HYDRO POWERED TURBINE

Robert Knowlton
Mike Miller
Brett Gordon

May 4, 2010

Team 2D

Executive Summary
Our design team was presented with the task of creating an attachment to an everyday faucet that
would create electric power by propelling a turbine. With the given customer input and our
findings during our external search, our team came up with several initial design ideas that were
introduced to the group. After critiquing these designs and scoring them against weighted
criteria, we chose the best one which contained a horizontal turbine and motor which would
power a digital clock that is attached to the housing. The clock will be built into the housing and
self contained from the water. With this system design concept selected, we then proceeded to
perform feasibility calculations and economic analysis tests to see if this design would be
possible. With our findings, this design concept is not only possibly, but it is also profitable. Our
design is able to produce approximately .5 W while the product is running. The product will cost
about $24 to produce and be retailed for $48.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................3
1.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................3
1.2. Background..................................................................................3
1.3. Project Planning ...........................................................................3
2. Customer Need Assessment .....................................................................3
2.1. Customer needs ............................................................................3
2.2. Specifications...............................................................................4
3. Concept Development ..............................................................................4
3.1. External Search ............................................................................4
3.2. Problem Decomposition ...............................................................5
3.3. Ideation Methods .........................................................................5
3.4. Design Concepts ..........................................................................6
3.4.1. Attachment Concepts ......................................................6
3.4.2. Turbine Concepts ............................................................6
3.5. Concept Selection ........................................................................7
4. System Level Design ...............................................................................8
4.1. Description of Design ..................................................................8
4.2. Feasibility Calculations ................................................................9
4.3. Economic Analysis ......................................................................9
5. Detailed Design .......................................................................................9
5.1. System Performance Predictions ..................................................9
5.2. Material and Material Selection Process ......................................9
5.3. Component and Component Selection Process ............................9
5.4. Materials and Fabrication Process .............................................. 10
5.5. Differences between Prototype and Production Model ............... 10
5.6. Test Procedure ........................................................................... 10
6. Construction Process of Alpha Prototype ............................................... 10
7. Economic Analysis ................................................................................ 11
8. Test Results and Discussion ................................................................... 11
9. Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................ 12
10. Appendices ............................................................................................ 13

2
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
The problem that was presented to us is to develop and economically viable prototype of a hydro
powered system that can be attached to a home faucet. This hydro powered system will produce
electrical energy from the flowing water that can be used to power up an accessory attached to
the system. The accessory will be a digital clock that is built into the housing unit. The energy
produced by the turbine will be more than able to power this clock. Along with developing a
prototype of these items, the prototype itself must be inexpensive, easy to use, attractive, and
efficient. With all of these factors to consider, our group plans to build a working prototype that
overcomes all of these barriers.

1.2 Background
Group 2D runs a company that specialized in water turbines for micro-hydro power systems for
residential homes, farmers, and ranchers. Our company looks toward the future when it comes to
energy supplies by using renewable resources such as water to power our systems. Alternative
forms of energy and power are currently gaining popularity in our county. Using renewable
hydroelectric power is one such alternative source. The target market that will become our
biggest consumers will be homeowners that live in the city or suburbs and rural farmers and
ranchers who live far from power lines and would like to produce their own power supply. This
market will buy into the product because it will allow them to power a clock without outside
energy.

1.3 Project Planning

Coming up with a functional project plan was then first step. We used the engineering design
method in which we use 6 steps: planning, concept development, system level design, detail
design, testing, and production ramp up. Our team created a schedule for the next month and a
half and it details project step deadlines and milestones. This gives us a time table for our team
to work within. Every member in our group is responsible for each of their designated tasks with
the other members there for support. The tasks will be discussed and delegated out to the
individual group members during our weekly meeting which allows the team to run at optimal
efficiency. With the project plan in place and the predetermined deadline set, our group plans to
have a working prototype up and running within a month that will please our prospective
customers.

