RV Power, Controls & Integrated Systems Engineering
Model complete systems. Verify component choices. Engineer safe, testable solutions.
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-RV225 · Semester 3
MRR-RV215 or documented comparable background in diagnostics, applied electrical theory, measurement and safe laboratory practice.
15 × (3 lecture + 2 lab + 10 independent) = 225 planned learning hours. Proposed 5-credit structure subject to external college review.
Demonstrable course outcomes
- Translate user needs into measurable RV system requirements, constraints and acceptance criteria.
- Model power, control, thermal and mechanical subsystems using basic engineering calculations and uncertainty analysis.
- Compare component architectures using efficiency, protection, manufacturability and lifecycle trade-offs.
- Implement and characterize an instructor-approved low-energy demonstrator using safe bench supplies and mock loads.
- Defend a design verification and validation plan using reproducible test records and technical sources.
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 |
|---|---|
| Engineering calculations and design reviews | 25% |
| Instrumented lab notebook | 25% |
| Midterm systems examination | 15% |
| Design documentation and source validation | 10% |
| Final subsystem demonstrator 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 · Systems engineering, requirements and acceptance criteria — 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 successful design starts with requirements rather than vendor selections. Translate user stories into measurable performance, safety, maintenance and environmental specifications. Distinguish verification of a requirement from validation that the requirement addresses the actual customer need. Establish interface boundaries and a traceability matrix.
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 mobile field-service trailer needs power for controls and refrigeration without relying on shore power.
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: If daily demand is 1.8 kWh and required autonomy is 2.5 days, what load-side storage energy is required 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
Use a paper design review and a simulated low-voltage load table; develop a requirement-to-test traceability matrix.
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 2,000-word requirements specification including failure conditions, safety stop criteria and test acceptance limits.
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
INCOSE-style requirements; equipment datasheets; manufacturer application notes. 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 · Electrical load profiles and demand diversity — 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 single peak-load number cannot characterize energy use. Separate standby, recurring, seasonal, surge and intermittent loads and identify demand diversity. Calculate energy by integration of power over time. Analyze variability and load shedding choices before sizing generation or storage.
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 mobile RV medical-support scenario has a continuous 38 W load, a 150 W load for 2 h/day and a 900 W load for 8 min/day.
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: Calculate nominal daily energy without 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
Integrate a supplied 24-hour power series and compare to a peak-watt-only design.
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 diversified energy budget and sensitivity analysis for duty cycle and seasonal variation.
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
Load profiling; power-system planning; device nameplate 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 03 · Photovoltaics, charge control and solar resource uncertainty — 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
Photovoltaic systems require realistic irradiance, orientation, temperature and shading assumptions. A controller rating alone does not predict daily energy. Compare MPPT and PWM conceptual trade-offs and validate that all equipment limits and interconnections require qualified design verification.
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 proposed rooftop panel array has 550 W nominal capacity but shading during a significant fraction of daylight.
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 an assumed 3.5 equivalent full-sun hours and 78% combined performance factor, estimate daily 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 a spreadsheet solar model and controlled shading dataset; no rooftop electrical 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
Produce a shading sensitivity plot and a procurement decision memo with stated uncertainty.
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
Solar resource models; panel and controller OEM documentation. 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 · Battery systems, protection and thermal design — 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 battery is an electrochemical system with defined operating envelopes rather than a passive energy container. Study battery-management system limits, temperature effects, current transients and fault containment at the conceptual level. Manufacturer charge settings and protective device requirements constrain any proposed architecture.
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 lithium battery operates well at room temperature but refuses to charge in freezing weather.
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 48 V, 100 Ah battery has 90% usable capacity. Find nominal usable energy before other 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 simulated temperature and current traces; compare trip patterns and safe design alternatives.
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 fault-and-limit register explaining BMS protection and customer-facing warnings.
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 OEM operating limitations; thermal management; applicable electrical safety norms. 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 · AC power architecture and source transfer — 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
Shore power, inverters and generators can create overlapping energy sources. Study block-level transfer architecture and interlock requirements without performing energization, rewiring or transfer-switch service. Analyze consequences of source conflicts and protective device coordination using manufacturer diagrams.
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 user reports power flicker when a generator starts while a DC accessory remains stable.
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: Two sequential energy conversions are 92% and 88% efficient. What is overall efficiency?
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 de-energized source-selection mockup and identify prohibited states in a truth table.
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 a functional safety analysis and verification checklist for qualified reviewers.
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
NEC Article 551 and related standards as applicable; OEM ATS 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 06 · Grounding, bonding and system protection 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
Fault clearing and touch-voltage control depend on equipment grounding, bonding and correctly coordinated protection, not simply the presence of a green wire. Use source/return and fault-path diagrams to locate conceptual hazards. Do not test live AC distribution, neutral bonding or grounding in customer equipment as a student activity.
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 hypothetical wiring drawing includes an added neutral-ground bond downstream of an RV source transfer point.
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: With 10 A through a 0.08-ohm unintended connection, compute voltage drop and dissipated power in an illustrative 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
Critique three inert wiring schematics, identifying assumptions to be verified by licensed or qualified electrical personnel.
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 protective architecture review with exact source citations, not invented code quotations.
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
Current applicable NEC, RV manufacturer data, electrical safety standards. 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 · Sensors, instrumentation and control-loop stability — 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
Signal quality, sensor calibration, control latency and actuator limits affect system behavior. Introduce open- and closed-loop concepts, proportional feedback and the risks of control overshoot. An observed oscillation might arise from sensor filtering or system inertia rather than a defective controller.
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 thermal controller alternates rapidly between heating and off during mild weather.
