Our design process was as such: we began by brainstorming
ideas for the structure of our windlass. Throughout this process, we used our
basic knowledge of structures to make educated decisions on the geometries of
our components. We then considered physics – force, pressure, torque – to add
and modify our components. From the test piece, we used our data to make
decisions on dimensions where two components intersected. We then analyzed our
testing results to make further modifications to the structure and specific
components.
If we had more time, we would definitely return to modifying
the handle. We believed that a parallel handle component would ease the
cranking of the handle (motion is toward and away, rather than up and down and
to the side). However, we made the handle too long (6 cm). The increased torque
instead caused the other crank part to begin to rotate about the central rod,
disabling it from rotating the winding mechanism. If we had more time, I would
definitely try to see if a parallel handle of a shorter length – in combination
with a shorter crank part – would eliminate the problem that the larger torque
created. We would also try to incorporate the non-essential parts (the hooks
and connectors) into our design while also aiming to reduce materials usage.
Accounting
Windlass:
|
Piece
|
Quantity
|
Area of component (cm2)
|
Total Area (cm2)
|
|
Upright
|
2
|
115.74
|
231.48
|
|
Disk
|
2
|
35.94
|
71.88
|
|
Crank Handle
|
1
|
16.71
|
16.71
|
|
Lateral Supports
|
4
|
26.26
|
105.04
|
|
Bushings
|
5
|
0.71
|
3.55
|
|
Rod (support)
|
4
|
5.84
|
23.36
|
|
Rod (central)
|
1
|
26.16
|
26.16
|
Total Delrin Sheet: 428.66 cm2
Total Delrin Rod: 49.62 cm
Material for nonessential parts
|
Piece
|
Quantity
|
Area of component (cm2)
|
Total Area (cm2)
|
|
Hook
|
4
|
22.92
|
91.68
|
|
H connectors
|
8
|
3.11
|
24.88
|
Total Delrin Sheet of nonessential parts: 116.56 cm2
As we were given 500 cm2 of Delrin sheet and 50 cm of Delrin rod, our
stable, functional windlass itself left a remainder of 71.34 cm2,
and 0.38cm of Delrin rod.
*We cut our rod into the five pieces we needed, so this
0.38cm is used in our structure, distributed over the 5 pieces.
However, we decided to further enhance our windlass by
taking on the additional task of keeping it stable on the table surface. If we
add the area of the hooks and of the H connectors, then we exceeded our limit
by 45.22 cm2.
Despite this, we decided to demo our windlass with the
non-essential pieces. It worked!
I really liked your design when you first presented it to the entire class. Though it was unfortunate that you went beyond the material limit, I thought the design of having the entire structure clip onto the table edges was ingenius.
ReplyDelete