RainCloud:

Water Conserving Sanitation Device

Morgan Barron

Table of Contents:

Cover Page ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Table of Contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Need Defined --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-10

        Source One ------------------------------------------------------------ 4

        Source Two ------------------------------------------------------------ 5

        Source Three ---------------------------------------------------------- 6

        Source Four ----------------------------------------------------------- 7

        Source Five ------------------------------------------------------------ 8

        Source Six ------------------------------------------------------------- 9

        Summarized Research --------------------------------------------- 10

Engineering Hypothesis ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Variables ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

Testing Stand------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13-16

Design Criteria ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

Testing Procedures ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18

Engineering Solution Design Phase ---------------------------------------------------- 19-20

Controls Test Results and Graph -------------------------------------------------------- 21-26

Prototype One ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-31

Prototype One Testing -------------------------------------------------------------------- 32-35

Prototype Two ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 36-40

Prototype Two Testing -------------------------------------------------------------------- 41-44

Prototype Three --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45-49

Prototype Three Testing ------------------------------------------------------------------ 50-53

Prototype Four --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54-58

Prototype Four Testing ------------------------------------------------------------------ 59-61

Prototype Five ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62-68

Prototype Five Testing ------------------------------------------------------------------ 69-72

Prototype Six ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73-79

Prototype Six Testing -------------------------------------------------------------------- 80-83

Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84-86

Real World Connection --------------------------------------------------------------------- 87

Need Defined:

Engineering Problem

Almost 2.7 billion of the world’s population have limited access to water.  By 2025 it is projected 66% of the world’s population will face water shortages.  Without water, sanitation decreases while diseases increase; two million people die annually from dysentery.  If an inexpensive, easy-to-use, water-conserving device could be engineered, then the prevalence of disease and unnecessary death would decrease.

Engineering Objective

To design and manufacture a reusable water-conserving dispenser which automatically shuts off to prevent water waste while maximizing available water in home and in recreational use.

Engineering Question

Can an economically feasible water-conserving sanitation device, which dispenses on demand and automatically stops water flow after use, be designed and be manufactured to maximize water use?

Research:

 

Source One: Written Notes

"Water Crisis." World Water Council -. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2015. <http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/library/archives/water-crisis/>.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

       2.6 billion people lack proper sanitation worldwide as 2.7 billion lack adequate water sources (10-50 liters per day).  Water scarcity limits bathing, hand washing, and the washing of food, which increases risks for life-threatening diseases.  The most common disease connected to poor sanitation is diarrhea, non-fatal with a clean and abundant water source,  which kills two million people, mostly children, each year via dehydration.

My Idea from the Source:

               When washing hands, bodies, or food humans use more water than actually needed and because water is scarce, conserving water is much like creating it.  While water deficiency makes washing using traditional means almost impractical, eating unwashed food with dirty hands is killing millions.  

My Application of Source:

               The creation of a handwashing device which respects the insufficiency of water would revolutionize life as death and illness rates declined.  Such an invention would need to be cost effective and easy to use, as application in third world countries would require acknowledgement of a language barrier and poverty to make such a product implementable.

Research:

 

Source Two: Written Notes

Andrews, Laurel. "Cabin Living off the Grid in Frigid Alaska a Labor of Love." Alaska Dispatch. N.p., 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 05 Jan. 2015. <http://www.adn.com/article/cabin-living-grid-frigid-alaska-labor-love>.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

         Because of the freezing temperatures in Alaska it is impossible or impractical in some places to install plumbing for a toilet or faucet.  Wipes are used for bathing and sump-bag is used for cleaning dishes, residents in ‘dry cabins’ live like backpackers.  Water hauled up is not used efficiently because most nozzles require activation and shut-off by immediately wasting water as the individual manipulates the valve.

Idea from the Source:

         Living in a ‘dry cabin’ creates the need for an efficient tool to regulate water use, as the heavy liquid is precious and hard to haul in.  Not only may a water-conserving device appeal to ‘dry cabin’ owners, but also to expert backpackers.  

