1 / 12

Scuba Pool Design Project

2005-2006 Michael Arnold (paladin1@ix.netcom.com) Geoff Joosten (gjuice111@yahoo.com) Danny Christensen (feral2772@aol.com) John Patton (john@pattonopoly.com). Scuba Pool Design Project. Geoff Joosten Danny Christensen John Patton Michael Arnold. Scuba Pool Design Project Team.

raya-waters
Download Presentation

Scuba Pool Design Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2005-2006 Michael Arnold (paladin1@ix.netcom.com) Geoff Joosten (gjuice111@yahoo.com) Danny Christensen (feral2772@aol.com) John Patton (john@pattonopoly.com) Scuba Pool Design Project

  2. Geoff Joosten Danny Christensen John Patton Michael Arnold Scuba Pool Design Project Team

  3. Overview • Introduction, Review, and Benchmarking Review – Geoffrey Joosten • Benchmarking Update – Michael Arnold • Critical Function Prototype – Michael Arnold • Deadlines and Conclusion – Danny Christensen

  4. Review • Building a Scuba Pool for use in trade shows and for diving shops without pool access • Pool will be 8 ft tall with a 24 ft diameter • Inexpensive – under $12,500 • Transportable with easy assembly • Accommodate class size of 8 persons

  5. Benchmarking Review • No current marketable equivalent solution • Closest solution by Splash Superpools with prices from - $3295 to $4891 • This is for a 4 foot deep pool with 20 – 24 foot diameter • Benchmarking revealed that the original design was less desirable and provided a new design

  6. Pro’s Inexpensive Liner Partially Insulated Heavy-Duty Structure Reduced Chance of Liner Splitting Expandable Liner Cons Difficult to Assemble Lots of Parts Relatively Expensive Limited Portability Benchmarking – Original Design http://www.doughboy-pools.com/?Page=Backyards&Pool=53 http://www.doughboy-pools.com/?Page=InformedBuyer&l=3

  7. Benchmarking – Concept Selection Pro’s • Inexpensive • Few Parts • Easy to Assemble • Very Portable • Tougher Design http://www.splashpools.com/store/ Cons • Not Insulated • Liner is more expensive • Shallow End and bottom require an insert • Liner is Weak Point http://www.splashpools.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=displaypage&sid=135413207691391210978&lh=h-0&page=gallery%2Ecfm

  8. Concept Selection • Concept Selection – Driving Forces • Ease of Manufacture • Simplicity • Pricing • Small Variety of Different Parts. Picture provided by John Patton

  9. Critical Function Prototype A Critical Function Prototype Design has been selected and the design is being finalized. The information for the strength of the liner is the key to the design and only recently have we had responses on the material properties and have obtained samples. Testing will now be done to determine if the design is possible with the thicknesses of the lining material that are available.

  10. Deadlines • 11/14/05 – Complete shallow end insert design • 11/30/05 – Complete outside decking design • 11/30/05 – Complete packaging design • 12/07/05 – Complete material selections

  11. Conclusion • The liner will be the main component for water retention • Liner chosen for Critical function Prototype • Development and Analysis of concepts are still underway • Project is on schedule

  12. Questions?

More Related