Parabolic Food Aid System

1
Parabolic Food Aid System

• By Michael Duong and Abby Conrad

• Bombs Away

2
Overview

• Problem Definition
• Approach (Design Process)
• Results/Discussion
• Suggested Improvements
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements

3
Problem DefinitionBackground

• Students were assigned a problem in Introduction
  to Engineering
• Design mechanism to launch kleenex box

4
Problem DefinitionConstraints/Criteria

• Maximum size of device 18x18x18
• Must weigh no more than 10 lbs
• Will transverse 7 down inclined ramp
• Must go over a 62 high wall
• located 3.5 from end of ramp

5
Problem DefinitionConstraints/Criteria
(continued)

• Target is 10 from end of ramp
• No part of device can fall off ramp
• Kleenex cant travel farther than 20
• Must launch a Kleenex box that is
  4.375 x 4.375 x 5.5
• Cannot use pre-constructed devices

6
Problem Definition Constraints/Criteria
(continued)
7
Problem DefinitionProject Objectives

• Learn to work as group
• Develop problem solving skills
• Learn more about available resources
• Further ingrain the design process
• To design and implement a Parabolic Food Aid
  Delivery System (PFADS)

8
ApproachPreliminary Ideas

• Slingshot (angled)
• Slingshot (vertical)
• Catapult (dual springs)
• Catapult (spring metal)
• Catapult (rubber bands)

9
Angled Slingshot
10
Vertical Slingshot
11
Spring metal
12
Rubber band
13
Dual SpringsFinal Mechanism
14
ApproachRefinement

• Criteria
• Building feasibility
• Cost
• Most adjustable
• Most effective

15
Approach Refinement (cont.)-Angled Slingshot

• Pros
• Simple
• Adjustable angle
• Stable
• Cons
• Insufficient Power
• Poor weight distribution

16
ApproachRefinement (cont.)-Vertical Slingshot

• Pros
• Accurate launch angle
• Powerful
• Easy to adjust
• Cons
• Insufficient materials
• Too powerful

17
ApproachRefinement (cont.)-Spring metal

• Pros
• Easy to implement
• Adjustable launch angle
• Lightweight
• Cons
• Inadequate power
• Lacking materials

18
ApproachRefinement (cont.)-Rubber bands

• Pros
• Adjustable force
• Adequate Stability
• Cons
• Lack of power
• Insufficient materials
• Constrained number of launches

19
ApproachRefinement (cont.)-Dual Springs

• Pros
• Powerful
• Adjustable launch angle
• Stable
• Functional trigger mechanism
• Predictable speed
• Cons
• Insufficient launch angle
• Poor weight distribution
• Too much power

20
ApproachDecision/Implementation

• Which idea did the team choose and why?
• Catapult-Spring
• Posed as best solution
• Ability to gather needed materials
• Seemed most feasible
• Most adjustable

21
ApproachConstruction Testing

• Worked in metal shop
• used available materials
• Built dual spring design
• Tested in metal shop
• Tested in Khoury
• Did not launch at necessary angle
• Made adjustments to fulcrum

22
Construction
23
Testing
24
Testing
25
Testing
26
ApproachFinal Mechanism

• Key Features
• Adjustable Fulcrum
• Dual Springs
• Clever Release Mechanism
• Sled like stability
• Lightweight Adjustable package holder

27
Final Design(with dimensions)
28
Final Mechanism (Front)
29
Final Mechanism (Side)
30
Suggested Improvements

• Wider, more stable base
• Shorter lever arm
• Stronger and more durable materials
• Better adjustability
• Test device more before competition

31
Results/Discussion

• Dimensions
• Length- 13
• Width- 9
• Height- 8
• Oversized
• Distance
• Trial 1 and 2- did not go over wall
• Trial 3- 1.83

32
Results/Discussion(cont.)

• Weight - 6 lbs
• Final FOM (figure of merit) - 111.31
• Rank - 30

33
Results/Discussion (cont.)

• Advantages
• Stayed on track
• Released at right time
• Stable
• Disadvantages
• FAP (food aid package) did not go over wall
• Insufficient launch angle
• Lacking power (broke)

34
Competition
35
Conclusion

• In conclusion, Team Bombs Away was able to build,
  test, and complete a PFAD which placed 30th and
  had a FOM of 111.31. This project allowed Team
  Bombs Away to improve in areas such as teamwork,
  communication skills, and the application of the
  design process.

36
Conclusion (continued)

• After finishing this project our team learned
  that we needed to look at the constraints and
  criteria more closely in order to attain the best
  design possible. We also learned that early
  preparation and being able to complete things on
  time is vital for success in group projects.

37
Acknowledgements

• Other group members
• Mike Greci
• Sean Head
• Additional help
• Professor Schulz
• Bob and Adrian (metal shop)