2. Customer Needs and Specifications

2.1 Customer Needs
It was determined ahead of time that the customers wanted high performance, low cost,
aesthetical appeal, water discharge to be vertically downward and easy attachment.
Along with those, they also would like the total length of the device to be minimal (under 4
inches), the device to be self-contained, the outlet of the product to terminate in a standard
3
internal pipe thread, the device to function reliably, and the Consumer Need Weight
ability to see the internal workings. The results from an AHP, High Performance 18.00%
shown in Figure 1, determined that the most important needs Low Cost 16.70%
were the ease of attachment, performance, and cost. The full Attractive 5.14%
AHP can be found in Appendix C.
Easy Attachment 23.60%
Vertically Downward
2.2 Specifications Discharge
2.20%
After receiving the customer needs, engineering
Small Size
10.60%
specifications were developed. The specifications are:
power generation, efficiency, cost, industrial design, Self Contained
3.53%
compatible threads, vertical height, water control, corrosion Reliable
9.30%
resistance, and housing transparency. The faucet powered Process Visualization
11.00%
generator must generate at least 1.5 volts over a 10 ohm Figure 1: AHP results
resistor. This product must not cost in excess of $50.
Competitive products cost only $40. Consumers must find this design appealing so an industrial
design is required for the design. This device must be no larger than 4 inches in vertical height
and the design must be as corrosion resistant as possible because the design will be in a wet
environment. The engineering specifications were related to the customer needs in a QFD shown
in Figure 2.
Engineering Specifications

Transparent
Compatible
Generation

Corrosion
Industrial

Resistant
Efficient

Housing
Vertical
threads

Control
Water
Design
Power

length
Total
Cost

Customer Needs
High Performance x x x
Low Cost x x x
Aesthetically Pleasing x
Easy Attachment x x x
Vertical Discharge x x
Small Size x x
Self Contained x x x
Reliable/Endurance x x
Process Visualization x
Material Material
Units Watts % $ N/A Gage in. in3/s
Selection Selection

Figure 2: QFD
3. Concept Development
3.1 External Search
The external search revealed a similar concept: the Sylvania ECOlight. This product attaches to a
shower head and powers a LED light [ref 1]. The ECOlight allows water to pass through a
turbine which will rotate a generator and power the LED light. The product also has water

4
temperature indicator lights which will appear blue if the water is cold or red if the water is hot.
This product is relatively small; measuring about 24 cubic inches.
A faucet generator patent was also discovered. US Patent number 7608936 was issued October
27, 2009 [ref 2]. This faucet generator is completely self contained and vertical. In the issued
patent, many designs were shown, and a turbine design was included. The turbine design had
rotor vanes that aimed the water perpendicular to the turbine blades. The patent did not specify
an added feature in its claims or how much power would be produced. Also, the patent did not
specify how or where the device would attach to the faucet.
Patent number 6210113 was issued April 3, 2001 for a water wheel turbine for pumping stations
[ref 3]. This patent is design for larger scales but the concept can still be used for small scale
applications. The design allows the flow of water to rotate the turbine and generate power. The
water flows into buckets which are closed by a spray of water. The buckets are then opened at
the bottom of the wheel by the force of the water.
At the start of the project, a turbo machinery chapter on hydraulic turbines was provided [ref 4].
The chapter introduced three basic turbine designs which are the Pelton, Francis, and Kaplan
turbines. The Pelton design is very similar to water wheels. The turbine design had cup shaped
blades that would collect the energy. The shaft would be completely horizontal so the design
would be used on rivers or streams. The Francis turbine design has curved blades that collect the
force of the water. This design has a flat bottom with blades that extrude up. This design is very
similar to the ECOlight turbine design. The Kaplan turbine design is very similar to boat
propeller. This design is thickest at the top of the turbine, where the impact force of the water
would be the greatest.
The team learned that there were many turbine designs to choose from. There is no single turbine
design that can be used in every application. Also, with the design patents that have already been
issued, the team may have trouble patenting our design since the overall concept of generating
power from running water does not change. New claims would need to be developed so that we
could receive our own patent.

