Design Thinking

Personally I think the hippo roller is retarded, it just seems like a ridiculous way to carry water. I mean yes it makes it is easy to carry large amounts of water but, that is contaminated water so it is kind of defeating the purpose of solving the water born illness crisis. The Life straw is a great idea for kids, because it is some thing they can operate them selves, and it will provide cleaner water to them. But it lacks the ability to fulfill the water needs of a family, because I doubt an entire family would drink every thing through a straw. The best Device I believe is the aqueduct hands down, It provides quicker transportation to and from water source, it carries a sufficient amount of water and it purifies the water, it literally kills three birds with one stone. If I was to attempt to tackle this water crisis in Africa I would probably try and develop a user friendly, water purification device that could easily transport a large quantity of water, to and from the water supply, I probably would have developed a device that you push, sort of like the hippo roller but it would purify the water while it moved.

Posted by Robert Bass on January 24, 2008 at 06:42 PM EST #

World Water Crisis
Addressing the water crisis is just as touchy as world hunger. Not too many people think of water as being as much of a problem in many countries. When we turn on the facet for water we don?t think about how lucky we are. As the article about the hippo roller said, to have water is an every day chore for some people. But not only just to have water, but to have clean water. Every year, approximately 1.3 million children of age 6 or less die from consuming contaminated water. Another 2 billion or more are infected by a soil-transmitted worm which wreaks havoc on the body. However, people who drink the infected water know the repercussions on their children and reproduction and that it may possibly kill them.

The first article addresses the problem of contaminated water and preventing illness. The straw to me seems like a great idea being that it is portable. Another good thing about the straw is its multiple uses. Since this is the case, families can share a straw when needing a drink during the day. Thus cutting down on cost and amount of straws needed. However, there still is the problem of bringing the water to the family. This process taking time and energy as they told us.

The second article addresses the problem of transporting water to and from home by use of a hippo roller. As I mentioned earlier, there is quite a considerable amount of energy spent during water collection. A harmful side effect from this is fatigue, which could possibly cause heat related death. The hippo roller also carries 4 times the amount of water as a regular 5 gallon bucket, being helpful to have water for many days. Nevertheless, with water sitting around that day, and it being only transported from the source, the water is still contaminated.

In the final article/video, they seem to bring the two problems and solve them with one design with the aquaduct. The problem of bringing water to home is resolved greatly by the bicycle method. And also as you travel home you filter the water with the pump that is connected to the pedals. This seems like the best idea because it solves the two problems the others create. The creators of the aquaduct took the route I would have taken. It is a creative way to solve a crisis. However, the cost becomes a concern when thinking of the production of these bikes.

UC Santa Cruz Currents Online
http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/05-03/water.html

Brandon Guy

Posted by Brandon Guy on January 27, 2008 at 05:53 PM EST #

I thought that the Hippo Roller and Aquaduct were clever ways of transporting the water but neither of them were a real permanent solution because people are still having to travel great distances to get something that they really need to have close by. I could see the Hippo Roller working for some people because it was simple and looks like it could carry more water than the previous methods, while at the same time, requiring less work. However, I wasn't at all convinced that the Aquaduct could be reliable or efficient. It had way to many parts that I couldn't see holding up to daily use. There is no way I would depend on that thing for my main water supply. It also looked expensive and I assume that it would require filters that needed to be changed regularly. I think that developing countries would be better off investing in a more direct solution like wells or water treatment. If I was designing a solution I would look into designing more economical methods of digging wells. I think that having more wells would be the best way to get water closer to people who need it. I think that digging wells would be actually going at the problem instead of just working around it.
When I first saw the LifeStraw I thought it looked more like something that would go in an emergency survival kit that than a solution for populations will poor water supplies. I mean it doesn't even filter out heavy metals or parasites! I wouldn't want that stuff in my water, would you? Do they expect people to carry this thing around and drink everything from it? If the waters so unsanitary what do you clean the LifeStraw with? I doubt this will fit into the majority of peoples lifestyles but nonetheless, I'm sure some people will benefit from it. I guess since 95% of the deaths from poor drinking water are kids under 5, it might be neat if they could fit this technology into a sippy cup or something. I also thought the LifeStraw was ugly. It would be one thing if it was just a throw-away, but the website said they were supposed to last a year. If I'm going to wear that thing around my neck it at least needs to look good. I would recommend throwing in some stickers and rhinestones for the ultimate customization experience!

