Download The Engineering and Design Process: Getting the Dregs Out of Pump Bottles and more Thesis Management Accounting in PDF only on Docsity!
C-
The Engineering and Design Process: Getting the dregs out of pump bottles Western Governors University C388: Science, Technology, and Society The Engineering and Design Process: Getting the dregs out of pump bottles A The problem I have chosen to solve is how to get the dregs out of pump bottles, such as those used for cosmetics, hand soap, body care products, food packages, and many other commonly used household products. A Getting the dregs out of a pump bottle poses a problem of significant proportion because sending containers to landfills that still have product inside results in consumers losing money. Also, the product remaining in the bottle contributes to the wastage of food and chemical resources and may increase the number of environmentally damaging chemicals present in the waste stream. A I based my problem solving on two specifications: the item must be convenient to use and low-cost to manufacture and sell. Two constraints are that the proposed solution must take up a limited amount of space on counters or in storage and that the item needs to be made of a durable material that will not easily break or degrade.
A
Some possible solutions I came up with are:
- Cutting the bottle in half so that the product can be removed from the bottom portion manually.
- Creating a long, thin spatula that could scrape the dregs of the product off the container's walls and bottom.
- Creating a device with a small footprint that will allow the bottle to be stable when turned upside down. This device would allow gravity to pull the product to the top of the bottle, at which time the bottle pump can be unscrewed and the product easily dispensed. B I first found several bottles of various shapes and sizes and took detailed measurements. Taking these measurements allowed me to determine a range of sizes of bottles that the device I design must accommodate. I then looked into various available materials to develop the device that would meet the specifications and constraints identified above. I also considered that people of all ages and abilities might use this product; this means the solution must be designed not to use complex movements or large amounts of strength. The final aspect I covered was safety. I decided that the critical safety factors that I would consider in the design are: the solution does not present a choking hazard to young children and pets, the solution will not make use of sharp objects that could pose a danger in the form of puncture wounds and lacerations, the solution makes use of materials that have no- to low-allergenicity, and that the material used be non- reactive with everyday household products. Based on everything mentioned above, I build my device using four soft perm rods. The rods were an ideal material. They are designed to withstand harsh chemicals and have a durable
B
My prototype device presents the best solution because it is easy to use, reliable, cost- effective, and offers few, if any, dangers to humans and pets' health. My prototype solution has no mechanical parts or complex systems that can break down and require costly repairs by a professional. Finally, the prototype's design and shape allow users to quickly intuit how the solution works. B The prototype's soft and flexible nature allows its use as a phone stand, jewelry holder, or cookbook holder simply by turning it upside down. It can also prevent cables from tangling by wrapping the cables around the legs of the device and stowing the device away in a purse or bag. B The relative flexibility of the device limits the device from being used on heavy bottles. The 10-inch circumference of the straight rod's ellipse restricts the pump bottle's diameter used in the device. B Several scientific principles underly the design of the prototype device. First, the device relies on the concept of viscosity. Viscosity, defined as "the mathematical ratio of the tangential frictional force per unit area to the velocity gradient perpendicular to the direction of flow of a liquid (Meriam-Webster, n.d.a)," of the product in the bottle will determine how well the product will flow. Most items in pump bottles have a relatively low viscosity as required for the pump mechanism to operate.
The next concept at work is gravity. Merriam-Webster's dictionary (n.d.a) defines gravity as the "fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter." Earth's gravity is the force that pulls all objects to the Earth. It acts on both the containers the products are in and the product in the container. Specifically, this force attempts to pull the product to whichever part of the container is closest to the Earth's center. The final concept used in the design is Newton's First Law of Motion. The First Law of Motion states, "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion remains in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force (Merriam-Webster, n.d.c)." As applied to a product in a pump container, the first law means that the container's product will remain stationary as long as no external force is applied. Synthesizing these scientific concepts as applied to the prototype device leads to the following explanation. When the bottle is turned pump side down so that the pump is closest to the ground, gravity begins to pull downward on the container's product. However, the frictional forces that determine the product's viscosity act against the downward pull of gravity. If these forces were evenly balanced, there would be no net movement of the product as defined by Newton's First Law. However, as most products in pump bottles have a low viscosity to allow the forces applied to the product through the pump to overcome the force of gravity and be dispensed from the pump. This low viscosity also means that gravity's downward force is stronger than the frictional forces resisting the downward force. Because the force is
Also, some complications occurred with product flooding the pump cap when removing it to access the product. C I would modify the device by including a squirt cap with several sized adaptors to easily dispense the product from the upside-down container. I am not sure that any modification of the legs is necessary as most containers containing only dregs will not be as heavy as the bottle I used to test my solution as they are not as full as the bottle I used. To determine if I need to modify the legs, I would first implement the modified cap solution and then retest the device using a bottle with much less product inside. D The engineering process and the scientific method have several similarities and differences. Both processes start with observation and background research; then, they move to the similar activities of creating a hypothesis to guide experimental design and specifying requirements to guide the solution's design. Next, they both engage in designing an experiment and finalizing experiment procedures, or brainstorming possible solutions and selecting the best one; both processes engage in the collection and analysis of data. Finally, both processes end with communicating the results (Acrobatiq, 2019). The differences arise in the "testing" phases of both processes. The scientific method experiments and, as long as the experiment is working correctly and does not need troubleshooting, data is analyzed. However, this data analysis is different from that used in the engineering process. In the scientific method, the data collected is objective and is not used to change the current experiment's experimental design to force it to create the desired result.
Instead, the data collected either proves the hypothesis correct or, if it fails to prove the hypothesis correct, becomes part of the body of background research consulted when creating a new hypothesis about the same initial observation (Acrobatiq, 2019). However, in the engineering process, the data collected is both subjective and objective. Also, this data is used to redesign the current tested product if it fails to meet the requirements defined in earlier steps of the engineering process. In essence, those using the engineering process work to force the proposed solution into meeting their desired result, in contrast to the scientific method's requirement that the results either prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Put most simply, the scientific method is input-driven, as it functions to create an input, the hypothesis that will create the desired output, an explanation of the observation. Simultaneously, the engineering process is results-driven, as it functions to keep revising the initial output until it achieves the desired input, meeting the requirements specified at the beginning of the process to solve the observed problem (Acrobatiq, 2019). D I used the following engineering process practices in developing my solution. First, I observed a problem found in my environment. I then conducted background research to help develop possible solutions to the problem I identified. Using this background research, I developed a list of possible solutions. Next, I defined the specifications and constraints that would help me select the best solution from the solutions list. I then used my identified engineering requirements to help ensure the solution I selected was the most appropriate one for further development. I then identified the available materials and selected material that met my requirements.
