examine:

• Whether the colours have enough contrast

• Whether the lettering is readable

• Whether the thread density is correct

• Whether the fabric puckers

• Whether the design is the right size

• Whether the logo looks balanced from a normal viewing distance

A computer preview can help, but it cannot fully replace a physical sample.

This is one of the most satisfying parts of the process. A design that has existed only on a screen begins to appear in real thread, and any problems become immediately visible.

The Importance of Fabric and Stabiliser

Different fabrics behave in different ways.

A firm, woven material may support embroidery well. A stretchy polo shirt or fleece can move and distort as the needle repeatedly passes through it. Thin fabric may wrinkle, while very thick material may be difficult to place securely in the embroidery hoop.

To control this movement, embroidery usually requires a stabilising material behind the fabric.

The stabiliser helps to keep the material flat while the design is being stitched. Depending on the project, it may be cut away afterwards, torn away or dissolved.

Selecting the correct stabiliser can make the difference between a professional result and a disappointing one.

For example, a small logo on a firm equipment cover may require a different approach from the same logo on a stretchy shirt. The design file might be identical, but the fabric preparation and machine settings may need to change.

This is another reminder that practical manufacturing rarely consists of one universal setting that works for everything.

Finding the Right Position

The position of the logo matters almost as much as its design.

On a polo shirt, a logo is commonly placed on the left side of the chest. However, it must be high enough to look balanced without being so close to the collar that it appears cramped.

On an equipment cover, the logo may need to be visible when the cover is in use. A beautifully embroidered design is of little value if it ends up underneath a handle, hidden against a wall or facing the wrong direction.

Before stitching, it is worth considering how the finished object will normally be seen.

Questions include:

• Which side will face the viewer?

• Will the item be folded?

• Will a zip, seam or handle interfere with the design?

• Is the embroidery likely to rub against another surface?

• Does the logo remain visible when the item is being used?

• Is the design centred relative to the whole object?

Taking a few minutes to check the position can prevent an expensive mistake.

Making Practical Items Look Professional

One of the most useful applications for embroidery is improving objects that are already practical.

A plain fabric cover may protect a machine perfectly well, but adding a carefully embroidered company logo changes its appearance. It now looks like a deliberate part of the workshop or studio.

This could be useful for covers made for:

• Cameras and video equipment

• Microphones and loudspeakers

• Scientific apparatus

• Computer and control equipment

• Musical instruments

• Boat equipment

• Workshop machinery

The embroidery does not improve the protective function of the cover, but it improves presentation and identification.

In a busy laboratory, studio or workshop, branded covers can also make it easier to recognise which equipment belongs to a particular system or project.

For example, equipment used for filming science demonstrations could have one style of embroidered label, while equipment used for sailing videos could have another. A project name, company logo or simple symbol could make storage and organisation easier.

Branding can therefore be practical as well as decorative.

Embroidered Clothing and Professional Identity

Company clothing can help create a consistent and professional appearance, particularly when meeting clients, teaching students, filming videos or attending events.

The aim is not to create an elaborate uniform. A simple embroidered polo shirt, fleece or jacket may be enough.

For Philip M Russell Ltd, embroidered clothing could be used while:

• Teaching in the classroom or laboratory

• Recording educational videos

• Photographing company projects

• Working on boats

• Attending sailing events

• Demonstrating apparatus

• Producing promotional content

A small embroidered logo can appear professional without being distracting. It also helps connect photographs and videos with the company brand.

When the same visual identity appears on the website, social media pages, videos, equipment and clothing, the business begins to look more consistent.

Consistency is one of the foundations of effective branding.

Embroidery as a Small-Batch Manufacturing Tool

Ordering embroidered clothing or covers from an outside company is often sensible when hundreds of identical items are required.

However, an in-house embroidery machine offers considerable flexibility for small quantities and experimental designs.

We can produce one sample, examine it and make adjustments. We can try a different thread colour, move the logo, change its size or simplify a difficult section.

This is particularly valuable during research and development.

Rather than committing immediately to a large order, we can investigate:

• Which logo size looks best

• Which colours work on different materials

• Whether text remains readable

• How the design behaves on curved or flexible objects

• How long the stitching takes

• Whether the material can withstand the process

It also becomes possible to make individual items for specific projects.

A cover for one piece of scientific equipment does not require a minimum order of fifty. A single jacket can be embroidered for use during filming. A prototype storage pouch can be branded before deciding whether to produce more.