Application of Source:

Broadening the target audience from the assumed impoverished individuals living with little infrastructure to more recreational individuals with wants instead of needs, gives a water-conserving device a niche in more developed countries.  The device should cater to the needs of both recreational and impoverished consumers.  The proceeds from sales to recreational consumers could fund philanthropic distribution to be used in developing areas with restricted access to clean and safe water.

Research:

 

Source Three: Written Notes

"Primo® Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser." Primo® Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser. Costco, n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2015. <http://www.costco.com/.product.11762630.html?cm_sp=RichRelevance-_-categorypageHorizontalTop-_-CategoryTopProducts&cm_vc=categorypageHorizontalTop%7CCategoryTopProducts>.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

         A common way of dispensing water in more developed countries is a water dispenser, similar to Primo®’s Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser.  This electric model includes taps to be switched on and off at convenience and can warm or cool water dispensed.  

Idea from the Source:

          While a feasible solution for wealthy individuals with water infrastructure, Primo®’s Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser is too expensive for the 1.3 billion individuals living on less than $1.25 a day.  Also, many live in harsh conditions and may walk a distance for a safe water source and this device is too heavy making it impractical.  Also, 1.3 billion people lack the electricity needed to run this device.

Application of Source:

An inexpensive, lightweight, and non-electric passive device would fulfill the purpose of Primo®’s Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser while meeting specific needs.  Also, if the device’s water flow was triggered by the addition of pressure and stopped by the removal of pressure, less water would be wasted.

Research:

 

Source Four: Written Notes

Snell, Steve. "44oz No-Drip Lixit for Crates." Gun Dog Supply. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2015. <http://www.gundogsupply.com/lixit-no-drip-waterer-for-crates-44-ounce.html>.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

         Lixit, a dog waterer, works like a hamster water bottle as it relies on gravity and pressure to create water flow.  If the ball on the end of the Lixit nozzle is pushed up by a dog, water is released until the pressure is removed.  No-Drip Lixit dog waterer has a 1.3 liter water source and is relatively expensive for philanthropic distribution ($10.99 USD).

Idea from the Source:

         Being a no-drip device, the 1.3 liter Lixit conserves water as it portions out only needed water, stopping with removal of pressure on nozzle.  If this design was replicated bigger, humans would also use this idea to gain access to water efficiently and wisely.

Application of Source:

To create a no-drip device for humans to wash their hands in could have a similar nozzle design as the Lixit, one which would require pressure to release water flow.  Use a larger water source by repurposing a 2-liter bottle which would bring down cost.  Make the device from plastic preventing recycling the device for monetary gain in developing countries.  

Research:

 

Source Five: Written Notes

Simon, Harvey. "Traveler's Guide to Avoiding Infectious Diseases." Health Guide. New York Times, 23 Feb. 2013. Web. 4 Jan. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/specialtopic/travelers-guide-to-avoiding-infectious-diseases/traveler's-diarrhea.html>.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

         Many travelers leaving industrialized and developed countries to vacation in less developed countries can become sick from the water or food.  Countries in which sickness like traveler's diarrhea is prevalent are in Latin America, South America, Africa, Middle East, and Asia.  To prevent traveler’s diarrhea, tourists are advised to drink bottled water and to avoid street vendor’s food.  

Idea from the Source:

         Bottled water is commonly packaged in disposable plastic container which is usually thrown into local landfills after use.  Plastic water bottles are cheap material which takes hundreds of years to biodegrade.  

Application of Source:

Plastic water bottles are inexpensive and often found in landfills, so is an inexpensive resource.  In a landfill, plastic water bottles are not being consumed and are instead filling dumps.  Made for holding water, plastic water bottles could be used to create a holding tank for safe water.  A nozzle could be threaded on much like a cap or pressed fitted into the bottle neck.

