Silas Cascio - Chemistry & Environmental Science (Oberlin College)
Josh Midley - Mechanical Engineering (UMD College Park)
Gantt Chart
Presentation and Justification of the Problem
Brainstorming Problems:
-dropping wet clothes down laundry chute in hotel can be dangerous to those below
-kayak carts are heavy to pull across grass
-it is hard to remember whether or not daily pills have been taken
-filling up condiment cups is tedious
-hands get cold during the winter, phones lose power more quickly
-there is too much waste in general (food, goods, production)
-there is a lot of waste in packaging
-devices are left plugged in when they don't need to be
-dropping wet clothes down laundry chute in hotel can be dangerous to those below
-kayak carts are heavy to pull across grass
-it is hard to remember whether or not daily pills have been taken
-filling up condiment cups is tedious
-hands get cold during the winter, phones lose power more quickly
-there is too much waste in general (food, goods, production)
-there is a lot of waste in packaging
-devices are left plugged in when they don't need to be
Potential Market Survey:
Problem Statement: Hotel management and maintenance staff acknowledge that garbage/laundry chutes get blocked up with objects and present possible danger to those below, especially during the summer season in hotels and condos located in resort towns, such as Ocean City, MD.
Individual Summary: I started by deciding which problems were important or interesting to me, including some of those that I and others had found in the community interviews. I thought that choosing a problem was hard, because I wanted to be sure to pick the right one, but after Josh and I did some research on each problem and discussed our options in depth during the completion of the decision matrix, we ended up going with the problem the got the best score; the laundry chute, which we then extended to chutes in general. For our problem justifications, I talked to Luke, knowing that his boss at the condominium that he works at over the summer had previously had an incident with a garbage chute. I then created some questions for our market survey, which Josh made on GoogleForms, which I then posted on my social media and sent to my family members, some of which re-posted on other platforms. I also found a subreddit in which to post our survey. We received over 200 responses, but our results didn't really help our case, because most people haven't gotten injured while using laundry or garbage chutes, but about half of those surveyed said that they have been cautious of incoming objects when using a chute. So instead of using statistics from the survey, I wrote the problem statement using the firsthand sources that were summarized above.
Documentation and Analysis of Prior Solution Attempts
Potential Market
According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, there are roughly 54,200 hotels in the United States as of the year 2021. Additionally, Statista.com states that there were 38 million multi-family homes in the U.S. in the year 2020. With regards to private homes, in many places, laundry chutes do not meet the building codes due to fire hazards, and in that case, laundry chutes in private dwellings mainly exist in older homes, unless they have been installed by the homeowner. Therefore, our potential market would incorporate more than 38 million consumers, with these consumers being hotel/condominium owners. While our survey did show that 39.4% of laundry chute users questioned claimed to have been cautious of incoming objects, and 44% claimed to have experienced a blockage, we were unable to question a large amount of hotel/condominium owners, and thus, we do not know exactly what these consumers would be willing to pay for our product and how many of them would actually buy it.
|
Individual Summary: I found my information regarding existing patents on GooglePatents, and the rest of the information was found using Google. I also knew that Statista.com usually has up-to-date information regarding all kinds of statistics. From the patent research, there appeared to be very few solutions to our problem; there were older items that generally did not have a way of detecting a jam in the chute. I also learned about other methods of detecting/avoiding clogged chutes, such as detecting airflow or even sucking clothes into the chute like a vacuum. The existing product research was a little more enlightening; I learned that there actually are systems that are designed to close all trash chutes when one is in use, and these systems come with a monitoring panel in order to alert the maintenance staff of blockages or other malfunctions. However, while getting a price for these systems would involve giving them our business name and other details about our needs, we can assume that, due to other things like automatic-opening doors, these systems would be very expensive, and in that case, we realized that we needed to make our product more affordable while also including multiple useful features.
Presentation and Justification of Solution Design Requirements
Product Name: SMART Chute
Designers: Silas Cascio, Josh Midley
Target Consumer: Hotel/Condominium Owners
Individual Summary: Josh and I thought about all of the elements that we wanted to incorporate in our design in order to solve various safety problems with laundry/garbage chutes. We collectively decided that our priority would be for our design to be cheap yet effective in solving these problems, because our competitors have solutions that are expensive and include what we believe to be unnecessary components. Another important aspect of our design will be the materials and placement of components: we know that our system will have to withstand lots of noise and vibration, as well as lots of abuse, and we will need to use durable sensors placed in strategic locations in order to maintain them. Finally, we believed that things like aesthetics and size/weight were not as important, because most of the components will not be visible to the user, and the size and weight of the system will be relatively negligible compared to the chute system itself.
