Gate 5.

From GICL Wiki
Revision as of 21:00, 18 December 2011 by MAE 277 2011 Group13 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Overview of Previous Gate Revisions

Gate 1 Revision

For gate 1, we added any information that was overlooked or forgotten, or any information that needed to be evaluated in further detail.

  • In Project Management, we further evaluated our skill set at the time and what we needed to work on to help us complete the project. We also added a Gantt chart that described the time we thought it would take to the complete the gate 2 dissection. In management proposal, we added a meet plan which we had left out and elaborated that the communication liason was to be the group-professor point of contact.
  • In Product Archaeology, we elaborated on much of the information. We added further researched detail on the specifics of our engine and its manufacture, function, use, and development. We reformatted our flow chart and redefined some of its energy flow to be more accurate. We further defined the engines complexities and component interactions. We described the materials used in our product in further detail and justified our reasoning. We elaborated on the users intended interactions with the engine and elaborated on its maintenance requirements and difficulties. We elaborated on alternate product designs, and we quantified the cost differences.


Gate 2 Revision

For gate 2, we added missing data and we completed the assembly portion which we did not have completed in time.

  • In Project management, we elaborated on our cause for corrective action and how we would fix and avoid challenges in the future.
  • In Product Archaeology, we finished the disassembly table and further specified the tools that we used. For product dissection, we redefined our difficulty scale and made it more understandable. We reevaluated the subsystems and their connections and called out their connecting flows more directly. We further elaborated on the four factors and how they were implemented in the design of each subsystem.


Gate 3 Revision

For gate 3, we reformatted the component summary and edited some data that was unclear.

  • In Product Archaeology, we re-evaluated our components purposes and whether they had multiple functions. We also re-evaluated the aesthetic properties for each component and the cause for these properties. We redefined our component complexity scale to make it more clear to the reader without losing its detail and quality.


Gate 4 Revision

For gate 4, we completed the reassembly section which we were not able to complete on time.

  • In Product Archaeology, we completed the product re-assembly section which we did not include in our original gate. We also edited some of the reasons and justification for our redesigns to make them more viable and understandable. We completely changed the mechanism from cooling revision (revision 3) from liquid cooled to mechanical fan cooled because it is more practical and has less cost increase.


Overall Revisions

We made some global revision over the entire project that affected each gate. We ensured that the formatting used in each gate was more unified by reformatting tables, and ensuring that headings and subheadings were formatted in the same way. We added figure labels and captions where necessary and ensured that all figures were appropriately sized and placed. We ensured that all imagery and media were used to support the discussion. Our goal in reformatting was to increase quality and professionalism of our project as a whole, and make it one coherent unit.