This ability to make one-off and small-batch items fits well with the wider work of Philip M Russell Ltd, where projects often combine education, science, engineering, photography, video, music and sailing.

Learning Through Mistakes and Test Pieces

As with 3D printing, laser cutting and other forms of computer-controlled manufacturing, the first attempt is not always perfect.

A design may be too dense. The fabric may move. A thread may break. The lettering may be too small. The chosen colour may not provide enough contrast.

These are not wasted attempts. Each test reveals something useful.

A good test piece can show that:

• The design needs to be enlarged

• A border needs to be thicker

• Fewer stitches would improve flexibility

• A different needle is required

• The fabric needs stronger stabilisation

• The thread tension needs adjustment

• The logo should be moved away from a seam

There is a strong connection here with laboratory work.

In both cases, an idea is tested, evidence is collected and the process is improved. The machine does not remove the need for thought; it makes careful planning even more important.

I find this combination of digital design and hands-on experimentation particularly interesting. The computer gives us precision, but experience is still needed to understand how fabric and thread will behave.

More Than Decoration

Embroidery might initially appear to be a decorative extra, but it can contribute to several parts of a business.

It can strengthen branding, improve presentation, identify equipment and make handmade items appear more complete. It can also help create a consistent visual identity across teaching, workshop, filming and sailing activities.

Most importantly, it allows an idea to move from the digital world into the physical one.

A logo begins as a collection of shapes on a screen. The embroidery machine converts those shapes into a sequence of movements. The needle then builds the design one stitch at a time until the company identity becomes part of the object itself.

That transformation is what makes embroidery so interesting.

Conclusion: Building the Brand One Stitch at a Time

Professional branding does not always need to be large, expensive or mass-produced.

Sometimes it can be a small logo placed carefully on a shirt. It can be a project name stitched onto an equipment bag. It can be an embroidered mark that turns a homemade protective cover into something that looks deliberately designed and professionally finished.

Using an embroidery sewing machine gives Philip M Russell Ltd the freedom to experiment, make prototypes and create individual branded objects for the classroom, laboratory, studio, workshop and boat park.

It combines creative design with engineering decisions, material testing and practical skill.

Most people see the finished logo.

Behind it are decisions about colour, size, thread, fabric, stabilisation, stitch direction and positioning. That is what turns a collection of stitches into a professional result.

Branding may begin on a computer screen, but with the right equipment and a little experimentation, it can become something we can see, use and touch.

How Custom Laboratory Apparatus Makes Science Easier to Teach

 

Laboratory R&D: Building Better Apparatus for Better Teaching

"How Custom Laboratory Apparatus Makes Science Easier to Teach"

Not every useful teaching tool comes from a catalogue.

Commercial science equipment certainly has its place. Well-designed apparatus can save preparation time, produce reliable results and allow students to carry out experiments safely. However, even the best catalogue cannot anticipate every teaching situation, every student difficulty or every practical demonstration we might want to create.

Sometimes an experiment is almost right, but one measurement is difficult to see. Sometimes a piece of equipment works well in a school laboratory but is awkward to demonstrate during an online lesson. Sometimes the apparatus exists, but it is far too expensive for the relatively simple task it performs.

That is where laboratory research and development becomes valuable.

At Philip M Russell Ltd, R&D is not separate from teaching. It grows directly out of it. A student struggles to understand a concept, an experiment produces inconsistent results, or a camera cannot clearly show what is happening. That problem then becomes the starting point for a new design, modification or piece of apparatus.

The aim is not to build complicated equipment simply for the sake of it. The aim is to make science clearer, more reliable and more memorable.

Teaching Reveals the Problems That Catalogues Cannot See

Many apparatus projects begin with a very simple observation:

“This experiment could be better.”

A teacher standing beside a student often notices difficulties that are not obvious when reading a practical worksheet.

Perhaps the scale is too small to read.

Perhaps the movement happens too quickly.

Perhaps the equipment wobbles, slips or produces inconsistent measurements.

Perhaps the student is so busy trying to hold several pieces of apparatus that they lose sight of the scientific idea being demonstrated.

These are not necessarily failures in the experiment itself. They are often failures in the way the experiment communicates.

A practical activity should do more than produce a result. It should help the student see the connection between the apparatus, the measurement and the underlying scientific principle.

When that connection is unclear, modifying the equipment can sometimes be more effective than offering another verbal explanation.