Posted by Sam Holmes on January 30, 2008 at 09:14 PM EST #

Around the globe we have begun to overuse our natural resources. Now, in this time of need, Africa calls for help as drinkable water begins to dissipate. They are quickly dying off from the contamination held in the little water that remains, for the water available is open to the air. Three different organizations have presented proposals to this need and put their inventions up to criticism. They acknowledge that all the inventions are produced from non-native materials, but have argued that the time for outside interference has come. One group has presented a solution to the growing contamination problem by designing and creating a portable water sanitizer dubbed LifeStraw. Costing only $3 US dollars per sanitizer, this invention can be carried easily and operated by even a child. However, another problem then rears its head.
If one wishes to collect water to sanitize, one must walk for miles before reaching a good source, fill up unwieldy containers, and walk back. Roughly 20 gallons of water are required each day for the average family. Carrying the water, typically on the shoulders or head, causes health problems. As most women begin this arduous journey as young as nine, many young girls in Africa suffer from growth problems and constant plaguing pain. Also, the activity burns precious calories, meaning one must eat more. But Africa also has problems with a growing famine, and as such many women become malnourished and anemic through not consuming the food needed to sustain their hard work. But a new hope is on the horizon: the Hippo Roller. Able to carry up to 20 gallons of water at a time, this barrel-like container can be pushed easily by even children or the elderly. However, as the communities that need the invention the most are impoverished, few can afford the Hippo Roller. The organization is working to have this container subsidized, but even then, as this does not provide filtration, cost is a concern that should be duly noted. But the third and final solution combines the two problems ? sanitation and transportation ? into one solution.
The Aquaduct, a bike-like self sustained sanitizing water carrier, was created especially for the communities that find themselves miles from water and unable to sanitize that which they do have. The large tank on the back, supported by two wheels, holds enough water for a family. Once filled, the user pedals back to their home, powering the filtration system, which filters up to two gallons of water into a smaller front tank. This tank can be detached for easy drinking, is covered to prevent contamination, and can be easily reattached for a quick fill up. Though out of the three this solution is best, the idea needs to be worked on further. For one thing, the same problem with malnutrition arises. Pedaling a bike then adding the weight of 20 gallons of water, burns just as much or possibly more energy than carrying the water. Also, the bike, though suited for transporting over long distances, does not appear overly sturdy. The wheels are thin, like what one might find on a racing bike. A more durable design for the rugged dirt and rock roads of Africa would be more suitable. The last, and possibly greatest, issue is cost. No price is named on the Aquaduct, but the cost would be much greater than the Hippo Roller or the LifeStraw. As such, though the Aquaduct provides a good basis for solving the problem, like all designs there is always room for improvement.

Posted by Jillian Moss on January 31, 2008 at 04:20 PM EST #

After reviewing the three products I have to say that the Lifestraw covers more of the peoples' needs than either the Hippo Water Roller or the Aquaduct. Two of the products, which have won numerous awards, have been mass produced using donations from sponsors and individuals.

The Hippo Water Roller, although a great way to transport water, in no way cleans the water in it for consumption. In order to protect the people from waterborne bacteria and viruses. Other than dehydration, the waterborne bacteria and viruses are the killing agents to the people. In order to be truly effective the Hippo Water Roller needs to be paired with a long lasting and effective filter such as the one found in the Lifestraw.

The Lifestraw, according to the data, is a portable multi-use water purifier proven to kill waterborne bacteria and viruses. Standing alone the Lifestraw stands to be the most effective of the products in question. Although it can not transport large amounts of water, it allows a person to drink many types of contaminated water. There are areas were the water is contaminated and the people travel long distances to retrieve water that is more safe to drink. In these areas the Lifestraw would allow the locals to drink the unsafe water and save them many retrieval trips to the "safe" waters. Thus, the Lifestraw with its portability, ease of use, purifying attributes, could be easily distributed throughout areas in need of safeguards against unsafe drinking water.

Although the Lifestraw does an extremely good job of purifying the water it does not ease the mass transport of water to groups of people. That is were the well designed but unreasonable Aqueduct comes into play. Unlike its two brethren, the Aqueduct both transports and purifies water. One of the problems is that the amount of water it carries in comparison to its production cost is too minimal. If the Aqueduct could carry more water and if it contained a purification system on par of the Lifestraw it would be closer to solving the problem at hand. In the end the Aqueduct needs to be reconfigured to carry more, clean better, and cost less to manufacture.

