Concept Improvement and Selection

P09503 – Electrophotographic Development and Transfer Station

Executive Summary The team took a three-step process to evaluate and improve the concepts that were generated. The first step involved a group evaluation following the generation of all concepts. This was to ensure that the entire solution space was explored along with any weaknesses that were not identified during the generation process. The second step to improvement was a meeting with the team, the faculty and external consultants. Each concept was explained to the faculty and consultants along with the rated score. For each concept shown the faculty either suggested improvements, combinations, eliminations or suggested new concepts that were not thought of by the team due to lack of subject matter knowledge. The faculty and consultants also approved of certain concepts for implementation. This feedback was recorded in the Pugh Matrix. The final step in improvement resulted the team doing a final evaluation of the feedback provided during the meeting with the consultants. The new concepts suggested were rated and a final decision was made on each concept based upon the recommendations by the faculty and consultants. In each of these three steps the team proceeded in a systematic approach that followed a logical progression through each of the concepts that were generated at the system level. Step 1: Team Improvement Process

The concept selection process for P09503 entailed reaching an agreement between the team and the faculty team as to which of the activities and opportunities would actually be pursued in this project. The concepts that were rated utilizing the Pugh Matrix were selected after careful examination by the team and the external consultants during the final stages of concept development. The group and the external consultants carried out the selection process to the best of their available knowledge under the given circumstances. It was decided that further improvement of the concepts could only be carried out during a meeting with the guides and consultants. During the generation process the team carefully discussed each alternative that was rated “realistic” for each system and then discussed each concept so that possible weaknesses or shortcomings were identified. Appropriate changes were made as necessary, such as removing concepts that might be already be present in the current system.

The meeting that was scheduled with the faculty and consultants would allow for further examination of the concepts resulting in possible combination of concepts and even generation of new concepts by faculty that were not present during concept generation. Due to time constraints, concepts would be also selected for implementation once an agreement was reached between the students and faculty. Step 2: Faculty and Consultant Improvement Process

The meeting for Concept Selection and Improvement was held on Monday, September 22, 2008 in the Senior Design Center. The entire team was present along with the following faculty and consultants: Dr. Susan Farnand of CIS, Mr. Greggory Miller of Kodak, Mr. William Nowak of Xerox and the customer and project guide, Dr Marcos Esterman. The meeting took a structured approach to reviewing all of the concepts. Initially the selection criteria were explained to the faculty and consultants. The Pugh’s Matrices that the team had generated during concept generation were then shown on a projector. The team lead then went through each concept for each subsystem by explaining what the concept was, why we developed it and the total score. During the explanation of each concept questions, comments, concerns and ideas came from each the consultants. The following is a list of some of the dialogue that took place during the meeting. The dialogue that took place was reflected in the updated Pugh’s Matrices.

Feedback from Faculty and Consultants I. Protect User

1. Other than the dust masks provided in the lab, it is important to determine how to protect the user from air borne toner. This is actually worse than the ozone produced by the charging process. Dr. Esterman suggested the use of a hood and to move the device into another lab with better ventilation. 2. An emergency stop on the back of the device is unnecessary, especially if it is backed up against a wall.

II. Charge PC 1. No changes need to be made to this category.

2. Variable charges can be accomplished by the high voltage amplifier. This would result in the elimination of that concept.

III. Translate PC

1. No changes were made to this category

IV. Expose PC 1. The use of a digital projector exposure was ruled out.

2. The use of Verdy Film could be used to provide options to the user if exposing is not the focus of the research. Verdy film does not need to be exposed, but the process will not be a true xerographic process anymore but a lithographic one. Verdy film can be donated. Dr. Arney will have more advice and knowledge about this option.

V. Monitor EP Process 1. It was suggested that the high voltage meter (TREK) could be used to monitor the charge on the Photoconductor however a probe is missing.

VI. Development Toner

1. It was suggested to implement different development systems. 2. A skiving blade will be absolutely necessary in the development process. This blade cleans the roller by scraping off excess toner. It is adhesive steel that holds tight against the magnet of the roller. This could be a good project for a M.E. 3. In a later email Dr Susan Farnand stated that a take-off skive is actually present. However she also noticed that one side of the station is likely to tall to fit into the breadboard without the photoconductor crashing into it. Therefore that side of the station will have to be reconfigured. This activity will be added to the list of activities required for device operation.

VII.Transfer Toner To Media 1. The type of paper is much more important than the size because different paperweights can hold different charges. Dr. Farnand thought the use of different paperweights would greatly benefit her research.

VIII. Pugh’s Matrices 1. It was suggested by Dr Esterman that the concepts, in addition to being rated by overall score, be rated by sum (-), (0) and (+). This is of critical importance due to the fact that some concepts might be eliminated or accepted due to incorrect reasons. Other than the feedback from the faculty the remainder of the concepts, with the exception of the concepts that were rated below zero, were given the go ahead by Dr Esterman.

