Advanced RV Diagnostics, Measurement & Reliability
Interpret imperfect evidence. Localize faults. Make defensible service decisions.
OPEN FULL SEMESTERSTUDENT READER PDFOPTIONAL FAITH & WORK COMPANION
Academic status: Original independent curriculum proposal for institutional review only. MRR is not claiming state approval, institutional accreditation, GRCC articulation or award of college credit, an RVTI affiliation, or RVTI exam authorization. Credit, accreditation, industry certification and instructor eligibility require separate written decisions by the appropriate organizations.
MRR-RV215 · Semester 2
MRR-RV205 or documented comparable knowledge of RV systems, technical algebra, measurement, and lab safety.
15 × (3 lecture + 2 lab + 10 independent) = 225 planned learning hours. Proposed 5-credit structure subject to external college review.
Demonstrable course outcomes
- Construct a testable failure hypothesis and an evidence plan that distinguishes observation, inference and confirmed failure.
- Quantify basic measurement uncertainty and interpret electrical, hydraulic and thermal data within stated assumptions.
- Analyze cross-system symptoms using systems diagrams, fault trees and risk-based diagnostic sequencing.
- Evaluate repair alternatives for safety, reliability, serviceability, customer cost and evidentiary sufficiency.
- Produce auditable technical reports, supervised practical evidence and a defensible diagnostic case presentation.
Instructional model and accreditation boundary
This draft models GRCC's current credit-hour policy using an equivalent of 840 minutes per contact unit, a proposed lecture/lab allocation, and at least two hours of outside study per credit per week. The institution—not MRR—determines actual credit, contact-hour classification, assessment standards and transferability.
Exercises rely on inert demonstration devices, de-energized schematics, current-limited low-voltage trainers, simulated records, or manufacturer literature. A course webpage is not a license to manipulate LP-gas piping, energized 120/240-volt systems, generators, refrigerants, roof-access systems, brakes, hitches, jacks, or safety-critical structural parts. Practical work requires qualified supervision, an appropriate facility and documented stop-work authority.
Grading framework — proposed
| Evaluation category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Technical problem sets & reports | 25% |
| Supervised lab dossiers | 25% |
| Midterm case examination | 15% |
| Research and source critique | 10% |
| Final integrated diagnosis and oral defense | 25% |
Suggested passing rules: ≥70% overall, all safety-critical lab criteria passed, faculty evaluation of final oral defense. No credential is awarded by this web page. Required resits and accommodations must be established by the adopting institution.
College-level lessons, applied cases, laboratories & research assignments
Each week contains an original technical lecture, synthetic case, quantitative problem, supervised lab activity, research task and source critique. This is real student-facing content, but practical facilities, teacher feedback and source validation remain necessary.
Week 01 · Evidence-based diagnostic reasoning and measurement limits — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A symptom is not a defect and a replaced component is not proof of the original failure. Build a fault-isolation plan from independent observations, calibrated or known-condition measurements, and a model of the system boundary. Document operating conditions and the possibility of correlated errors. Treat missing information as uncertainty, not license to guess.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A technician reports that three apparently independent tests prove a defective battery; all three were performed with the same unverified meter and under different load conditions.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A nominal 12.0 V reference is read at 11.7 V. Compute the signed error and the percentage error relative to the reference.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Using two current-limited DC trainers and different meters, record repeated measurements, units, conditions, instrument identifiers and observed disagreement. No connection to an RV is required.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Produce a two-page evidence map with three competing explanations, one falsifying test for each, and a discussion of measurement dependence.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Measurement uncertainty; diagnostic fault trees; manufacturer service literature. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 02 · DC distribution, voltage drop and conductor resistance — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A network should be modeled under load rather than inferred from open-circuit readings. Contact resistance, connector corrosion and return-path losses create nonlinear symptoms at high current. Use Kirchhoff-style reasoning and measure potential difference across components in a supervised low-voltage setting.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
An RV slide controller resets when the motor is energized, although the resting battery voltage looks adequate.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A 12 A test load passes through a connection with 0.075 ohm resistance. Estimate the connection voltage drop and power dissipated.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
On a 12 V current-limited trainer, compare open-circuit and loaded voltage at two points. Log differences and thermal risk without heating unsafe parts.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit a network diagram, measurement table, error budget and ranked fault hypotheses.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Circuit laws; voltage-drop testing; conductor and connector manufacturer data. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 03 · Battery state, charging and energy accounting — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
