1. Treasure Escape Engineering Design 100 Section 008 Team 2 Joe Grant, Mike Durlofsky, Dipanshu Maheshwari, Matt Yohe

2. Table of Contents (3-8) - Design Task Description (9-10) - Design Approach (11) - Evaluation (12-14) - Engineering Analysis (15) - Prototype/Model (16) - Summary & Conclusions (17) - Project Management (18) - Questions

3. A problem statement and stakeholder assessment were needed to describe the problem. Problem Statement: We must design and market a product that, under a time constraint, can sort and transfer materials on water. Stakeholder Assessments: A fun and marketable game that is safe and works near and in pools. The game is recommended for kids ages 7-11.

4. Fig. 1 - Objective Tree The objective tree helps us see what qualities need to be exhibited in our product.

5. The functionality, constraints, and user requirements were important in defining the problem space. Constraints Cost under $40 Size Portability Durability Safety Functionality Store and sort various types of balls. Successfully transport goods on water. User Requirements Fun Safe Durability Cost (low) Table 1 - Problem Space

6. Durability, portability, entertainment, competition, and user friendliness were ranked in importance by stakeholders in a survey. Table 2 - Survey Results User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 User 7TotalPercentage Durability34434352617.9% Portability44255442819.3% Entertainment44555553322.8% Competition44543542920.0% User friendly44543542920.0% Total145 Graph 1 - Survey Results

7. The importance of the previous stakeholder needs were compared using a pairwise comparison. Table 3 - Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Comparison ABCDETotal Row total/ Total A1.000.930.790.90 4.510.18 B1.081.000.850.97 4.860.19 C1.271.081.001.14 5.620.22 D1.121.040.881.00 5.030.20 E1.121.040.881.00 5.030.20 Total25.05 ADurability BPortability CEntertainment DCompetition EUser friendly

8. Our specifications were interpretations of the stakeholder requirements. Specifications Stakeholder RequirementsOur interpretation Size(1*1*3) ft Portabilityweight< 5lb Durabilitywithstand a weight of 110 lb and last for 5 years Cost<=$40 SafetyAge > 7 shouldn’t get injured Sorting capabilities 6 tennis balls 6 racquetballs 10 golf balls 12 ping pong balls 4 large marbles 20 small marbles Good storageUpto 58 balls Table 4 - Specs

9. Many designs and concepts were brainstormed. Joe’s Design Mike’s Design Fig. 2 - Mike’s Brainstorm Fig. 3 - Joe’s Brainstorm

10. Many designs and concepts were brainstormed. Matt’s Design Dip’s Design Fig. 4 - Matt’s Brainstorm Fig. 5 - Dip’s Brainstorm

11. The ideas were compared against each other in order to pick the most feasible design. Table 5 - Design Matrix

12. Calculations were needed in order to determine the time it would take for the balls to be sorted. CALCULATIONS https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tc_S7UxC_kH26dPUDpwxC3_2hVSa4eXJ cUJOSqP1he4/edit

13. Our design is a system containing subsystems. Fig. 6 - CAD System Fig. 7 - CAD Subsystem

14. A bill of materials for the most feasible design was created with a $40 budget in mind. COST ANALYSIS 6 cardboard boxes at $2.50 a piece = $15.00 Drawstring bag at $1.00 Duct tape at $2.00 58 assorted balls at $22.00 Total -> $40.00

15. The most feasible design became the prototype. Fig. 8 - Front View Fig. 9 - Front View AngledFig. 10 - Top View

16. Our device successfully sorts different sized balls and allows for the game to be played. *Demonstration of sorter*

17. Our project was managed with a Gantt chart. Table 6 - Gantt Chart

18. Questions?