Starting With the Learning Objective

The first stage of apparatus design is not drawing a shape in computer-aided design software or switching on the 3D printer. It is deciding exactly what the student needs to learn.

For example, imagine that students are investigating waves.

The learning objective might be to understand:

• how frequency affects wavelength;

• how two waves can interfere;

• how the position of a detector changes the measured signal;

• or how a standing wave is produced.

Each of these objectives may require a slightly different arrangement of transmitters, receivers, rulers, tracks or supports.

Without a clear learning objective, it is easy to build something technically impressive that does not actually improve the lesson.

A useful R&D question is therefore:

What should the student be able to see, measure or explain after using this apparatus?

That question keeps the design focused on teaching rather than engineering for its own sake.

Designing Apparatus That Makes the Invisible Visible

One of the challenges of science teaching is that many important processes cannot be seen directly.

We cannot see an electric field.

We cannot watch air pressure changing inside a tube.

We cannot see the forces acting on a moving object.

We cannot see a sound wave travelling through the air.

Good apparatus converts these invisible changes into something observable. That might be a moving pointer, a voltage displayed on a screen, a graph produced by a sensor or a sound that changes as the experiment progresses.

This is one reason data logging and sensors are so useful. A pressure sensor, force sensor, motion sensor or microphone can reveal changes that would otherwise be missed.

However, the sensor alone is not always enough. It still needs to be positioned correctly, held securely and connected to the experiment in a way that makes physical sense to the student.

That may require a custom mounting bracket, a carefully shaped tube, a sliding support or a holder that keeps the detector at a fixed height.

A small piece of apparatus can therefore make a major difference to the quality of the demonstration.

Making Custom Holders for the Interferometer

A good example is the need to position microphones and loudspeakers accurately during interference experiments.

An interferometer or wave demonstration depends on geometry. The position, direction and height of the source and detector all affect the result. If the microphone twists, the loudspeaker moves or the supports are at different heights, the measurements become harder to interpret.

Commercial laboratory stands can be used, but they are not always ideal. They may be too bulky, obstruct the camera or take too long to adjust between demonstrations.

Designing and 3D printing dedicated microphone and loudspeaker holders provides a more controlled solution.

The holders can be designed to:

• keep each component at the correct height;

• maintain a consistent orientation;

• slide smoothly along a track;

• reduce unwanted movement;

• allow rapid adjustment;

• and remain visible to both students and cameras.

This is a relatively small engineering project, but it improves several aspects of the lesson at once. The experiment becomes more repeatable, the equipment becomes easier to operate, and the student can concentrate on the interference pattern rather than on unstable clamps.

It also allows the apparatus to be adapted later. A revised holder might include a scale pointer, cable management or an attachment point for a different type of sensor.

Using 3D Printing as a Teaching Tool

3D printing is particularly useful for laboratory development because many apparatus problems involve small, highly specific parts.

A missing spacer, awkward clamp or unusual bracket may not be available commercially. Even when something similar exists, it may not fit the exact equipment being used.

With 3D printing, a part can be designed for a particular purpose.

The process normally involves several stages:

1. Measure the equipment carefully.

2. Produce an initial design.

3. Print a prototype.

4. Test the fit.

5. Identify weak points or awkward features.

6. Modify the design.

7. Print and test the improved version.

This iterative process is valuable in its own right. It is a practical example of design, testing, evaluation and refinement—the same cycle that students are expected to understand in engineering, computing and scientific investigations.

The first version is rarely perfect.

A hole may be fractionally too small. A support may flex more than expected. A clip may be difficult to attach while wearing laboratory gloves. A mounting plate may hold the apparatus securely but block the camera’s view.

These are not wasted attempts. Each prototype provides information.

In R&D, an unsuccessful version is often the version that teaches us the most.

Improving Reliability Before Adding Complexity

It is tempting to make apparatus more sophisticated by adding electronics, displays, sensors and software. However, complexity does not automatically improve an experiment.

A simple piece of apparatus that works every time is more useful than an elaborate system that takes half the lesson to configure.

Reliability matters because students quickly lose confidence in an experiment that produces unpredictable results. They may begin to think that science itself is unreliable when the real problem is a loose connection, poor alignment or badly supported component.

Before adding more features, it is important to ask:

• Does the apparatus produce a repeatable result?

• Can it be set up quickly?

• Can the student understand how it works?

• Are the measurements sufficiently accurate?

• Is it robust enough for repeated use?

