1
Abstract
The team was given the task of producing an educational toy with a positive
environmental impact. This report lays out the design process that the team followed in order to
arrive at the final design. It gives a detailed explanation of the problem, the objectives and
constraints associated with the problem, and a detailed analysis of the functions that were
necessary to meet those objectives and constraints, followed by a breakdown of possible means
to achieve those functions. This report describes the team’s choice for design alternatives and the
testing that followed each alternative. It explains the strengths and weaknesses of each design
alternative as well as the different iterations of each alternative before a final product was
produced. The final prototype is a one dimensional customizeable magnetic rocket. The base will
be made from recycled/recyclable materials and the magnets to be used will have the least
possible damaging effect on the environment. Testing of the chosen prototype was done by
having children of ages 5-8 play with the toy and having them answer a small survey to gauge
their interest. The report concludes with the team’s results and conclusions based on testing and
feedback as well as detailed recommendations for improvement of the design. The
recommendations will include the use of only recycled and recyclable material, the inclusion of
an explanation of the magnetic forces at work, and packaging that requires children to build their
own rocket from used bottles.
2
Table of Contents
1. Problem Statement 4
2. Introduction 5
3. Background 6
4. Methodology 8
5. Design Alternatives 12
6. Data Collection and Analysis 22
7. Cost Analysis 24
8. Recommendations 25
9. Discussion & Conclusion 26
10. References 27
11. Appendices 28
3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Objectives Tree 8
Figure 2: Design Alternative 1 - Hot Air Balloon Design 14
Figure 3: Prototype of Design Alternative 1 15 Figure 4: Design Alternative 2A - Solenoid HoverBoard Low Resolution Model 16
Figure 5: Prototype of Design Alternative 2A 17
Figure 6: Design Alternative 2B - Grid Board Magnet Design 18
Figure 7: Prototype of Design Alternative 2B 19
Figure 8: Illustration of Design Alternative 3 - The Magnetic Flying Rocket 20
Figure 9: Prototype of Design Alternative 3 21
List of Tables
Table 1: Pairwise Comparison Chart 9
Table 2: Morph Chart 12
Table 3: Best of Class Chart 21
Table 4: Data and Responses 23
Table 5: Costs 24
4
Problem Statement
Original Problem Statement:
The toymaker client desires, “a toy that can be produced from recycled beverage containers.
Ideally the toy will have an educational aspect in addition to being ecologically beneficial and
could theoretically be producible with a few purpose designed parts in addition to the recycled
materials. Educational or building toys are an especially interesting market. More generally, skill
based learning toys are of interest.
● Implied Solutions
○ “Produced from recycled beverage containers” can be reworded as “produced
from recycled material”
● Errors
○ “Producible with a few purpose designed parts in addition to the recycled
materials” and “educational aspect” are very vague concepts that need to be
narrowed down. In addition, the former is redundant since environmentally
friendly components are already mentioned earlier.
● Bias
○ “Skill based learning toys are of interest” is a bias towards a specific solution that
could be an objective or a constraint but not explicitly written in the problem
statement
Revised Problem Statement:
The client desires an engaging toy that can be produced at least partially from recycled material.
Ideally the toy will have some positive educational and environmental impact.
5
Introduction
Over centuries, humans have found ways to spend their extra time by developing toys.
Toy industry has grown ever since, and people started designing toys targeting specific users.
Nowadays, most of the toys are made for children. The toy market has been growing
exponentially, and the parents are searching for toys that is not only enjoyable for kids but also
be potentially beneficial. These toys are called educational toys, and “[a] truly educational toy
should promote some type of emotional, intellectual or physical development while being fun
and entertaining for the child. Some may be used to teach a child about a specific subject or skill,
while others provide all around cognitive developmental value,” as stated in an article by Ezvid.
Environmentally sustainable or environmentally friendly design is also becoming a huge
trend in any design market. As the related issues continue to impact our lives, environmental
sustainability has become one of the crucial and main objectives in the engineering design
process. Also, in accordance to ethical consumerism, people have increased their demands for
products that have a positive impact in the environmental sustainability.
The goal of this project is to combine these two concepts and ultimately design an
educational toy that has a positive impact in the environment. Our client desires an engaging toy
that can be produced at least partially from recycled material, and our team has decided that the
ideal toy will have some positive educational and environmental impact.
