Watermelon Ripeness Sensor

Melon Inc.

In Search of Perfect Melons.

Jason L. Firko Allan Cohen Matt Behr Dave Bartoski

Progress Review Overview

 Welcome/ Introduction   Mission, approach, background, problem description Method  Updated customer wants, system benchmarking, metrics, functional benchmarking, target values, concepts  Schedule  Division of work, actual, detailed, generic, budget

Watermelon Ripeness Sensor

Team #2 Members : Jason Firko Matt Behr Allan Cohen Dave Bartoski Customer: Ed Kee Advisor: Dr. James Glancey Mission: Develop a non-destructive method and apparatus for accurately determining the ripeness of watermelons.

Approach: Use customer wants to research and develop the most useful solution to the problem of determining watermelon ripeness. Develop a prototype and test it in an actual working environment.

Background



Watermelon market is a large, worldwide market



Grown on 5 Continents

   

Grown in 90 countries Annual production 50 Billion lbs./year 75% of the melons bought whole Large domestic and international market



Problem with a long history - 1905 University of Georgia Study



There are currently no accurate non-destructive testing methods available

Problem Description



Present problems due to inaccurate methods of testing:

• • •

Unneeded destruction of melons for inspection Loss of money Poor quality of product



This device will be beneficial for many reasons including:

• •

Reduce shipping costs Prevent rejection of shipments

• •

Improve overall quality of the product Marketing advantage

Updated Customers & Wants

Name

10

Organization Rank

Mr. Ed Kee John Hastings Jeff Wooden Mark Collins Mack Farms Bill Roberts Odanna Mathews Karen Clark David Thorpe Acme Giant Produce Stand FDA USDA Joe Meloneater Sponsor Farmer Farmer Farmer Broker consumer

10 8 8 6 3 5 6 8 7 6 6

0.45

0.25

0.12

0.1

0.04

1st Want 2nd Want 3rd Want 4th Want 5th Want Accurate Portable Portable Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate Cheap Food Quality Food Quality Cost Portable Accurate Accurate Durable Fast Cheap Cheap Accurate Accurate Durable Durable Durable Portable Easy to Use Easy to Use Easy to Use Easy to Use Food Quality Cheap Fast Easy to Use Food Quality Easy to Use Fast Fast Durable Durable Durable Portable Easy to Use Cheap Portable Portable Fast

Top 10 Wants

1. Accuracy 2. Portability 3. Cost 4. Durability 5. Easy to Use 6. Speed 7. Food Quality 8. Versatility 9. Maintenance 10. Service Life

Initial Systems Benchmarking

 Current Methods for the testing of watermelons    • Thumping, stem color, skin color, other traditional methods Destructive Testing - Sucrometer reading Near Infrared Testing - Experimental technique of sensing sugar content Acoustic Testing - University of Oklahoma  No Commercial products available

Metrics - Purpose and Format

 Derived from Top 10 Wants  Provide a means of comparison  Allow a measurement of a specific quantity  Eliminate uncertainty/ambiguity  Often correlate to more than one want  Ranked in terms of top correlated wants  Target values from benchmarking and customer dialogue

Metrics & Related Wants

Accuracy/Portability  % Correct Ripeness Readings  % Error in Sugar Content (95%) *  (False Negative/False Positive)Readings  Weight (51 lbs.)  Size (Dimensions) (3’ Sides)  # People Needed - Transport/Operation (1)  Production Cost [$700]

Metrics (Cont’d)

Durability/Ease of Use/Speed  Hours of Continuous Operation [12 hrs min)  Impact Resistance (Force) *  Time to Train  Number of Steps [1 hr] [5]  Level of Education Required  Time/Cycle  Time per Shipment [Grade 8) [10 sec] [2 hrs]

Metrics (Con’t)

Food Quality/ServiceLife/Versatility/Maintenance  Size of Intrusion  Bacteria Introduced  Visual Quality Inspection Rating  Estimated Years of Service (1mm) * (1-10) (5 yrs]  # of Uses (melon types, sizes, etc.)  Cost/Cycle (parts, upkeep, etc) * ($.001/cycle)

Functional Benchmarking

   Acoustic/Impact Tests- Sound signature and Resonance  Acoustic Sensors - microphones, AE sensors  Impact Devices - pendulums, hammers, spring loaded, etc.

 Acoustic data acquisition devices  Acoustic/Resonance Analysis Software Packages Testing of Rind Quality  Accelerometers and related tracking devices Resistivity Testing   Available information of resistivity of biological materials Probes, measuring devices, necessary equipment

Functional Benchmarking (Cont’d)

   Ultrasonic testing   Use on biological materials Availble Machines Sizing Devices  Oversized calipers  Scales Sampling devices and methods  Syringes, automated sucrometers

**Note on Benchmarking

 Functional Benchmarking will be ongoing because of the nature of the project    Still determining best testing method Must get most accurate and reliable correlation Potentially the most important step in process   All future designs depend on selection As we gain experience - better benchmarking

Target / Test Values

   Target/Test Values were obtained through customer dialogue and functional benchmarking Customer dialogue included calling potential customers and regulatory agencies Functional benchmarking also gives rise to test values such as a speed target value from NMR plum testing

Concept Generation

 Initial Concepts  Impact/Resonance sensor  Ultrasonic tester  Resistivity testing  Syringe sampling  Rind properties tester

Primary Initial Concept

Calipers .

.

Mechanical Thumper Microphone Microprocessor Output Thumper and Microphone Combo Width Microprocessor Output

Primary Initial Concept (cont’d)

 Basic principle: Trying to analyze the resonance properties which are audible by the human ear  Advantages of this design: weight, size, transportation, cost, time, food quality, versatility  Still must determine viability/accuracy  Other metrics will depend on design details

Activities to Date

         Contacted customers- determined wants (Group) Benchmarking ( Group) Obtain Watermelons (Group) Perform Traditional Tests (Group) Acoustic Testing - Dr. Sun’s Laboratory (Jason/Dave) Ultrasonic Testing - CCM (Matt/Alan) Initial Concept Development (Group) Resistivity Testing (Matt) … and still more Benchmarking! (Group)

Detailed Future Schedule

ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Task Name

Acoustic Testing and Collection of Data Analysis of Acoustic Data Electrical Properties Initial Tests Electrical Properties Apparatus Setup Electrical Properties Data Collection Analysis of Elec. Prop. Data Determine if Ultrasound is possible

9 9 Sat Oct 24 10 11

Test Extractrion with Needle Do Destructive Evaluation of All Melons Corelate Data Arrange for Arrange for Another Shipment of Melons Determine and Arrange for Other Testing Do Other Testing Draw Conclusions For New Tests Prepare for Preliminary Design Report Finalize Ideas & Prepare for Presentation

Thu Oct 29 12 1

Matt Alan

2 Tue Nov 3 3 4 Sun Nov 8 5 6

Dave, Jason Matt, Dave, Jason Alan Group

7 Fri Nov 13 8 9

Group Group Group

Wed Nov 18 10 11 12 Mon Nov 23 1 2

Group

General Schedule



Development of testing procedures



Testing and data acquisition



Data interpretation



Concept design

Estimated Budget

   Testing equipment: $1,000 (depending on availability of equipment)  Sensors, Scales, Syringes Prototype construction: $2,000  Sensors, Building Supplies, Electronics, Etc.

Produce for Testing: $0  Total Budget: $3,000

Conclusion

 Presently testing and gathering data to determine most viable testing solution  Continued benchmarking - contacting experts in the fields of testing  When testing is complete, method will be selected and design will commence

Project Goal

Satisfied Customers!