• Can it be repaired or adjusted easily?

This approach often leads to better apparatus because unnecessary features are removed.

In teaching, clarity should usually come before complexity.

Developing Motion and Mechanics Experiments

Mechanics experiments are another area where apparatus design can transform a lesson.

Students may understand equations such as:

force = mass × acceleration

but still struggle to connect the equation to an actual moving object.

A well-designed motion experiment allows them to see that connection directly.

For example, a trolley can be fitted with a force sensor and tracked using a motion detector. The student can then compare the applied force with the measured acceleration. Rather than simply substituting values into a formula, they can see a graph being created as the trolley moves.

However, reliable results depend on many practical details:

• the track must be level;

• the trolley must move freely;

• cables must not pull on the trolley;

• the sensor must be mounted securely;

• and the release mechanism must be consistent.

Laboratory R&D may therefore involve building a better release system, modifying a trolley attachment or designing a guide that prevents cables from affecting the motion.

The improvement may appear minor, but it can remove an entire source of experimental error.

Building Apparatus Around Cameras

Modern teaching equipment must often work for both students in the room and students watching online.

That introduces another design requirement: the apparatus needs to be visible on camera.

An experiment may work perfectly when viewed from directly above, yet be almost impossible to understand through a camera positioned at the side. A scale may be readable to the person standing beside it but too small for an online student. A transparent tube may disappear against the laboratory background.

This means apparatus development increasingly includes questions such as:

• Where will the camera be positioned?

• Does the apparatus need a contrasting background?

• Can the scale be enlarged?

• Will reflections hide the measurement?

• Can a close-up camera see the critical part of the experiment?

• Can the apparatus be operated without the teacher’s hands blocking the view?

Sometimes the solution is as simple as adding a larger pointer or a printed scale. In other cases, it may require redesigning the entire support so that the experiment can be filmed from above.

This is where the company’s laboratory, workshop and video facilities work together. An apparatus design can be tested scientifically and visually before it is used in a lesson or recorded for a teaching video.

Prototyping New Demonstrations

Some projects begin not with an existing experiment but with an idea for a completely new demonstration.

The challenge is to turn a scientific concept into something physical.

A useful prototype does not have to be beautiful. Early versions may involve temporary clamps, cardboard templates, adhesive tape, scrap materials or components borrowed from other equipment.

At this stage, the purpose is to answer basic questions:

• Does the idea work?

• Is the effect large enough to observe?

• Can it be measured?

• Is it safe?

• Does it actually help explain the concept?

Only after those questions have been answered is it worth producing a more permanent version.

This prevents time being spent perfecting an apparatus that does not deliver a clear teaching benefit.

It also encourages experimentation. When the first version is understood to be temporary, it becomes easier to change it, cut it apart or abandon an idea that is not working.

Testing Apparatus With Real Students

An apparatus designer can become too familiar with a project.

After spending hours building and adjusting something, it may seem perfectly obvious how it should be used. A student seeing it for the first time may have a completely different reaction.

That is why student use is one of the most important parts of testing.

A student may:

• hold the apparatus in an unexpected way;

• misunderstand what a pointer represents;

• look at the wrong part of the experiment;

• turn a control in the wrong direction;

• or ask a question that reveals an assumption built into the design.

These moments are extremely useful.

They show whether the equipment is genuinely intuitive or whether it only makes sense to the person who built it.

Sometimes the best improvement is not a technical change. It may be a clearer label, a different colour marker, an arrow showing the direction of movement or a simpler sequence of controls.

Good educational apparatus guides the student’s attention towards the science.

Learning From Designs That Do Not Work

Not every R&D project succeeds.

A component may break.

A sensor may not be sensitive enough.

A 3D-printed part may deform under load.

A mechanism may introduce more friction than expected.

An electronic circuit may produce too much noise.

A beautifully designed apparatus may reveal an effect that is simply too small for students to observe reliably.

These failures can be frustrating, particularly after a considerable amount of work. However, they are also part of genuine scientific and engineering practice.

The important question is not, “Did the first design work?”

It is, “What did the first design teach us?”

Perhaps the next version needs a stronger material, a longer lever, a better bearing or a different type of sensor. Perhaps the original teaching idea needs to be approached from another direction.

Students are often shown polished experiments in which everything appears to work immediately. Sharing some of the development process can provide a more honest picture of science.

Real science includes uncertainty, mistakes, revision and persistence.