6
Background
The team performed preliminary research to gain a sense of the context in which to frame
the toy ideas which would follow, to better understand the market of interest, and to explore past
efforts regarding the topic. To this end, the team focused its research on the process of recycling,
toy safety, ways to make an educational and interesting toy, materials that are in need of
recycling or are easily recycled, and companies that have developed toys with positive
environmental impacts. Each one of these topics would allow the team to better understand how
to approach the problem given.
The team found that there are over a dozen materials, some as common as plastic bottles
or cans, that could be used to develop inexpensive toys while serving as a positive impact to the
environment. Furthermore, an article in The Guardian regarding recycling of materials
mentioned that recycling of organic materials is much safer so alternatives of this type could be
explored by the team.
Regarding toy safety, the team looked at some of the guidelines of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act and found that a “children’s toy” is deemed any toy that is intended for
the use by a child that is 12 years old or under. This allowed the team to narrow down the age
group for the toy ideas the team would be developing and to determine some factors that would
be universally intended as part of the design (such as no sharp edges or choking hazards).
In order to get a better sense of how the toy market works, the team researched ways to
make a toy both interesting/fun/engaging and also be educational. The team found that there are
many different kinds of educational toys and that for the design process the team would need to
narrow down these alternatives to a few reasonable and feasible choices. The team also found
7
that a truly educational toy would be one that entertains the child while furthering their
development in some way, as well as motivating the child to learn and grow in new ways. This
will be an important aspect of the design process for our team.
Lastly, the team researched companies and individuals that have previously made efforts
to create environmentally friendly toys. The team found that there are a few companies that have
adopted this approach to making toys and observed the vastly different approaches that each
company would take, including the materials used, in order to achieve this goal. For example,
Luke’s Toy Factory, a startup company in the United States develops toy trucks made from
recycled sawdust. Green Toys, on the other hand, uses recycled plastic milk bottles in their toys
and has many different toy design for children.
The research conducted by the team served as the basis for the brainstorming stage that
followed in order to narrow down the educational toy designs to a few possible alternatives to be
considered.
8
Methodology
After receiving the problem statement and consulting with the client, the team set out to
more specifically and effectively define the problem and narrow the scope of this project. This
initial task was achieved by defining functions and constraints, creating an objective tree, a
pairwise comparison chart to rank objectives, and a morph chart to brainstorm means for each
function.
To determine the objectives, the team created an objectives tree based on the problem
statement and our meeting with the client. The objectives tree is shown here:
Figure 1: Objectives Tree
The objectives tree in Figure 1 helped determine the list of unranked objectives. Our unranked
list of objectives is:
● Be creative ● Be low-cost ● Be environmentally friendly ● Be reusable and durable
9
● Be easy to operate ● Be safe
From here, the team created a pairwise comparison chart to rank the objectives and to focus our
problem:
Creative Low-Cost Environmentally
friendly Easy to operate
Reusable
Safe TOTAL
Creative - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low-Cost 1 - 0 0 0 0 1
Environmentally friendly
1 1 - 1 1 1 5
Easy to operate 1 1 0 - 0 0 2
Reusable 1 1 0 1 - 0 3
Safe 1 1 0 1 1 - 4
Table 1: Pairwise Comparison Chart
So from Table 2, the team could rank the objective as the following:
1. Be environmentally friendly
2. Be safe
3. Be reusable
4. Be easy to operate
5. Be low-cost
6. Be creative
In order to evaluate each of the objectives, the team came up with some metrics for each
objective. Environmental friendliness was measured by comparing the carbon footprint of the
materials used in each of the design alternative. Safety was measured qualitatively, by listing all
of the causes of danger from each of the design alternative and comparing how dangerous it
10
would be for the children. Reusability was measured by comparing the sturdiness of each design,
by questioning how easily the product would break and how easy would it be for either the
children or the parent to fix. The ease to operate was measured by counting the number of parts
for each design alternative to figure out how intuitive for the child the product would be with
such number of parts (with less number of parts, it would be easier for the child to manipulate
the product). Low-cost was measured by comparing the cost of materials used in the process of
developing the product, and creativity was measured by asking the children through survey
whether they have ever encountered a product with similar ideas before.
The team then defined the constraints. Since the problem statement was very broad, the
team set some of these constraints based on the vision the team had for the final design. From the
problem statement, the meeting with the client and the instructors’ directions, the team listed
these constraints:
● The toy must have an educational component. In addition to engaging children, the toy
must teach them something important. The team has focused on a more scientific
educational approach, mainly on concepts from physics, such as magnetism and
resonance.