Design Concept Generation, Analysis, and Selection
Product Sketches:
Concept Test Survey
We questioned 6 people total (first page of each here for proof)
We decided on design concept #5, but we took all of the best parts from the other designs to create our final design. This was the design that we presented in the "poster walk". After getting some ideas from our classmates and advisor, we came up with our final design.
Winning Design Description: We basically took our original design and changed the trapdoor to work from the side so that it would be more ergonomic. We also changed the dimensions so that the prototype would be a bit smaller, and thus easier to handle and more practical. This design will improve chute safety for users by detecting open doors above and activating a light. For staff emptying the collection bin, there will be a trapdoor that can be closed in order to prevent projectiles from exiting the chute for a short period of time. When the trapdoor is closed, there will be indicator lights on each floor, as well as the basement floor, that will both warn users that objects should not be placed in the chute, and also show maintenance staff that the trapdoor is still closed. Finally, in order to detect blockages, we will try to implement an infrared camera at the top of the chute pointing down that will connect to a display on the basement level. If this does not work, if this does not work, we will instead use a proximity sensor or a pair garage door sensors at the elbow of the chute where most tend to blockages occur.
Application of STEM Principles and Practices
Science and Engineering Concepts Investigated:
-knowledge of MultiSim (from previous years)
-wiring circuit board, possibly with chip, and cutting wires
-determining power source (at least for prototype)
-purchasing the correct limit sensors
-how to place glass or material in front of LED in order to make an aesthetic display
-building a scale model: determining materials and where to buy them
-knowledge of MultiSim (from previous years)
-wiring circuit board, possibly with chip, and cutting wires
-determining power source (at least for prototype)
-purchasing the correct limit sensors
-how to place glass or material in front of LED in order to make an aesthetic display
-building a scale model: determining materials and where to buy them
Letter to Advisor (Shane Thompson, NASA)
Software/Technology/Equipment:
-MultiSim
-circuit board with wires
-4 limit switches
-4 LEDs
-4 door handles
-infrared camera
-camera display (spare phone)
-pvc pipe/tubing
-wood for frame
-power saw
-power drill
-MultiSim
-circuit board with wires
-4 limit switches
-4 LEDs
-4 door handles
-infrared camera
-camera display (spare phone)
-pvc pipe/tubing
-wood for frame
-power saw
-power drill
Consideration of Design Viability
Plastic LCA
Electrical Wire LCA
Construction of Testable Prototype
Tools & Equipment:
-table saw
-circular saw
-power drill
-hole saw
-screwdriver
-pliers
-PVC glue
-electrical tape
-wire cutter
-soldering iron
-solder remover
-clamps
-double-sided tape
-table saw
-circular saw
-power drill
-hole saw
-screwdriver
-pliers
-PVC glue
-electrical tape
-wire cutter
-soldering iron
-solder remover
-clamps
-double-sided tape
Estimated Build Time: 3 weeks
MultiSim circuit:
Click above for the Slideshow
Special Thanks: Ron Cascio, Mrs. Zienty, Shane Thompson
Dimensioned Final Prototype
Prototype Testing Plan
Testing, Data Collection, and Analysis
Our chute and warning system preformed very well during the test, however door #3 ran into some problems during the testing of the doors ability to close and open. The door seemed to be unbalanced which caused it to get stuck while opening. To fix this problem, we removed the door from the build and sanded down the uneven area of the door.
Thirteen objects/materials were tested, and out of these only three were totally not visible, while four others had evident shape and the rest were very easy to see. These results could have been partly due to the density and composition of the objects, as a plastic bottle doesn’t provide much material for an infrared camera to detect. The test was conducted outside in the shade, but the chute itself seemed to cool down as time went on. We accounted for the heat that may be left over from our hand touching each object by setting a timer for two minutes after placing each object in the chute before taking the picture. Some objects gave off more heat than others, which is a quite interesting concept that could be investigated further, and perhaps more objects could be tested in the future. We would consider our prototype to pass the test, as most of the objects were visible, either by heat detection or contour shape as compared to the original state.
Changes or adjustments made after testing: After the top door was not opening very smoothly, we took out the screw to remove the door and we sanded it so that it fit better. Other than that, we couldn’t make many significant changes due to limited time. We would have liked to try replacing the IR camera with garage door sensors in order to eliminate the need for objects to be a certain relative temperature in order to be detected. We also would have liked to integrate a timer into the circuit so that warning lights would stay on for a few seconds after doors were closed. Some slightly more audacious improvements would include an automatic emergency/basement door that shuts when people are nearby, and some way to fix and clear blockages rather than just detecting them. We also realize that people may be able to just ignore the warning lights, or even leave doors open, a problem which could be addressed in future improvements.