Combining Traditional Workshop Skills With Modern Technology

Laboratory R&D is not solely about digital design and electronics.

Traditional workshop skills remain just as important.

A piece of apparatus may require drilling, cutting, filing, soldering, sewing, gluing, painting or shaping by hand. A 3D-printed component may still need a metal axle. An electronic sensor may need a wooden base. A laser-cut panel may need threaded inserts or carefully positioned fixings.

The most effective solution is often a combination of old and new techniques.

For example:

• a wooden base provides strength and stability;

• a 3D-printed holder gives precise positioning;

• a metal rod provides rigidity;

• a sensor records the measurement;

• and software displays the result as a graph.

This combination allows apparatus to be designed around the experiment rather than forcing the experiment to fit whatever equipment happens to be available.

Repairing and Modifying Existing Equipment

Research and development does not always mean building something completely new.

Older laboratory apparatus is often extremely well made. It may simply need repair, adjustment or modification to make it useful again.

A worn bearing can be replaced.

An old scale can be updated.

A traditional demonstration can be fitted with a modern sensor.

A broken plastic component can be reproduced using a 3D printer.

An apparatus originally designed for classroom viewing can be adapted for multi-camera filming.

Repairing equipment can be more economical and environmentally responsible than replacing it. It also preserves useful designs that may no longer be manufactured.

More importantly, modifying an existing apparatus allows us to keep what already works while improving the part that causes difficulty.

From Apparatus Development to Better Lessons

The real measure of an R&D project is not how impressive it looks in the workshop.

It is what happens during the lesson.

Does the apparatus allow a student to see something they could not see before?

Does it reduce the time spent struggling with equipment?

Does it produce a result that can be repeated and discussed?

Does it encourage better questions?

Does it help the student connect a mathematical model to a physical event?

When the answer is yes, even a very small modification has been worthwhile.

A well-positioned microphone holder, a clearer scale, a better trolley attachment or a redesigned sensor mount may not appear revolutionary. Yet these details can be the difference between a confusing practical and a successful one.

R&D as Part of the Teaching Process

At Philip M Russell Ltd, laboratory R&D is not an occasional extra. It is part of an ongoing process of improving how subjects are taught.

Teaching identifies a problem.

The laboratory allows the idea to be tested.

The workshop allows a prototype to be built.

The cameras reveal whether the demonstration is visually clear.

Students show whether the apparatus is understandable.

The design is then modified and tested again.

This cycle connects teaching, science, engineering, computing and media production. It also means that apparatus can be developed for the specific needs of individual students rather than for an imaginary average classroom.

Better Apparatus Creates Better Questions

The greatest benefit of improved apparatus is not always a more accurate answer.

Sometimes it is a better question.

When students can see a clear result, they begin to ask why it happened. When they can change one variable easily, they begin to predict what will happen next. When they trust the equipment, they are more willing to investigate unexpected results.

That is when a practical lesson becomes more than a procedure.

It becomes an investigation.

Conclusion: Building Tools That Help Students Think

Not every useful teaching tool comes from a catalogue, and not every teaching problem can be solved by buying another piece of equipment.

Sometimes the best solution begins with a sketch, a spare component and a question:

“Could we build something that explains this more clearly?”

Laboratory R&D allows us to turn that question into practical apparatus. It brings together scientific understanding, workshop skills, modern manufacturing, electronics, computing and classroom experience.

The finished tool may be sophisticated, or it may be remarkably simple. What matters is that it helps students observe more carefully, measure more reliably and think more deeply.

Better apparatus does not replace good teaching.

It gives good teaching more ways to make science visible.

#ScienceEducation #LaboratoryRAndD #STEMEducation #PhysicsTeaching #ChemistryTeaching #BiologyTeaching #EngineeringDesign #3DPrinting #PracticalScience #ScienceApparatus #EducationalTechnology #PhilipMRussellLtd

 

How Do You Fix Cameras to a Thames A-Rater?

Filming a Thames A-Rater sounds simple until you actually try to decide where the cameras should go.

Champagne is long, narrow, fast and lightly built. She has a tall rig, a large sail area and very little spare space once the crew are aboard. Every rope, fitting and movement has a purpose. Adding cameras therefore cannot be treated as an afterthought.

A camera mount must do several things at once. It must hold the camera securely, avoid damaging the boat, survive vibration and spray, stay clear of sheets and crew, and capture footage that is genuinely interesting.

That combination is much harder than simply attaching an action camera to the nearest convenient surface.

