Detail Design

During the Detail Design week we determined the exact details that were left unfinished during the specifications process. For example, we created size and weight estimates: The device will be 20cm by 12 cm by 10 cm, enough to hold 4 rows of 5 tubes each, each tube 20cm tall and capable of holding 10 cubic 2cm boxes in a stack. This was the ideal set of dimensions for minimizing size while setting aside enough space for the pills and taking into consideration the limits of the constant force spring's extension. In this manner, we also determined in detail all other aspects of the device, like weight and cost.

We finalized the reloading mechanism as well. It was decided that magnets below each constant force spring and an electromagnet that could be turned on and off could be used for reloading. When the physician presses the reload button and enters the necessary code, the electromagnet will activate, attracting all the bar magnets to unwind all the springs. The physician can then unlock, open, and reload the device. When done, the physician can again press the reload button to deactivate the electromagnet.

Since last week, we changed our minds about the cell-phone like sliding technology due to the size and bulk of the device.

Finalizing Specification

During last Thursday’s BE100 recitation DuckHunt design crew (Annie Conde, Anand Sundaram, and Daniel Chabolla) met to finalize the specification of the Patient-Controlled Oral Analgesia Device. Before moving any further with our design it was necessary to create specifications for the three feasible models that had been thought of during our first meeting session. Each member in our group was assigned one of the three models and became responsible for creating specifications for one particular device. After going over the specifications of the three devices and analyzing the pros and cons of each model, we decided that rather than settle for one of the three concepts, it would be wiser to bring together the best features of every device and craft a more efficient, functional, and stylish device.

Final specifications such as weight and size of the model haven't been determined just yet. At the moment, the DuckHunt crew is devising how to stack up and deliver the dosage in the most efficient manner. As foretold by Anand, it is very likely that the medication delivery system will function very similar to the way a stapler operates. The idea is that a spring will be compressing prepackaged doses of medication. The packages will be stacked vertically. At the opposite end of the compressing spring will be a motorized spring that will be extricating the prepackaged doses from their stacked up arrangement. We have yet to determine how we will refill the device; something that is likely to be determined during our next session. You can bet, though, that our device will have cell-phone slider technology and will be displaying an LCD screen.

Conceptualizing

Before we begin to design anything, we need to brainstorm three conceptually different conceptual designs for a patient-controlled oral analgesic device. During Thursday's recitation, we came up with two viable concepts. One was a Pez-dispenser-like assembly line pill dispenser that could possibly function like a stapler (when you staple something, all the staples move down; similarly, all the pills would moved own in our device). The second was a liquid analgesic dispenser along the lines of a liquid hand soap dispenser. The main issue to be solved for both of these designs is security - how can one lock a patient out of using a soap dispenser? We need to design some mechanism to control the dispensation of analgesics in for both types of device.

We still need to come up with a third design concept. This should occur early next week. On Thursday, we cycled through several ideas only to dismiss them one by one. The one that generated the most conversation was the idea of making analgesics like Listerine strips, which would certainly look pretty cool.

Cheer up and check out some PEZ:
http://www.pez.com/v/default1.htm