Research:

 

Source Six: Written Notes

Burian, Steven, Dr. "Interviewing Dr. Steven Burian." Personal interview at the University of Utah. 11 Mar. 2015.

Summary of Source in my Own Words:

         Dr. Steven Burian is a Civil Engineering professor at the University of Utah, and an expert on conserving water in urban environments.  He has in the past seen devices like the Instant-Off ®, but these devices are made for faucets which are not found in most shanty towns.  He acknowledged my method of pressing up to release water may not completely sanitary, but is a significant improvement to unwashed hands.  Dr. Burian was not concerned about the stored water becoming a breeding ground for bacteria, as water would be constantly used and not be allowed to stagnate.  Dr. Burian suggested using my final prototype instead of my faucet for a month to understand durability.  

Idea from the Source:

         Dr. Burian was not worried about different colored bottles (i.e., green vs. clear) shielding UV rays and keeping water cleaner; any bottle could be used for the water source.  Rather, he stressed the need of having practical testing of the final device before philanthropic distribution.

Application of Source:

Alix Charles, a graduate student at Berkeley, will field-test the final prototype this summer in Bangalore, India to discover flaws in design.  

Summarized Research:

2.6 billion people lack proper sanitation worldwide as 2.7 billion lack adequate water sources (10-50 liters per day) which limits bathing, hand washing, and the washing food, while increasing risks for contracting diseases.  Individuals participating in recreational camping, living in ‘dry cabins,’ or developing countries with no water infrastructure are at greater risk of contracting fatal diseases; dysentery kills two million people each year.  Areas with scarce water have a greater need to wash hands than places with constant water sources, as eating unwashed food with dirty hands is known to cause disease ybs.  The creation of a handwashing device which respects the insufficiency of water would revolutionize life under such circumstances as illness and death rates declined.

 

        Three devices are available today which attempt to address the problem for affluent consumers.  Primo® Top Load Stainless Steel Water Dispenser starts solving the lack of sanitation in areas lacking water infrastructure.  Made from kitchen-grade, non-corrosive metal and having an unplumbed water source, it is expensive and requires electricity to operate, therefore, not a feasible worldwide solution.  The No-Drip Lixit dog waterer, requires no electricity, passively released water on demand, but because it is made of metal would be likely recycled for a monetary gain in developing countries.  Additionally, No-Drip Lixit dog waterer has a smaller water source (1.3 liter) and is relatively expensive for philanthropic distribution ($10.99 USD).  Finally, the Instant-Off ® device, attaches to plumbed faucets, and thereby, impractical in shanty towns.

        Creating a device which conserves water would be almost like creating water.  This universal inexpensive device, made from non-corrodible materials, could be press-fitted into the water source, a plastic 2-liter bottle (common refuse) and decrease manufacturing costs. The device’s water flow would be triggered by pressing the hand against the device, the addition of pressure, and immediately stopped by the removal of hand pressure.  Less water would be wasted.  

Engineering Hypothesis:

If a water conserving dispenser is designed and manufactured to prevent water waste while maximizing natural resources in home and recreational use, then (1) the prevalence of disease will decrease and (2) unnecessary deaths as well.

Water Conserving Dispenser Variables:

Independent Variable:

Dependent Variable:

Control Variables:

Testing Stand Design Criteria:

Established Design Criteria Table

Securely Held: Bottle Must be Securely Held by Fixture

Held Perpendicular:Bottle Must be Held Perpendicular in Fixture

Water Must be Caught in Container:

All of Water Dispensed from Bottle Held in Fixture Must be Caught in Container

Water Flow is not Interfered With:

Fixture Must not Interfere with Water Flow

Seal is not Interfered With:

Fixture Must not Interfere with Seal

Securely Held:

Held Perpendicular:

Water Must be Caught in Container:

Water Flow is not Interfered with:

Seal is not Interfered with:

Testing Stand

1/1/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Results and Analysis for Testing Stand:

Checking Testing Stand against Design Criteria

Securely Held: Bottle Must be Securely Held by Fixture

Held Perpendicular:Bottle Must be Held Perpendicular in Fixture

Water Must be Caught in Container:

All of Water Dispensed from Bottle Held in Fixture Must be Caught in Container

Water Flow is not Interfered With:

Fixture Must not Interfere with Water Flow

Seal is not Interfered With:

Fixture Must not Interfere with Seal

X

X

X

X

X

Testing Stand Analysis:

        As shown in the above design criteria table, the testing stand held the bottle securely perpendicular, allowed water used to be successfully caught in a basin, did not interfere with water flow, and did not interfere with seal.

        This will be the only prototype of the testing stand, as this is not part of my engineering project, but a means from testing.  This will be used to test all devices.

Design Criteria:

Established Design Criteria Table:

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

Water Conserving:

Refillable and Reusable:

Fabrication:

Dispenses Water on Demand:

No Leaking:

Procedures for Testing Prototypes:  

To ensure consistent test results, follow procedures:

Control Procedures:

Test Procedures:

Engineering Solution Design Phase:

1/7/15

Design 1 - 5 sketches are on the following page.  These five designs are evaluated against the established design criteria to determine which design is best for initial prototyping (see below).

I will prototype Design Four based on the favorable evaluation shown in the table; all five criteria appear to be met when evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this design.  The device should prevent leaking and automatically shut the water flow off, reducing water waste.  Pressing up on the rod will break the seal and allow water flow consistently out of the 2-liter soda pop bottle.  When empty, the device can be removed and refilled with water without water loss.

Checking Designs Against Established Design Criteria

Water Conserving:

Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

Controls

N/A

N/A

N/A

X

Design One

X

X

X

Design Two

X

X

X

X

Design Three

X

X

Design Four

X

X

X

X

X

Design Five

X

X

X

Test Results:

1/10/15

Manual Control Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

1100 mL

Test 2

1290 mL

Test 3

1420 mL

Test 4

1200 mL

Test 5

1270 mL

Test 6

1200 mL

Test 7

1325 mL

Test 8

1130 mL

Test 9

1420 mL

Test 10

1510 mL

Test 11

1290 mL

Test 12

1300 mL

Test 13

1325 mL

Test 14

1100 mL

Test 15

1620 mL

Test 16

1370 mL

Test 17

1300 mL

Test 18

1500 mL

Test 19

1400 mL

Test 20

1280 mL

Test 21

1200 mL

Test 22

1305 mL

Test 23

1320 mL

Test 24

1240 mL

Test 25

1000 mL

Test 26

1150 mL

Test 27

1400 mL

Test 28

1420 mL

Test 29

1410 mL

Test 30

1260 mL

Control Average

1302 mL

Conservation Ratio

N/A

Test Results:

3/28/15

Automatic Control Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

730 mL

Test 2

830 mL

Test 3

770 mL

Test 4

710 mL

Test 5

760 mL

Test 6

900 mL

Test 7

770 mL

Test 8

700 mL

Test 9

770 mL

Test 10

720 mL

Test 11

920 mL

Test 12

800 mL

Test 13

830 mL

Test 14

750 mL

Test 15

660 mL

Test 16

640 mL

Test 17

860 mL

Test 18

790 mL

Test 19

820 mL

Test 20

810 mL

Test 21

730 mL

Test 22

950 mL

Test 23

680 mL

Test 24

790 mL

Test 25

760 mL

Test 26

840 mL

Test 27

880 mL

Test 28

780 mL

Test 29

780 mL

Test 30

740 mL

Control Average

782 mL

Conservation Ratio

N/A

Results and Analysis for Control Tests:

Manual Control Testing Analysis:

Tested from a manual faucet, the bell curve shows normal distribution of data.  The bulk of results fell between 1200 mL - 1499 mL with an overall average of 1302 mL.  Prototype tests data averages will be compared to 1302 mL to determine the manual control conservation ratio, which will then determine if the water conservation criteria is met.

