University of the Pacific1 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

University of the Pacific2 Outline l P.O.C. Introduction l Constraints/Criteria l Objectives l Design Process l Conclusion

University of the Pacific3 Introduction l FAPs (4-3/8 in x 5-1/2 in cube 200 g) l PFADS l 6 Feet 2 Inch Wall l Target 10 Feet Away l Hill l 4 inch Wall

University of the Pacific4 Constraints l 18 x 18 x 18 inches l Less Than 10 Pounds l May Not be Propelled l No Motors or Propellants l No Pre-Constructed Devices

University of the Pacific5 Constraints l Launch at Bottom of Hill l 1 Foot Starting Area l All Parts of PFADS Behind 4 in Wall PYTHON- INFESTED JUNGLE BOUNDARY START LINE 4 in 10 ft 3.5 ft 6 ft 2 in FAP Target

University of the Pacific6 Criteria l Size l Weight l Distance From Target l Reliability

University of the Pacific7 Objectives l Use Design Process l Design a Viable PFADS l Group Efficiency u Flexibility u Responsibility

University of the Pacific8 Preliminary Ideas l Spring loaded platform inside housing

University of the Pacific9 Preliminary Ideas l Spring board with hinges

University of the Pacific10 Preliminary Ideas l Trebuchet

University of the Pacific11 Preliminary Ideas l Catapult

University of the Pacific12 Refinement

University of the Pacific13 Decision & Implementation l Team decided on which idea to pursue u Idea 2-Spring board u Insert final sketch l Team then implemented construction of design

University of the Pacific14 Construction l Construction began with original idea in mind u Wood cut and mounted u launch arm attached, w/screws and hinges u Springs attached, w/nails u wheels attached, w/nails

University of the Pacific15 Construction

University of the Pacific16 Construction

University of the Pacific17 Construction

University of the Pacific18 Testing l Preliminary testing occurred during initial construction and afterwards l PFAD testing included: u Launching on flat surface, releasing by hand u Launching on flat surface, releasing with launch mechanism u Rolling down the ramp u Launching at bottom of ramp

University of the Pacific19 Testing Results l After preliminary testing, several problems arose u Not enough force u Angle not correct u Springs not compressing properly u Did not fit in dimension constraints u Launch mechanism did not work u Too heavy

University of the Pacific20 Modification l Modifications made due to testing u Was raised to new angle u Dimensions were minimized u New launch mechanism u More springs u Springs held more secure in place u Mounted new FAP holder

University of the Pacific21 Final Mechanism l Dimensions of final design u Weight-9 lbs. u Dimensions-21’ x 9’ x 14.5’ u Volume in³

University of the Pacific22 Final Mechanism l Key Features u Angled u launching mechanism reliable and secure u Smaller dimensions u Less weight u Travels in straight line u More force due to extra springs

University of the Pacific23 Final Mechanism

University of the Pacific24 Results: Competition Results l Placed 35 th l Disqualified for Dimensions l Structural Failure

University of the Pacific25 Discussion: Advantages/Disadvantages l Spring Energy l Trigger l Elevated Angle of Depression l Key: Teamwork l Structural Integrity l Balance u FAP Frame l Velocity

University of the Pacific26 Improvements l Stronger base for springs l Better balancing l Test pressure of springs l Utilize on-school facilities (i.e. wood shop)

University of the Pacific27 Conclusions l Dimensions l PFAD Mission l Attributes of Final Design l Competition Results l Future Plans

University of the Pacific28 Acknowledgements l Professor Kurt Schulz l Professor Camila Saviz l History Channel l Darcie Bruch