● The toy must be environmentally friendly. The environmentally friendly aspect of the
design could come from the material the team use to build the toy or can come from
educating children about the environment.
● The toy must be awesome. The toy must elicit a “wow” effect. It should be capable of
being featured on a viral video on the internet.
● The budget for materials for prototypes was $125.
11
The constraints that the team defined for ourselves to narrow the scope of the problem are:
● The target age group is 7-12 years old. The team felt that typical toys marketed towards
this age group fulfill the “awesome” constraint that was important to the client.
● The toy must be made out of some sort of recyclable or biodegradable material. The team
aimed to fulfill the environmentally friendly constraint in this way.
Next, the team defined the functions that the product must serve. The team decided to keep these
functions broad so that they would not be limited when brainstorming design alternatives. The
functions are:
● Educate Children. The aim is to educate children mainly about physics and other
scientific concepts.
● Engage Children. The toy should provide some surprising effect that draws children in
and serves as a platform for them to ask questions.
● Moves independently. The toy should have some range of independent motion yet be
controllable by the user.
12
Design Alternatives
The definition of the functions, objectives, and constraints allowed the team to develop
some means through which the functions would be achieved. The team developed a morph chart
(Figure 1) in which means for each of the functions were brainstormed and ranked according to
their feasibility and ability to meet the function.
Functions Means 1 Means 2 Means 3 Means 4 Means 5 Means 6
Engage Children
Counterintuitive motion
Shock factor
Interactive mechanism
Continued independent motion
Strong colors
Lights
Educate Children
Electricity Magnetism Eco-Friendly Importance of recycling
Center of Mass
Spring Mechanism
Moves independently
Circuit Opposing magnetic rail
Powered by hot air
Weight distribution
Motor Spring
Table 2: Morph Chart
The team arrived at design alternatives by firstly eliminating educational toy groups that
had previously been brainstormed near the beginning of the design process. The team had
narrowed the wide range of solutions to the revised problem statement by creating four groups of
toys that could be educational. The groups were center of mass toys, spring toys, balloon toys,
and electromagnetic toys. The team concluded that center of mass toys and spring toys did not
have that same ‘wow’ factor that say a balloon and certain electromagnetic toys have. Since
engaging children is one of the main functions of our toy design the team decided balloon toys
13
and electromagnetic toys would not only engage a young crowd of toy enthusiasts but also make
them wonder why the toys functions.
The two designs encompassed one of the most important functions which is to engage
children, since they both are comprised of uncommon physical phenomena such as buoyancy and
electromagnetic induction. For the mini hot air balloon the design team took inspiration from
current chinese lanterns, which have a wax board inside of the lantern, which heats up the inside
air making it less dense and allowing for flight. Instead of a wax board the team planned on
heating out hot air balloon using thermofoil (Figure 2). Along with this preliminary design the
design team had a miniature hoverboard design, which took inspiration from miniature
skateboards that can be played with a miniature half-pipe and one’s own hands. The hoverboard
design would use electricity in a circuit to develop a magnetic field inside of a cylindrical
solenoid, which creates a unidirectional field, allowing a finger-sized board with magnets
attached to it to “hover” inside of the solenoid by magnetic repulsion (Figure 4).
14
Figure 2: Design Alternative 1 - Hot Air Balloon Design
Firstly the team began by testing the miniature hot air balloon design as you can see in
Figure 2. To do this the team first took a regular sized chinese lantern and cut it down into
smaller dimensions. The dimensions of the original lantern were a roughly those of a rectangular
prism that was 24” x 30” x 25”. The scaled down version was reduced by a factor of 6. The
dimensions of this prototype were 4” x 5” x 7”, with the base being 4” x 5” (Figure 3). After this
the team had success in producing lift in the miniature hot-air balloon design, however the team
came to the conclusion that a large amount of heat in the center of the balloon was required.
Using a formula used to calculate the temperature required to lift a certain load in a hot air
balloon the team estimated that the temperature of the air inside the balloon must reach
approximately a temperature of 170 degrees Celsius. Using a flame this is not a problem since a
flame could easily reach these temperatures. However since safety of our product is one of our
15
main concerns and our target age group is young the team felt having a product that requires
such a high temperature for lift would have been irresponsible. Thus although the idea was fun
and engaging for children the likelihood of it functioning as a toy marketed at younger children
is diminished by the safety concerns that arose.