3.2 Problem Decomposition

In order to meet the customer needs, the team was able to break down the problem into three
smaller sub problems. These sub problems are the inlet, the turbine design, and transmitting
energy from the turbine to the generator. Each sub problem was broken down into design
specifications that the design must include. The inlet problem was broken down into connecting
to the existing faucet, directing the flow and increasing the velocity of water towards the turbine.
A larger velocity will increase the force on the turbine blades and provide a greater torque. The
turbine design must convert kinetic energy to rotational energy and it must be able to transmit the
torque to the gears. To transmit the energy, the rotational speed of the gears must be increased to
increase the generator efficiency.

3.3 Ideation Methods

After the team broke up the entire design into sub problems, basic ideas were generated to solve
our design problems. In order to meet the design requirements for the inlet, the team found two
possible solutions. A nozzle could be used to increase the velocity and direct the flow towards

5
the turbine blades. The team could also choose not to use a nozzle and position the turbine
directly under the inlet.
To solve the turbine sub problem, the team looked into the Pelton, Francis, and Kaplan turbine
designs discussed in the external search section above. In addition to these three designs the team
could design a basic water wheel. Each design had its advantages and disadvantages but the
designs are still able to convert kinetic energy into rotational energy.
The team came up with different combinations of gears or pulleys to transmit the energy from
the turbine to the generator. Gears or pulleys would be used to increase generator rotational
speed to its optimum efficiency. Some considerations for gears were bevel, helical, spur and
worm gears. The type of gear to be used will depend on what is available and the placement of
the generator.

3.4 Design Concepts

3.4.1 Attachment Concepts
When the team met to discuss attachment ideas, two possible
designs were produced. The first was a digital clock. The power
generated from the generator would power the LED display and
the time would be kept and powered by a battery. The battery
will be replaceable and rechargeable. The clock would also
feature 4 buttons that would adjust the time and light up the clock.
A basic design for the clock is provided in Figure 3.

The second attachment design is a soap dispenser that would Figure 3: Clock design
only dispense soap when the customer pressed a button. The
soap would be stored below the generator in a tank. This tank would store about the same
amount of soap as a small bottle of liquid soap. This design would require a small pump to
dispense the soap that may require more power that can be supplied.

3.4.2 Turbine Concepts

When the concept development meeting
switched to the turbine generator design,
three designs were created. The first design
features a basic Pelton turbine design. A
nozzle would increase the speed of the water
and direct it towards the turbine. After the
water was used, it would flow through the
outlet at the bottom of the design. Gears
would be attached to the back of the turbine
housing and connect to the generator. A
sketch of the Pelton design is provided in
Figure 4.
The second design is called the ‘gears on top’ Figure 4: Pelton design
and featured a turbine design similar to the
Francis turbine. The inlet pipe would bend and

6
a nozzle would be attached to the pipe to direct the flow towards the turbine blades. The water
would discharge under the turbine and out the pipe at the bottom. Gears would be attached to the
top side of the turbine housing and connect to the generator. The generator would be placed
vertically due to its small size and connect to the attachment. This design is provided below in
Figure 5.
The final design is called the ‘gears below’ design and featured a Francis or Kaplan turbine. The
inlet would have a nozzle that directed the flow but does not bend. Similar to the second design
concept, the water would discharge out the pipe which was located under the turbine. This design
also placed the gears beneath the turbine housing and the generator would be placed on side of
the turbine housing. This design was the most compacted design of the three design concepts.
The ‘gears below design’ is featured in Figure 6.

Figure 5: ‘Gears on Top’ Design Figure 6: ‘Gears Below’ Design

3.5 Concept Selection

The design concepts were given a rating of 1-5 on how well they met each customer need. They
were then given a weighted score based on their rating and the weighted value of the customer
needs. The weighted values were then summed for a total score. Each design concept was then
given a ranking of 1-3. The design with the highest total score would be ranked number one and
the lowest total score would receive the lowest ranking. A summary of the concept selection
chart is shown below in Figure 7 and the full concept selection chart can be found in appendix D.

