Myco Table Process Book

coffee table & the process behind it

Emmett Lockridge | FDS1 | Inst. Thompson | 5/11/22

Responding to the prompt
deconstructivism in post-modern design
The ideation phase focused on the idea of deconstructing the idea of a hardwood
table. Initially, this was explored formally by manipulating the flat top of a coffee
table that has become standard in their design.

Foundations of final design concept

A post-modern look on materials Mushroom

When designing a piece for a collector of Post-Modern furniture, one asks the Mycelium
question:
How do you compliment a collection that is intended to have no compliment?
Compliment must come from the approach. The deconstructivist movement within
postmodernism uncovered a methodology to define this process. Application came
by means of literally deconstructing the hardwood table. Through the iterative
process, many different means of approach were explored. Dipole settled on
an approach that deconstructed the material of the table itself to be used as a
substrate for the growth of a living material, mycelium.

Natural vs. Mechanical Processes

Dipole pays homage to the forms of the postmodern era through the use of the
plane and the volume. A waterfall edge visually wraps the plane around a 90°
angle to form the table top from the ground connection. This top plane approaches
the mycelial volume where a number of interactions are found. The table rests on,
butts-up against, and pierces through the volume all at the same time, a diverse
relationship that shows the often complicated interaction between natural and
mechanical processes.

Mechanical
Natural

Simplifying + Highlighting

½” Gap
Table adhered
to myco with
wood glue

Maybe score &
adhere with myco?

Modeling + Detailing assembly methods

45˚ Domino
Connection

Wood Glue Adhesion

45˚ Miter Cut

Table top slot Acrylic
foam insert Slip-mold
Breathable Fabric Slip molded
Growing Base mycelium volume
Table connection
slot foam insert Dim. Lumber
Base

Experimentation Process

Experiementation was a huge part of this project. As a GRA in the MycoMatters
Lab here at the Kansas State College of Architecture, Planning and Design, I
had a good idea about the behavior of the mycelium from lab projects. However,
furniture application of this material is something we have not explored in the lab
and finish quality of the mycelium is an even more sparse study. This provided the
opportunity to test things like:
- Mycelium’s ability to adhere to hard wood
- Visual qualities of charred mycelium (post-drying)
- Finish quality of natural finished on both charred and undisturbed mycelium
A brief summary of results found, mainly those deemed aesthetically significant to
this project, are detailed in this document.

Mycelium Adhering to Hard Wood

Initial ideas brought the idea of the mycelium actually penetrating into the table.
Though there had been wood-mycelium interactions in past lab work, none was
intentional. No study had been done on the mushroom’s ability to grow into a
block of wood. These initial tests set out to see if this was possible. A small volume
of mycelial substrate was grown directly on test pieces of red oak, a seemingly
more porous wood. It was left to grow over a period of 5 days in both a miter joint
between wood pieces and rested directly on a block.
Surface level penetration was observed, especially in areas the wood was pre-
scored to promote growth. This was strong enough to insert a needle into the small
mycelial mass and suspend the test sample with just the tension forces between
the volume and the block.
However, this excitment was short lived because after closer observation, it was
discovered that the superficial connection had little structural integrity. The miter
joint was not strong enough to adhere the two pieces together.

Experimentation Process

Experiementation was a huge part of this project. As a GRA in the MycoMatters
Lab here at the Kansas State College of Architecture, Planning and Design, I
had a good idea about the behavior of the mycelium from lab projects. However,
furniture application of this material is something we have not explored in the lab
and finish quality of the mycelium is an even more sparse study. This provided the
opportunity to test things like:
- Mycelium’s ability to adhere to hard wood
- Visual qualities of charred mycelium (post-drying)
- Finish quality of natural finished on both charred and undisturbed mycelium
A brief summary of results found, mainly those deemed aesthetically significant to
this project, are detailed in this document.

Charring the Mycelial Volume

The idea of charring the table came from the approach of deconstructing the
materials to their smallest unit. Torching the mycelium reduces the organism to
the backbone of life on this planet: carbon. While many studies and papers speak
to mycelium’s fire resistive capabilities in an architectural sense, not much has
been explicitly covered in the aesthetic properties of the remains between fire and
mushroom.
Tests in this area of study were truly rudimentary. A torch was used to char the
surface of the mycelium. Throughout the testing process, it became clear that
immediately soaking the burning mushroom with water via a spray bottle would
produce a very desirable, satin black finish. This became the methodology for
producing the base for the finish on the final volume.