Results and Analysis for Control Tests:

Automatic Control Testing Analysis:

Tested from an automatic faucet, the bell curve shows normal distribution of data.  With outliers of 600 mL and 1000 mL, the bulk of results fell between 700 mL - 849 mL with an overall average of 782 mL.  Prototype tests data averages will be compared to 782 mL to determine the automatic control conservation ratio, which will determine if the water conservation criteria is met.

Prototype One: Metal Plunger with Face Seal

1/17/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

1/18/15

Prototype One: Metal Plunger with Face Seal Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

210 mL

Test 2

155 mL

Test 3

150 mL

Test 4

120 mL

Test 5

200 mL

Test 6

136 mL

Test 7

190 mL

Test 8

210 mL

Test 9

215 mL

Test 10

250 mL

Test 11

180 mL

Test 12

160 mL

Test 13

150 mL

Test 14

250 mL

Test 15

180 mL

Test 16

200 mL

Test 17

240 mL

Test 18

200 mL

Test 19

275 mL

Test 20

205 mL

Test 21

170 mL

Test 22

170 mL

Test 23

160 mL

Test 24

160 mL

Test 25

170 mL

Test 26

160 mL

Test 27

170 mL

Test 28

160 mL

Test 29

135 mL

Test 30

170 mL

Average

183 mL

Manual Conservation Ratio

183 mL/1302 mL= 86% Saved

Automatic Conservation Ratio

183 mL/782 mL= 77% Saved

Results and Analysis for Prototype One:

Checking Prototype One Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

X

X

X

Prototype One Analysis:

        As shown in the above graph, Prototype One succeeded at conserving water, being reusable, and dispensing water on demand.  The graph, a shifted bell curve, shows continued test consistency, with the outliers of 120 mL and 270 mL as most data falling between 150 mL and 209 mL.  The conservation ratio was created when the average water use from Prototype One (183 mL of water) was compared to the average water use of the controls (1302 mL of water from the manual faucet and 782 mL of water from the automatic faucet).  Prototype One showed 86% improvement in water conservation over the manual control, and 77% improvement over the automatic control.

Unfortunately, Prototype One (1) failed the leak test (constantly dripped unless device was perfectly perpendicular creating the seal), and (2) rusted.  The redesigns of subsequent prototypes will address failures in meeting the other two established design criteria: stabilizing the device in the neck of the 2-liter bottle and machining the entire device from 303 stainless steel.

Prototype Two: Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring

1/18/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

1/20/15

Prototype Two: Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

116 mL

Test 2

150 mL

Test 3

110 mL

Test 4

160 mL

Test 5

  80 mL

Test 6

160 mL

Test 7

192 mL

Test 8

180 mL

Test 9

100 mL

Test 10

160 mL

Test 11

115 mL

Test 12

150 mL

Test 13

150 mL

Test 14

100 mL

Test 15

130 mL

Test 16

  50 mL

Test 17

  90 mL

Test 18

150 mL

Test 19

110 mL

Test 20

190 mL

Test 21

  80 mL

Test 22

150 mL

Test 23

100 mL

Test 24

100 mL

Test 25

160 mL

Test 26

100 mL

Test 27

160 mL

Test 28

110 mL

Test 29

110 mL

Test 30

140 mL

Control Average

128 mL

Manual Conservation Ratio

128 mL/ 1302 mL= 90% Saved

Automatic Conservation Ratio

128 mL/782 mL= 84% Saved

Results and Analysis for Prototype Two: 

Checking Prototype Two Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

X

X

X

X

Prototype Two Analysis:

        Shown in above graph and design criteria table, Prototype Two succeeded at conserving water, being reusable, and sealing completely despite the angle of the device. The graph is not a bell curve.  Most data fell between 100 - 124 mL or 150 - 174 mL. This graph anomaly was caused by the effective seal creating a vacuum.  This vacuum allowed minimal water out of device until air escaped and water surged out of device.  The conservation ratio was created when the average water use from Prototype Two (128 mL of water) was compared to the average water use of the controls (1302 mL of water from the manual faucet and 782 mL of water from the automatic faucet).  Despite water surges, the manual conservation ratio for Prototype Two showed 90% improvement in water conservation over the manual control, and 84% improvement over the automatic control.  Prototype One showed 86% improvement in water conservation over the manual control, and 77% improvement over the automatic control.