Why We Want Cameras on Champagne

There are several reasons for filming Champagne.

The obvious one is to create exciting footage of the boat sailing. A Thames A-Rater is visually dramatic. The long hull, tall mast, large sails and three-person crew create a very different picture from a conventional dinghy.

However, the cameras are not only there to produce attractive promotional videos.

They can also help us review what happened during a race or training session. Video can reveal whether a tack was smooth, whether the jib was released at the right moment, whether the boat was heeling too far, or whether we chose the best route around a mark.

A camera may also record details that the crew did not notice at the time. When sailing, everyone is concentrating on their own responsibilities. The helm is watching the course and the wind. The jib hand is watching sail shape and timing. The middle crew may be moving weight, adjusting controls and preparing for the next manoeuvre.

A camera quietly records all of it.

That makes the footage useful for storytelling, teaching, performance review and documenting the continuing restoration and development of Champagne.

The First Rule: The Camera Must Not Affect the Sailing

The most important principle is straightforward:

The camera must never make the boat less safe or harder to sail.

A mount might look strong when Champagne is stationary in the boat park, but sailing produces very different forces. The boat heels, accelerates, slows suddenly and changes direction. Sheets move quickly. Crew cross the boat. The boom swings overhead. Water, vibration and impact all place stress on the equipment.

A camera that blocks a control line, catches a sheet or restricts crew movement is in the wrong place, regardless of how good the view might be.

The mount must also have no sharp edges that could damage sails, ropes, clothing or people.

This means that every mounting idea has to be tested first without sailing. We can move around the boat, simulate tacks and gybes, pull the sheets through their full range and check whether any part of the system creates a new hazard.

Only then is it worth trying the mount on the water.

The Deck: Secure, but Not Always Interesting

The deck initially seems like the easiest place to fit a camera.

It is relatively stable, there are existing fittings nearby and a deck-mounted camera can capture the crew working. A wide-angle camera facing aft might show the helm and middle crew, while one facing forward could record the bow, jib and approaching marks.

However, attaching anything directly to the deck requires caution.

Champagne’s varnished surfaces are part of the boat’s character. We do not want adhesive pads pulling away varnish, clamps marking timber, or metal fittings creating pressure points.

Permanent drilling would be a major decision and should only be considered if a fitting had a clear long-term purpose.

For temporary filming, a better solution may be to use a padded clamp attached to an existing structural fitting, or a custom-made bracket that spreads the load over a larger area.

A rubber or neoprene layer between the mount and the boat can reduce scratching and vibration. The bracket should be shaped so that it cannot rotate under load.

The deck can provide useful footage, but the position must be carefully chosen. A camera mounted too low may record mostly crew legs, ropes and spray. One placed slightly higher can produce a much more useful view.

The Mast: A Dramatic View With Practical Problems

The mast offers some of the most exciting possibilities.

A camera looking down from the mast could show the full length of the boat, the crew movements and the water rushing past. A forward-facing camera could capture the river ahead, while an aft-facing camera could show the sails and crew.

This viewpoint could produce spectacular footage.

Unfortunately, the mast also creates several challenges.

The camera must not interfere with halyards, stays, sail movement or mast fittings. The mount must remain secure despite vibration and bending. It must also be fitted and removed safely.

Weight matters as well. Even a small camera and bracket add weight aloft. The effect may be modest, but on a performance sailing boat it is still worth considering. A bulky mount may also increase wind resistance or create an unwanted snagging point.

For these reasons, a mast camera should be as light and compact as possible.

A custom 3D-printed mount might be suitable, provided the material is strong enough and protected from sunlight and water. It could be shaped to fit around the mast without requiring holes or permanent alterations.

The mount would need a soft internal lining to protect the mast surface and prevent slipping.

It would also need a completely separate safety tether.

The Boom: Excellent Footage, but a High-Risk Position

The boom is another tempting camera position.

A camera mounted near the end of the boom can provide a moving view of the crew, sails and water. During tacks and gybes, the camera angle changes dramatically, producing footage that feels much more active than a fixed deck view.

However, a boom-mounted camera may also be one of the most vulnerable options.

The boom moves quickly and can experience sudden shocks. A gybe can place substantial forces on both the mount and the camera. The equipment may also be hit by sheets or crew.

We have already learned, on another boat, that camera mounts can fail when sailing forces become greater than expected. During a sudden gybe, a 360-degree camera boom mount broke and the camera was lost.

