1. Team CRAB PFAD 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 Side view Front 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 Materials PVC pipe toy wheels rat trap Reasons light weight simple rat trap power enough to clear wall

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.) Disqualified Reason: Oversized Rank 29 out of 36 Details Weight: 7 lbs Length: 20.75 in Width: 11.00 in Height: 19.00 in Volume: 4336.75 cubic inches

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