1. Low Energy Printing Week 3 Overview Project Lead: Joshua Jones - ME Team Members: Whitney Domigan - ME Jenna Kilroy - ISE Andrzej Lubaszka - EE

2. Agenda Review: –Quality Function Deployment (QFD): Engineering Metrics Technical Targets Benchmarking Discuss: –Pareto Analysis: Customer Requirements Engineering Metrics –Current Concepts Generated

3. Quality Function Deployment Customer Requirements and Engineering Metrics Relationship Matrix

4. Quality Function Deployment Engineering Metrics and Technical Targets

5. Quality Function Deployment Benchmarking – Customer Requirements Customer Requirements Paper is not damage High quality image (Xerox quality) Image has a low gloss Fit into current Xerox Workcentre 245/55 Pro Use pressure only to fuse toner to paper Accept paper in orientation it currently enters fuser (SHF / LHF) Compatible with other Xerox models (preferred color printer of same size) Sub-system cost less then current system Easy of manufacturing User must be able to safely clear jam in fuser Low Energy - non-thermal Technology can be used up and down along Xerox stream Fuser last life of product (roughly 3 million prints) at least 100,000 prints Standard office grade paper (20/24 pound paper) Customer Perception 1 Worse 234 5 Better Ab Ab N/A Ab N/A Ab Ab N/A Ab A: Two Roller Cold Pressure System (Patent 4,372,247) b: Three Roller Cold Pressure System (Patent: 4,444,486)

6. Quality Function Deployment Benchmarking – Engineering Metrics Technical Benchmarking Engineering Metrics Better 5 432 Worse 1 Paper Curl bA Paper Damage bA Change in Paper Thickness bA Cost Ab Adhesion of Toner to Paper Ab Cohesion of Toner to Toner Ab Speed of ProcessN/A Amount of Smearing Ab Heat Produced by Process Ab Uniform Half Tone Ab Reflectivity bA Length of System Ab Width of System Ab Height of System Ab Weight of System Ab Utility Cost Incurred by Customer Ab Size of Paper Accepted by System Ab Number of Parts Ab Ability to Release Pressure bA Accident Incidences bA # of Prints Before Failure Ab Durability of Fix bA Compatibility w/Xerox Manu. Proc.N/A A: Two Roller Cold Pressure System (Patent 4,372,247) b: Three Roller Cold Pressure System (Patent: 4,444,486)

7. Pareto Analysis Customer Requirements Customer Requirements CRWeightCumm. % Paper is not damage914.06% Use pressure only to fuse toner to paper928.13% User must be able to safely clear jam in fuser942.19% Low Energy - non-thermal956.25% Standard office grade paper (20/24 pound paper)970.31% High quality image (Xerox quality)375.00% Fit into current Xerox Workcentre 245/55 Pro379.69% Accept paper in orientation it currently enters fuser (SHF / LHF)384.38% Sub-system cost less then current system389.06% Easy of manufacturing393.75% Image has a low gloss195.31% Compatible with other Xerox models (preferred color printer of same size)196.88% Technology can be used up and down along Xerox stream198.44% Fuser last life of product (roughly 3 million prints) at least 100,000 prints1100.00%

8. Pareto Analysis Customer Requirements

9. Pareto Analysis Engineering Metrics Engineering Metrics EMWeightCumm. % Speed of Process35310.07% Change in Paper Thickness27317.86% Paper Curl22924.39% Paper Damage22930.93% Size of Paper Accepted by System22137.23% Durability of Fix21943.48% Heat Produced by Process20049.19% Amount of Smearing19554.75% Ability to Release Pressure19260.23% Reflectivity17165.11% Adhesion of Toner to Paper15369.47% Uniform Half Tone14773.67% Length of System14777.86% Cohesion of Toner to Toner14481.97% # of Prints Before Failure13885.91% Utility Cost Incurred by Customer11189.07% Accident Incidences8191.38% Height of System7893.61% Number of Parts6495.44% Cost5597.00% Width of System5198.46% Weight of System4199.63% Compatibility w/Xerox Manu. Proc.13100.00%

10. Pareto Analysis Engineering Metrics

11. Research Technologies Concept Generation Problem: Fuse tone to paper w/out heat or damage to paper Determine Customer Requirements Establish Engineering Metrics Concept Development

12. Concept Generation Pugh Matrix –16 Preliminary Concept Drawings –13 Design Criteria Number of Parts Size Uniformity of Pressure Availability of Technology/Information Height Speed Complexity of Design Ease of Achieving Required Pressure Reliability Potential to Damage Paper Power Consumption Potential to Smear Ability to Adjust to Various Paper Sizes

13. Project Plan Updated MS Project Plan

14. Week 3 Summary Week 3 Accomplishments: –Finalized Engineering Metrics –Finalized Technical Targets –Generated Rough Concept Sketches –Updated Project Plan Week 4 Challenges: –Analyses of designs –Concept Selection Strategy

15. Questions