Individual Summary: I was pretty happy with our final design, and I liked that we were able to use a lot of skills from Digital Electronics, definitely more than most other groups. After we completed testing, Josh sent an email to Shane, our mentor, who shared some of his ideas for possible improvements. Previously, we had discussed with him the idea of using a garage door sensor for blockage detection, and due to the infrared camera's inability to detect certain objects, he again suggested that this may be the better approach. But, with only a week left, we decided to stick with the camera; also because we had it available and free of charge. Shane also suggested that we reinforce the stand if needed, but I explained that the prototype isn't as heavy as it looks, just awkward to transport, but it is pretty sturdy and is balanced well.
Presentation
Presentation review:
During our "dry-run" presentation, we did a pretty good job with addressing most of the points in the rubric, although we didn't really interact with our prototype as much as we should have. It was for this reason that we began our final presentation by describing our prototype and showing our video first, along with a demonstration. We also didn't do too great of a job at grabbing the audience's attention for our "dry-run," and I looked at the screen too much. We had to make some major changes to the brochure as well because it did not include a lot of necessary information. After the "dry-run," I decided to also include our future improvements in our final presentation because most of the other groups did this and it would also allow us to answer some questions that would surely be asked by the judges (about automatically locking doors and such).
Our final presentation went pretty well; I didn't look at the screen as much and the prototype was physically demonstrated. We also were well prepared and had a good conversational tone. I think that we said everything that we needed to say, and didn't leave any key components out. As usual, our time was over 10 minutes, but we couldn't have talked much faster without it sounding rushed, and it was good that we went into so much detail with the building process because that is what was the most interesting and took the most time during our roughly 3 months of work. It was nice to be the first group to present, but we only had feedback from three judges, as others had not arrived by that time and our product is less understandable and less interesting for the general public, so we didn't get as much feedback and questions as other groups did. The two in-person judges asked questions that were easy to answer, as we knew that they would be asked, and the judge via Zoom, being an electrical engineer, had some interesting suggestions, including creating a state diagram in the future in order to make automatic-locking doors feasible. All in all, we were pretty happy with our performance, and we were glad that we were able to showcase many of the skills that we had learned throughout our time as pre-engineering students.
During our "dry-run" presentation, we did a pretty good job with addressing most of the points in the rubric, although we didn't really interact with our prototype as much as we should have. It was for this reason that we began our final presentation by describing our prototype and showing our video first, along with a demonstration. We also didn't do too great of a job at grabbing the audience's attention for our "dry-run," and I looked at the screen too much. We had to make some major changes to the brochure as well because it did not include a lot of necessary information. After the "dry-run," I decided to also include our future improvements in our final presentation because most of the other groups did this and it would also allow us to answer some questions that would surely be asked by the judges (about automatically locking doors and such).
Our final presentation went pretty well; I didn't look at the screen as much and the prototype was physically demonstrated. We also were well prepared and had a good conversational tone. I think that we said everything that we needed to say, and didn't leave any key components out. As usual, our time was over 10 minutes, but we couldn't have talked much faster without it sounding rushed, and it was good that we went into so much detail with the building process because that is what was the most interesting and took the most time during our roughly 3 months of work. It was nice to be the first group to present, but we only had feedback from three judges, as others had not arrived by that time and our product is less understandable and less interesting for the general public, so we didn't get as much feedback and questions as other groups did. The two in-person judges asked questions that were easy to answer, as we knew that they would be asked, and the judge via Zoom, being an electrical engineer, had some interesting suggestions, including creating a state diagram in the future in order to make automatic-locking doors feasible. All in all, we were pretty happy with our performance, and we were glad that we were able to showcase many of the skills that we had learned throughout our time as pre-engineering students.
About our advisor: Shane Thompson studied Acoustical Engineering at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. He has spent the majority of his career at Wallops Flight Facility working under the NASA Sounding Rocket Operations Contract, working on integration and testing of various payloads and deployment systems. He now works in NASA's Engineering & Technology Directorate at Wallops Island. We exchanged a few emails with Shane, bouncing our ideas around and receiving feedback and tips from him. He suggested the change from a 90 degree elbow to a 45, among others. We also set up a Microsoft Teams meeting, where we discussed more professional ways of defining requirements (such as using terms like "shall"), how to determine and communicate a final price, and some other ways that we could detect blockages (he suggested garage door sensors, as did Mrs. Zienty). Shane also talked to us about his experience with college and finding work as an engineer, as well as some insight into the design process that he has acquired as a supervisor in his position at NASA.