Pelton Gears above Gears below Soap

Design design design Clock dispenser
Total Score 3.5187 3.4967 3.3067 3.5352 1.7678
Rank 2 1 3 1 2
Whats Next? combine combine none develop none

Figure 7: Concept Selection chart

7
The Pelton design received the highest score because the energy generation process would be
seen in its entirety. This design was also larger than the other two concept designs so this design
received a lower score, but it would not prevent the downward water discharge as much and the
other two designs. This design was thought to be as reliable as the ‘gears above’ design and more
reliable than the ‘gears below’ design because very few parts would be exposed to water. Since
the generator was above the turbine and behind the gear, there would be a smaller chance that
water would reach the generator and damage it.
The Francis turbine design was the best design generated by the team. It would require less
redirection of flow and could be positioned vertically. The design would allow gravity and
pressure to be the driving forces of the design. The design would also satisfy our size restrictions
and our power generation requirements.

Due to the size constraints, the design would need to use gears over a pulley system. Gears are
better used when the distance between the shafts are relatively small. Also, a pulley system
would require belts that are subject to more wear and tear than gears.
The attachments were not rated against a few of the customer needs because the needs were not
relevant to the attachment designs. The team chose the clock over the soap dispenser for many
reasons. The clock is smaller and would require less power to operate. The clock would also
require less consumer maintenance over time.

4. System Level Design

4.1 Description of Design
The chosen design of the turbine is one similar to a Francis
turbine (Figure 8). It has 8 blades, each 40 o separated from
the next. The whole design has a 2” radius and is .5” wide.
There is a .12” diameter hole through the center for the
shaft. There is also a .1” lip at the bottom for stability.

The generator was chosen to be a RF-370CA-15370 model.

This motor has a 0.079 inch diameter shaft and the
diameter of the generator is 0.96 inches. The length of Figure 8: Turbine Design
the generator is 1.21 inches and the full length (including
the shaft) is 1.69 inches. The approximate weight of the generator is 1.8 ounces.

For the housing of the turbine, the outer diameter is 2.8” with a 1” width. A .75” inlet nozzle
enters a .2” diameter inlet hole of the housing to power the turbine. The water then flows to the
bottom where it exits through a .375” diameter outlet into the sink. Attached to the turbine
housing is additional space for the gears and motor. The additional housing is 2.8” tall, 3” thick,
and 4” long. This would make the height of the entire housing complex 4” tall and 4.5” wide.
These specifications will allow this product to fit comfortable onto an average sink faucet
without getting in the way of normal day-to-day activities.

8
4.2 Feasibility Calculations
Before testing can begin, the feasibility of producing the power required must be calculated. The
feasibility calculations can be found in appendix E. Based off of the given assumptions, we
found the following. To find rotational inertia, the mass and radius of the turbine were estimated
to be .1 kg and .0254 meters, respectively. Meanwhile, the gear ratio, to help maximize
efficiency, was determined to be about 10. This will produce .73 Watts. Finally, the diameter of
the nozzle was determined to be 0.005 meters for an increased output velocity. The flow
measurements were taken at 1/3 full flow to see if the concept would work with minimal flow.

4.3 Economic Analysis

To determine what the entire design should sell for, it was very vital to find out how much the
motor cost. The price of the motor was found to be $4.25/motor when sold in bulk [ref 4].
Using this information and estimations for the manufacturing process, the price of the entire
design will be about $24 to manufacture and $48 to sell. This cost is competitive to that of the
Sylvania ECOlight.

5. Detailed Design
5.1 System Performance Predictions
The team believes that the design will convert 30% of the total kinetic energy of the water into
rotational energy in the turbine based on full flow and turbine design estimations. With a gear
ratio of 1, the team believes that the rotational speed of the generator will be approximately
24700 rpm. This gear ratio was readily available from the instrumentation room at the
Pennsylvania State University. The generator will then create .59 W of useful power and operate
at an efficiency of 5% with a 10 ohm resistor attached to the system. The resulting current and
voltage across the resistor will be .24 A and 2.4 V respectfully. A detailed outline of our
predictions can be found in appendix F.

