Achievement — Priya Raman

I want to turn my heat-pump retrofit idea into a responsibly tested bench-scale prototype and reach an independent go, revise, or stop decision by January 2028.

• The intended building problem and user are specific enough that practitioners recognize the need.
• A prewritten test shows what the prototype can and cannot do under defined conditions.
• Independent reviewers can inspect the design, data, safety assumptions, and limitations.
• I produce a reproducible technical record, including a useful failure memo if the concept does not work.
• No resident or customer is exposed to an unapproved device.

I’m a 32-year-old mechanical engineer in Houston. I understand thermal systems and have access to a small makerspace, but I have not worked in residential installation or building-code enforcement. The idea is still shaped more by my engineering curiosity than by verified installer or homeowner needs. I can commit up to $9,000 and 550 hours without risking my job or emergency savings.

By January 31, 2028, I want to design, build, and responsibly test a bench-scale prototype for one clearly defined heat-pump retrofit problem, then obtain enough independent evidence to make a go, revise, license, partner, or stop decision. Achievement means completing a rigorous learning cycle and producing work another qualified person can inspect. It does not require forcing the concept into a company or declaring success because a device turns on.

• The target building condition, user, and retrofit problem are narrow enough that contractors and building-performance practitioners recognize them from real work.
• Before testing, I document the intended function, relevant safety boundaries, comparison condition, measurements, and what result would count against the concept.
• The prototype performs its defined function under controlled bench conditions, or the failure is measured clearly enough to explain why the concept should change or stop.
• At least two qualified, independent reviewers examine the design, data, safety assumptions, installation implications, and limitations.
• I produce a reproducible technical notebook and decision memo that separates measured results from interpretation and records negative findings.
• No resident, customer, or occupied building is exposed to an unapproved device, and any later field testing requires appropriate professional, legal, insurance, and safety approval.

I’m a 32-year-old mechanical engineer in Houston. My professional work has given me a strong foundation in thermal systems, design reviews, testing, and technical documentation. I have been thinking about a retrofit component that might make a narrow class of heat-pump installations easier in older buildings. I have access to a small makerspace and colleagues who can challenge mechanical assumptions.

I do not have direct experience as a residential HVAC installer, building-code official, property operator, or manufacturer bringing field equipment through certification. My current concept is still based partly on what seems technically elegant to me. I have not verified how often the problem occurs, what installers currently do, whether the economics matter to owners, or whether another constraint makes my proposed improvement irrelevant.

I can commit up to 550 hours and $9,000 through January 2028 without using emergency savings or leaving my job. I will not test in an occupied home, bypass an employer conflict or intellectual-property rule, or present a bench result as evidence of field safety or market demand. I am willing to stop if the problem is rare, a simpler workaround already exists, the safety burden is disproportionate, or the results do not survive independent review.

My strengths are engineering discipline, persistence, and comfort with measured failure. My risk is falling in love with building before understanding the job the device must do. A carefully documented negative result would still be a real achievement if it prevents unsafe or wasteful escalation.

I will use a staged prototype route. First I will verify the problem through non-pitch conversations and define one use case. Next I will write the test and stop conditions before committing most of the budget. Only then will I build the smallest bench apparatus capable of testing the central claim. Spending and complexity will increase only when the previous stage produces evidence that justifies them, and independent review will occur before any decision about field exposure.