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

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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Brainstorming
X-Feet
Box and Pole
Submerged Feet
Walker

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

15. 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.

16. Final Model
Features:
PVC frame
PVC and foam for floatation

17. 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

18. Project Management – Gantt Chart

19. References
-(2017), “Regulations, Laws, and Standards,” United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.
-Sevenster, A. (2017), “PVC: Specific Gravity (Density)”
-(2017), “The Home Depot”
- principle.html

20. Questions?