State of charge, state of health and terminal voltage are different constructs. Chemistry, temperature, current, aging and rest history determine the relationship between them. A system may have nominal energy capacity but an unsuitable current capability. Distinguish Wh from W and Ah from A.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A camper has nominal storage capacity but a high-demand appliance trips its inverter soon after startup.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: For a 12.8 V, 150 Ah battery, 80% assumed usable capacity and 90% inverter efficiency, estimate delivered AC energy.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use sample discharge logs to estimate energy throughput by numerical integration; analyze uncertainty from variable voltage.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write an engineering memorandum separating capacity, peak current, protective cutoff and inverter surge hypotheses.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Battery technical data sheets; inverter surge ratings; chemistry-specific charging manuals. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 04 · Shore-power topology and protective-device interpretation — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Electrical safety investigations begin with the principle that a tripped protective device is a symptom requiring explanation, not a nuisance to defeat. Distinguish source-side interruption, equipment faults, leakage paths and overcurrent in a model-based analysis. Branch circuits, neutral and equipment grounding have separate functions.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
Repeated trips occur after rainfall; an earlier invoice claims the converter must be replaced without supporting test records.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A 1,350 W representative load is supplied at 120 V. Estimate steady current, ignoring power-factor and surge effects.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use a de-energized schematic and instructor-controlled demonstration board to locate protective devices; do not perform energized household or RV AC service.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Develop a hazard-first decision tree, outlining which observations are appropriate for a qualified electrician.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
NFPA 70/NEC latest applicable edition, manufacturer documentation, and facility safety policy. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 05 · Intermittent faults and probability of detection — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Intermittent failures require repeatable test conditions and careful logging. Environmental factors, vibration and heat can correlate with failure without being causal. Sampling intervals can hide transients, and uncontrolled manipulation can destroy evidence. Choose a diagnostic test based on the distinction between information gain and induced risk.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A low-voltage accessory fails during towing but passes every inspection in a stationary bay.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A logger samples once per 5 s. A signal drop lasts 0.2 s at a random phase. Estimate the chance that one sampling instant catches a single drop.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Capture simulated intermittent events on a low-voltage trainer at two sample rates; compare detection rate and aliasing.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Propose a controlled test matrix that separates thermal, vibrational and connector-related variables.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Instrumentation sampling principles; OEM wiring diagrams; reliability literature. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 06 · Control systems, sensors and diagnostic signal quality — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Control signals should be interpreted in context: a sensor can be accurate but the controller may operate on filtered or delayed data. Disambiguate a true process failure from a failed sensor or actuator. Define expected ranges and protective behaviors before interpreting a fault code.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A tank monitor displays full when the vessel is half empty; replacement of the display changes nothing.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A linear 0-5 V sensor maps to 0-100% tank level. What level does 3.25 V represent in the ideal model?
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Calibrate a simulated analog sensor with a protected 5 V signal source and compare predicted versus observed values.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Prepare an instrument-validation plan including span, offset, hysteresis and environmental influences.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Sensor supplier data; control-system signal conditioning; measurement assurance. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 07 · Freshwater hydraulic networks and pump behavior — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Pressure is not flow, and a pump rating at zero head is not the useful flow rate of an installed system. Analyze restrictions, elevation, air entrainment and pressure-switch cycling separately. Model networks using an empirical head-loss curve, then compare predictions with safe simulated observations.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A pump cycles rapidly when a faucet is opened a small amount but appears normal during full flow.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A flow of 6 L/min fills a 9 L test vessel. Estimate fill time and state relevant volume-measurement uncertainty.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use a tabletop water circuit with a small pump and gauges to compare flow through two safe restriction settings.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Create a diagnostic table distinguishing air, blockage, check-valve leakage and pressure-switch drift.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Fluid mechanics fundamentals; pump curves; plumbing component specifications. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 08 · Wastewater, venting and winterization failure analysis — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A winterization claim must consider trapped volumes, flow topology, freeze expansion and materials compatibility. A visibly drained tank does not establish that all valves, traps and low points are protected. Develop a system inventory and define verifiable boundaries instead of relying on a generic checklist.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A seasonal RV suffered a cracked fixture after being certified winterized; the technician performed only an air purge.