5.2 Material and Material Selection Process

The next step towards production of these micro-turbine power supplies is to choose the
materials that they will be built from. Our team has decided to use a mix of plastic and steel.
The housing will be made out of a translucent plastic in order to allow the customer to witness
the process of energy production. The two gears will also be made out of plastic in order to keep
the product low cost and light weight. We will use a standardized generator which is pre-
assembled so we do not have to worry about material selection for that case. The shaft that
connects the turbine to the gears will be stainless steel to prevent corrosion. Finally, the turbine
will be of a SPB water lubricated composite plastic material to ensure stability and effectiveness
while in use with water. A composite is standard plastic mixed with fiberglass strands to add
strength.

5.3 Component and Component Selection Process

With the knowledge of what materials to use, our team has progressed to selecting the
components for mass production. The turbine was designed to be reasonably small and efficient.
The 1/8” diameter steel shaft was selected by its size compared to the turbine shaft hole. The
shaft size allows the turbine to be press fitted. The gears were selected to accomplish a gear

9
ration of 1. We chose two 10 tooth gears which gives us the proper gear ratio for power
production. The 10 tooth gears are standardized parts obtainable from any gear manufacturer.
The motor was a standard RF-370CA-15370 motor so there was no in depth selection process.
The nozzles that were selected are 3/8"-18 NPS internal pipe thread in order to attach to the
faucet properly. The digital clock face will be built into the housing, and the wires will run from
the faceplate and the motor. Finally, the turbine housing will be built in order to contain the
turbine and prevent water from disrupting the motor. The housing will be sealed on both sides
with two Plexiglas caps to contain the water within the housing. Appendix G contains the
designed parts as well as the assembly view. The Bill of Materials for all of these components
can be found in appendix H.

5.4 Materials and Fabrication Process

For the production model, precision is very important. With such a small object, there are only
so many methods to assemble it. The group has decided that the housing will be put together
using snap on parts. The turbine will be pressed onto the shaft and then placed into the housing.
Next the gears and motor will be assembled to fixed positions on the housing. The nozzle will be
attached and then the turbine housing will be closed. This entire assembly will them be placed
into a larger housing to isolate the electronics. The two housings will be attached using a snap-
fit attachment.

5.5 Differences between Prototype and Production Model

While the mass production units will be made exactly to scale with perfect precision, the alpha
prototype will differ. The prototype will cost roughly similar to the production model, though
the labor will cost more, as the assembly, by hand, will take longer for the prototype to be put
together. The prototype will resemble the mass production but not all of the features will be
exactly the same. Only available parts, such as PVC piping and adhesives, will be used for the
alpha prototype, whereas the production unit will only be assembled with parts that will be
designed from the manufacturer. The prototype only needs to prove the concept works so it does
not need to be as aesthetically pleasing as the mass produced unit. The alpha prototype turbine
housing will also be more forgiving to the exact size needed, using the closest sized PVC pipe
available, where as the production unit will be specified to exact size. The inlet and outlet of the
turbine housing will not be produced to specifications for the prototype.

5.6 Test Procedure

To test the systems performance, the team will measure the voltage generated over a 10 ohm
resistor. If the power does not meet the requirements, the gear ratio will be adjusted to increase
the output of the generator. The team will also measure the pressure at the nozzle. The pressure
at the nozzle will determine how much force is exerted on the turbine blades. This information
will be used in the future to help determine the optimal design of the turbine blades.

6. Construction Process of Alpha Prototype

The prototype housing was fabricated out of a 2.5” ID by 3” length PVC pipe. The PVC pipe
was cut down to 1.5” length for the turbine housing. A 3/8” diameter hole was cut into the center
of the housing length to create an inlet and the center of the hole is offset by 3/4" from top of the

10
pipe. A 5/8” diameter hole was cut into the bottom of the PVC pipe to provide room for the
outlet.

A large piece of 1/8” Lexan was trimmed down into 2 circular pieces. The circular pieces had a
diameter of 3”. A 1/8” diameter hole was cut out of the center of the Lexan to act as a bearing for
the 1/8” diameter shaft to fit though.

