Talk:Blender

From DDL Wiki

Revision as of 13:04, 12 October 2007

We received your report, and we appreciate you addressing the items we asked for, but your report is more vague than we expected, and it is difficult to understand your primary conclusions and recommendations from the report. Some reexamination is required. Detailed comments follow:

• Please include a picture of the product

  - Picture uploaded

• Executive summary is too generic and needs proofreading. What specifically did you conclude from your work - don’t just talk about the general importance of the types of analyses you used.

  - I tried to be more to the point and organized with the executive summary. 

If a client were to read the executive symmary they would be better able to understand our main discoveries and analysis objectives.

• Customer needs discussion is interesting, but it could be more complete by discussing different needs of chopping vs. mixing for different recipes (pesto, etc.) and also issues such as ice floating and the need to bring it down to the blades in order to break it. Cleaning was not mentioned. Also, the relationship between speed of blade rotation and “creation of an even mix” is not entirely simple - sometimes slower speeds do better! You also did not mention noise of operation, safety, or restaurant use.
• The product use is written like a set of instructions. What are the insights?

  - Insight was added, describing more of how certain parts of product use 

impacted the user as opposed to just directions and step by step insights.

• The motor function description is fine, but you need more detail on blender-specific information. How do the switches work? How is the speed change accomplished? How is cooling accomplished? A figure would help.

  - the cooling from the fan was added and is a simple addition to the motor set-up. 

• Some of your manufacturing processes should be reexamined. Is the glass made with injection molding? Why is two-part molding selected for some of the parts? Some thin metal parts are likely stamped and bent, rather than cast.

  - I changed many of the manufacturing processes when I studied each part more in depth. The pitcher was actually made out of 
    plastic and was made with injection molding. For all the thin metal parts I put down stamped and bent. I also broke down 
    many of the other parts, such as the motor subassembly and listed the manufacturing process for every component in the 
    sub-assembly. I also rewrote and added a lot more to many of the function descriptions, especially for the motor.

• Report is rather ramble-y. Effort to make the report more concise and professional through proofreading and revision will be helpful. DFMA is one example - What are your main findings and conclusions?

  -I tried to make the DFMA more concise and to the point. It was broken up 

into the different components to more easily organize the ideas. It is less broad and more blender topic specific. Each part is described as how it is necessary for the blender and how it is possibly manufactured.

• Your DFE requires reexamination. You state that plastic “has an awful impact on the environment” and is “difficult to recycle”. Of course, recyclability depends on the type of plastic, since PET and HDPE are routinely recycled en mass, and awful impact should be measured relative to alternatives (such as glass or metals). Did you conduct any type of LCA? We don’t see any analysis, and it’s not clear whether use or manufacturing phase dominates.
• Your mechanical analysis is not clear. Defining symbols and explaining steps and numbers will help. Are you assuming that energy from the motor spinning is converted entirely into heat energy to melt ice in the bowl? What does this analysis tell you? How does it help you to understand the design?

  -The original problem is addressed and for each line of calculation all of the variables are defined. Each equation is defined for where it came from.