BME100 f2016:Group9 W8AM L2
|BME 100 Fall 2016|| Home |
Lab Write-Up 1 | Lab Write-Up 2 | Lab Write-Up 3
Lab Write-Up 4 | Lab Write-Up 5 | Lab Write-Up 6
Course Logistics For Instructors
Wiki Editing Help
LAB 2 WRITE-UP
Device Image and Description
Technical and Clinical Feasibility
The challenges for making this device include finding the technology needed because the technology possibly may not exist. Another challenge is making the glasses lightweight enough for the consumers. Another challenge would be making the app for the glasses because that would include extra software and programming.
c. What could go wrong?
The small cameras may not work as previously thought because they might not capture a wide enough field of vision or connect to wifi freely, without interruption. The frames could break if they are not made correctly or made out of a brittle material. The smartphone app may not be able to effectively change the settings as seen through the glasses themselves.
a. Will it work in the clinic?
The product would work in a clinic because there are many visually impaired people in the United States that would be able to test this device and give feedback.
b. What are the clinical risks?
The clinical risks are the glasses might put stress and pressure on the bridge of the nose, and changing the settings of the glasses might malevolently harm the wearer's sight.
c. Have similar products been in a clinical trial? How long was the trial?
There have been similar products in a clinical trial before such as Google Glass and since Google Glass is a marketable and buy-able device, the FDA has deemed it safe for the public. The trial for Google Glass lasted approximately 3 years before it became available to the public.
The score for clinical feasibility would be a two because similar products have been released such as Google Glass but the wearable computer field in medical devices is very experimental and there is still an ample amount of research needed to really solidify the technology. The score for technical feasibility would be a one because the technology needed to fully build this device is still experimental and making the parts work with each other such as camera to glasses to smartphone communication would be difficult.
The value our prototype creates for the customer is that it provides a better quality of life for people who are visually impaired. It is also valuable to the population who studies video or film because these glasses also double as a high-tech point of view camera.
Two small cameras = 2 * $12.99 = $25.98 2 pounds of carbon fiber (Frames) = 2 *$7.56 = $15.12 2 screen lenses = 2 *$41.19 = $82.38 Battery = $1.65 Conductivity = $12.79 Memory(SD and RAM) = $15 Power Management = $4.02 Processor = $16.96 Non-Electrics = $16.96 Supporting Materials = $2.25 Assembly and Test = $25.00 Other costs = $11.32
Total Cost = $229.43
Citations: RMI.org Repairuniverse.com Amazon.com Teardown.com
The anticipated average sale price is $600.00. Other competitors sell very similar products for around $1,500 and ours would be half the price that would still do the same thing. This lower price would appeal to a more general audience.
37 million people who use glasses in the world 8.4 million bought GoPros in 2014 5 million people want Virtual Reality headsets
50.4 million * 600 = $30 billion
Customer Validation = 1 Market Size = 3 Competition = 2 IP Position = 2 Technical Feasibility = 1 Clinical Feasibility = 2
24, it should be funded because the virtual reality field will reach $150 billion market size in dollars by 2022. There will have to be more testing involved to advance the product.