Reflection
My reflection:
I'm comfortable with the outcome of our product, although I feel as if it is very simple and perhaps we could have made some more improvements to our design. Thinking about it now, it seems pretty feasible to make automatically locking doors, if we found the right kind of switch or some sort of button that could stick out behind each sliding door, holding it in place when needed. We had good time management, and pretty good communication. Josh and I worked well as a team for the most part, but I prefer to be in control and get tasks done thoroughly and ahead of time, while Josh likes to procrastinate sometimes. We were able to finish lots of parts a few days ahead of time, which was good. Our design turned out to look even better than our final sketch, thanks to the help of my dad, and luckily we didn't run in to any major problems during the construction phase. It was a great project to showcase many of the skills that we had learned last year in Digital Electronics, and it was fun to work with my best friend on an interesting project. I don't have many future recommendations, other than maybe grade the brochure before the "dry-run" or provide the rubric (I don't think that it was provided) so that students can make those changes before the day prior to the final presentation. I think that it would also be beneficial to increase the amount of time given for the final presentation, because it was almost impossible for us to get our presentation under ten minutes, and we were talking as fast as we could while still maintaining a conversational tone.
I'm comfortable with the outcome of our product, although I feel as if it is very simple and perhaps we could have made some more improvements to our design. Thinking about it now, it seems pretty feasible to make automatically locking doors, if we found the right kind of switch or some sort of button that could stick out behind each sliding door, holding it in place when needed. We had good time management, and pretty good communication. Josh and I worked well as a team for the most part, but I prefer to be in control and get tasks done thoroughly and ahead of time, while Josh likes to procrastinate sometimes. We were able to finish lots of parts a few days ahead of time, which was good. Our design turned out to look even better than our final sketch, thanks to the help of my dad, and luckily we didn't run in to any major problems during the construction phase. It was a great project to showcase many of the skills that we had learned last year in Digital Electronics, and it was fun to work with my best friend on an interesting project. I don't have many future recommendations, other than maybe grade the brochure before the "dry-run" or provide the rubric (I don't think that it was provided) so that students can make those changes before the day prior to the final presentation. I think that it would also be beneficial to increase the amount of time given for the final presentation, because it was almost impossible for us to get our presentation under ten minutes, and we were talking as fast as we could while still maintaining a conversational tone.
Josh's Reflection:
This whole project was an awesome and very informational experience that I really enjoyed. Seeing a design that Silas and I drafted and worked on for 2 and a half months come to real life is one of the best feelings ever. I really enjoyed working with my partner Silas during this project. He is a very hard worker and has the ability to take on any challenge that stands in his way. Another cool part of this project was being able to use the Gantt chart that we had drafted in the beginning to keep track of our time and progress of the project. It was the first time that I had completed any type of project to a strict schedule that was made by myself. Throughout this project, there were plenteous opportunities to learn new things. One of the new things that l learned is the concept of getting things done the second you have time. I have always been the type to save things for later when I think I will have time, when in reality, I had time right at that moment. During this project I have learned to get what I need to do done so I do not have to worry about extra tasks later. I also thought it was really cool that we were able to have an advisor for our project that was a NASA engineer who was able to give Silas and I extremely helpful ideas and advise. Overall, this project was amazing, and I would 10/10 do it all over again.
This whole project was an awesome and very informational experience that I really enjoyed. Seeing a design that Silas and I drafted and worked on for 2 and a half months come to real life is one of the best feelings ever. I really enjoyed working with my partner Silas during this project. He is a very hard worker and has the ability to take on any challenge that stands in his way. Another cool part of this project was being able to use the Gantt chart that we had drafted in the beginning to keep track of our time and progress of the project. It was the first time that I had completed any type of project to a strict schedule that was made by myself. Throughout this project, there were plenteous opportunities to learn new things. One of the new things that l learned is the concept of getting things done the second you have time. I have always been the type to save things for later when I think I will have time, when in reality, I had time right at that moment. During this project I have learned to get what I need to do done so I do not have to worry about extra tasks later. I also thought it was really cool that we were able to have an advisor for our project that was a NASA engineer who was able to give Silas and I extremely helpful ideas and advise. Overall, this project was amazing, and I would 10/10 do it all over again.