Hacky Sack Launch Mechanism

1
Hacky Sack Launch Mechanism

• By
• Zachary Cowherd
• Wen Luu
• Keiichi McGuire

2
Overview

• Problem Definition
• Introduction
• Constraints
• Criteria
• Approach
• Preliminary Ideas
• Refinement
• Implementation

3
Overview Continued

• Results
• Suggested Improvements
• Conclusions
• Key Criteria/Constraints
• Final Design
• Competition Performance
• Improvements

4
Problem IdentificationIntroduction

• The objective for this project is to create a
  Parabolic Hacky Sack Launch Mechanism (PHSLM)
  that will go down a slope and launch a hacky sack
  at the end aimed at a target 20ft away.

5
Problem IdentificationCriteria

• We have to build a device that can
• Traverse a ramp
• Weigh a certain amount
• Throw a hacky sack
• Size of the device

6
Problem IdentificationConstraints

• The ramp will be 8ft in length
• It can weigh no more than 10lbs.
• The hacky sack has to be thrown 20ft.
• It must fit in a box 18 in3

7
ApproachPreliminary Ideas

• Design 1 A hinged arm would be propelled up and
  forwards by compressed springs. the arm would be
  pushed down and the ignition ram would lock into
  it

8
Preliminary Ideas (cont)

• Design 2 the ignition system would be the same
  but this would launch out of a tube by
  compressing springs below the launcher and
  locking them in place with the ignition rod

9
Preliminary Ideas (cont)

• Design 3 A rat trap style launcher by using
  would coils that would fling a arm with the hacky
  sack in it

10
Pros / Cons

• Design 1
• Too top heavy
• Easily built
• Design 2
• Not accurate
• Very consistent
• Design 3
• Similar to design 1
• Much better ignition design

11
Refinement

• Liked the release idea of design 3
• instead of just releasing it, it would also hit a
  vertical stopper, countering the slope of triangle

12
ApproachImplementation

• Final Design
• rat trap design
• arm hits vertical stopper
• release pin as trigger (simple)
• heavy wheels to keep device upright

13
Results

• First Trial18.92 feet from target
• Second Trial 7.00 feet from target
• FOM Average 78.64
• Performance Grade 92/100
• Design Quality 78
• 9th place out of 31

14
Suggested Improvements

• More time to test and improve launcher
• Use better materials to build launcher
• More time to design release mechanism

15
Conclusions

• Key Criteria
• Size of the device
• Weight of the device
• Key Constraints
• No larger than 18 in3
• Can weigh no more than 10 lbs.

16
Conclusion (cont)

• Final Design
• a mouse-trap style design
• 4 heavy wheels to keep device right-side up
• scoop shaped hacky-sack holder
• vertical piece to counter-act the slope of ramp

17
Conclusion (cont)

• Competition Performance
• Group did well considering over night rebuild
  (9/31)
• Figure of Merit (FOM) Average of 78.64
• Closest trial was 7.0 feet from target

18
Conclusion (cont)

• Key Improvements
• Ramp available for trial runs
• More time to improve design

19
Acknowledgements

• Home Depot
• Knowledge of hardware
• Matt Conners and Chris Dockstader
• Lending tools and materials

20
(No Transcript)