1. Parabolic Food Aid System By: Michael Duong and Abby Conrad

2. Overview l Problem Definition l Approach (Design Process) l Results/Discussion l Suggested Improvements l Conclusions l Acknowledgements

3. Problem Definition Background l Students were assigned a problem in Introduction to Engineering l Design mechanism to launch kleenex box

4. Problem Definition Constraints/Criteria l Maximum size of device: 18’’x18’’x18’’ l Must weigh no more than 10 lbs l Will transverse 7’ down inclined ramp l Must go over a 6’2’’ high wall ulocated 3.5’ from end of ramp

5. Problem Definition Constraints/Criteria (continued) l Target is 10’ from end of ramp l No part of device can fall off ramp l Kleenex can’t travel farther than 20’ l Must launch a Kleenex box that is 4.375’’ x 4.375’’ x 5.5’’ l Cannot use pre-constructed devices

6. Problem Definition Constraints/Criteria (continued)

7. Problem Definition Project Objectives l Learn to work as group l Develop problem solving skills l Learn more about available resources l Further ingrain the design process l To design and implement a Parabolic Food Aid Delivery System (PFADS)

8. Approach Preliminary Ideas l Slingshot (angled) l Slingshot (vertical) l Catapult (dual springs) l Catapult (spring metal) l Catapult (rubber bands)

9. Angled Slingshot

10. Vertical Slingshot

11. Spring metal

12. Rubber band

13. Dual Springs Final Mechanism

14. Approach Refinement l Criteria uBuilding feasibility uCost uMost adjustable uMost effective

15. Approach Refinement (cont.)-Angled Slingshot l Pros uSimple uAdjustable angle uStable l Cons uInsufficient Power uPoor weight distribution

16. Approach Refinement (cont.)-Vertical Slingshot l Pros uAccurate launch angle uPowerful uEasy to adjust l Cons uInsufficient materials uToo powerful

17. Approach Refinement (cont.)-Spring metal l Pros uEasy to implement uAdjustable launch angle uLightweight l Cons uInadequate power uLacking materials

18. Approach Refinement (cont.)-Rubber bands l Pros uAdjustable force uAdequate Stability l Cons uLack of power uInsufficient materials uConstrained number of launches

19. Approach Refinement (cont.) - Dual Springs l Pros uPowerful uAdjustable launch angle uStable uFunctional trigger mechanism uPredictable speed l Cons uInsufficient launch angle uPoor weight distribution uToo much power

20. Approach Decision/Implementation l Which idea did the team choose and why? l Catapult-Spring uPosed as best solution uAbility to gather needed materials uSeemed most feasible uMost adjustable

21. Approach Construction & Testing l Worked in metal shop uused available materials l Built dual spring design uTested in metal shop uTested in Khoury HDid not launch at necessary angle HMade adjustments to fulcrum

22. Construction

23. Testing

24. Testing

25. Testing

26. Approach Final Mechanism l Key Features uAdjustable Fulcrum uDual Springs uClever Release Mechanism uSled like stability uLightweight Adjustable package holder

27. Final Design (with dimensions)

28. Final Mechanism (Front)

29. Final Mechanism (Side)

30. Suggested Improvements l Wider, more stable base l Shorter lever arm l Stronger and more durable materials l Better adjustability l Test device more before competition

31. Results/Discussion l Dimensions uLength- 13’’ uWidth- 9’’ uHeight- 8’’ uOversized l Distance uTrial 1 and 2- did not go over wall uTrial 3- 1.83’

32. Results/Discussion(cont.) l Weight - 6 lbs l Final FOM (figure of merit) - 111.31 l Rank - 30

33. Results/Discussion (cont.) l Advantages uStayed on track uReleased at right time uStable l Disadvantages uFAP (food aid package) did not go over wall HInsufficient launch angle uLacking power (broke)

34. Competition

35. Conclusion In conclusion, Team Bombs Away was able to build, test, and complete a PFAD which placed 30th and had a FOM of 111.31. This project allowed Team Bombs Away to improve in areas such as teamwork, communication skills, and the application of the design process.

36. Conclusion (continued) After finishing this project our team learned that we needed to look at the constraints and criteria more closely in order to attain the best design possible. We also learned that early preparation and being able to complete things on time is vital for success in group projects.

37. Acknowledgements l Other group members uMike Greci uSean Head l Additional help uProfessor Schulz uBob and Adrian (metal shop)