Developmental Work

		Material List
Number	Material	Quantity	Size	Notes
1	Balsa wood	1	45"x1.5"x1"	Verticle frame beam
2	Balsa wood	1	29"x.5"x1"	Horizontal Frame beam
3	Servos	2	n/a	Power steering/mast rotator
4	Battery	1	n/a	9 Volt
5	Reciever	1	n/a
6	Wiring	n/a	10'
7	Urethane Wheels	3	90 mm
8	Ball bearings	5	25 mm	Wheels, steering
9	Nuts and Bolts	n/a	n/a
10	Sheet metal	n/a	n/a	Steering components
11	String pieces	2	6"	Connects servo to wheel

		Tools List
Number	Tool	Quantity	Size	Notes
1	Scrolls Saw	1	n/a
2	Drill	1	n/a
3	Wrench	1	n/a
4	Drillbit	1	n/a
5	Sandpaper	1	n/a
6	Meter stick	1	n/a
7	Pencil	1	n/a
8	Circle guide	1	n/a
9	Protective Eyewhere	1	n/a	Safety

Design Matrix

Criteria	Solution 1	Solution 2	Solution 3	Solution 4	Solution 5	Solution 6
Ease of use	Datum	s	+	+	-	+
Fullfills specs	Datum	+	+	+	-	+
Aesthetic appeal	Datum	-	+	s	s	+
manufacturability	Datum	-	-	-	-	-
Low weight	Datum	-	s	-	s	s
Energy Efficiency	Datum	-	s	-	s	-
Safety	Datum	s	s	s	s	s
Σ+	Datum	1	4	2	0	3
Σ-	Datum	-4	1	-3	-3	-2
Σs	Datum	2	3	2	4	2
Net Score	0	-3	3	-1	-3	1
Rank	3	5	1	4	5	2
Continue or Combine	yes	yes	combine	yes	no	combine

Rationale

Design #1

            Design #1 has a T shaped frame with two wheels and one wheel in the back, and uses the string motor system outlined in the descriptive abstract.  The frame is constructed from aluminum and will not have power steering, measuring in the end at 39 inches long by 29 inches wide.  The wheels are urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings around the axel.  The width of the frame in the front causes the design to be more stable when turning.  With two wheels firmly on the ground at the front of the frame, the rig will not slide on the testing surface and therefore grant the design sharper turns.  The design has a low weight compared to other designs, and the design will also be more energy efficient with only two string motors and a receiver that need power.  The design also looks professional, as the T shape is common in the market for RC land sailers.  However, this design does not fulfill all specifications, as the land sailer does not have a way to steer with its front wheels.  This means the only turning method will be to move the sail, which will not be as efficient as other designs and their turning methods.  The model will be difficult to create and redesign, but the design principles are useful in other designs.  It will be looked into further in choosing other designs, as this balanced design will make a good datum choice.

Design #2

           Design #2 has an upside down T shape with a crossbeam intersecting the vertical aluminum bar.  This design uses the same string motor system as designs #1 and #5.  The two motors and the boom are attached to a set of strings, which pull or release the string to alter the sail position.  The frame is made from aluminum and the wheels are urethane rollerblade wheels with ball bearings to reduce friction.  The frame is 39 inches long by 29 inches wide.  This design includes power steering, where two bars attached to a rotatable motor are hooked onto the steering column by another, steering wheel like attachment.  Pushing the bar on one side and therefore pulling the bar on the other will turn the column, thereby turning the wheel.  This design fulfills all of the specifications outlined, and requires the same skill level of use as design #1.  However, this design will be heavier, uses more power with two string motors and motorized steering, will be harder to manufacture, and has a structure that could be improved because of the unaesthetic appeal.  All of these are minor faults, as one aluminum bar and one more motor are minor yet necessary.  Regardless, this will be a design that should be looked further into.  This design has an efficient use of the string motor system compared to the other frames. 

Design #3

          Design #3 has the same upside down T frame as design #2 without the crossbeam intersecting the vertical bar.  This design has the same power steering system in the front wheel as design #2 as well.  However, this design uses a new way to control sail position, a single motor next to the mat that turns the entire mast system, not just the boom and sail.  This will work by either a set of gears, a smaller string servo located in the center, or a fan belt style rotator.  The frame is 39 inches long by 29 inches wide.  The frame is made from balsa wood for lightness with aluminum bars for support, and the wheels are urethane with ball bearings for reduced friction and speed.  This design will be easy to use with its simple mast positioning system and fulfills all of the specifications.  The frame also makes this design one of the lighter models featured.  The model has an appealing visual effect, as this framework is common in the RC land sailing community.  However, with so many moving parts in the front and in the mast positioning system, the ability to manufacture the design will not be very good, despite the fact that the intricate string servo system was done away with.  This design incorporates some of the best ideas from all designs, such as power steering, the T-shaped frame, and the central sail servo system.  With that, this design will be looked into further.

