1. Team P08404: Solar Pasteurizer Concept / System Design Review
Review Date: 1/25/2008
Team Members:
Ben Johns (ME)
Adam Yeager (ME)
Brian T Moses (ME)
Seby Kottackal (ME)
Greg Tauer (ISE)
Faculty Guide:
Dr. Stevens

2. Discussion Content Project definition Functional Diagram
General overview
Team Roles
Customer Needs
Engineering specs
Functional Diagram
Subsystem Selection
Concept Selection
System Architecture
Modeling
High Risk Technologies/Feasability
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

3. Project Background
Daily 5000 children are dying from diahorreal diseases directly related to lack of poor drinking water quality (Who Water for Life). It is this team’s goal to design a working prototype that can safely pasteurized water in a developing country.
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

4. Project Background Continued
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

5. Team Roles
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

6. Customer Needs End User Oriented Needs: EPA Oriented Needs: 1/25/2008
Safely pasteurize enough H20 for one typical family in a tropical climate.
Cheap
To maintain: Must be affordable to upkeep for typical family of interest.
To produce: Unit must be cheap enough to get into hands of customer.
To use: Should have no consumables – no direct cost to run.
Easy to
Use: Customer will likely have limited educational background, may be illiterate, and probably won’t know English.
Assemble: If possible, end customer should be able to set up unit themselves.
Maintain: Again, should be serviceable by end customer.
Safe: Device must not pose direct health risk to end user (no sharp edges, hot surfaces, excessive glare, etc.)
Durability: Device should last a significant amount of time
EPA Oriented Needs:
Environmentally Friendly: Should be made of materials and employ processes that will not be harmful to the environment.
Distributable: Should be easy to get into end user’s hands.
Tamper Resistant: Should resist undesired repurposing.
Solar: Must be powered by solar energy, per project guidelines.
Need
Importance
Safely Pasteurize Enough Water 9
Cheap
Easy to Use 3
Easy to Assemble
Easy to Maintain
Safe
Environmentally Friendly
Distributable
Resistant to Unintended Uses 1
Solar Powered
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

7. Engineering Specs
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

8. Functional Diagram
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

9. Subsystem Concept Pugh
Collector Concepts A B C D
(reference)
Segment
First Gen
Serpentine Flat Plate
Black Coil
Evac Tube
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Notes
Wtd
Thermal Efficiency
35% 3 -
1.05 4
1.40 2
0.70 5
Material Cost
25%
1.00
0.75
1.25 1
Reliability
30%
0.90
1.20
0.60
Maintenance
10%
0.30
0.40
Total Score
3.25
3.75
2.85
2.80
Rank
Continue? No
Yes
Heat Exchanger Concepts A B C D
(reference)
Segment
First Gen
Coiled tube in tube
Braided Tube
Straight tube in tube
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Notes
Wtd
Thermal Efficiency
50% 4 -
2.00 5
2.50 2
1.00 1
Material Cost
40% 3
1.20
Maintenance
10%
0.20
0.30
Total Score
3.20
3.70
3.00
2.10
Rank
Continue? No
Yes
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

10. Subsystem Concept Pugh Cont.
Flow Control Concepts A B C D E
(Previous Design)
Automotive Thermostat
Multiple Thermostats
Manual valve
Electronic on/off
Density Driven
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Notes
Wtd
Reliability
35% 2 -
0.70 3
1.05 1
(If operated correctly)
0.35
Ease Of Use
15% 5
No Interface
0.75
Constant Attention
0.15
Cost
25%
1.25
Must be Overcom
0.25
Maintenance 4
0.60
Warm-Up Delay
10%
0.20
0.30
0.40
Total Score
3.50
3.35
2.20
2.50
2.65
Rank
Continue?
Yes No
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review
Multiple Thermostats
Density Driven
Thermostat Valve in custom enclosure

11. Concept Selection B A C E D
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

12. Full Concept Pugh D B 1/25/2008 P08404 System ReviewA B C D E F
SPIHX (Previous Design)
Serpentine Flow, Convective loop Circulation, Coiled Tube in Tube HX, Upstream Temp Regulation
Parabolic Reflector, Evac tube collector, Tube in Tube HX, Automotive Thermostat
Serpentine Flat Plate, Tube in Tube HX, Automotive Thermostat
Coiled Tube, Braided HX, Automotive Thermostat
Batched Bottles
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Notes
Wtd
Thermal Efficiency
40% 3
1.20 4
1.60 5
2.00 2
0.80 1
0.40
Cost
30%
0.30
1.50
Ease of Use
10%
0.10
Safety
15%
0.60
0.75
Maintenance 5%
0.15
0.20
0.05
Total Score
3.50
3.95
3.10
3.60
3.40
2.80
Rank 6
Continue? No
Yes B D
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

13. System Architecture
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

14. Modeling
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review

15. High Risk Technologies
1/25/2008
P08404 System Review