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Assume a 0.8 L isolated water-filled cavity may experience about 9% expansion on freezing. Estimate the additional volume required.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Trace a transparent mock plumbing circuit and identify dead legs, trapped cavities and cross-connections.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Draft a winterization acceptance protocol with explicit limitations and customer disclosure.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Manufacturer winterization guidance; material property data; system drawings. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 09 · Propane systems: hazards, boundaries and decision thresholds — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Combustion systems combine gas pressure, ventilation, ignition and control logic. A competent technician differentiates hazard recognition from work authorization: an uncertain gas condition is grounds for isolation and qualified referral. Technical education can teach logic and component identification without allowing unqualified manipulation of live gas systems.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
An owner reports an odor after moving an RV; a previous inspector says a component is safe based solely on a visual check.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A hypothetical risk matrix rates severity 5/5 and detectability 4/5. Explain why a lower assumed frequency does not justify opening a gas line as a teaching exercise.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use a fully inert labeled schematic board to map valves, regulators, detectors, vents and emergency responses.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write a stop-work and referral protocol that avoids implying any live-gas qualification.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
RVTI topic categories; gas appliance OEM literature; site safety manual. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 10 · HVAC measurements and heat-transfer reasoning — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Temperature difference alone does not establish delivered cooling or heating without knowledge of airflow, humidity and duty cycle. Distinguish sensible heat from latent heat and separate a control fault from a thermodynamic fault. Diagnose from a boundary-energy balance rather than a single outlet thermometer reading.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
The operator reports poor cooling; supply air is cooler than return, but the occupied zone does not reach its setpoint.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: At 0.18 kg/s air mass flow and 6 K temperature decrease, with cp=1.005 kJ/(kg K), estimate sensible cooling rate.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Compare safe recorded temperature and airflow datasets under two simulated obstruction conditions.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Produce a heat-balance memo listing assumptions, sources of load and tests reserved for HVAC-qualified personnel.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Introductory thermodynamics; HVAC OEM diagnostic specifications; airflow measurement texts. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 11 · Refrigeration architectures and appliance duty cycles — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Absorption and vapor-compression refrigerators use different energy conversions and respond differently to leveling, ventilation and ambient conditions. A duty-cycle observation must be interpreted in light of weather, cabinet loading and control state. Analyze performance records without bypassing electrical, propane or refrigeration protections.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A three-way refrigerator performs acceptably overnight but fails to maintain food temperature in direct afternoon sunlight.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A 120 W compressor runs 45% of a 24 h period. Estimate electrical energy consumption before conversion losses.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Analyze manufacturer-supplied or instructor-simulated temperature-time logs and compute time above an assigned threshold.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Compare appliance architectures, ventilation assumptions and defensible referral thresholds in a critical report.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Appliance manuals; food-temperature guidance; thermal performance literature. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 12 · Roofing, moisture transport and failure attribution — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Moisture damage can originate from rain ingress, condensation or plumbing leakage. Water can migrate away from its entry point, so a stained panel is not proof of roof seam failure. Construct a moisture transport hypothesis using gradients, material layers, exposure history and non-destructive evidence.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A ceiling stain appears two days after rain; a window seam was re-sealed earlier in the season.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: Measured moisture-content proxy readings are 18, 22, 31, and 19 arbitrary units at four locations. Determine the median and range.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Examine supplied photo sets and inert material coupons; practice annotation of exposure routes without roof access.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Build a decision tree that differentiates active infiltration, residual moisture and sensor-material artifacts.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Building-envelope diagnostics; sealant OEM material data; instrument limitations. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 13 · Slide-outs, awnings and electromechanical failure modes — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Actuated systems couple motor torque, friction, geometry, electrical supply and mechanical constraint. An overload indication can arise from binding rather than a defective motor. Evaluate alignment and wear without conducting unsafe field operations or unsupported structural weld repairs.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A slide travels out but stalls while returning; a prior quote recommended replacing its controller.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: At a simplified efficiency of 75%, a 200 W electrical input results in what useful mechanical power?