The turbine design outlined above was fabricated by a three dimensional printer at the Learning
Factory at Pennsylvania State University. The center hole was increased in size to .122” in order
to press fit the shaft onto the turbine.

A male and female 3/8”-NPS hose ends were cut down so that the male end only contained the
threaded ends. The female end was cut down so that the nozzle was only half as long. It was then
chamfered down so that it would not interfere with the turbine blades.

A long piece of 1” ID PVC pipe was cut down to 2” to house the generator. A cut out of 1/2” in
length and 1/4" in height was made so that the gears could be seen when the system would be
aligned. A 1/4" diameter hole was cut on the top of the PVC pipe a 1/2" from the back of the
pipe for a set screw that would secure the generator.

The first step of the assembly was to attach one of the two pieces of Lexan to one side of the
PVC pipe with Gorilla Glue. When this piece was dry, the turbine-shaft was placed in the
housing. The turbine was centered by placing 5 - 1/8” ID, 1/8” thick, rubber O-rings on either
side of the turbine. The second piece of Lexan was centered on the back housing and secured
with Gorilla Glue. A 10 tooth spur gear was then press fitted onto the shaft on the back end of
the turbine housing. The male hose end was then secured to the bottom of the housing using
Loctite Stik’n Seal Ultra. The female hose end was then positioned in its slot and also secured
with Loctite Stik’n Seal Ultra. Both hose ends had to be held in place for 5 minutes while the
Loctite bonded the surfaces.

A second 10 tooth spur gear was press fitted onto the generator shaft. Wires were soldered onto
the generator and connected to an adapter. The wires were left to be 1’ long so that the adapter
would be placed as far away as possible from a possible leak in the prototype. The generator was
then placed into the 1” ID PVC pipe and secured into place with a 1/4-20 set screw when the
gears were aligned. The generator assembly was attached to the back of the turbine housing
using Gorilla Glue and Loctite.

7. Economic Analysis
In order to manufacture this product, an analysis of all costs must be performed to see if it is
economically viable to produce. The simulation was a volume of 100,000 units moved per year
for 4 years. For every unit, the cost of just the products comes to $23.89. Additionally, our team
calculated that labor costs come out to be $4.50 per unit. Materials and tooling combined were
calculated to cost us $3.00 per unit produced. Finally, overhead costs for the development and
marketing came out to be $4.00 per unit produced. For one year of 100,000 units, our total cost
of manufacturing and production comes out to $3,539,000. The product itself will be sold for
$45 a unit so the income per year is $4,500,000 which gives us a $961,000 profit per year.

11
Therefore our 4 year total cost is $14,156,000; our income is $18,000,000 which gives us a profit
of $3,844,000 over for years. Along with our calculated profit margin, our team determined our
net present value. Using the equation for net present value, which is profit divided by discount
rate of 10% raised to the elapsed time, our team discovered that over a 4 year period, our net
present value is $2,046,240. Therefore, it would be advantageous to proceed since it will make
the company money.

8. Test Results and Discussion

While testing, the team started with a functionality test, making sure the product worked before
measuring the output voltage. It turned out that the gear ratio had to be changed as the 5.6:1
ratio was producing too much torque. The group changed the gear ratio to 1:1. The next test, the
turbine seemed to be functioning well until it was noticed that there was a leak in the casing.
The group sealed the leak and tested again. Afterwards, the turbine was running fine and
powering the motor without problems. As a result, it turned out when the group turned the knob
for cold water to its maximum, 1 volt was supplied. The target, 1.5 V was reached when one
knob was at max and the other was halfway to maximum. When both knobs (hot and cold) were
turned to max, the output was approximately 2 V. In section 6, it was determined that the
optimal gear ratio was 10:1 and the motor would produce 2.7 V. Due to loading and the
reduction in gear ratio, the actual voltage output was not as great as expected. Even so, it was
the results are not disappointing and still acceptable for the design. The team also tested the
water pressure when the flow rate was maximized, using a tachometer, and got a result of 21 psi.

