PFADS Project

1
PFADS Project

• Team P.O.C.
• Gavin Saito
• Miguel Perez
• Michael Bruch
• December 5, 2002
• University of the Pacific
• Introduction to Engineering
• Lab Section 6

2
Outline

• P.O.C. Introduction
• Constraints/Criteria
• Objectives
• Design Process
• Conclusion

3
Introduction

• FAPs (4-3/8 in x 5-1/2 in cube 200 g)
• PFADS
• 6 Feet 2 Inch Wall
• Target 10 Feet Away
• Hill
• 4 inch Wall

4
Constraints

• 18 x 18 x 18 inches
• Less Than 10 Pounds
• May Not be Propelled
• No Motors or Propellants
• No Pre-Constructed Devices

5
Constraints
START LINE
4 in
FAP Target
6 ft 2 in
3.5 ft
10 ft
10 ft

• Launch at Bottom of Hill
• 1 Foot Starting Area
• All Parts of PFADS Behind 4 in Wall

6
Criteria

• Size
• Weight
• Distance From Target
• Reliability

7
Objectives

• Use Design Process
• Design a Viable PFADS
• Group Efficiency
• Flexibility
• Responsibility

8
Preliminary Ideas

• Spring loaded platform inside housing

9
Preliminary Ideas

• Spring board with hinges

10
Preliminary Ideas

• Trebuchet

11
Preliminary Ideas

• Catapult

12
Refinement

13
Decision Implementation

• Team decided on which idea to pursue
• Idea 2-Spring board
• Insert final sketch
• Team then implemented construction of design

14
Construction

• Construction began with original idea in mind
• Wood cut and mounted
• launch arm attached, w/screws and hinges
• Springs attached, w/nails
• wheels attached, w/nails

15
Construction
16
Construction
17
Construction
18
Testing

• Preliminary testing occurred during initial
  construction and afterwards
• PFAD testing included
• Launching on flat surface, releasing by hand
• Launching on flat surface, releasing with launch
  mechanism
• Rolling down the ramp
• Launching at bottom of ramp

19
Testing Results

• After preliminary testing, several problems arose
• Not enough force
• Angle not correct
• Springs not compressing properly
• Did not fit in dimension constraints
• Launch mechanism did not work
• Too heavy

20
Modification

• Modifications made due to testing
• Was raised to new angle
• Dimensions were minimized
• New launch mechanism
• More springs
• Springs held more secure in place
• Mounted new FAP holder

21
Final Mechanism

• Dimensions of final design
• Weight-9 lbs.
• Dimensions-21 x 9 x 14.5
• Volume-2704.50 in³

22
Final Mechanism

• Key Features
• Angled
• launching mechanism reliable and secure
• Smaller dimensions
• Less weight
• Travels in straight line
• More force due to extra springs

23
Final Mechanism
24
ResultsCompetition Results

• Placed 35th
• Disqualified for Dimensions
• Structural Failure

25
DiscussionAdvantages/Disadvantages

• Spring Energy
• Trigger
• Elevated Angle of Depression
• Key Teamwork

• Structural Integrity
• Balance
• FAP Frame
• Velocity

26
Improvements

• Stronger base for springs
• Better balancing
• Test pressure of springs
• Utilize on-school facilities (i.e. wood shop)

27
Conclusions

• Dimensions
• PFAD Mission
• Attributes of Final Design
• Competition Results
• Future Plans

28
Acknowledgements

• Professor Kurt Schulz
• Professor Camila Saviz
• History Channel
• Darcie Bruch