The records below separate reported measurements and observations from proposed validation. Missing fields are recorded as not documented. A component can operate or fit during development without meeting full-system acceptance criteria.
T01 — Wind-tunnel model experiment
Status: reported measured-data series; full-scale underwater interpretation unresolved.
The report states wind-tunnel work was completed. Wind Tunnel.xlsx stores eight velocity/force pairs in its experiment table: measurement workbook, report.
| Tunnel velocity (m/s), source label | Reported force (N) |
|---|---|
| 0 | 0 |
| 10.2 | 0.02 |
| 13.4 | 0.11 |
| 19.4 | 0.19 |
| 22.5 | 0.27 |
| 26.0 | 0.35 |
| 29.6 | 0.45 |
| 32.6 | 0.55 |
The purpose was to explore diver-model drag and inform A01/A02. The supplied record does not establish experiment date, model scale/geometry, complete setup/procedure, force instrument/range/resolution/calibration, repeat counts, actual air properties or uncertainty. The table’s decimal places are not instrument accuracy. It does not measure full-size underwater drag or thruster output.
The worksheet evaluates at 1.4 m/s, producing N. This reproduces the cache but is an extrapolated calculation below the nonzero recorded velocity range, not a new measured data point or validated full-scale drag. Its Reynolds cell evaluates . The arithmetic matches; whether the density, length and viscosity are appropriate to the experiment/fluid is not established. No verified similarity conversion bridges the tunnel series to the underwater product. NASA Reynolds reference
T02 — Component fit and print observations
Status: reported development observations; complete quantitative fit/ergonomic tests not documented.
| Part/revision | Setup and observation available | Design action | Missing evidence and target link |
|---|---|---|---|
| SD2 printed mount, V4 | Group check-in reports printing and test fitting, with minor redesign initiated; figures show mount iterations and stand-ins | Continue mount revision and later assembly with fasteners/straps/buckles | Exact fit dimensions, test load, user/equipment configuration and acceptance result absent; R-COMPAT |
| Wrist first print | Individual check-in reports cap threads and switch mechanism did not perform as intended after printing | Revise thread tolerance, secure switch in on/off positions and change orientation so supports do not interfere | Instrument, clearance values, repeat count and corrected-print result absent; R-CONTROL, R-COMFORT |
| Initial screw-cap/sleeve CAD | Enclosure check-in identifies the cap thread could not pass the sleeve opening during CAD review | Move thread start to opening and issue revised STL | This is a geometry review observation, not a completed physical pressure/leak test; R-DEPTH |
Exact event dates are not established for all observations. Steven’s file is labeled check-in 3 but internally says September 15 / Assignment 1; the enclosure record’s September 29 filename does not date every related image. No raw dimensional fit log, calibrated instrument or repeat count is supplied. These records support revision decisions, not a measured comfort score, retention strength or emergency-release time. GA3, individual records
T03 — Enclosure leak and depth validation
Status: proposed; no documented result.
GA3 proposes checking cap/sleeve fit, applying gel and evaluating whether waterproofing changes the fit. The September 29 record proposes printing and waterproof testing the updated cap. These plans relate to D05, A05 and R-DEPTH. PETG coupon dimensions are manufacturing evidence, not leak-test evidence. Check-ins, enclosure record
Tested enclosure identity, seal/groove/material, pressure or equivalent depth, duration, procedure, instrumentation, intrusion monitoring and post-test inspection are not documented. No pass/fail or demonstrated depth is available. Later results should identify the exact revision and load conditions before comparing them to the target; a separate empty enclosure demonstration cannot automatically establish performance of the populated electrical assembly.
T04 — Initial electrical powering and control
Status: reported preliminary startup/control; limited visual corroboration.
The third group check-in and Steven’s individual record report initial powering and thruster-control work. GA3 includes the bench photograph. Frames at 2, 8 and 15 s in a muted clip show a hand-held dry-bench thruster setup. Those frames support startup context; no calibrated force, current, speed or underwater performance measurement follows from them. Check-ins, individual record, bench clip
The source code excerpt proposes Pico PWM on GPIO7 at 50 Hz, a 1000–2000 µs command range and 1500 µs neutral, with limited test commands. Its command definitions are not an observed full speed envelope or verified neutral/stop behavior for an identified ESC configuration.
Full wiring revision, firmware version tied to the run, dated procedure, instrument/calibration, repeated results and response timing are not documented. The record does not validate the complete wrist interface, manufactured PCB or pressure/current/temperature/moisture protection. The next supported development task is physical circuit/sensor testing before board fabrication. Later fault records need startup/neutral, emergency switch/relay, no-signal response and specified protection triggers/recovery to assess R-CONTROL. DFMEA
T05 — Quantitative thrust verification
Status: proposed; no established quantitative test record.
A thrust-verification note mentions insufficient force-sensor sensitivity but provides no setup, date or readings establishing whether a quantitative test was performed. It also proposes a future stand for one thruster. The status and outcome of any earlier quantitative test are undetermined. Thrust note
A usable result would need hardware/variant, single-or-pair configuration, actual supply voltage, command/direction, guarding, water setup, sensor range/resolution/calibration, force-time data and repeats. Those fields are absent. A01 and A03 remain analytical/supplier context; R-THRUST remains unverified. The stand’s complete procedure and acceptance basis are not supplied.
T06 — Runtime, recharge, thermal and current validation
Status: proposed; no documented logs or result.
The report proposes sustained-operation and charge-time checks; SD2 notes ask how battery endurance will be validated, and check-ins identify further electronics work. A defined discharge run and timed recharge are appropriate record categories in the project plan, but the source lacks an accepted load/duty, stopping criterion, timestamps, battery/charger identity and voltage/current/temperature logs. Thermal and current/fault sensing likewise lack calibrated test results. Report, scope meetings, DFMEA
Accordingly, R-RUNTIME and R-CHARGE have no achieved result. This record also supplies the missing thermal/current evidence for A04, A05 and the proposed control protections; the battery label alone cannot substitute for those measurements.
T07 — Mounted-system and user validation
Status: planned; no structured scored diver trial or comparative benefit result.
The report proposes ergonomics/compatibility evaluation and staged validation checkpoints, and September meetings discuss user feedback, equipment sizing, cable management and removal. The archive contains stakeholder preferences and component fit observations, but no scored complete-system trial with a documented participant sample, equipment configuration, setup/release procedure, motion/sag/retention measurements or survey data. Report, scope meetings
The comfort threshold and subsidiary metrics require an approved revision before acceptance can be judged. Neither fatigue/air-use improvement nor environmental safety was measured. Later trial results should identify the mounted revision, participant/equipment scope, agreed criteria and limitations, then update R-COMFORT/R-COMPAT and their linked decisions without retroactively treating earlier preferences as tests.