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 controller samples every 250 ms. What is its sampling 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
Use a low-energy educational controller simulator to vary gain and observe overshoot without energizing heaters.
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
Analyze plotted time-series with overshoot, settling time and stability observations.
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
Feedback control fundamentals; sensor manuals; signal acquisition 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 08 · Actuation, mechanisms and mechanical energy — 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
Power train design couples motor torque, gearing, friction and duty cycle. Evaluate mechanical limits and interlocks of slide-out and leveling models; identify pinch, crush and stored-energy hazards. An educational demonstrator should use low forces and a physical emergency stop.
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 lift mockup needs 45 N of force at a lever arm of 0.12 m under a simplified static model.
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: Estimate required torque before friction and safety factors.
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
Model a low-force mechanism with transparent load limits and compare theoretical to measured torque.
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 mechanism risk register and an actuator-selection justification supported by supplier curves.
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
Statics; motor datasheets; manufacturer mechanical safety 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 09 · Structures, joints and fatigue in mobile environments — 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
Vibration and cyclic loads make one-time strength calculations incomplete. Consider fatigue, joining method, environmental exposure, stress concentration and inspectability. Student projects are nonstructural only; no welding on RV lift posts, hitches, chassis or other safety-critical structures without qualified engineering and approved procedures.
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 nonstructural storage bracket has cracked near a sharp interior corner after extended travel.
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: An illustrative cyclic load varies from 80 to 160 N. Compute load amplitude and mean.
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 deflection on inert nonstructural coupons with different corner geometries.
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 fatigue-risk explanation distinguishing static design capacity from cyclic performance.
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
Fatigue fundamentals; supplier ratings; materials 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 10 · Thermal management and heat exchanger selection — 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
Thermal performance depends on airflow, heat transfer resistance, humidity and control behavior. Simplified first-law calculations are useful but their assumptions must be declared. Compare total system demand with component ratings, accounting for solar gain and thermal infiltration.
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 small insulated test chamber receives a known heater input, but wall losses are uncertain.
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 250 W load runs for 2.4 hours. How much energy does it add?
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 an instructor-provided chamber dataset and infer an effective heat-loss coefficient without opening refrigeration circuits.
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 thermal model, residual chart and limits-to-validity paragraph.
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
Heat transfer; insulation technical data; HVAC equipment performance curves. 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 · Appliance systems integration and environmental loads — 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
Appliances must be evaluated as part of system demand rather than independent catalog choices. Ventilation, duty cycle, load priority and adverse operating conditions can interact. System integration is a design problem involving interfaces, access for service and protection against single-point failures.
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
Refrigeration performs adequately on shore power but competes with battery charging after dusk.
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 90 W compressor operates 55% of a day; estimate daily demand.
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
Build a simulated load-priority controller model with strictly low-voltage indicator loads.
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 interface-control document showing all energy and control connections.
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
OEM appliance requirements; energy systems design; thermal performance standards. 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 · Custom components, 3D printing and serviceability — 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
Additive fabrication should begin with failure consequence and material suitability, not visual resemblance. Describe tolerance stacks, creep, UV exposure, temperature limits, anisotropy and inspection criteria. For high-consequence or load-bearing parts, replacement must follow approved manufacturer or engineered methods.
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 discontinued cosmetic trim clip fractures after summer heat exposure.
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 clip width is 18.0 +/-0.3 mm and slot width 18.5 +/-0.2 mm. Compute worst-case clearance.
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
Measure inert printed coupons along and across build directions and compare dimensions.
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 nonstructural design history file with materials justification, tolerance, environmental risks and rejection rules.
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
Additive manufacturing process principles; materials datasheets; OEM 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 13 · Subsystem prototype and low-energy integration — 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
Integration introduces faults absent in isolated subsystems: incompatible logic levels, cumulative voltage drops and uncontrolled startup states. Require a staged commissioning plan with test gates. Prototype work should use current-limited supplies, fuses and mock loads—never field-commission a hazardous system as part of this course.
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 sensor board and DC motor driver work independently but fail when connected to a shared power source.
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 3 A, a return wire has 0.12 ohm resistance. Estimate return-line 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
Integrate approved 5 V/12 V trainer modules with simulated loads and an instructor-defined shutdown test.
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 circuit and interface drawings, test log, unexpected outcomes and corrective action evidence.
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
Systems integration test methods; instrumentation guides; vendor application notes. 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 · Verification, validation and configuration management — 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
Verification asks whether requirements were satisfied; validation asks whether the solution meets the intended need. A design can pass its internal test and still fail the user. Configuration control makes results reproducible: part number, firmware, revision, test procedure and data provenance must be recorded.
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 prototype passes lab checks but fails in high summer humidity after customer installation.
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: Of 48 scripted tests, 45 pass, 2 fail and 1 is blocked. Report pass share for executed tests.
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
Conduct document-based verification audit for simulated prototype revisions.
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 requirements traceability matrix with pass, fail, blocked and not-tested statuses.
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
Design assurance; configuration management; evidence-based verification. 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 engineering design review and oral 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
Complete a coherent design dossier including requirements, models, uncertainty, risk controls, component selections, budget, tests and a formal disposition. Demonstrate mastery by defending why competing architectures were rejected. Good engineering acknowledges unresolved hazards instead of concealing them.
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 mobile RV service unit must support refrigeration, lighting, communications and a constrained budget in varying temperatures.
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 system demands 1.6 kWh/day over 3 days with combined storage-to-load efficiency 85%; estimate required initial stored 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
Present a safe low-energy subsystem prototype or validated simulation to a faculty review panel.
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 12-15 page engineering report, full calculation appendix and 12-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
Appropriate design and safety standards; peer-reviewed technical literature; OEM 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?
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