FAT Case Study

Nolan Borgersen
13 May 2014

FAT Case Study

SUMMARY
Floating Arm Trebuchets allow for a large, linear drop of counterweight which results in efficient power. The weight drops straight down rather than on a curve like the traditional counterweight trebuchet. FAT style machines have been built with over 80% mechanical efficiency allowing for an extreme amount of power. I believe aside from being very to build in the amount of time we have this trebuchet is more mechanically efficient. This is the reason I would like to work on this project.

 

 

Case Study 1

(7.1546/10)

 

Positives

• Many detailed pictures
• Specific ratios and projectiles used
• Video
• Explains results

Negatives

• Vague instructions and materials used
• Vague dimensions
• Does not explain problems

http://www.instructables.com/id/Floating-Arm-Trebuchet-F2K/

 

Case Study 2

(9.163-10)

 

Positives

• Many detailed pictures
• Specific dimensions and projectile used
• Explains how it is made/works
• Explains the ratios, and the why the FAT is a BEAST (efficient)

Negatives

• Doesn't explain problems

http://www.trebuchet.com/firstfat





Sumobot

 

 

 

Nolan Borgersen

5/6/14

 

 

 

Summary

This project was sumobots. We had to build a robot that was able to move, and complete a loop in the hallway. we designed ours like a dragster, we used direct drive for the wheels and put our guide wheel far from the two motors. Our bot needed many redesigns because of gear problems and axel alignment.

Unfortunately, we were not able to complete the time trial because of difficulty with turning. Our bot would veer right and had trouble turning.

 

If we had more time, our group would widen the distance between both motors and put our guide wheel closer to the motors. If we designed our bot in a "T" shaped body we would have had more success with turning. the wider the wheels in proportion with the guide wheel, the easier it would be to turn. I'm surprised our bot failed to complete the course, but given more time, we could have ruled the world. 

Illusion Project

    

Summary

For this project, we designed a plane with wheels that had specific color patterns that created illusions as they rolled. We also colored the blades on the propellers primary colors. When the blades spun, it created a blur of white which was cool. He placed wings on the side to make our plane look real.

Results

The plane was able to roll. It took a bit of adjusting but at the end of the day, the plane moved. It didn't move as fast as we would have liked it to, but it moved.

Develop

If we had move time, we would add a tail, and two propellers on the side to make the plane move faster. We would have been able to really make our plane move fast. Given enough time, I believe we could have made our plane fly.  

Fastener Lab

Fastener Lab

The point of this lab was to create a sculpture using limited amoutn of materials. Each group was given 3-7 peices of 3/4"x3"x6" wood and a certain fastener. We were trying to create a sculpture that was either abstract or resembled something in the real world. My group had thread as a fastener and we tried to create a fountain. Trying to capture moving water was hard, but a good concept.

Build a Compound Machine

Build a Compound Machine 

 

For this project we created a compound machine by combining our our previous simple machines. We combined out wheel and axel, lever, and pulley to create a much higher machanical advantage. By combining our machines we were able to move heavier things with less force.

 

We were very succesful, we had one of the highest machanical advantages in the class. Other groups had trouble because they didn't change their lever to create a higher machanical advantage. Other groups had trouble with their wheel and axel, most groups did create a higher machanical advantage but creating a longer arm. But the weight of their arm countered the distance away from the axel. We put another arm opposite the origibal arm to create a counter weight. Everyone went up in machanical advantage but not everyone used the machines to their potential. Our group could have been better if our lever was constructed more stable to be able to hold more weight.

This project was quite difficult, attaching each individual simple machine to utilize each machines machanical advantage was not easy. We had to out the lever suspended to utilize the wheel and axel and the lever. The pulley was very hard to use. Our group only used one wheel on the pulley. If we were able to more than one our machanical advantage would have increased. If we built our machine on a larger scale, we could have moved much more weight. I would want to build a huge compound machine using all simple machines to life a human being with the force of a slight breeze. Like blowing into a windmill and picking up poggi on the end of a lever.

 

 

Simple Machines Blog

Simple Machines

 

Lever, Nolan Borgersen & Nick Poggi,
Dec. 2013

 

Wheel and Axel (crank), Minjun,
Dec. 2013

Pulley, Nolan Borgersen,
Dec. 2013

 

Inclined Plane, Nolan Borgersen,
Nick Poggi, Dec. 2013

In this project, we first narrowed down six simple machines to four. We created the wheel and axel, the pulley, the lever, and the inclined plane. For every machine nesides the pulley, we built our machines trying to achieve a ideal machanical advantage of six. For the pulley, we built it for two. After completing the constructions of the machines we tested all of them using a spring scale and a weight. We used formulas from diagrams to calculate the correct machanical advantage. Many other factors came into play such as friction. We also calculated percent error with another formula including the actual machanical advantage and the ideal machanical advantage. If any machine had a percent error of more than 13% it was disqualified. This project took about 8 class periods. 

For the wheel and axel we came in second to last place. Our machine was built for a IMA of 6 but proportions and frame work limited out machine. For the inclined plane, we came in last place again after we thought we made a good machine. We sanded the surface to reduce friction but out machine did not test well. Our lever had problems, but we fixed it before testing with correct markings and correct calculations for IMA. Our lever tied for first. Our pulley took first place after testing the best and being constructed correctly. It was very hard to pick a winner because many machines were built with a IMA of over the allowed IMA, so many machines were disqualified.

 

For all machines, we did not get 100% effeciency. Not one machines had a 100% effeciency. All students ran into problems like structure failure, friction, and material failure. Friction was a big problem for many people. We could have sanded our machines to limit friction or even put oil or something slippery on the surface of the inclined plane. Out of all the problems, I believe friction was the largest problem.

 

Reducing 6 Simple Machines to 4

6 Simple Machines

Lever
Pulley
Wedge
Wheel and Axel
Incline Plane
Screw

We can reduce 6 to 4 because some simple machines include others like the incline plane is really a  and a pulley is a wheel and aix with a groove around the outside.

Pulley
Lever
Wheel and Axel
Inclined Plane