1. Nerf Football Launcher
By: Cory King
4/24/15
Muthar Al-Ubaidi, Ph.D.

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND RESEARCH
Background
Research: Technology and Existing Products
Customer Needs
Product Objective

3. Problem Definition & Background
Parents with injuries or handicaps often find it difficult to throw a football with their children.
It would be beneficial to these people to have a machine that can throw a football for them (there are no such products available in today’s market).
This would allow a person to spend quality time with their children while also getting their children active. Currently the only similar products available are made for high school and professional athletes.
Alternatively, this machine would allow peewee football teams to practice catches with consistent passes.

4. Existing Products
The JUGS Football Machine™ Very powerful, $2,500 USD.
The Snap Attack football machine, Safety guards, finicky operation, $3,999 USD.

5. Existing Products
The Heater Sports CR99 Ball Pitching Machine Low power, spin, $150 USD
The Louisville Slugger Instructor UPM 30 Pitching Machine.
Low power, uses arm, can not be modified to use a feeder, $130 USD.

6. Customer Needs
Parents who would like to use this product were interviewed to determine customer needs:
Needs to be low cost
Needs to have safety features
Must be able to be operated by one person
Must not rock or tip (dangerous)
Must be easy to move (either light weight or on wheels)
Launch should be adjustable for different distances

7. Product Objectives
Customer features were determined based on customer needs and product research.

8. Product Objectives

9. Engineering Characteristics
The product objectives were used to develop a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) chart which gives a visual representation of the weighted importance of each feature.
Engineering Characteristics
Quantitative Measures
Relative Importance
Speed of motor
RPM 5%
Angle of launching wheels
Degrees
Height of body off of ground
Feet
Operation switches
Yes/No
10%
Warning labels
Safety guards
15%
Costs less than $200
20%
Set-up time
<5 minutes
Weight
<35 lbs.
Stability of tripod
≥24” base

10. Design Analysis Design Alternatives Design Selection Solid Model
Component & Material Selection

11. Design Alternatives Concept 1
This design consists of two wheels; one rotating CW and one rotating CCW. One wheel would be tilted at an angle to create spin on the ball. This concept uses a single motor with a belt and pulley drive. The pros of this design are its simplicity and low cost to manufacture. The cons of this design are that there are already patents for similar designs and working around those would be difficult.

12. Design Alternatives Concept 2
This design concept uses three linear belts driven by multiple motors. All belts make equal contact with the ball. The pro of this design is that the ball has a consistent and straight path. The cons are that there is no spin on the ball and the path of travel cannot be adjusted.

13. Design Alternatives Concept 3
This design concept uses two advancing belts and one lateral belt below the ball plane. This gives the ball forward motion while also putting spin on it. The belts will be driven by two motors. The pros of this design are that the ball is thrown with a spiral and in a consistent path. The cons are that this design is more complicated to manufacture and that it has more pinch points.

14. Design Selection Weighted Rating Method
A value was assigned to each concept design based on how it satisfied a given feature. (5 point scale)
The highest weighted total was then selected to become the design.

15. Weighted Rating Method (5 Point Scale) Characteristics Evaluated
Design Selection
Weighted Rating Method (5 Point Scale)
Characteristics Evaluated
Weight
Design
Two Roller Wheels
Three Roller Belts
Two Advancing Belts, One Lateral Belt
Launch Speed
0.15 3
Adjustable Angle of Launch
0.10 4
Ease of Cleaning
0.05
Stability 2
Speed Variability
Durability
Price
Safety
Consistency of Launch
Weighted Total 1
3.10
2.90
3.55

16. 3D Model Assembly

17. Inside View

18. Overall Dimensions

19. Isometric Drawing

30. Component & Material Selection Drive Motors
Requirements of the drive motors:
120 VAC
¼ in. shaft
High RPM
Low HP

31. Component & Material Selection Lateral Spin Motor
Requirements of the lateral spin motors:
120 VAC
¼ in. shaft
High RPM
Low HP
Does not need to be
Very powerful, only
Spins a foam ball (low
Resistance)

32. Component & Material Selection Belt Rollers
Requirements of the belt rollers:
Copper pipe will be used
(low cost)
½” inner, ¾” outter
Spins on ½” couplings
End caps to maintain
belt alignment

33. Component & Material Selection Belting
Requirements of the belting:
Minimum 2 ply (durability)
Rubber
At least 6 in. wide

34. Component & Material Selection Leveling Feet
Requirements of the leveling feet:
Swivel
Minimum 3 in. long
(for angle of launch)
1/4-20 threads

35. Material The enclosure will be made of clear Plexiglas
The frame will be made of pine 2X4’s
All mounting stretchers will be made of ¼ in. plywood
Mounting brackets for the motors will be made of minimum 1/16 in. steel
Bracing for the motors will be made of thin sheet steel

36. Material For the electrical connections 12 AWG. wire will be used.
All wiring will run to a single terminal strip with a single connection for a standard power cord.
Note: Standard rated components will be adequate.

37. Planned Fabrication and Assembly
The bulk of assembly was done with hand tools and power tools.
A table saw was used for the Plexiglas
The stock motor shafts needed to be modified, a standard round stock fixture and horizontal band saw was used.

38. Planned Fabrication and Assembly
Standard fasteners will be used.
1/4-20 bolts
Drywall screws
Rubber glue for belts
Silicone (RTV) will be used to seal all Plexiglas
Note: Since Plexiglas was not used for the Expo, additional wood paneling was used.

39. Project Management Schedule (Proposed vs. Actual)
Budget (Proposed vs. Actual)

40. Schedule Discussion (Proposed Vs. Actual)

41. Plan to Finsh
On February 4, 2015 a presentation was given to a panel of engineering professors.
Upon approval of the design (after incorporating suggested changes from the panel) parts and materials were purchased and construction began. (week of February 9)
Construction was completed by March 27th.
Testing began the week of March 30th.
Modifications were made.
Following this was the tech. expo and final presentation.
The report is being updated and will be completed by April 28th.
The final report will be submitted online by May 1st.

42. Bill of Materials

43. Budget Discussion (Proposed/Actual)
The Bill of Materials totals an estimated $ While this is more than the original estimate, the design criteria and design type changed. This is still much cheaper than any similar product (by a factor of ten).
Adding up the multiple iterations of the project that were created the real total spent is nearly $900.

44. Questions?

45. Thank You Professor Muthar!