By Cody Dunn (Project Manager)

Overview

This blog post provides insight into the CDR debrief for team A-TeChToP (the CDR Presentations were posted on an earlier blog post). The group did not perform at the expectation level of the customer and must improve before the end of the semester.

The critique format is based on the outline presented at http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/Lectures/Week%2009%20CDR%20Critical%20Design%20Review/CDR%20Outline.pdf

Central Sensor Suite

Critique

Title Page: The title page met the requirements, although it is important to consider the background for pictures (jokes were made concerning a messy room).

Executive Summary: The executive summary received positive reviews. However, one of the project features should include the orientation of a child on the control panel.

Systems Design: Some of the information was at the PDR level and lacked detail. There should have been more clear details concerning analog versus digital pins.

Experimental Results: The experiments were reasonable. However, there was a lack of data, results, and images from the experiments. The experimental challenges were understood but were not addressed. Digital filters should be added to the code to improve the signal outputs.

Subsystem Design:  The interface definition needs to be improved because the cabling diagram was not detailed. The custom PCB needs a smaller case because size reduction from previous A-TeChToP groups should be a Level 1 Requirement. The hardware design needs to be cleaned up and made sleeker and the Solidworks model needs mounting. The Fritzing Diagram should have included Bluetooth.

Verification/Validation: The group needs to remember that verification should be tested against requirements and validation should be tested by having the device on kids (playground testing). Some of the requirements need margins added.

Project Update: The weight allocation of 10% must be reduced.

Demo: The Demo was quite behind schedule, the pulse oxi

Plan for Improvement

An accelerated schedule has been created to get the group back on track.

Seizure Watch

Critique

Title Page: The title page met the requirements

Exec Summary: The executive summary needs to identify the types of seizures the device will detect.

System Design: The system design was at the PDR level and the block diagram was not updated.

Experimental Results: Experiment 1 was only proposed and Experiment 2 was not technically an experiment because only PLA was tested for the watch band. The watch lacked prototypes.

Subsystem Design: For the interface definition, the cabling was discussed but not shown. The custom PCB design was not really there. The hardware design was severely lacking in the eyes of the review board. The final design should not use PLA and maybe a watch face should be designed. Electrode placement was not mentioned. Since there will not be a final watch due to difficulties programming the SAMB11, there should be space for the prototyping platform. There must be a good design for the watch and how it would work, looking towards development of a real product.

Software Design: The software design was good for code but the code had not been properly tested.

Verification/Validation: Some units were not accurate.

Project Update: The update was straightforward although there are concerns with the battery. There was a good discussion of recovery. The project objective should be changed.

Demonstration: The was no baseline to compare for the EDA. The group should run tests with known conductance and show research on the chosen electrodes.

Plan for Improvement

An accelerated schedule has been created to get the group back on track.