After reading through the data presented on these three products I wonder why we should not just send these areas a water pump/purifier and huge amounts of tubing. With this they could stick the open end of the tube in the river five miles away and operate a simple water pump. Depending on the location, many methods of powering the pump could be used. In areas that receive vast amounts of sunlight, solar panels; in other areas people could hook up a pedal system and power the pump through manual effort.

Posted by Scott Bailey on January 31, 2008 at 08:32 PM EST #

First and foremost the availability of clean drinking water in Africa is obviously a crisis, this is evident in the fatality rate statistics listed on the product websites and in some of the posts above. I think that each product is definitely an improvement on the current water transportation situation, but each definitely has it's flaws.

The LifeStraw seems to me to be the most practical way to drink purified water, assuming you have some water to dip it into. It however does nothing to help ease transport.

Conversely the Hippo Roller eases transport but does nothing for filtration. The website says it has been subjected to extensive field tests and that it can handle rough terrain, but I'm still a little skeptical. A full Hippo Roller is quoted at weighing about 200 pounds which on relatively flat terrain would feel like pushing 22 pounds which wouldn't seem much worse than an old push mower. But what if there isn't relatively flat terrain between you and your water source, I don't know how easy it would be to push a 200 pound barrel up a hill or over stumps or larger rocks and then keeping control of it going down hill would be another obstacle. Although I think I would still rather try a Hippo Roller before I try carried 5 gallons on my head.

Now it would seem that the Aquaduct would be the best of both worlds, transpor-filtration. And if I were in a one these villages I think I would much rather have the Aquaduct over the LifeStraw and the Hippo Roller. It does seem like it would be the least cost effective of the 3 though. I would also be a little concerned about the tires, I agree with what someone said earlier about more traction, I think I'd like to see some mountain bike tires on it instead. Also maybe solid tires like some wheel barrows use, I'm not sure how quick you could get your hands on a patch kit halfway between your village and the river.

I think it really just depends on the route as to which of the three would be most effective. As far as other solutions go I think that better education about water purification would be another step in the right direction but that of course would come with getting a supply of water. I thought it might be kind of cool to have a filtration attachment for the Hippo Roller, so you could stand it on one end and let gravity force the water through a filter, not unlike a lager scale water cooler. Another thing I'd like to see is water filter companies like Brita and Pur step up to the plate and offer some solutions. But either way I'm glad the issue is being addressed and good design comes with time so hopefully now that the wheels are in motion a truly effective solution will appear soon.

Posted by Bruce Kidd on February 01, 2008 at 02:49 AM EST #

All three products have merit. All aim to immediately improve the lives of those for whom they were designed, and to be easy to implement. Each seems to be adapted to a different situation.

The LifeStraw is an interesting concept. As an ultra-portable filtration device, it would be best suited for those with no access to clean water - whatever water is on hand can be made drinkable. The HippoRoller, for those who have access to clean water (although at a distance), eases the physical stress of transport. The Aquaduct addresses both the issue of transport and filtration, allowing large amounts of water to be transported, and in the process, cleaned.

Each also has its downfalls. The LifeStraw does not address, as someone said before, bathing water. It also has a life of three years. What will the users of this product do after three years? Will they continue to use it, despite the fact that it is no longer effective? Where could they get another one, assuming that they live in a remote location? Who will pay for it? The HippoRoller appears to be more sustainable, but would not work for those without a clean source of water. The Aquaduct attempts to combine the functions of both, which is a great idea. However, I would imagine it physically strenuous to move that amount of water using only your legs. I also question the cost and ability to maintain the product. It would be interesting to see a rolling device which can be pushed - like the HippoRoller - which also purifies water. Also, for those who do have a clean source nearby, the purification element would be overkill, adding unnecessary expense.

Is it better to create a universal design? I feel that when dealing with people's health and well-being, the product should work immediately for as many people as possible. However, such products do not provide a long-term, sustainable solution. They cannot be bought, made, or maintained by the people who need them. A more sustainable product may need to become more specific - adapted to certain areas and situations. Also, numerous social, economic and political factors need to be addressed in order to get to the root of the problem - to truly solve it. However, products such as the Aquaduct buy us the time to do so, or at least the time to create a more sustainable product. As long as the effort to find such a solution is not abandoned, any design which effectively 'stops the bleeding' is a good one.

Posted by Elizabeth Corby on February 02, 2008 at 02:10 AM EST #