Figure 3: Prototype of Design Alternative 1
16
Figure 4: Design Alternative 2A - Solenoid HoverBoard Low Resolution Model
The team then began testing the second design alternative, the mini hoverboard. The idea
was to recreate the half-pipe illusion with a solenoid with a diameter of about 8 inches and a
height of about 2 inches as you can see on the top two illustrations on Figure 4. Also seen on
Figure 4, the board would then have magnets inside of it allowing it to float via magnetic
repulsion. The concept of course worked on a smaller scale with a solenoid with a 1 inch
17
diameter, however the idea would not flesh out into a bigger scale solenoid. This is because the
magnetic field of a larger solenoid was much weaker due to it’s larger size and the magnetic field
dying off as an inverse squared proportionality with distance (Figure 5). In fact the team found
that in order to produce a large enough magnetic field to produce sufficient lift of the hoverboard
through electromagnetic induction of a solenoid the team would require more than 100 Amperes
of current! Shocking indeed considering the fact that 0.1 Amperes is enough to stop one’s heart.
Thus, although the idea of teaching electromagnetic induction through a 8 inch solenoid
half-pipe is an interesting and fun concept, safety concerns once again had us rethinking our
design.
Figure 5: Prototype of Design Alternative 2A
Of course this high current was preventable if the team could create lift for our
hoverboard through other means. Using a morph chart the team came up with other means of
creating lift without such a high current. Ideas ranged from the use of more loops of wire, a large
magnetic base, and using diamagnetic materials. However the team realized that the wire is
expensive and thus increasing the number of loops to the thousand or so loops required would
18
end up increasing the price ten fold if not more. The team decided a ceramic ferromagnetic laced
base would create sufficient lift for the board. Therefore the team created a base with a 5 x 5
array of cylindrical magnets, roughly ½ inch in diameter and ⅕ inch height, to test our design
iteration. The 3D printed base with this configuration of magnets showed promise as repulsion
could be felt over the board, however the team realized that due to the large spacing between the
5 x 5 array (about 25mm between each magnet) the team had attraction in the spacing in between
the magnets because of the magnetic field lines converging in the opposite direction in these
regions.
Figure 6: Design Alternative 2B - Grid Board Magnet Design
Realizing this the team began a second iteration of the base with a much closer spacing
between the magnets (about 1-5mm) in a honeycomb arrangement, thus maximizing both the
space on the base and eliminating the effects of attraction above a certain height as seen in
Figure 6. This prototype had been successful at a smaller scale (Figure 7), however once
19
expanded to fill an entire base the team found attraction at a lower level of the base and not
uniform repulsion as was desired.
Figure 7: Prototype of Design Alternative 2B
In addition to changing the base of the design, the team discovered that rather than using
ferromagnetic repulsion, which is the concept of magnets that has been popularized as
“magnetism”, diamagnetism repulsion (design not shown), which is a property of materials that
have no unpaired electrons in their valence shell, may be a preferred property to use in our
design. The advantage of diamagnetism is materials with this property are repelled by both the
north AND the south poles of a magnet, thus eliminating the need to have an unidirectional field.
The problem with this design is that diamagnetic repulsion may not be as strong as ferromagnetic
repulsion. In addition, pyrolytic graphite is much more expensive than any of the other materials
the team have been using and may prove to be an inadequate source.
20
Figure 8: Illustration of Design Alternative 3 - The Magnetic Flying Rocket
As the areas of attraction could not be eliminated from the board, the team decided to
move from a two dimensional magnetic design to a one dimensional magnetic design. The final
prototype is a customizable magnetic rocket as seen in Figure 8. It includes a base attached to a
pole with two repelling magnets on the pole. Figure 9 shows the actual prototype that the team
built based on the illustration in Figure 8. The top magnet is attached to a rocket made from a
used water bottle. To launch the rocket, the rocket simply needs to be pulled down and released.
21
Figure 9: Prototype of Design Alternative 3
Design Alternative 1: Floating Lantern
Design Alternative 2: Hoverboard
Design Alternative 3: Floating/Flying rocket
Environmentally Friendly (0.30)
8 4 6
Safe (0.20) 3 5 6
Reusable (0.15) 5 8 9
Easy to Operate (0.125) 4 6 8
Low-Cost (0.113) 5 5 8
Creative (0.112) 6 9 9
Weighted Total 5.487 5.723 7.262
Table 3: Best of Class Chart
22
By evaluating the design alternatives through the Best-of-class, as seen in Table 3, the
team decided that Design Alternative 3: The Flying Magnetic Rocket would be the best design in
terms of meeting the objectives the team set out to meet.
