The Fred Flintstone Walker Brady Sawyer Matt Bordas Mac Dominick Eddie Issertell Team 3 - EDSGN 100 - Section 019

Table of Contents -Description of the design task -Design process/approach -Evaluation -Engineering Analysis -Prototype/Model

Fulfill all the customer needs, while concurrently making a profit. Opportunity: Develop a business around a product that allows someone to walk on water. Goal: Fulfill all the customer needs, while concurrently making a profit. Stakeholders Specifications Brainstorming

Product Safety Commission Stakeholders Natatorium Customers Group Members Natatorium Angel Investors U.S. CPSC Group Members Angel Investors Project Space Customers Product Safety Commission

Specifications 1 2 3 4 How old are you? What gender are you? Would you buy a “walk-on-water” product? 1 2 3 4

What the customer wants The customer wants a product that is safe, portable, durable, and affordable. What the customer wants Specification Safety Able bodied individuals will be able to use the product without significant tipping or drowning risks. Portable Device breaks down and fits together to save space Durable Made of material that does not break or deform easily and can withstand excessive use. Low Price Not exceeding $100 to produce and $125 retail price Easy maintenance Can be cleaned with a garden hose and assembled and disassembled in minutes Easy to operate Stable platform that doesn't require skill or great balance to operate

In the brainstorming process, we developed about 8 ideas, 4 of which we drew as rough sketches. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Submerged Feet X-Feet Walker Box and Pole Feasibility Matrix

Brainstorming X-Feet Box and Pole Submerged Feet Walker

After careful evaluation, we chose Mac’s walker as the prototype we would design. A (Submerged Feet) B (X Feet) C (Walker) D (Box/Pole) Safety + Easy to Operate - Cost Durable Portable 3 4 1 2 Net Rank Continue? Yes No

After careful evaluation, we chose Mac’s Walker as the prototype we would design. Criteria Weight Rating Weighted Score Score Safety 28% 2 .56 4 1.12 Easy to Operate 44% 3 1.32 Cost Effective 20% .6 Durable 8% .24 2.72 3.28 Rank 1 Continue No Yes

We used the equation Fb = ⍴gV to calculate the buoyant force of our design Fb = buoyant force ⍴ = density of fluid = 1000 kg/m3 g = gravitational constant = 9.18 m/s2 V =volume of water displaced

Engineering Analysis Leg Power: Faster legs= Faster times Webbed Feet: Walk on Water Device Engineering Analysis Propulsion Floatation Leg Power: Faster legs= Faster times Webbed Feet: Increased surface area of foot PVC Pontoons: Provided stability Polyethylene Foam: Provided Buoyancy Leg Power Webbed (socked) Feet PVC Pontoons Polyethylene Foam Bill of Materials

Initial Prototype Problems: Walker did not provide enough flotation Very unstable Shoes didn't provide enough flotation

Initial Prototype Problems: Walker did not provide enough flotation Very unstable Shoes did not provide enough flotation

Second Trial Initial prototype was not buoyant enough. We made the shoes and walker more buoyant, but failed to recognize that our new model would not have sufficient propulsion.

Final Model Features: PVC frame PVC and foam for floatation

Summary and Conclusion Things that will be improved: Better propulsion system Easier assembly/disassembly More portable Things that Went Well: We could move across the pool Easy to mount from in the water Stable Stayed on budget for final design Final Consumer Design: All pvc wrapped in foam Different connectors that allow it to be broken down Add a seat

Project Management – Gantt Chart

References -(2017), “Regulations, Laws, and Standards,” United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. -Sevenster, A. (2017), “PVC: Specific Gravity (Density)” -(2017), “The Home Depot” -http://study.com/academy/lesson/buoyancy-calculating-force-and-density-with-archimedes- principle.html

Questions?