That experience changes how we approach camera mounting on Champagne.

A boom camera cannot rely on a single plastic fitting or clamp. The main mount must be strong, but the safety system must assume that the main mount could still fail.

The camera should have an independent tether attached to a separate secure point. Ideally, the tether should be short enough to stop the camera swinging dangerously if it comes loose.

A boom-mounted camera may produce excellent footage, but it should probably be treated as an occasional specialist position rather than the default mounting point.

The Stern: A Strong Candidate for the Best Overall View

The stern may provide one of the most useful camera positions on Champagne.

A camera mounted behind the crew and facing forward could capture the helm, middle crew, jib hand, mainsail and much of the river ahead. It would give viewers a sense of being aboard the boat without placing the camera directly in the crew’s working area.

This position could also be ideal for a 360-degree camera.

A 360 camera allows the viewpoint to be selected during editing. Instead of deciding in advance whether to film the crew, sails or riverbank, the camera records everything around it. The final shot can then be reframed later.

The difficulty is creating a stern mount that is high enough to see over the crew but not so long that it bends, vibrates or becomes vulnerable during manoeuvres.

A short, stiff pole is usually safer than a long flexible extension. The base would need to be fixed to a strong part of the boat or to a purpose-built bracket.

Again, any clamp would need padding to avoid marking the boat.

The stern position also creates the possibility of attaching a small protective cage around the camera. This would not make the camera indestructible, but it could reduce the chance of direct impact damage.

A Camera Facing Back From the Bow

Another interesting option is a camera placed towards the bow and facing aft.

This would capture the crew against the background of the mainsail and river. It could show how the crew move together during tacks and how weight is distributed along the boat.

The main challenge would be protecting the camera from the jib, sheets, spray and possible impact.

The bow is also a very wet part of the boat. Any camera placed there must be genuinely waterproof, not merely resistant to a few raindrops.

The lens would also need regular checking. A single water droplet can spoil an otherwise excellent sequence.

Hydrophobic lens coatings or replaceable lens protectors may help, but no system completely removes the need for inspection.

Safety Tethers Are Not Optional

Every camera on Champagne should have a secondary safety tether.

The tether should not be attached to the same part of the mount that might fail. If the clamp, adhesive pad or extension pole breaks, the tether must remain attached to something separate and stronger.

Dyneema line is a useful option because it is light, strong and resistant to water. However, the attachment points still require careful thought.

A tether should not be so long that a detached camera can swing into a crew member, damage the boat or become tangled in the rigging.

It should be just long enough to prevent the camera being lost while keeping it under control.

Where practical, the camera could also be enclosed in a small protective cage. This would provide another layer of security and give the tether a strong attachment point.

The objective is not merely to save an expensive camera. It is to prevent a loose object becoming a hazard.

Vibration Can Ruin an Otherwise Good Camera Position

A camera can remain attached perfectly and still produce unusable footage.

Long poles, thin brackets and lightly secured clamps can vibrate continuously. This may create a rolling or jelly-like image, particularly with small action cameras using electronic stabilisation.

The answer is not always to add more stabilisation in editing.

The best solution is to stop the vibration at source.

Mounts should be short, stiff and securely supported. A bracket with two attachment points will often vibrate less than one held by a single narrow clamp.

Soft padding can help protect the boat, but too much soft material may allow the camera to wobble. The mount needs enough cushioning to avoid damage without becoming flexible.

This is where prototype testing becomes valuable.

We can begin with a temporary mount, film a short sequence and then review the footage carefully. If the image is shaking, the mount can be stiffened, shortened or repositioned.

A camera position should not be accepted simply because the camera remained attached.

Waterproofing Means More Than Using a Waterproof Camera

Most action cameras are designed to survive water, but the complete system may not be.

External battery packs, microphone adapters, charging cables and connectors may all introduce weak points. Even the camera door or lens cover may not be properly sealed if it has been opened in a hurry.

For short sailing sessions, it is often better to rely on the camera’s internal battery and avoid unnecessary cables.

The camera should be checked before launching. Doors should be closed properly, lens protectors inspected and memory cards fitted.

Fresh water should also be used to rinse equipment after sailing, particularly if the boat has been used in dirty or silty conditions. Although Champagne sails on the Thames rather than at sea, river water can still leave deposits on lenses, mounts and moving parts.

Waterproofing is not a single feature. It is a routine.