9. Conclusion and Recommendations

Team 2D believes that this product can be easily produced for $24 and retailed at $48. This
product could also be used where ever a water faucet exists. It could be used in the shower, the
sink and potentially an outdoor hose. The clock provides a simple accessory that could be used at
any time of day. This product is also very portable and could be moved from faucet to faucet
readily.

This prototype design could be improved be increasing the turbine size or decreasing the turbine
housing size in order to minimize free space within the turbine housing. This would increase
efficiency and prevent unnecessary losses. Also the turbine shaft and the motor shaft could be
press fitted together so that the gears would be eliminated from the entire assembly.

The team experienced the entire design to manufacturing process first hand. The team designed,
prototyped, refined the design, tested and presented the final design. Also, the team learned how
to deal with potential pit falls and other challenged that impeded the progress of the team with
the design. The team learned how turbine generators work and how to analyze the system. This
project could be improved by having the professor sit down with the class and discuss how to
analyze the entire systems performance. It would also be helpful if each team was given the
Sylvania ECOlight to dissect and study.

12
Appendix A: References
[1] "ECOLIGHT." Oshram Sylvania. Sylvania, 2009. Web. 25 Mar 2010.
<http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/documents/Eco%20Light%20LUMI064R1.21f94898-
8b21-4bac-9475-c329a9b0bec0.pdf>.

[2] Shimizu, Takeshi. "US Patent 7608936 - Faucet Generator." Patent Storm. Patent Storm, 27
Oct 2009. Web. 27 Mar 2010. <http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/pdfs/
patent_id/7608936.html>.

[3] Ihrenberger, Adolf. " US Patent 6210113." Patent Storm. Patent Storm, 03 Apr 2001. Web. 8
Apr 2010. <http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/pdfs/patent_id/6210113.html>.

[4]Dixon, S.L.; Eng, B. Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery (5th Edition).

(pp: 290-322). Elsevier. Online version available at: http://knovel.com/web/portal/
browse/ display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=2071&VerticalID=0
[5] "RF370CA-15370 ." Jameco Electronics IC's and Semiconductors. Jameco Electronics,
2009. Web. 3 Apr 2010. <http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/
ProductDisplay?langId=-1&productId=238473&catalogId=10001&freeText=RF-370CA-
15370&app.products.maxperpage=15&storeId=10001&search_type=jamecoall&ddkey=
http:StoreCatalogDrillDownView>.

13
Appendix B: Project Management
Bob Knowlton – Team Leader, Turbine Designer, Writer, Manufacturer
Mike Miller – Housing Designer, Writer, Manufacturer
Brett Gordon – Writer, Design Sketcher, Manufacturer

14
Appendix C: AHP

Vertically
High Low Easy Downward Small
Consumer need Performance Cost Attractive Attachment Discharge Size
High Performance x 1.00 4.00 0.50 5.00 2.00
Low Cost 1.00 x 3.00 0.50 5.00 2.00
Attractive 0.25 0.33 x 0.25 2.00 0.50
Easy Attachment 2.00 2.00 4.00 x 6.00 3.00
Vertically
Downward
Discharge 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.17 x 0.25
Small Size 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.33 4.00 x
Self Contained 0.25 0.33 0.50 0.20 1.50 0.33
Reliable 0.50 0.33 3.00 0.33 3.00 1.00
Process
Visualization 0.40 0.50 3.00 0.40 4.00 1.00

Self Process
Consumer need Contained Reliable Visualization Total Weighted
High Performance 4.00 2.00 2.50 21.00 0.18
Low Cost 3.00 3.00 2.00 19.50 0.17
Attractive 2.00 0.33 0.33 6.00 0.05
Easy Attachment 5.00 3.00 2.50 27.50 0.24
Vertically
Downward
Discharge 0.67 0.33 0.25 2.57 0.02
Small Size 3.00 1.00 1.00 12.33 0.11
Self Contained x 0.50 0.50 4.12 0.04
Reliable 2.00 x 0.67 10.83 0.09
Process
Visualization 2.00 1.50 x 12.80 0.11
Total 116.65 1.00

