Guitar bridge redesign
From DDL Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Appendix B: Reference Patents) |
(→Comparison of Designs) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
|- align="center" | |- align="center" | ||
! Installation Difficulty | ! Installation Difficulty | ||
| - | | 1 || 0 || - || 0 || | + | | 1 || 0 || - || 0 || - || 0 || 0 |
|- align="center" | |- align="center" | ||
! style="border-bottom:3px solid grey;" | Easy to Use | ! style="border-bottom:3px solid grey;" | Easy to Use | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
|- align="center" style="border-bottom:3px solid grey;" | |- align="center" style="border-bottom:3px solid grey;" | ||
! colspan="2" | + | ! colspan="2" | + | ||
| - | | 0 || 6 || 11 || | + | | 0 || 6 || 11 || 15 || 11 || 11 |
|- align="center" | |- align="center" | ||
! colspan="2" | 0 | ! colspan="2" | 0 | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
|- align="center" | |- align="center" | ||
! colspan="2" style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | Net Score | ! colspan="2" style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | Net Score | ||
| - | | style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 0 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 1 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 9 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | | + | | style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 0 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 1 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 9 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 14 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 11 || style="border-top:3px solid grey;" | 10 |
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
== Conclusion == | == Conclusion == | ||
Jeremy | Jeremy | ||
Revision as of 23:10, 3 October 2008
Contents |
Executive Summary
Mike
Research
Description of Research
Mike
Stakeholders
Mike
Results of Research
Mike
Conclusions
Mike
Design Ideas
Linear Bridge
Jeremy
Digital Bridge
Jeremy
Cartridge Bridge
Jeremy
"Raccoon Trap" Saddles
Jeremy
Comparison of Designs
| Description | Fender Bridge | Floyd Rose | Linear Bridge | Digital Bridge | Cartridge Bridge | "Raccoon Trap" Bridge | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sketch |  |  |  | | |
| |
| Criteria | Weight | Datum 1 | Datum 2 | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 |
| Manufacture/Assembly | 1 | 0 | - | - | + | 0 | - |
| Affordable | 1 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 |
| Tuning Stability | 3 | 0 | + | ++ | +++ | + | + |
| String Change Difficulty | 3 | 0 | + | + | + | ++ | ++ |
| Installation Difficulty | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 |
| Easy to Use | 2 | 0 | - | + | + | + | + |
| + | 0 | 6 | 11 | 15 | 11 | 11 | |
| 0 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | |
| - | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Net Score | 0 | 1 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 10 | |
Conclusion
Jeremy
Comparison to the State of the Art
Benchmark of Performance and Function
Aaron
Benchmark of Stakeholder Needs
Aaron
Conclusions
Aaron
Team
Team Plans
Jonathan
Team Member Roles
Jonathan
Appendix
Appendix A: Brainstorming Ideas
Aaron
Appendix B: Reference Patents
Aaron
