1. University of the Pacific 1 Parabolic Food Aid Delivery System Mishari Al-Nahedh Chia Lee Lisa Mak December 5, 2002 Engineering 5 Section 6 University of the Pacific School of Engineering and Computer Science 3601 Pacific Ave. Stockton, CA 95211 Submitted To: Dr. Schultz

2. University of the Pacific2 Overview Problem Definition Problem Definition Design Process Design Process Discussion of Results Discussion of Results Suggested Improvements Suggested Improvements Conclusions Conclusions Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

3. University of the Pacific3 Problem Definition  Introduction / Background –Design and build a mobile parabolic food aid delivery system (PFADS) for Camkur, Inc. –Introduction to Engineering course team project Design Process Design Process Effective Team Group work Effective Team Group work

4. University of the Pacific4 Problem Definition (cont.) –PFADS must carry food aid packages (FAP) down a ramp and release it when it launches. –Competition for all engineering sections teams

5. University of the Pacific5 Problem Definition Continue…  Constraints –Food Aid Packages: Size : 4-3/8 x 4-3/8 x 5-1/2 inches Size : 4-3/8 x 4-3/8 x 5-1/2 inches Weight : Approx. 7 ounces (~200 g) Weight : Approx. 7 ounces (~200 g) –Parabolic Food Aid Delivery System : Size : Maximum dimensions is 18 x 18 x 18 inches Size : Maximum dimensions is 18 x 18 x 18 inches Weight : Maximum 10 Pounds Weight : Maximum 10 Pounds

6. University of the Pacific6 Problem Definition Continue… Criteria Criteria –Weight: PFADS must weight light. –Volume: the smaller size, the better result. –Time to prepare PFADS prior to its release: only one minute. –Easy to release, by simple touch

7. University of the Pacific7 Project Objectives PFADS must: PFADS must: –Carry food aid package (FAP) down a 7 feet long ramp. –Launch the FAP over a 6’2” high wall after it hits the bottom of the ramp. –Deliver the FAP to a target, which is 6.5 ft. away from the wall.

8. University of the Pacific8 Project Objectives (cont.) Ramp Ramp PYTHON-INFESTED JUNGLE BOUNDARY 4 in 4 ft 8 ft START LINE FAP TARGET SPOT 6 ft 2 in 3.5 ft 10 ft

9. University of the Pacific9 Design Process Preliminary Ideas Preliminary Ideas –use springs –use flexible (yet durable) plastic –use rubber bands

10. University of the Pacific10 Design Process (cont.) Refinement Refinement –Use springs much easier to obtain much easier to obtain more durable than others more durable than others

11. University of the Pacific11 Design Process (cont.) Refinement (cont.) Refinement (cont.) –make launcher similar to catapult

12. University of the Pacific12 Design Process (cont.) Refinement (cont.) Refinement (cont.) –Make it similar to Newton’s Cradle

13. University of the Pacific13 Design Process (cont.) Refinement (cont.) Refinement (cont.) –make launcher similar to mouse-trap

14. University of the Pacific14 Design Process (Cont.) Decision Decision –Make launcher similar to mousetrap –Simple design –Easy to implement Use springs Use springs –Use the recoil force of the springs when stretched

15. University of the Pacific15 Design Process (Cont.) Construction & Testing Construction & Testing –Aluminum rod frame was attached to the piece of wood –Springs were then attached to the piece of wood and to the aluminum rod –Another piece of wood is added to the bottom of the base –After several testing, to maximize the strength of the PFADS, a 1 ft. high piece of wood was added in front to level off the FPAD while going down the ramp

16. University of the Pacific16 Testing of the PFAD

17. University of the Pacific17 Construction of the PFAD

18. University of the Pacific18 The Design of the PFAD

19. University of the Pacific19 Design Process Continue… Final Mechanism Final Mechanism –Dimensions: 2.5” x 14” x 12’’ –Weight: 1 lb. Launch Mechanism reacts to force of hitting wall Launch Mechanism reacts to force of hitting wall

20. University of the Pacific20 Final Design Top FrontBack Side

21. University of the Pacific21 Discussion of Results Did not launch over the wall Did not launch over the wall –The PFADS was too small/light weighted to exert much force on the FAP The wheel axle came loose after the impact with the 4 in. wall at the bottom of the ramp The wheel axle came loose after the impact with the 4 in. wall at the bottom of the ramp –This diminished our chance for launching during the 3rd trial (without the wall)

22. University of the Pacific22 Discussion of Results Final FOM is 55.83 Final FOM is 55.83 Ranked 21st place out of 36 team Ranked 21st place out of 36 team The most light weight The most light weight

23. University of the Pacific23 Suggested Improvements Use compression force springs instead of recoil springs Use compression force springs instead of recoil springs Use thicker aluminum rod instead of aluminum rod used Use thicker aluminum rod instead of aluminum rod used

24. University of the Pacific24 Suggested Improvements (cont.) A heavier base to hold down the rod & springs A heavier base to hold down the rod & springs A stronger wheel A stronger wheel anchor/axle anchor/axle

25. University of the Pacific25 Conclusions Had to launch a FAP over a 6’2” wall over a distance of 10’ Had to launch a FAP over a 6’2” wall over a distance of 10’ Size constraint: 18” x 18” x 18” Size constraint: 18” x 18” x 18” PFADS and its parts cannot go over 4” wall PFADS and its parts cannot go over 4” wall Move down a slope measuring 8” long, 4” high Move down a slope measuring 8” long, 4” high

26. University of the Pacific26 Conclusions (cont.) Final design, simplest to build Final design, simplest to build Easy design to follow and manipulate Easy design to follow and manipulate Final mechanism: Final mechanism: –Dimensions: 2.5” x 14” x 12’’ –Weight: 1 lb.

27. University of the Pacific27 Conclusions (cont.) Placed 21 of 36 Placed 21 of 36 Did not accomplish task Did not accomplish task –Failed first run (broke also) –Not able to make second run –Not able to make third run

28. University of the Pacific28 Acknowledgements Mr. Cavan Carroll for his guidance and support throughout the project Mr. Cavan Carroll for his guidance and support throughout the project Mr. Andrew Walter for supplying certain materials and for his support Mr. Andrew Walter for supplying certain materials and for his support