Design #4

            Design #4 is designs #1 and #3 put together with some of the ideas put together to form one.  The I shaped frame is a combination of the two T’s, making this design more stable and less likely to fall over during the racing portion of testing.  This design uses the central mast steering method of sail control, and the model also uses the power steering on both of its front wheels.  The frame will be made from balsa wood with aluminum rods for support, similar to design #3, measuring 39 inches in length by 29 inches in width.  The wheels are urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings.  This design will be easier to use than the others, as the wide ground coverage makes the frame harder to tip.  This design looks more like an RC racing car would with the standard four wheels.   Increased stability will be the main feature of this design, although the frame does weigh more now that there is an extra “leg” to the sailor.  This design also uses a moderate amount of power with two power steering motors and a central motor.  Manufacturability will be much more difficult, as a fourth wheel must be added with the new “leg” and the balsawood/metal rod structure will be harder to assemble.  This design would be good if the three wheeled designs do not function as intended, so this would only serve as a backup design.

Design #5

        Design #5 has a similar functionality to design #1’s T shape, except the horizontal frame at the front will be moved back and the mast socket is moved to the furthest point foreword on the frame.  The frame is made from aluminum poles for durability and the wheels are urethane roller blade wheels.  The entire frame is 39 inches long by 29 inches wide.  The structure was rearranged so that the string motors could turn the boom easier since the axis will be placed in front of the servos rather than behind them.  This design, consumes only a moderate amount of power, having two servos for boom, power steering and a receiver. However, this design experiences the same problem as design #1, being that with the two servos in the way, there is no room for power steering, which will be critical to the functionality of the land sailer.  Additionally, the design may be too heavy in the front, so components will have to be moved to the back to counteract this flaw.  Being so delicate that the design could tip over if the user operates carelessly, this design is not easy to use, and therefore, does not fulfill the specs. The design looks off center, causing the frame to have a poor appearance.  This design does not have anything good or anything better than almost everything else. 

Design #6

          Design #6 combines many of the design elements from previous designs.  The frame will be the same T-shape from design #1, and the power steering usage is similar to design #4.  The frame is made from aluminum poles rather than sheet metal in order to provide a more rigid design than a thin and flimsy structure.  The hollow rod will also be good for housing some of the components, as servos and batteries can be stored on the inside rather than the outside.  The frame is 39 inches long by 29 inches wide, and its wheels are urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings.  Unlike design #1, design #6 is able to have power steering now that there are no string motors in the way.    Also, with a central motor instead of string motors, the sail has a wider range of turning. With two wheels in the front, the frame will be much more stable during the racing testing stage.  Because of this feature, as well as the simplistic ways of moving, this design is easy to use, and from all other positive attributes, this design fulfills the specs.  The use of poles instead of sheet metal, as well as the simplistic design, gives this frame an aesthetic appeal over some of the other designs.  However, with more mass in the front, the design will be less aerodynamic.  Additionally, compared to other designs this design may be harder to manufacture, being that it will be difficult to mount servos and wheels onto poles instead of a flat surface.  Realistically, this design would be better if the land sailer’s specifications were simpler and required less moving parts.  Because this is not the case, the design will not be very practical.

Conclusion

           After looking over the designs and their individual parts, I have decided that it is best to go with the design #3 with some principles taken from other designs.  The foreword facing T-design scores highest in the design matrix, being that the design will be superior to other designs when looking at ease of use, fulfillment of specifications, and aesthetic appeal.  The design was also only the same level as other designs in weight, energy efficiency, and safety.  However, the previous knowledge that this frame structure is common when building land sailors has influenced the decision on what design to pick the most.  When completing the research portion, the idea was clear that almost all land sailer models used the design #3 T-shape, so real world experience was another factor that was used in deciding which model to use

            Changes can and will be made to the design.  For instance, the frame material will have thickness to it so that systems such as the servos and mast socket can be held more securely.  This idea is taken from design #6, where instead of using hollow metal to house units, solid wood will be cut and fitted for the parts.  This idea takes concepts from two pre-existing features, a wooden and a hollow frame.  If the central motor idea does not work out as planned, the string motor could be put into place instead.  Additionally, the isometric drawings will be redone as the project moves along so that they fit the latest design changes.  

Alternate Solution 6

Design #6 combines many of the features from previous designs.  The frame is the same shape as design #1, but this design uses the method of mast steering as design #3 and #4 by having a single motor in the center.  This model also uses power steering, which was not possible for design #1 due to the string motors being in the way.  The receiver and the batteries are placed toward the rear of the frame.  The frame itself is made from aluminum sheet metal and is 40 inches long by 30 inches wide.  The design uses 90 mm urethane wheels with ball bearing.