Experimentation Process

Experiementation was a huge part of this project. As a GRA in the MycoMatters
Lab here at the Kansas State College of Architecture, Planning and Design, I
had a good idea about the behavior of the mycelium from lab projects. However,
furniture application of this material is something we have not explored in the lab
and finish quality of the mycelium is an even more sparse study. This provided the
opportunity to test things like:
- Mycelium’s ability to adhere to hard wood
- Visual qualities of charred mycelium (post-drying)
- Finish quality of natural finished on both charred and undisturbed mycelium
A brief summary of results found, mainly those deemed aesthetically significant to
this project, are detailed in this document.

Finishing the Mycelium

As mentioned before, finish quality of the mycelium is something that does not yet
have a depth of research. This served as an initial, rather informal, exploration into
how the mushroom, both charred and undisturbed, take finishes.
Multiple finishes were tested: Odies Oil, Beeswax, Shellac and Pickling finishes
were all natural finishes that were deployed. Each had characteristally different
effects. For example, the Odie’s Oil turned the untouched mycelium a much darker
color while Pickling had no effect on either stage of the mushroom due to a lack of
tanic acid.
The final finish selection for the charred side of the mushroom was a rapidly
applied 4 coats of Shellac. This produced an even glossier finish to the charred
mycelium and sealed the carbon from rubbing off onto other surfaces. Beeswax
was used on the table top as a natural finish for the machined side of the piece.

Growing Process

In order to grow the volume in the desirable shape, first thing is a mold. Due to
the corner radius the design called for and the need to be sterillized, bent acyrllic
sheet became the optimal candidate at this size. Using a jig to standardize the radii
and an infrared heat lamp, two sheets were bent and taped together.
Assembly of a controlled environment and a small scale test of the growing
process was completed before the full sized volume was attempted.
The grow period from packing to finished product spanned 9 days. 6 of those days
were dedicated to growing while the other three were filled with both active (oven)
and passive (conventional box fan) drying processes.
It is worth noting that the volume did continue to dry throughout the construction
process. Upon drilling into the mass to inset dowels, a slighting moist environment
was discovered in the center of the volume. Nevertheless, the volume was ready
for handling after that initial 9 day period.

Growth Environment

Acryllic Bending Small-scale test

Grow Process

Construction Process

During the mushroom drying process, initial machining of the table
began. Lumber was processed and the table took shape.



When working with living materials Planned Dimensions 10”
proportional issues and their resolution 20.125”

Being an experimental process, there were bound to be adjustments that would 19.5”
need to be made along the way. A large source of mid-fabrication ideation was 18” R = 3”
material calculation and volume shrinkage during the drying time.
These two factors produced a mycelial volume much smaller than the volume
created in 3D modeling and rendering. Proportions of the table were vastly altered,
leading to a visual imbalance. This was fixed by re-machining the table that was
not yet permanantly adhered and rotating the volume, fitting the table to the new
proportions the mycelium desided to occupy.

Final Dimensions

32.25” 1”
20”
15” 20” .5”
1” 8.375”
R = 3”
14.75” 6.25” 5.75”
20”
22.5” 7.5” 2.5”

8.25”

34.5”

Connection Process

Next, came the union.



coffee table

22.5” 7.5” 2.5” Final Details

20”
8.25”

34.5”

19.5”

14.75”

18” R = 3”

45˚ Domino Void Space
Connection

Wood Glue Adhesion

45˚ Miter Cut Due to the unsuccessful adhession
of the two materials, the decision
1/4” Chamfer Inset Plate was made to highlight the
separations between the two
Table connection Use of Shadow Lines elements and the table from the
ground. This was accomplished
by using shadow lines throughout
details of the table.







Acknowledgements

This project, one of my favorite experiences here at APDesign, would not have
been possible without the input, patience, and support of the individuals and

entities listed below. I cannot thank you all enough.
Thank you!

Richard Thompson
Joseph Hornung
Joshuah Staab

Jonathan Dessi-Olive
Holly Ellis
Tyler Hilk
Huy Le
Josie

MycoMatters Lab - Kansas State University
APDesign Fabrication Shop

Department of Interior Architecture and Industrial Design
K-State College of Architecture, Planning & Design