If the surges were remedied, water efficiency would increase creating airflow from inside and outside the 2-liter bottle.

Prototype Three:  Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring and Tube

2/8/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

2/24/15

Prototype Three:  Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring and Tube Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

  90 mL

Test 2

100 mL

Test 3

  80 mL

Test 4

100 mL

Test 5

105 mL

Test 6

120 mL

Test 7

100 mL

Test 8

120 mL

Test 9

  70 mL

Test 10

  70 mL

Test 11

  60 mL

Test 12

  90 mL

Test 13

110 mL

Test 14

  80 mL

Test 15

105 mL

Test 16

  80 mL

Test 17

  80 mL

Test 18

  80 mL

Test 19

  90 mL

Test 20

  85 mL

Test 21

100 mL

Test 22

  90 mL

Test 23

  80 mL

Test 24

100 mL

Test 25

100 mL

Test 26

110 mL

Test 27

100 mL

Test 28

  90 mL

Test 29

  85 mL

Test 30

  80 mL

Average

  92 mL

Manual Conservation Ratio

92 mL/ 1302 mL= 93% Saved

Automatic Conservation Ratio

92 mL/782 mL= 88% Saved

Results and Analysis for Prototype Three:

Checking Prototype Three Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

X

X

X

X

Prototype Three Analysis:

        As shown in the above graph and design criteria table, Prototype Three, created from non-corroding materials and a 2-liter bottle, succeeded at conserving water, being reusable, and did not leak.  The graph, a binodal graph with nodes displayed between 80 mL- 89 mL, shows a lesser vacuum affecting water flow. The conservation ratio was created when the average water use from Prototype Three (92 mL of water) was compared to the average water use of the controls (1302 mL of water from the manual faucet and 782 mL of water from the automatic faucet).  Prototyped Three showed 93% improvement in water conservation over the manual control, and 88% improvement over the automatic control.

In Prototype Four, the vacuum affecting water conservation and consistency must be addressed without sacrificing water conservation, reusability, or dispensing: the cross holes drilled into rod were drilled larger than 0.0762 cm (0.030 in), the vacuum should again decrease.   Buna-N O-ring will replace the silicon ring in creating a seal.

Prototype Four:  Anti-Vacuum Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring

3/18/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

3/20/15

Prototype Four:  Anti-Vacuum Stabilized Metal Plunger with Captured O-Ring Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

N/A

Test 2

N/A

Test 3

N/A

Test 4

N/A

Test 5

N/A

Test 6

N/A

Test 7

N/A

Test 8

N/A

Test 9

N/A

Test 10

N/A

Test 11

N/A

Test 12

N/A

Test 13

N/A

Test 14

N/A

Test 15

N/A

Test 16

N/A

Test 17

N/A

Test 18

N/A

Test 19

N/A

Test 20

N/A

Test 21

N/A

Test 22

N/A

Test 23

N/A

Test 24

N/A

Test 25

N/A

Test 26

N/A

Test 27

N/A

Test 28

N/A

Test 29

N/A

Test 30

N/A

Average

N/A

Conservation Ratio

N/A

Results and Analysis for Prototype Four:

Checking Prototype Four Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

N/A

X

X

X

Prototype Four Analysis:

        Prototype Four was not tested as it leaked extreme amounts of water.  There was no difference in water flow between applying and removing pressure.  The leakage is caused by the higher durometer of the Buna-N O-ring which failed to seal appropriately.  

