Bibliography: The data gathered that helped conducting this study is from

fireworktv.com/users/time4crafts?uid=1673397 and www.youtube.com/@ScienceFunClub which

stands as a guide to this project.

The project was conducted at home and the materials is also gathered in the
researcher’s household.

Table 2 Table 4
Table 3 Table 1
Discussion

In table 1 shows the results of the design and the features like “neat and pleasing to look at”. “handy
and user friendly” and “the device is well made based on those 3 the “handy and user friendly” got the
top score with the total of 39 and a mean of 4.875 which is has an interpretation of excellent.

In table 2 shows the results of the performance of the device like is “the device is accurate for its
purpose” or “the device functions perfectly”. This section determines if the device serves its purpose
and if “the device has a good function”. Based on the results “the device functions perfectly” has the
highest score with a total of 39 and a mean of 4.875 with an interpretation of excellent.

In table 3 shows the results of”the cost of materials” which counts if the device is expensive or
affordable. This is the part where u sum the cost of materials used for references. The “materials used is
affordable” is accurate because this mini fan is recycled to help lessen our plastic waste and lessen the
heat we feel. Based on the scoring the “all the needed materials is applied” scored the most in this
section with the total of 38 and a mean of 4.75 which has also an interpretation of excellent.

In table 4 which is the last section counts the development cause of the project which refers to the trials
of the device. This area gives features like “The cost of expenses is minimum”, “The device is tested” and
“The quality of the device is acceptable”. Based on the scoring the “The device is tested” and “The
quality of the device is acceptable” with a total of 38 and a mean of 4.75 and has also an interpretation
of excellent.