Step 3: Final Team Improvement Process Following the corrections including additions and removals of concepts, the Pugh’s Matrix was updated for a final evaluation by the team. This final update included rating some of the additional concepts provided by the faculty. The concepts were also rated either a yes or a no to designate weather the concept will be implemented. The team will then begin system level design of the concepts. The following is a list of the final selection matrices.

g n i g r e a c h i s c v

n t e g n d i

e s g r

n e g i f f e n g i i r n d n

a o r r h z a o c f O

t g r n y n n o t e i f i u l v i t m o o s b e i r m u g

s p i a a a w v e h n m

i e r x r a a n d e e y

m n l h

a a e g g n d t C l e i r n a o s P b h n i a o

i a o t n m h p t n i c z n s c a

P o e c

e n - i r v e & i r s m a s

o c d e d o h e k r l l l u c t c c p d p l b d e a e n a d e m m e i a i m r b R c time to be completed -1 1 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ease of use -1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 human safety 1 1 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 modularity 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 footprint -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wow factor 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 -1 0 knowledge availability 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 -1 robustness 1 1 1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 # of cust needs 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 sat. cost -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 hardware ava. 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Sum (-) 4 0 2 0 2 3 6 6 6 Sum (0) 3 5 5 5 4 7 4 3 5 Sum (+) 4 5 3 5 3 1 1 2 0 Net Score 0 7 1 6 3 -2 -5 -4 -6 Proceed? No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Assigned to N/A Dave Phill Dave N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Protect User Charge Translate PC PC r o t c u d C n P

o r a c o n o t t i n r o e o n r o o r i t h o o t i u p c p s n

o o n n m e o p r o o t M u

x u . s e e e s d m n e g g i o e r n r r o t p m u a a o c s

x s u h h n r y m e o c c e h l e s

p x e r r w - F l & a x

r e o o . t t e y i i e b p h p d - n n D o r m T n r m o o I e i E t a e p L s V t c m m R time to be completed 1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ease of use -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 human safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 modularity 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 footprint 0 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 wow factor 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 knowledge availability 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 robustness 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 # of cust needs sat. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 cost 0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 hardware ava. 1 1 -1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 Sum (-) 1 0 3 0 3 3 4 4 3 Sum (0) 7 5 6 9 5 4 2 2 7 Sum (+) 3 6 2 2 2 3 5 5 1 Net Score 2 6 -1 2 0 1 1 1 -2 Proceed? No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Assigned to N/A Rachel N/A N/A N/A Andrew Min Dan N/A Expose PC Monitor EP Process

d e t a l s r e r e

r n s e o t m n

e r o t t e

s f h y t o

d t e e n t n e e m a o p i o d t m s o o a p r t g o k m s l n r

o i e a g r c v d n o c

i e t i a n n d

a t o l o s t a e n

r l r o e m r d c o e r t l r n r e n l m o o f a e t f t c l o o a i l c r s c c t d e o u

l r n e n t o d p t o r i h o n n t t i c e l e

o w s n i e u e c e m t i v o g o

t e m o t t l V n

o a h e d p b m h s a h g d e i m u c p a I L r l time to be completed -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ease of use -1 0 0 1 0 1 1 -1 human safety 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 modularity 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 footprint -1 0 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 wow factor 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 knowledge availability 0 1 0 0 -1 1 1 1 robustness -1 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 0 # of cust needs sat. 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 cost -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 hardware ava. -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Sum (-) 6 3 0 3 5 4 3 5 Sum (0) 2 3 9 3 4 0 4 4 Sum (+) 3 4 2 4 2 6 3 2 Net Score -3 1 2 2 -3 3 1 -3 Proceed? No No No No No Yes No No Assigned to N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sasha N/A N/A Develop Toner onto PC Control EP Process t h g i r e e f w s

. r n c e a p r

a o t g p

n t d i m e n n t o e a a r o l r e e m l e f k r e f c r

i t n r r a s d o e i d o y l e t / f l t t s a

o a t h r y m d

s g r f e i o t l e o

s v m i w y d l o s e o e c l l l e d c

a e p r a

c y s e / i

o r p n g t

o n a a n i t g y i r i p h t t a n i e t n i c l s d v i r i s o e d x o b u u a m m a e c c f time to be completed 1 -1 0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 ease of use 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 -1 human safety 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 modularity 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 footprint -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 wow factor 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 knowledge availability 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 robustness 1 -1 1 1 0 0 0 0 # of cust needs sat. 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 cost 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 hardware ava. 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Sum (-) 1 5 0 0 2 4 4 7 Sum (0) 3 1 9 9 5 4 5 3 Sum (+) 6 5 2 1 2 2 2 1 Net Score 6 0 2 3 1 -1 -2 -6 Proceed? Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Assigned to Ruth N/A Andrew TBD Dave N/A N/A N/A Transfer Toner to Media Create Light Seal Fuser