1. Team F.T.P. Bhubinder Shergill Kyle Harris Sang Huynh Eric Stolp ENGR. 5 LAB 5

2. Outline b Introduction b Constraints/Criteria b Project Objectives b Preliminary Ideas b Refinement b Decision/Implementation

3. Outline Continued b Construction and Testing b Final Mechanism b Results/Discussion b Suggested Improvements b Conclusions b Acknowledgments

4. Problem Definition Introduction b Objective was to design a PFADS device that would launch a FAP over a wall and land on a target b PFADS (parabolic food aid delivery system) b FAP (Food Aid Package)

5. Constraints b The project could not exceed 10 pounds b Must fit within an 18 x 18 x 18 inch container b Material cost was limited to $20.00

6. Criteria b Wanted to make PFAD as light as possible b Smaller dimensions b Win the competition

7. Project Objectives b To traverse about eight feet down an inclined launching ramp b To launch a FAP over a 6 foot 2 inch high wall located 3.5 feet away from the base of the ramp

8. Project Objectives Continued b FAP should land on a target 10 feet away from the base of the ramp

9. Preliminary Idea #1 b This idea consisted of using a rat trap to generate power

10. Preliminary Idea #2 b This idea is the basis of our final design

11. Preliminary Idea #3 b This idea consists of two springs, and a hook for a trigger mechanism

12. Preliminary Idea #4 b This idea has two raised rods that act as a sling shot to throw the FAP over the wall.

13. Refinement b We refined our design about fifteen times b We tested our design too many times to count

14. Refinement Continued Pros of refinement b Found a design we thought worked b Found out what did not work Cons of refinement b Didn’t end up working on test day b Spent too much time refining

15. Decision/Implementation b We decided to use the sling shot design b Surgical tubing b Hinges b No wheels b No real trigger Final Design

16. Final Mechanism b Weight: 4 Lbs. b Dimensions: 10” x 9.25” x 13.25”

17. Results/Discussion b Performance in Competition- 17 th Place b First two attempts unsuccessful (but close) b Landed 6.67 ft. away from 10 ft. target Vessel Weight (Lbs.)Length(In.)Width(In.)Height(In.) 410.009.2513.25

18. Suggested Improvements b Better trigger mechanism b More consistent type of launching system b Different design

19. Conclusion Continued b Launching mechanism was successful, we came in 17 th place out of 36 teams and stayed within the constraints b Did not meet the intended expectations b Final design was not consistent

20. Acknowledgements b Mr. Bob the helping hand in the woodshop b Patrick Grimes- UOP engineering student b Lowes- great people with helpful assistance