Team CRAB PFAD Design Presentation

1
Team CRABPFAD Design Presentation

• Alriel Gali
• Lab 5
• 12.5.2002
• University of the Pacific - School of Engineering
  and Computer Science
• 3601 Pacific Ave. Stockton CA, 95211

2
Presentation Outline

• Problem Definition
• Approach (Design Process)
• Results
• Recommendations
• Acknowledgements

3
Problem Definition

• Introduction/Background
• Constraint/Criteria
• Project Objective

4
Introduction/Background

• Apply the design process to design, construct,
  and test a parabolic food delivery system (PFAD)
• Launch food aid package (FAP) over a 6 2 wall,
  over ten feet.

5
Constraint Criteria

• Constraint
• Must fit into 18x18x18 inch box.
• Must weight less then 10lbs.
• Spend no more then 20.
• No motors or propellants
• Self triggering

6
Constraint and Criteria (cont.)

• Criteria
• Accuracy
• Reliability
• Weight
• Minimum volume
• Quick setup

7
Project Objectives

• Apply the design process to design, construct,
  and test a PFAD.
• To feed children in a refugee camp.

8
Approach (Design Process)

• Preliminary Ideas
• Refinement

• Decision/Implementation
• Construction Testing
• Final Mechanism

9
Preliminary Ideas

• Rat trap launcher

10
Preliminary Ideas (cont.)

• Super rat trap launcher

Front view
Side view
11
Refinement

• Rat trap launcher
• Materials
• Wood
• Rat trap
• toy wheels

12
Refinement (cont.)

• Con
• made of wood
• rat trap need to stay intact (Would have broken
  rules.)

• Pros
• simple
• easy to construct
• part easy to obtain

13
Refinement (cont.)

• PVC-frame launcher
• Materials
• PVC pipe
• wood
• toy wheels
• rat trap

14
Refinement (cont.)

• Con
• More complicated
• Rat trap must stay intact and would have broken
  the rules.

• Pros
• Adjusted to the angle of the ramp
• light weight
• Towers aid in adjusting when the FAP will be
  released

15
Decision Implementation (cont.)
Created on IronCad
16
Decision/Implementation

• Reasons
• light weight
• simple
• rat trap power enough to clear wall

• Materials
• PVC pipe
• toy wheels
• rat trap

17
Construction Testing

• Changes made
• Switch to spring from rat trap
• Angled launcher to adjust for ramp.

18
Construction Testing (cont.)

• Changes made (cont.)
• Tupperware top replaced toy wheels
• New trigger
• Added wood towers to support springs
• Added counterbalance

19
Final Mechanism
Left Final Product Right Decision
20
Final Mechanism

• Materials
• PVC pipe
• Springs
• Tupperware top
• Wood
• Nuts, screws, bolts
• Duct tape

21
Results

• Launcher Performance
• Trial 1 Distance 2.50 ft
• Trial 2 Distance NA
• FOM Trial 1 92.38
• FOM Trial 2 NA
• Total FOM 92.38

22
Results (cont.)

• Details
• Weight 7 lbs
• Length 20.75 in
• Width 11.00 in
• Height 19.00 in
• Volume 4336.75 cubic inches

• Disqualified
• Reason Oversized

• Rank
• 29 out of 36

23
Results (cont.)

• Advantage
• Powerful enough to clear wall
• Reliable

• Disadvantage
• Oversized
• Front heavy

24
Recommendations

• Purchasing replacement parts
• Hold meetings at hours all members could attend.
• Ask how the judges will measure the dimensions of
  the device.

25
Conclusion

• Key Constraints/Criteria
• Final Design
• Mechanism Performance
• Improvements

26
Conclusions (cont.)

• Key Constraints
• Must fit into 18x18x18 box
• Less then 10 lbs

• Key Criteria
• Reliability
• Stay within dimensions

27
Conclusion (cont.)

• Final Design

28
Conclusion (cont)

• Mechanism Performance
• Rank 26/36
• FOM 92.38
• Disqualified for failing to meet dimension limit

29
Conclusions (cont.)

• Improvements
• Replacement parts for worn-out components

30
Acknowledgements

• Adrian Lovell
• Matt Conners
• Keiichi McGuire
• Professor Saviz and Schulz