1 / 15

Selection Analysis Presentation

Selection Analysis Presentation. ME 4182 Team: 5 Guys Engineering + 1 Nathan Bessette, Rahul Bhatia, Andrew Cass, Zeeshan Saiyed, Glen Stewart YJ Chok. Automatic White Board Wiper. Last Time Presented conceptual designs Brief descriptions Sketches Pros and cons

dafydd
Télécharger la présentation

Selection Analysis Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Selection Analysis Presentation ME 4182 Team: 5 Guys Engineering + 1 Nathan Bessette, Rahul Bhatia, Andrew Cass, Zeeshan Saiyed, Glen Stewart YJ Chok

  2. Automatic White Board Wiper • Last Time • Presented conceptual designs • Brief descriptions • Sketches • Pros and cons • Received criticism of our conceptual designs • Went back and reworked conceptual designs • Conducted calculations on board/ eraser friction

  3. Feasibility Testing

  4. Calculations Using the situation with the heavy writing 2” 5” For 9.6 erasers to span the height of the board For 4.8 erasers to span half the height of the board

  5. Magnetic Whiteboard Cleaning System • Pros • No bulky apparatus present in front of board, most of system present behind whiteboard • Eraser could be used manually for selective cleaning by user • Cons • Requires invasive installation, may cause whiteboard to protrude from wall • May require lengthy time to completely erase board due to small eraser size • Points of interest • Uses electro magnets combined with rails to create vertical and horizontal motion • All moving parts except for the eraser are placed behind the board

  6. Multiple Wiper System • Pros • Multiple wipers divide board into quadrants • Multiple wipers do the work so wipers do not get dirty as fast • Motors are mounted behind board to provide a low profile • Cons • Multiple motors raises cost • Controls needed to coordinate quadrant cleaning • Motor replacement would be intrusive

  7. Scissor Spring Board Eraser • Pros • Easy eraser replacement • High force applied to board • Cons • Requires maintenance • Intrusive, occupies 3-D space • Multiple motors • Points of interest • Allows for even erasing • Five points of contact for less required pressure This particular design concept utilizes a horizontal felt bar with 3 spring arms attached to the bottom and 2 spring arms originating from the top, affixed to the front plate of the eraser mechanism. The AC-powered controller will drive 2 motors, on top and bottom, propelling a belt to index to the next quarter section. The device will return to position to the left of the board real estate when not in use.

  8. Dual Swipe Cleaning System • Pros • Low profile design • Relatively fast erasing time • Low surface area of eraser leads to low friction force • Does not require custom parts • Cons • Takes up space on 3 sides of the board • Employs long chains to drive cleaning apparatus • Points of interest • Uses combination of chain drives and rails to drive main arm across board • Eraser has vertical movement and is as long as half the height of the board

  9. Other Designs Considered Roller Wiper Zen Buffer

  10. Selection Criteria • Cleanliness/ Effectiveness • Complexity • Cost • Consistency • Safety • Size • Speed • User Effort

  11. Weighting • Weighted on a 1-5 scale (5 being the most important) • Cleanliness/ Effectiveness [5] • Complexity [3] • Cost [2] • Consistency [4] • Safety [3] • Size [4] • Speed [5] • User Effort [3]

  12. Baseline

  13. Evaluation Matrix

  14. Findings • Weights were multiplied by raw scores to get total scores • Total scores were summed and normalized • Baseline hand wiper had a normalized score of 0.76 • Dual slide design had a normalized score of 1.0 • Roller wiper had a close normalized score of 0.89

  15. Automatic White Board Wiper • Next Time: • Midterm Presentation • Who we are and what we are doing • Summarize work done so far • Graphical aids • Mockup

More Related