Data Collection and Analysis
Since the team chose Design Alternative 3, the team decided to test the prototype out
with children. The team found a group of children and allowed them to test the toy out. From the
moment the children saw the toy they began to ask questions about what the toy does. The team
told them the basic concept of the magnetic rocket, and told them the objective was to get the
rocket to hit the moon (foam ball), and pretty soon the group of children were hitting the rocket
to get it to reach the foam ball. Even then, they continued playing with the toy until the moon fell
off. After having them play with the toy for around 10 mins then the team asked them some
questions in the form of a Survey . When asked to rank the toy on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being 1
really good) the children responded very positively, giving us scores ranging from 3 (the lowest)
to 1 trillion (albeit the team should take these high positive scores as 5’s) as you can see in Table
4.
1 Appendix C
23
Child & Gender
Rate this toy on a scale of 1-5:
How long do you think you could play with this toy before you get bored?
Is this something you would show your friends?
Have you seen a toy like this before?
#1 (Girl) 1 trillion “3 years” Maybe (“Because they don’t allow toys at my school”)
“Never in my whole life”
#2 (Boy) 1 trillion “1 year” Yes “Can’t really think of something”
#3 (Boy) 5 million “As long as I live” Definitely! “Never”
#4 (Boy) 3 “10 minutes” Yes “No”
Table 4: Data and Responses
After the Survey the children played with the toy extensively for about another 10-15
minutes before having to leave due to the program they were attending. Overall the team believes
that the children enjoyed the toy a great deal, however the sample size was far to small and only
encompassed an age group of 5 to 8 year olds. Therefore the team would recommend more
testing with a larger group and with a more diverse age group.
24
Cost Analysis
Cost Analysis was straightforward. Firstly the team simply added all of the material costs
of our Magnetic rocket prototype and found the cost that had been incurred when building the
prototype. Next the team used online sources and wholesale websites to estimate a wholesale
prices for the production of say one thousand toys.
Parts Prototype Design Cost Estimated Mass Production Cost
Neodymium magnets 2 x $7.84 = $15.68 2 x $6.00 = $12 $3.00±
Bamboo wood 7/12’ X 7/12’ base ½” thickness
Free Sample $1.58
Customizable stickers in the kit $13.49/30 = $0.45 $12.99/100 = $0.13
Plastic Water Bottle (8 fl. oz) $5.99/24 = $0.25 Free
Cardboard Boxes Free $20/907185 = $0.00
Foam Ball $10.00 $2.00
TOTAL $28.13 $15.71 $3.00±
Table 5: Costs
As you could see on Table 5, the price of our prototype was about $28.13 not including taxes. On
the right the team have the Estimated Mass Production Cost which the team estimates is between
$12.71 and $18.71. This large uncertainty largely stems from the type and size of magnet that
will be used in the final design. To minimize cost less expensive magnets could be used,
although a similar effect as seen in our prototype is not guaranteed. More testing with weaker or
smaller magnets can be done to see if a weaker magnetic repulsion might be sufficient.
25
Recommendations
Recommendations for this design include packaging the toy as a kit, the use of recycled
and recyclable materials in the design, and the inclusion of informative and engaging materials.
The toy should be packaged as a kit that allows the child to create his or her own rocket out of
used bottles and assemble the full toy. The kit will include detailed instructions on assembly,
which is inherently educational. The instructions will direct the child to customize his or her own
rocket, which targets and enhances the creativity of the child. The use of plastic bottles for the
rocket, the major feature of this product, will engage children in actively recycling and will
educate them about the importance of environmental awareness. The base and the pole included
in the kit should be composed of completely recycled and recyclable material. Materials that
would be appropriate for the design include bamboo wood, recycled magnets, and recycled
paper. The kit should include a detailed and engaging explanation of the magnetic forces at work
and possibly an environmental impact explanation. If these recommendations are received, the
toy should be an engaging, educational, and environmentally friendly product for children.
26
Discussion & Conclusion
After completion of the prototype, the team revisited the problem statement to check that
the final design was entertaining, educational and environmentally friendly as specified by the
problem statement. First, the team found that the toy is entertaining because it could be
manipulated and played with in many different ways. Its counterintuitive motion catches
people’s attention and engages them in the toy. By taking the design a little further by making it
a kit, the team made an attempt to make the toy design become customizable so that it could
become more interesting.