            This model uses the same central motor design as designs #3 and #4.  The central motor turns the entire mast rather than just the boom.  This wider range of sail motion allows sharper turning for the land sailer.  When matched with the power steering and the right sail, this design will have broader steering capabilities, and minimalized friction when using the ball bearings will also improve performance during the racing portion of testing.

            The mast has a wider range of turning with its single motor sail, and the power steering will help decrease the turning radius.  The urethane wheels are also better for speed so the model will receive better scores during the racing segment of testing.  With two wheels in the front, this is one of the more stable designs.  However, this design is less aerodynamic with most of its mass in the front.  

Figure 6.               

Alternate Solution 5

            Design #5 stands out on its own with a lowercase t design. The design’s mast positioning process goes back to the string method of steering and the method of putting the mast in front of the motors, as seen in design #1 and #2.  The mast socket itself is on its own outcropping in the front of the vehicle with more of the components such as the battery and receivers in the back to balance out the weight.  The frame is constructed from sheet metal and the wiring is made from insulated copper.  The batteries are standard for all designs it seems because there is no major deviation in electric components.  The design will be 42 inches long by 30 inches wide and the wheels are 90 mm made from urethane with ball bearings in the axels.

            With the boom pivot in front of the motors, the boom has a wider turning radius.  Also the mast at the foremost part of the rig will help make the frame more aerodynamic by breaking up the onrushing air.  The two wheels in the front will also give the rig added stability. This design uses the same principles as design #2, but weights less without the added crossbeam. 

This design consumes power at a moderate rate with only two motors and a receiver.  Two wheels in the front are good for stability, but power steering may be added to facilitate turning.  With the sail at the foremost part of the design, it is harder to make turns.  This design encounters the same problem as design #1, which is that there is no room for power steering with the string motors in the way.  The frame may be too front heavy, so components would need to be moved further to the back to act as a counterweight.  

Figure 5

Alternate Solution 4

            Design #4 combines the frames of design #1 and #3 to make an I shaped frame that sacrifices a light weight for added stability.  This frame features power steering in the front to increase handling and decrease turning radius, making the racing portion of testing easier. Design #4 uses a singular motor to control the mast like in #3.  Due to added electrical components, this design consumes a lot of electricity, but not too much that a different battery type must be used.  The wiring used to link electronic components is insulated copper.  The frame is 40 inches long by 30 inches wide.  In order to cut down on weight, this design is constructed from balsa wood boards as a platform for electronic components with aluminum rods for support.  The wheels are once again 90 mm urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings around the axel.

            The power steering units in the front are necessity for this design, as turning would be very difficult without it.  The added wheel segment is added for extra stability.  The central motor turns the entire mast, and is much more compact than the other sting motor designs.  The frame is made of balsa wood instead of solid sheet metal in order to cut down on the weight.  The ball bearings in the wheels can handle the added downward force of this heavier design, reducing friction between the wheel and the axle.

            As stated before, this design is one of the more stable ones with its I shaped frame.  The power steering helps to turn the vehicle during its run on the course, and the single motor mast will also help with turning.  The balsa wood frame helps to make the frame lighter to increase top speed and acceleration.  On the other hand, this is the heaviest design with an entirely new leg and two additional motors in the front.  The frame is also not entirely aerodynamic with most of its mass in the front.  Lastly, with additional motors, the batteries will run out at a faster rate after extended use.

Figure 4

Alternate Solution 3

Design #3 takes the same standard T shape as the other sailors with the intersection pointing toward the back.  The design is very lightweight, having only a single motor in the center behind the mast rather than having two motors controlling strings at the sides.  The frame is constructed from aluminum sheet metal with insulated copper wiring connecting the electronics, and will be 42 inches long by 30 inches wide.  It requires a battery system of two 9 volt batteries to power its single motor, receiver, and power steering.  The wheels are 90 mm urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings.

            The design uses an entirely different mast positioning process than design #1 and #2.  The central motor turns the entire mast as opposed to the two string motors that only move the boom and sail.  This functionality opens up an even wider range of angles the mast can turn to, meaning sharper turns for the sailor.  When matched with the power steering and the right sail, this design will have broader steering capabilities, and minimalized friction when using the ball bearings will also improve performance.

            This design has less moving parts than the previous designs, meaning there is a smaller chance of something breaking.  Also, the design is very aerodynamic compared to the other two.  Its single front wheel help with sharper turns and the new flexibility in the mast’s turning radius. The design draws less power from the batteries with only one motor instead of two for controlling the sail.  Similar to design #2, there is a greater chance of this design tipping over during the second testing phase.

