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?