Second, the team’s final prototype is educational because it engages children to ask about
magnetism. The team recommends a thorough and engaging explanation of magnetism so that
these questions may be answered. The toy also creates a creative platform for children to actively
recycle, teaching them about the importance of environmentally friendly practices.
Lastly, the toy is environmentally friendly. The main environmentally friendly aspects of
the toy are the base and rail, which can be made from environmentally friendly materials, and the
educationally environmental aspect. While permanent magnets do have a negative impact on the
environment, the magnets used for the toy can be bought reused or recycled to minimize harm to
the environment.
The team is satisfied with the final design. The team believes that if the recommendations
are carried out, the toy can be maximally entertaining, educational, and environmentally friendly,
adhering to the problem statement and constraints.
27
References
“Magnetic Floating Rings Toy”. Officeplayground.com. Accessed 30 November, 2016. http://www.officeplayground.com/magnetic-floating-rings-toy-p219.html?gclid=CLPigo2G3tACFRBEfgodJDkCTg
Preeti Sehgal and Neha Singh . “Impact of Eco-Friendly Products on Consumer”. CBS E-Journal, Biz n Bytes, Vol. 6, Dec., 2010. ISSN 0976 – 0458. Accessed 30 November, 2016. http://www.cbsmohali.org/img/chapter6.pdf
“10 Best Educational Toys | December 2016”. Wiki.ezvid.com. Last updated: 8 December,
2016. https://wiki.ezvid.com/best-educational-toys?id=adw&gclid=CIblipayiNACFUlyfgodWzAMaQ
“Diamagnetic Levitation”. Radbound University. Accessed 20 November, 2016
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
“Hot Air Balloon Physics”. Real-world-physics-problems.com. Accessed 15 November, 2016 http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/hot-air-balloon-physics.html
Incredible Science. “Gyroscope Tricks and Physics Stunts”. Posted [29 December, 2012]. YouTube video, 1:52. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9zhP9Bnx-k
“Bamboo Flooring”. Builddirect.com. Accessed 30 November, 2016. https://www.builddirect.com/Bamboo-Flooring-Results?uid=071dcc1dea3f852d8cfe7add9314f09e&kwid=155544549&adid=36782352689&s_kwcid=AL!4652!3!155540432102!p!!g!!bamboo%20wood%20flooring&gclid=COqjgKyO5NACFQ13fgodn6sIxg&ef_id=VlQttwAAAFDd@KQV:20161208075052:s
Juerg. “Plastic bags and plastic bottles - CO2 emissions during their lifetime”. Timeforchange.org. Accessed. 5 December, 2016 http://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions
Dr. J.G. Vogtlander. “Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Sequestration of Bamboo products of
MOSO International”. Executive Summary. Deft University of Technology, 7 June, 2011. http://www.joostdevree.nl/bouwkunde2/jpgb/bamboe_43_lca_report_moso_products_tu_delft_www_moso-bamboe_nl.pdf
28
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Work Breakdown structure
1. Revised Problem Statement (Together) a. 11/05/16
2. Functions, Objectives, and Means (Together) - 11/05/16 a. Functions and Ranked Means Chart b. Objective Tree / Pairwise Comparison Chart c. Constraints
3. Design Alternatives (Split between us) - 11/08/16 a. Morph Chart b. Best of Class Chart
4. Prototyping (whoever is free) a. First Prototype - 11/16/16 b.
5. Testing / Data (whoever is free) 6. Iterations of prototypes (whoever is free) 7. Final Paper (split between us)
a. Rough Draft - 11/28/16 b. Final Draft - 12/8/16
8. Presentation (together, split between us) a. Done with presentation + prep - 12/3/16 b. Final prep - 12/6/16 c. 12/7/16
APPENDIX B: AGENDAS AND MINUTES
Agenda October 29, 2016
What the are we doing? Problem statement?-do we have one? Who is available for the meeting with toy guy?
29
What research do we have to do??? - Sounds simple but maybe we could think of polliing parents for safety concerns? Looking up studys done on toys/ toy safety. What exactly are common household items?- which ones are safe? We should set up a better schedule, maybe a calendar? MINUTES: Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting October 29, 2016, 4:00-4:45PM Minutes Agreement: Today’s meeting will be dedicated to preparation of questions for Tuesday’s meeting with client Topics: Budget Problem Statement really vague, need to clarify:
Type of recyclable container Size of toy wanted Would the toy come assembled or do we have the freedom to decide that?
