1. TEAM FTP LAB 5 Project PFADS n Kyle Harris n Sang Huynh n Bhupinder Shergill n Eric Stolp

2. TEAM FTP Overview/Outline n Introduction n Objectives n Preliminary Ideas n Refinement n Decision n Construction and Testing

3. TEAM FTP Overview/Outline (continued) n Results/Discussion n Conclusions n Acknowledgements

4. TEAM FTP Introduction n Background: –Design and build mobile parabolic food aid delivery system (PFADS) to children in refugee camps

5. TEAM FTP Introduction (continued) n Objectives: –Device traverses 7 feet down an inclined ramp –Device launches 4-3/8” x 4-3/8” x 5-1/2” package to target 10 feet away and over 6’2” wall located 3’1/2” away from base of the ramp –Practice Teamwork –Practice Formal Presentation skills

6. TEAM FTP Introduction (continued)

7. TEAM FTP Introduction (continued) CONSTRAINTS n Weight < 10 lbs n Launch 4-3/8” x 4-3/8” x 5-1/2” box n Spend < $20 n Fit within 18” x 18” x 18” container n Mechanism cannot fall over ramp

8. TEAM FTP Introduction (continued) CRITERIA n Minimize weight n Minimize dimensions n Package clears 6’2” wall n Package hits target 10 feet from base

9. TEAM FTP Introduction (continued) n Project Objectives: –Build device to launch FAP over wall –Gain more experience in TEAMWORK –Gain experience in FORMAL PRESENTATIONS

10. TEAM FTP Preliminary Ideas n Preliminary Idea # 1 –Designed by Sang –PROS Simple Design Simple trigger device Cheap Roll down ramp –CONS Rat trap not support arm Inaccuracy in launch

11. TEAM FTP Preliminary Ideas (continued) n Preliminary Idea # 2 –Designed by Eric –PROS Surgical tubing Roll down ramp Trigger mechanism –CONS Not gain enough momentum to launch Weight Dimensions

12. TEAM FTP Preliminary Ideas (continued) n Preliminary Idea # 3 –Designed by Bhup –PROS Power in release Trigger mechanism Accuracy in launch Roll down ramp –CONS Dimensions Weight Instability in arm: break off

13. TEAM FTP Preliminary Ideas (continued) n Preliminary Idea # 4 –Designed by Kyle –PROS Inclined height Trigger mechanism Strength in arm Roll down ramp –CONS Inconsistency in springs: break off Wooden bars: break off

14. TEAM FTP Refinement Preferred Ideas n Preliminary Idea #2 –Why Preferred? Surgical Tubes for strength in launch Trigger mechanism –Possible Problems: Weight Dimensions May tip over

15. TEAM FTP Refinement (continued) n Preliminary Idea #4 –Why Preferred? Inclined Height Trigger mechanism Strength in arm Light in weight –Possible Problems: Inconsistency in springs Wooden bars crack due to pressure May need to make adjustments to arm May tip over

16. TEAM FTP Decision n Final Design –Incorporated Prelim. Design #2 and #4 into Final design. –PROS: Inclined Height Surgical Tubing Trigger mechanism –CONS: May need to adjust arm frequently Wooden bars may crack due to pressure May Tip Over

17. TEAM FTP Construction and Testing n Used surgical tubing, drill, hammer, screws, wood, nuts, bolts, metal arms and hinges to construct device –Took place in Wehymes and Southwest n Tested launching mechanism of device in Khoury Hall, in Southwest, and in Wehymes.

18. TEAM FTP Construction and Testing (continued) n Final Design: –Height: 13.25” –Length: 10” –Width: 9.25” –Weight: 4lbs –Basic design: Tupperware container on metal arm; surgical tubing causes arm to spring up and forward, shooting FAP once device hits 4” wall at base of ramp (triggered by shock of impact)

19. TEAM FTP Results and Discussion n Heat 1: Failure- FAP hit top of wall n Heat 2: Failure- FAP hit top of wall n Heat 3 (w/out wall): Distance was 6.67 feet past 10 ft marker n Final FOM= 83.41 n Result: Placed 17th overall

20. TEAM FTP Results and Discussion (continued) ADVANTAGES n Slid down ramp easily n Triggered every run n Small size and volume n Light in weight n Device did not tip over DISADVANTAGES n Package did not travel over the wall n Package did not hit the 10 foot mark on 3 rd attempt n Surgical tubing lost strength after each run

21. TEAM FTP Results and Discussion (continued) n Suggested Improvements: –Two surgical tubes instead of one: more support and strength –Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy FAP clears wall and reaches target –Raise platform level of device: Higher inclination –Re-design device upward cannon-type launcher rather than arm launcher – better model as seen in competition

22. TEAM FTP Conclusions n Key Criteria: –Minimize rectangular volume of design –Minimize weight n Key Constraints: –Device must fit within an 18”x18”x18” container –Device < 10lbs

23. TEAM FTP Conclusions (continued) n Competition Performance: –Trial 1: Fail –Trial 2: Fail –Trial 3: 6.67 ft off –Final Result: 17 th Place out of 36

24. TEAM FTP Conclusions (continued) n Improvements: –Two surgical tubes –Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy

25. TEAM FTP Acknowledgements n Professor Camilla Saviz –Clarification of specifications n Professor Kurt Schulz –Clarification of specifications n Introduction to Engineering: Course Manual –Guidelines to build device n Bob Pollard –Cut wood pieces for device