Prototype Five will address the vacuum affecting water conservation and consistency found in Prototype Three without sacrificing water conservation, reusability, or dispensing.  As the Buna-N O-ring is not stopping water, a new way to create a seal will be used, an umbrella valve.

Prototype Five: Umbrella Seal

3/21/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

3/20/15

Prototype Five: Umbrella Seal Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

  80 mL

Test 2

  95 mL

Test 3

  70 mL

Test 4

100 mL

Test 5

  80 mL

Test 6

100 mL

Test 7

  70 mL

Test 8

  60 mL

Test 9

100 mL

Test 10

  80 mL

Test 11

  80 mL

Test 12

  70 mL

Test 13

  70 mL

Test 14

  60 mL

Test 15

  70 mL

Test 16

  80 mL

Test 17

  80 mL

Test 18

  80 mL

Test 19

  90 mL

Test 20

  75 mL

Test 21

  85 mL

Test 22

  80 mL

Test 23

  80 mL

Test 24

  80 mL

Test 25

  80 mL

Test 26

  70 mL

Test 27

  60 mL

Test 28

  80 mL

Test 29

  80 mL

Test 30

  80 mL

Average

  79 mL

Manual Conservation Ratio

79 mL/ 1302 mL= 94% Saved

Automatic Conservation Ratio

79 mL/782 mL= 90% Saved

Results and Analysis for Prototype Five:

Checking Prototype Five Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

X

X

X

X

X

Prototype Five Analysis:

        As shown in the above graph and design criteria table, Prototype Five, created from non-corroding materials and a 2-liter bottle, succeeded at conserving water, being reusable, dispensing water on demand, and did not leak.  The graph, a bell curve graph, shows consistent water flow. The conservation ratio was created when the average water use from Prototype Five (80 mL of water) was compared to the average water use of the controls (1302 mL of water from the manual faucet and 782 mL of water from the automatic faucet).  Prototyped Five showed 94% improvement in water conservation over the manual control and 90% improvement over the automatic control.

Prototype Five met all the established design criteria.  However, the desired end-use and costs must also be considered for philanthropic distribution.  The design intent is the water conserving sanitation device become more valuable to the user for its intended purpose, rather than recycled or traded.  Because metals are commonly recycled for monetary gain in developing countries, the final prototype must be made from plastic.  Also, production costs would decrease if the device (1) was made from low-cost, easily machined plastic (like polypropylene or polyethylene) and (2) had fewer parts.  

Prototype Six: Plastic Spool

4/13/15

Materials:

Fabrication:

Assembly:

Test Results:

5/2/15

Prototype Six: Plastic Spool Test Results

Number of Tests

Amount of Water Dispensed

Test 1

70 mL

Test 2

80 mL

Test 3

70 mL

Test 4

80 mL

Test 5

85 mL

Test 6

80 mL

Test 7

80 mL

Test 8

85 mL

Test 9

70 mL

Test 10

75 mL

Test 11

60 mL

Test 12

70 mL

Test 13

70 mL

Test 14

80 mL

Test 15

85 mL

Test 16

85 mL

Test 17

80 mL

Test 18

70 mL

Test 19

70 mL

Test 20

70 mL

Test 21

85 mL

Test 22

80 mL

Test 23

70 mL

Test 24

70 mL

Test 25

65 mL

Test 26

70 mL

Test 27

80 mL

Test 28

65 mL

Test 29

70 mL

Test 30

75 mL

Average

73 mL

Manual Conservation Ratio

73 mL/ 1302 mL= 95% Saved

Automatic Conservation Ratio

73 mL/782 mL= 91% Saved

Results and Analysis for Prototype Five:

Checking Prototype Five Against Design Criteria

Water Conserving:Saves 50% of water over

handwashing controls

Refillable and Reusable:

No water lost when refilling bottle

Fabrication:

Fabricated from 2-liter bottle and non-corroding materials

Dispenses Water on Demand:

Pressure applied water flows immediately

No Leaking: Pressure removed immediately shuts off without leaking

X

X

X

X

X

Prototype Six Analysis:

        As shown in the above graph and established design criteria, Prototype Six succeeded at conserving water, being reusable, dispensing water on demand, and not leaking.  The conservation ratio was created when the average water use from Prototype Six (80 mL of water) was compared to the average water use of the controls (1302 mL of water from the manual faucet and 782 mL of water from the automatic faucet).   Prototyped Six showed 95% improvement in water conservation over the manual control and 91% improvement over the automatic control.

Like Prototype Five, Prototype Six met all the original established design criteria.  However, this prototype improved upon the previous prototype as it was also designed to be (1) low cost (manufactured from easily machined, inexpensive plastics and assembled from three parts) and (2) the material of the device is worthless to recycle, therefore, encouraging the device to be used for its intended purpose.  These additional considerations become critical when considering philanthropic distribution in places where recycling the metal has monetary value.

Conclusion:

        Internationally, the importance of the sanitation of hands and food is overlooked to conserve water, making individuals extremely susceptible to diseases.  Through the engineering process, six water conserving sanitation devices were designed and prototyped to decreasing prevalence of dysentery.  Increasing worldwide sanitation would create sustainable progress towards a more healthy environment.

Water Conserving:

Two control tests measured the amount of water used during hand washing: a manual faucet and an automatic faucet.  The tests established a baseline to compare the degree of conservation using the device.  The manual faucet averaged 1302 mL of water while the automatic faucet averaged 782 mL of water.  30 tests were completed for each prototyped, averaged, and then compared to the control averages.

 

Errors in conservation tests may have been caused by distracted hand washing, causing more water to be used, but by using the same individual’s hands, hand size and hand washing technique were more controlled.

Refillable and Reusable:

        The water source is a repurposed 2-liter bottle as bottles (1) are found universally, (2) are refillable, (3) benefits the environment by reusing slowly biodegradable polyethylene terephthalate, and (4) prototypes work with any brand.

Fabrication from Non-Corrosive Materials:

Cleanliness of the sanitation device can be guaranteed by using non-corrosive materials.  Prototype One was machined out of 440C stainless steel which device rusted.  To prevent rusting, Prototypes Two, Three, Four, and Five were machined from 303 stainless steel.  Prototype Six was machined from acetal plastic.

Dispenses on Command Without Leaking:

Tighter seals creates serging; the data from Prototype Two and Three was distributed binomially.  While Prototype Three included a ‘straw’ allowing air to escape, this design change was not enough to create normal data distribution.  

Prototypes One and Four leaked.  The seal of Prototype One failed.  Prototype Four leaked after enlarging the cross-cut holes from Prototype Three.  

Prototype Six:

        Prototype Six met and exceeded the original established design criteria.  

Engineering Hypothesis:

The engineering hypothesis was correct as a water conserving dispenser has been designed and manufactured to prevent water waste in home and recreational use.  Field testing and actual use will decrease (1) the prevalence of disease and (2) unnecessary deaths as well.

Real World Connection:

Almost 2.7 billion of the world’s population have limited access to water.  By 2025 it is projected 66% of the world’s population will face water shortages.  Without water, sanitation decreases while diseases increase; two million people die annually from dysentery.  

Prototype Six is an inexpensive, easy-to-use, water-conserving device being field tested this summer in Bangalore, India to discover and correct any design flaws.  Once manufactured and marketed, the proceeds from sales to recreational users and ‘dry cabin’ residents will fund sustainable philanthropic distribution to developing areas with restricted access to clean and safe water.  Initially, private philanthropic assistance and non-profit organizations will distribute the devices to targeted areas.

 

This humanitarian effort is anticipated to decrease disease in shanty towns and other poorly infrastructured living areas, creating a projected decline in the death rate.