15
Appendix D: Concept Selection Matrix

Pelton Design Gears above design

Customer needs Weight Rating Score Rating Score
High Performance 0.18 3 0.54 3 0.54
Low Cost 0.167 3 0.501 3 0.501
Attractive 0.0514 3 0.1542 3 0.1542
Easy Attachment 0.236 3 0.708 3 0.708
Vertically Downward
Discharge 0.022 5 0.11 5 0.11
Small Size 0.106 4 0.424 4 0.424
Self Contained 0.0353 5 0.1765 5 0.1765
Reliable 0.093 5 0.465 5 0.465
Process Visualization 0.11 3 0.33 4 0.44
Total Score 3.4087 3.5187
Rank 2 1
What’s next? Combine Combine

Gears below
design Clock Soap dispenser
Customer needs Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
High Performance 0.18 3 0.54 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Low Cost 0.167 3 0.501 5 0.835 2 0.334
Attractive 0.0514 3 0.1542 5 0.257 3 0.1542
Easy Attachment 0.236 3 0.708 5 1.18 2 0.472
Vertically Downward
Discharge 0.022 4 0.088 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Small Size 0.106 5 0.53 5 0.53 4 0.424
Self Contained 0.0353 5 0.1765 4 0.1412 2 0.0706
Reliable 0.093 3 0.279 4 0.372 1 0.093
Process Visualization 0.11 3 0.33 2 0.22 2 0.22
Total
Score 3.3067 3.5352 1.7678
Rank 3 1 2
What’s
next? none develop none

16
Appendix E: Feasibility Calculations

17
Appendix F: Performance Calculations

18
Appendix G: Parts and Assembly

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appendix H: Bill of Materials

ITEM # PART NAME VENDOR

1 1/8" STEEL SHAFT MCMASTER-CARR
2 10 TOOTH PLASTIC GEAR MCMASTER-CARR
3 RF-370CA-15370 MOTOR JAMECO
4 3/8"-18 NPS INTERNAL PIPE THREAD NOZZLE MCMASTER-CARR
5 3/8"-18 NPS EXTERNAL PIPE THREAD NOZZLE MCMASTER-CARR
6 TURBINE CAPSTONE TURBINE CORP.
7 TURBINE HOUSING MCMASTER-CARR
8 GEAR HOUSING MCMASTER-CARR
9 VOLTAGE ADAPTER JAMECO
10 DIGITAL CLOCK INOVA
11 ASSORTED WIRES (3 COLORS/20' PER COLOR) MCMASTER-CARR

ITEM
# PRICE QUANTITY COST
1 $2.49 100,000 $249,000.00
2 $0.12 100,000 $12,000.00
3 $4.25 100,000 $425,000.00
4 $1.52 100,000 $152,000.00
5 $1.44 100,000 $144,000.00
6 $3.00 100,000 $300,000.00
7 $1.84 100,000 $184,000.00
8 $3.02 100,000 $302,000.00
9 $1.12 100,000 $112,000.00
10 $2.12 100,000 $212,000.00
11 $3.00 10,000 $30,000.00

29
Appendix I: Assembly and Maintenance Instructions

Assembly Instructions
1) Press the shaft into the turbine hole.
2) Place the shaft in its slot in the turbine housing. Adjust the position of the turbine as needed.
3) Secure the nozzle on the turbine housing.
4) Place sealant on the turbine housing and snap on the plastic turbine housing cover.
5) Press on one gear onto the end of the turbine shaft.
6) Press on the second gear to the generator.
7) Place sealant on the plastic cover and snap on the right casing.
8) Place the generator in the slot and align the gears.
9) Attach the generator wires to the clock, place sealant on the casing and position the clock in
its slot.
10) Place sealant on the left casing and snap fit the casing on.
11) Test the assembly and package the product.

Maintenance
If the turbine breaks, remove the product from use. If a leak occurs near the generator, turn off
the water and remove the system with rubber gloves. Allow the product to dry and look closely
at the leak. If it does reach the generator, dispose of the system.
When the clock battery dies, turn off the water and open the battery slot and replace the battery.
Close the battery slot and press the light button and adjust the time as necessary.

30