Camera Angles Must Tell a Story

It is easy to become so focused on engineering the mount that we forget the reason for fitting the camera.

The footage must be interesting.

A fixed shot of the same section of deck for an entire race will not hold an audience’s attention. The best sailing videos combine several perspectives.

A stern camera can establish the full scene. A deck camera can show crew concentration. A boom or mast camera can add movement and drama. A handheld camera from the Whaly camera boat can provide external shots of Champagne sailing past.

The footage can then be edited together to create a clear sequence.

For example, a tack might begin with an external shot from the camera boat. The edit could then cut to a stern camera showing the crew preparation, followed by a deck camera recording the jib release and trim.

The audience sees the same manoeuvre from several viewpoints.

This makes the video more engaging, but it also makes the sailing easier to understand.

External Filming May Be Better Than Adding More Cameras

Not every shot needs to come from a camera attached to Champagne.

The Whaly 455R can act as a stable filming platform, provided it remains clear of the racing line and does not interfere with other boats.

External footage can show the shape and speed of Champagne much more effectively than an onboard camera.

A long lens can capture the boat from the riverbank, while the Whaly can record closer tracking shots. A camera placed near a mark can show tacks, gybes and roundings.

These external angles reduce the need to cover Champagne with equipment.

The best final video may use only one or two carefully positioned onboard cameras, supported by footage from the bank and the camera boat.

That is likely to be safer and visually stronger than attempting to mount a camera in every possible position.

Designing Our Own Mounts

Commercial action-camera mounts are useful, but they are designed for general applications. Champagne may require fittings shaped specifically for her layout.

This creates an interesting research and development project.

We can measure the mast, deck fittings, stern structure and available clearances. From those measurements, we can design brackets that fit accurately without drilling or damaging the boat.

3D printing is ideal for early prototypes.

A printed mount can be tested for size, camera angle and clearance before producing a stronger final version. Different shapes can be tried quickly and cheaply.

However, a printed part should not automatically be trusted simply because it looks substantial. Layer direction, material choice, wall thickness and temperature resistance all affect strength.

A prototype may be suitable for checking the fit while a final load-bearing mount could require a stronger printed material, aluminium reinforcement or a completely different manufacturing method.

The design process must always include a failure plan.

What happens if the bracket cracks? Where will the camera go? Could the broken part fall into the boat? Will the tether still hold?

These questions should be answered before the camera goes afloat.

Testing in Stages

The safest approach is to test each camera mount in stages.

First, fit the mount while Champagne is ashore. Move all the ropes, controls and sails that could come near it.

Next, have the crew simulate their normal positions and movements. Practise crossing the boat and carrying out tacks and gybes without actually sailing.

Then test the mount during a gentle sail in light conditions.

Only after the system has proved reliable should it be used during stronger winds, racing or more demanding manoeuvres.

After every sail, the mount should be inspected.

Small cracks, loose screws, stretched straps or signs of movement should not be ignored. A system that survived one outing may still be gradually failing.

Camera mounting should be treated in the same way as any other piece of sailing equipment: check it before use, watch it during use and inspect it afterwards.

What We Are Learning

The challenge of fitting cameras to Champagne is a good example of how apparently simple projects develop into real engineering problems.

We began with a straightforward idea: put cameras on the boat and film the sailing.

That immediately led to questions about loads, materials, vibration, waterproofing, crew movement, damage prevention and safety.

It also reminded us that the most visually exciting position is not necessarily the most sensible one.

The boom may create dramatic footage, but the stern may be safer and more reliable. A mast camera may offer an extraordinary view, but an external camera boat may capture the boat better without adding weight or complexity to the rig.

The correct answer may therefore be a combination of methods rather than one perfect mount.

Conclusion: Secure, Safe and Worth Watching

Fixing cameras to a Thames A-Rater is not simply a matter of buying a clamp and pressing record.

Champagne needs camera mounts designed around the boat, the crew and the realities of sailing. They must protect the varnish, avoid the control lines, resist vibration and survive sudden movement.

Every camera must have a proper safety tether. Every position must be tested. Every mount must be judged not only by whether it holds the camera, but also by whether it leaves the crew free to sail the boat safely.

The aim is not to turn Champagne into a floating camera rig.

The aim is to choose a small number of positions that tell the story properly: the speed, the teamwork, the movement of the sails and the distinctive experience of racing a Thames A-Rater.

When the engineering disappears into the background and the viewer feels as though they are aboard the boat, the camera mount has done its job.