Need to do more research on the topic for the meeting and write it in a google doc so we can ask the client. Decided on regular meeting times to be most convenient for everyone on: Tuesdays 4-5 Saturdays 4-5 New Action Items: Research Assignments (All due before November 1 meeting with client) Jose - Toy safety Dominique - Recyclable materials/recycling process Emily - Types of educational toys Ricardo - Companies making recyclable toys
======================================================================
Agenda November 1, 2016
30
1. Trash to Toys The toymaker client desires a toy that can be produced from recycled beverage containers. Ideally the toy will have an educational aspect in addition to being ecologically beneficial and could theoretically be producible with a few purpose designed parts in addition to the recycled materials. Educational or building toys are an especially interesting market. More generally, skill based learning toys are of interest. Questions:
1. Target age? 2. Budget? 3. What type of beverage container? 4. Size of toy? 5. What does it mean by educational? 6. Would the bottle be included within the building kit? (Who will be producing the recycled
bottle?) 7. Will we process bottles into parts used on the toy?
Need to Research:
1. Process of recycling 2. Look up other companies that already do this kind of work 3. Do some research on choking hazard 4. What type of materials are in need of more recycling? What materials will we be working with? 5. How to make an educational toy an interesting toy?
MINUTES: Debrief meeting with client 11/01/2016
● New design alternative ○ 1 dimensional magnetic toy rather than 2 dimensional ○ Can we possibly make a kit instead?
■ Make the rocket out of used bottles ● Allows for customization
■ Would this be dangerous? (age group is 7-12) ● Hoverboard idea
○ Always some region of attraction to board ○ Not feasible with given time / budget
● Testing ○ We don’t have access to children ○ Would we be able test with college students?
■ Would gauge general interest, not specific to age group ○ Can we do a survey to ask if anyone would be willing to let their children play
with a toy?
31
Good idea - environmental and educational Go back to objectives - list how well we met each objectives Lego league - meets next tuesday
● Can have the children play with toy ● 6-7 in e4 studio
Qualitative testing is fine - questionnaire with scale of how fun ● Can ask college students
○ Think about questions ○ How fun? ○ How educational?
Educational component ● Have a card insert explaining magnetism ● Kit idea is educational by itself
Good evolution! Tie back to original objectives
● List elements of design that meets each objective Environmentally friendly materials can be a recommendation
● use seamapro (sp?) Focus on new design For Monday - bring slides
● draft presentation ====================================================================== Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting Agenda 2 November 2016, 2:45 - 4:00 Agenda:
Debrief meeting with client 11/01/2016. Clarify remaining concerns with advisor. Discuss work breakdown structure in detail. Assign tasks to be completed for Saturday 11/05 meeting. If time allows, discuss problem statement, objectives, and constraints.
New Actions Items MINUTES:
1.Constraints? a.Can articulate either environmental impact or educational component (ideally
both) b.Not restricted to bottles
32
2.Objective a.Attractive, flashy market (appeal to the owner) b.Potential to be viral c.Marketable d.Creative e.Interesting f.Engaging
3.Define age range (9-12 or 5-8) 4.Define targeted gender 5.$125 prototyping budget
Start with work breakdown structure, then objectives, constraints and functions, and then start brainstorming ====================================================================== Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting Agenda 5 November 2016, 4:00-5:00PM Agenda: Things to do before this meeting: nothing really, just come prepared to discuss, bringing a laptop would be nice
1. Look over the problem statement and revise as much as possible a. Until everyone agrees with the revision b. Should we email this revision to our client, see if he agrees?
2. Review the constraints and objectives a. Likely add more constraints to narrow our scope b. Make sure we have all of objectives
3. Lay out the functions of our toy a. Since our problem statement is so open ended we could pretty much make our toy have
any function we would like, so we should really have our objectives and constraints done before this.
4. Look over the current toy ideas we have now a. Add more ideas if we would like b. Start eliminating ideas based off of our constraints c. Maybe rank these ideas (Top 3 kind of thing)
5. Begin making a Functions means chart a. At least a skeleton for the chart, then we can split the work
6. End of meeting a. Work is split up evenly (also based on availability) b. Everyone agrees to what they are doing
33
c. The roles are recorded on the minutes for 11/5/2016 MINUTES
- Made constraints list (Everyone) - Objective tree (Emily) and PCC (Everyone) - Functions list and come up with means chart. (Dominique, Jose, Ricardo) - Alternative designs - eliminate some of the ideas.