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Use a low-force benchtop linear actuator model to measure force variation with alignment changes under a clear instructor-set limit.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Write a fault tree covering direction-dependent mechanical loading, switches, wiring and control logic.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Actuator supplier manuals; motion-control fundamentals; manufacturer safety guidance. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 14 · Integrated diagnostics and failure-mode prioritization — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
Complex RV failures are frequently multi-causal. Build a shared fault tree across energy supply, controls, loads and environmental factors. The goal is not a single clever guess but an auditable reduction of uncertainty. Separate owner observations from instrument evidence and explicitly label unresolved branches.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
One camper displays low battery, an inactive water pump and intermittent slide control after a storage interval.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A two-branch fault tree lists P(A)=0.25 and P(B)=0.15, independent for illustration. Estimate P(A or B).
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Reconcile five simulated data records from different systems and construct a cross-system failure hypothesis.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit a 1,500-word diagnostic dossier with evidence hierarchy, risk controls and repair options.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Reliability engineering; OEM documentation; diagnostic case methodology. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Week 15 · Final integrated examination and technical defense — 3 lecture h / 2 lab h / 10 independent h
Academic task: formulate and defend an engineering claim, not merely identify a vocabulary term. This module assumes prior term competency and permits only supervised low-risk practical work.
Analytical lecture and theoretical basis
A defendable diagnosis must include clear scope, problem formulation, reproducible evidence, alternative hypotheses, model assumptions, risk controls and a disposition that does not exceed the evidence. The final examination evaluates technical literacy together with professional restraint.
The central methodological question is whether the evidence actually discriminates between competing explanations. Build a model with a clearly defined boundary and explain what data the model excludes. Whenever a failure mechanism is inferred, identify what independent observation would disprove the inference. Treat an operating limit as a source-dependent specification, never as a universal number transferred from another model or manufacturer.
Case inquiry · synthetic field scenario
A synthetic mixed-system RV case includes time-series battery logs, recurring pump alarms and a water intrusion photograph.
Interpretive challenge: Name at least three plausible contributing factors, rank them by severity and information value, and specify what evidence would change the priority. Separate a defensible recommendation from a conclusion that exceeds the available data.
Quantitative challenge
Problem: A component has 20 failures across 10,000 observed operating hours. Compute the simple observed failure frequency.
Submit assumptions, equations, units, one sensitivity test and an explanation of where the simplified mathematical model fails. Worked solutions are discussed in supervised seminar; they are not substitutes for independent student work.
Supervised laboratory · 2 hours
Under faculty supervision, defend a complete diagnostic dossier before a two-person panel; no live hazardous work.
Required evidence: dated log, configuration sketch, quantities with units, observations separate from interpretation, anomalous observations and a safety sign-off. Simulated data must be labeled simulated.
Independent study · 10 hours
Submit final calculations, test evidence, source register, prioritized findings and a ten-minute oral defense.
Reserve approximately 4 hours for technical reading/source verification, 3 hours for quantitative and computational analysis, and 3 hours for writing, peer critique and revision. Work is assessed for traceability and technical reasoning rather than length alone.
Reference and source critique
Scientific reasoning; reliability analysis; professional technical writing. Locate and annotate at least one primary source and one independent technical explanation. Record document revision and why each source is applicable to the hypothetical model used in this week.
Discussion prompts
- Which of the reported facts are directly observed and which are interpretation?
- Which alternative cause would make the first proposed repair unnecessary?
- Which operating limit must be obtained from a manufacturer before work could be authorized?
Research methods, safe practice & supporting sources
College-level practice requires evidence provenance. For each major technical claim, identify the primary source and edition, distinguish assumptions from observations, show units in intermediate computations, and discuss uncertainty. A single "correct" answer to an idealized exercise is a starting point, not a field diagnosis. Cite an RV or component manufacturer's actual service publication when proposing a real intervention; do not invent torque values, test thresholds, or code requirements. In laboratory records, identify the simulated condition and explain how an RV installation might differ. Any field-facing remedy requires independent qualified review.
Exercises rely on inert demonstration devices, de-energized schematics, current-limited low-voltage trainers, simulated records, or manufacturer literature. A course webpage is not a license to manipulate LP-gas piping, energized 120/240-volt systems, generators, refrigerants, roof-access systems, brakes, hitches, jacks, or safety-critical structural parts. Practical work requires qualified supervision, an appropriate facility and documented stop-work authority.
- GRCC Course Format & Credit Hour Policy (effective August 2025)
- GRCC Curriculum Development
- RVTI Certification Levels
- RVTI Training Partners
- Michigan Postsecondary Schools