When Materials Betray You: Platinum Silicone, Wood and Chemical Reactions
Not all failures announce themselves immediately. Some sit quietly in the process, only revealing their consequences once time, money and attention have already been invested. This stage of the project centred on a specific and consequential problem: platinum-cure silicone reacting unpredictably with certain woods used in the laser-cut join prototypes.
The Assumption
Up to this point, wood had functioned as a reliable intermediary material. Laser-cut wooden components were useful for testing geometry, alignment and scale before committing to mould-making and casting. The assumption was that these prototypes could move cleanly into silicone mould production with appropriate sealing and release preparation. That assumption proved false.
The Failure
During mould-making, the platinum silicone failed to cure correctly in contact with specific wooden components. In some cases, the silicone remained tacky. In others, it cured unevenly, compromising the integrity of the mould entirely. These failures rendered several moulds unusable and resulted in lost time and expensive materials. The issue was not immediately obvious. Initial preparation appeared sound. Release agents were applied carefully and mould boxes were constructed correctly. The failure only became apparent during demoulding — by which point the opportunity to intervene had passed.
Diagnosing the Problem
Investigation revealed that compounds present in certain woods can inhibit the curing of platinum silicone. This is a known issue, but one that often remains abstract until encountered directly. Sealants and surface barriers can reduce the risk, but they do not guarantee success. This diagnosis reframed the problem. The failure was not due to poor execution, but to material incompatibility — a reminder that not all materials are willing collaborators.
Recalibrating the Approach
Once identified, the issue required a strategic rather than reactive response. Continuing to force silicone moulds from incompatible materials would have been inefficient and unreliable. Instead, the process shifted.
Alternative strategies were explored, including:
isolating wooden components more thoroughly through sealing
adjusting the mould-making sequence to remove direct contact
reassessing when wood was necessary at all
Some joins were redesigned to eliminate the problematic interaction altogether. Others were postponed until a more reliable route could be established.
What This Failure Changed
This stage altered the project in several important ways:
it reinforced the need to understand chemical compatibility, not just form
it sharpened decision-making around when to abandon a process rather than persist
it introduced a greater respect for material limits
Perhaps most importantly, it shifted expectations. The project was no longer about mastering a set of techniques, but about negotiating relationships between materials that do not share the same priorities.
What This Stage Establishes
This failure could easily have been omitted from documentation. Instead, it became one of the most instructive moments in the research. It demonstrated that material intelligence is not only about what works, but about recognising when something fundamentally will not.
The joins that continue beyond this stage do so with a clearer understanding of the systems they depend on — chemical as well as structural.
Failure, in this instance, was not a setback. It was a correction.