- Center of Mass Toy - Magnetic Force Toy - Potential Energy (spring toy)
- We want to send the client the revised problem statement (Dominique, Jose, Ricardo), the list of constraints and objectives.
- FUTURE RESEARCH: We should choose from the design alternatives and make it more
detailed. - Ricardo and Jose - Magnetic Force - Dominique - Center of Mass - Emily - Spring toy
====================================================================== Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting Agenda 8 November 2016, 4:00-5:00PM Agenda:
Report on findings about different toy alternatives discussed at previous meeting Further develop/finish morph chart Develop buildable design alternatives Come up with best of class chart Decide on a single best design alternative Discuss the prototyping phase
● Assign tasks/determine breakdown of workload ● Determine deadline to complete the prototype
Come up with questions for meeting with advisor on Wednesday 11/09
New Action Items Open Action Items:
34
Item Due Issued Owner Description
Research 11/08 11/05 Dominique Center of Mass Toys (Modified to Hot Air Balloon
on Monday 11/07)
Research 11/08 11/05 Emily Spring/Potential Energy Toys
Research 11/08 11/05 Jose Magnetism Toys
Research 11/08 11/05 Ricardo Magnetism Toys (Modified to
Center of Mass Toys on Monday
11/07
MINUTES: We start the meeting by going over the research that each individual did on their own, Emily- talks about the gravitational toys, potential energy Ricardo- Talks about the center of mass toys Jose- talks about E&M research and magnetic rail for mini hoverboard Dominique- discusses the use of a mini hot air balloon, brings up thermofoils for a form of heat // We decide to choose our top design alternatives. We then came up with questions to ask to our advisor. ====================================================================== Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting Agenda 15 November 2016, 4:00-6:00PM Agenda:
Prototyping a) Continue working on hoverboard design b) Begin working on floating lantern design
35
c) Determine what prototype to present in class New Action Items Open Action Items
Item Due Issued Owner Description
Purchase 11/15 11/12 Dominique Purchase Floating Lanterns for second
design
Purchase 11/19 11/14 Jose Purchase Magnets for hover board
design
Research 11/15 11/12 Ricardo & Jose Magnetism Properties to
optimize/complete hoverboard design
Develop 11/15 11/12 Emily Sketch and Develop drawing for
hoverboard design features
MINUTES:
● Use program to find environmental footprint of product ● We can still aim for gender neutrality ● Mini hot air balloon
○ 160 degrees Celsius ○ Marketed to 10-15 year olds ○ resistive heaters ○ lightbulbs ○ variable heater ○
● Create a best of class chart for each alternative ● Environmental impact for each design ● Ask fam at thanksgiving ● 10-15 market ● 6-10 ish market ● Reimbursements - form in engineering office, get a faculty to sign
======================================================================
36
Environmentally Friendly Toys Meeting Agenda 19 November 2016, 4:00-6:00PM Agenda:
Prototyping a) Continue working on magnetic surface for hoverboard b) Create stronger hoverboards (with the strongest magnets we have) c) Test lightbulb or other heating source for floating lanterns
Final Paper a) Determine how to split up work b) Assign deadlines for drafts
New Action Items Open Action Items ====================================================================== Environmentally Friendly Toys Advisor Meeting Agenda 30 November 2016, 2:45-4:00PM Agenda:
Debrief meeting with client 11/01/2016 ● New design alternative
○ 1 dimensional magnetic toy rather than 2 dimensional ○ Can we possibly make a kit instead?
■ Make the rocket out of used bottles ● Allows for customization
■ Would this be dangerous? (age group is 7-12) ● Hoverboard idea
○ Always some region of attraction to board ○ Not feasible with given time / budget
● Testing ○ We don’t have access to children ○ Would we be able test with college students?
■ Would gauge general interest, not specific to age group ○ Can we do a survey to ask if anyone would be willing to let their children play
with a toy? Continue Prototype discussion
New Action Items Open Action Items
37
APPENDIX C: TESTING SURVEY
1.) Rate this toy on a scale of 1-5
1 2 3 4 5
2.) How long do you think you could play with this toy before getting bored
3.) Is this something you would show your friends?
Definitely! Yes Maybe No Definitely Not!
4.) Have you seen a toy like this before?