Difference between revisions of "Group 29 - Homelite Line Trimmer"

From GICL Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 23: Line 23:
 
In keeping with the coordination of labor as facilitated by the group’s Gantt chart, dissection was anticipated to last ten days, mainly owing to conflicting personal schedules among members.  This inconvenience and difficulty in securing mass group work, however, amounted to a rather serendipitous boon to work on the project; that is, were all members to convene at an arranged time at the product dissection lab furnished by the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, confusion and congestion of workflow would have proved inevitable.  In a word, having five members of the group simultaneously laboring on either the disassembly or the reassembly, or perhaps both, would have spelled mere detriment to the work on the product, in light of the of spatially restrictive environment of the facility wherein labwork was conducted.<br><br>       
 
In keeping with the coordination of labor as facilitated by the group’s Gantt chart, dissection was anticipated to last ten days, mainly owing to conflicting personal schedules among members.  This inconvenience and difficulty in securing mass group work, however, amounted to a rather serendipitous boon to work on the project; that is, were all members to convene at an arranged time at the product dissection lab furnished by the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, confusion and congestion of workflow would have proved inevitable.  In a word, having five members of the group simultaneously laboring on either the disassembly or the reassembly, or perhaps both, would have spelled mere detriment to the work on the product, in light of the of spatially restrictive environment of the facility wherein labwork was conducted.<br><br>       
 
Much to the benefit of the group in terms of time management, physical disassembly of the product was completed in two intervals over the course of two consecutive days (i.e., three hours on the first day, and one hour on the following day).  This allowed for acceleration of the work schedule and earlier "start dates" on tasks of respective gates than had been projected in the Gantt chart.<br><br>
 
Much to the benefit of the group in terms of time management, physical disassembly of the product was completed in two intervals over the course of two consecutive days (i.e., three hours on the first day, and one hour on the following day).  This allowed for acceleration of the work schedule and earlier "start dates" on tasks of respective gates than had been projected in the Gantt chart.<br><br>
Multiple layers of the reverse engineering project gained form and order posterior to completion of the product's disassembly.  Namely, in an effort to devise a methodical approach to analyzing the product with respect to expressly defined criteria, including from a standpoint that assessed design involving functional, marketable, manufacturing, and economic variables, the group channeled the enterprise into sub-sections of each gate.  More precisely, to guide and ensure invariable concentration and preserve a positive morale and work ethic within the group, the group generated a ''Causes for Corrective Action'' as the need arose, particularly following the '''Request for Proposal''' (i.e., Gate I) and the unexpectedly expeditious disassembly during the '''Preliminary Project Review''' (i.e., Gate II).<br><br>
+
Multiple layers of the reverse engineering project gained form and order posterior to completion of the product's disassembly.  Namely, in an effort to devise a methodical approach to analyzing the product with respect to expressly defined criteria, including from a standpoint that assessed design involving functional, marketable, manufacturing, and economic variables, the group channeled the enterprise into sub-sections of each gate.  More precisely, to guide and ensure invariable concentration and preserve a positive morale and work ethic within the group, the group generated a ''Causes for Corrective Action'' as the need arose, particularly following the '''Request for Proposal''' (i.e., Gate I) and the unexpectedly expeditious disassembly during the '''Preliminary Project Review''' (i.e., Gate II).  In addition to this managerial component, the group detailed its disassembly using such organizational media as charts, annotated with relevant text and corresponding visuals, enabled by the services provided gratis by the Wiki Media platform.<br><br>
 
+
Advancing beyond the illustrated and descriptive exposition supplied in the '''Preliminary Project Review''', the group's technicians, both the mechanically knowledgeable and those well versed in modern software-based applications designed for computer-aided drafting and solid modeling purposes, tackled the product documentation and analysis of the ''Coordination Review'''.     
  
  

Revision as of 00:30, 11 December 2009

Note: For optimal viewing of the content on this page, please maximize the size of the window of your given internet browser.

Homelite® VersaTool™ Line Trimmer. Click to view a higher resolution of the image.
A more recent model of the Homelite® VersaTool™ Line Trimmer



Contents

Executive Summary

Addressed herein is the reverse engineering of the UT 15151 Homelite® VersaTool™ line trimmer undertaken by group 29 of MAE 277, SUNY-Buffalo, for the Fall 2009 semester. Documentation of the development of the semester-long project entails a record of an evolving engineering process distilled into five discrete, successive "gates", designated as the following:

Gate I: Request for Proposal, which contains details germane to the Work Proposal, Project Management and the Initial Product Assessment;

Gate II: Preliminary Project Review, which consists of Causes for Corrective Action and the Product Dissection Plan;

Gate III: Coordination Review, which includes a Component Summary, Design Revisions, a Solid Modeled Assembly, and an Engineering Analysis apposite to the vital mechanics of the product;

Gate IV: Critical Project Review, which provides a step-by-step account of the product's reassembly, articulated in Product Reassembly Plan;

Gate V: Delivery, which marks submission of the final edition of the technical report in its entirety.

Motivation for this maiden enterprise evoking application of fundamental engineering principles to technical communication, analysis and design arose from the stimulus of MAE 277 coursework, as alluded to earlier, with the Reverse Engineering Team Project amounting to a substantial percentage of the course material and overall grade. Apart from this, genuine and sustained enthusiasm about reverse engineering physical machinery, together with sound responsibility in attending to delegated work, thereby enabling submittal of deliverables per deadline, proved to be the lone additional catalyst necessary for constructive progress during the course of the project.


What follows is the summation of a collective effort at reverse engineering the UT 15151 Homelite® VersaTool™ line trimmer within a period of approximately four months.

Introduction

For the duration of the Fall 2009 semester at SUNY-Buffalo, group 29 of MAE 277 immersed itself in a Reverse Engineering Team Project centered on the UT 15151 Homelite® VersaTool™ line trimmer. Throughout the project’s development, the group’s collective toil adhered to a structured agenda as set forth by the presiding instructor of the course. As such, the body of components constituting the project, and the group’s management of the tasks involved therein, lends itself to the following overview.

In keeping with the coordination of labor as facilitated by the group’s Gantt chart, dissection was anticipated to last ten days, mainly owing to conflicting personal schedules among members. This inconvenience and difficulty in securing mass group work, however, amounted to a rather serendipitous boon to work on the project; that is, were all members to convene at an arranged time at the product dissection lab furnished by the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, confusion and congestion of workflow would have proved inevitable. In a word, having five members of the group simultaneously laboring on either the disassembly or the reassembly, or perhaps both, would have spelled mere detriment to the work on the product, in light of the of spatially restrictive environment of the facility wherein labwork was conducted.

Much to the benefit of the group in terms of time management, physical disassembly of the product was completed in two intervals over the course of two consecutive days (i.e., three hours on the first day, and one hour on the following day). This allowed for acceleration of the work schedule and earlier "start dates" on tasks of respective gates than had been projected in the Gantt chart.

Multiple layers of the reverse engineering project gained form and order posterior to completion of the product's disassembly. Namely, in an effort to devise a methodical approach to analyzing the product with respect to expressly defined criteria, including from a standpoint that assessed design involving functional, marketable, manufacturing, and economic variables, the group channeled the enterprise into sub-sections of each gate. More precisely, to guide and ensure invariable concentration and preserve a positive morale and work ethic within the group, the group generated a Causes for Corrective Action as the need arose, particularly following the Request for Proposal (i.e., Gate I) and the unexpectedly expeditious disassembly during the Preliminary Project Review (i.e., Gate II). In addition to this managerial component, the group detailed its disassembly using such organizational media as charts, annotated with relevant text and corresponding visuals, enabled by the services provided gratis by the Wiki Media platform.

Advancing beyond the illustrated and descriptive exposition supplied in the Preliminary Project Review', the group's technicians, both the mechanically knowledgeable and those well versed in modern software-based applications designed for computer-aided drafting and solid modeling purposes, tackled the product documentation and analysis of the Coordination Review.


Gate I: Request for Proposal

Below are arranged, in sequence, links to the subsections constituting the Request for Proposal.

Link: Work Proposal

Link: Management Proposal

Link: Initial Product Assessment


Date Submitted: October 10, 2009



Gate II: Preliminary Project Review

The following links entail the Causes for Corrective Action and the Product Dissection Plan of the Preliminary Project Review.

Link: Causes for Corrective Action

Link: Product Dissection Plan


Date Submitted: October 30, 2009



Gate III: Coordination Review

The links below lead to the subsections (Component Summary, Design Revisions, Solid Modeled Assembly, and Engineering Analysis, respectively) comprising the Coordination Review. Access to the subsection References to Supplementary Material is provided in the Engineering Analysis, the content of which corresponds with the noted references to outside literature and kindred online sources of the former.

Link: Component Summary

Link: Design Revisions

Link: Solid Modeled Assembly

Link: Engineering Analysis


Date Submitted: November 30, 2009



Gate IV: Critical Project Review

The following links to the Product Reassembly Plan constituting the Critical Project Review.

Link: Product Reassembly Plan


Date Submitted: December 7, 2009



Gate V: Delivery

This signals the completion of the Reverse Engineering Team Project on the UT 15151 Homelite® VersaTool™ line trimmer. All content represented herein constitutes the technical report of group 29 as was formally concluded and submitted on the final delivery date.

Date Submitted: December 14, 2009

List of Tables and Figures



References