Figure 3

Alternate Solution 2

        Design #2 uses the same T shape frame as design #1, only with the intersection in the back and an added crossbeam in the middle.  The design is slightly, but not significantly heavier than design #1, and sheet metal strips will still be used to construct the frame.  This design also has power steering in the front, where a motor turns the front wheel by pushing or pulling on two rods connected to the steering column like structure.  The frame is 42 inches long by 30 inches wide.  The frame uses 90 mm urethane rollerblade wheels for increased speed.

            The design works almost the same as design #1, but more efficiently.  The two motors pull and release the strings attached to the boom, which moves the boom to both sides.  With the mast socket in front of the motors, the boom will have a wider range of turning and there is less of a chance that the strings will be tangled. Also, with power steering in the front, the design does not rely on just its sail position to turn.  The ball bearings are used to reduce friction when the wheels are turning.

            This design has a wider degree of turning, making it easier to make sharp turns.  With one wheel in the front and the back wheels rolling independently, it is makes the entire process of turning easier. The design is also sufficiently aerodynamic, making a V shape into the direction it is going rather than against it seen in design #1.  However, making such sharp turns with only one wheel in the front could topple the land sailor.  This flaw could be disastrous during the racing testing procedure and must be counteracted.  One possibility is to move the mast socket further to the rear of the design.

Figure 2

Log Sheet

9/14/12

Finished

            I have had all of my summer work finished and submitted onto my blog.  I have also completed the calendar and have given myself a rough schedule of when to start projects. 

In Progress

            I must now begin to write my log posts to document what I have done, what I am working on, and what I have yet to do.  I have also made rough sketches of my designs that must be redrawn and posted onto the blog by the 18th, along with descriptions of each.

In the Future

            I will have to reformat some of my blog posts to write them in an active voice.  Additionally, I will be updating my log twice per week

9/19/12

Finished

            Since the end of 14^th of September, I completed my calendar structure and began to make final sketches of my alternate solutions.  I also had my solution descriptions set up and posted as of the 18^th.  The log sheet was also updated today, the 19^th.

In Progress

            I currently have to finish my final drawings for my alternate solutions, which will be scanned and posted shortly.  Additionally, my partner and I will be choosing our final design once the designs are and our rationales are posted. 

In the Future

            I will be reviewing and updating my posts as the project progresses, such as my specifications, limitations, and alternate solutions report.  I will be starting my rationale report soon as well, which will take up the rest of the week and part of the weekend.  After my partner and I choose our solution, I will begin to make a 3D AutoCAD rendering and 2D isometric views of our chosen design. 

9/21/12

Finished

            Since the 19th, I have finished my final drawings and the corresponding alternate solutions descriptions, and I have uploaded them to my blog. 

In Progress

            I have begun to go back and reformat my blog posts into an active voice, as specified by the instructors.

In the Future

            I will be working on all of my unfinished logs to detail my progress.  Once my partner’s and my rationales are complete, we will be selecting our final designs and making AutoCAD renderings of them

9/25/12

Finished

            Since the 21^st, I have gone back and updated my specifications, limits, alternate solutions report, and design briefs, all of which have been re-uploaded

In Progress

            I am currently getting my logs up to date and finishing my rationale. 

In the Future

            My partner and I will be choosing our alternate designs as soon as the rationales are updated.  Once the design is chosen, I will begin my 3D renderings and 2D isometric views on AutoCAD.

9/28/12

Finished

My Logs are now up to date and will be filled out bi-weekly.  The rationale has been updated, but my partner and I have postponed choosing the design until his method of sail movement is fixed.

In Progress

            I need to reformat more of my blog posts now that I have gotten some feedback on them from the teachers.

In the Future

            Once again we will be choosing the sail and frame type at the next available opportunity.

10/3/12

Finished

            My partner and I have chosen our solution and fixed up our blogs with the feedback we have gotten on them.

In Progress

            I am finding more options for the blog layout that I am trying out and getting opinions on.  Also, I have begun to work on my 2D AutoCAD drawings based on the sketches that I have.

In the Future

            Once my 2D CAD drawings are done, I will be able to make a more detailed 3D version to better display my ideas and the direction I have taken the design in.

10/10/12

Finished

            I have found a blog format that I like and I will be trying to re-order my blog posts.  Also, I have been working on my 2D drawings since my last log in.  I have also conducted more research on materials.

In Progress

            I am currently working on the 2D AutoCAD drawings now that my partner and I have decided which models we are picking and putting together

In the Future

            Once the 2D CAD drawings are finished, I will begin to work on my 3d model to get a better look at what the final model will look like.

10/12/12

Finished

            I have re-formatted some more of my postings and I have begun my 3D CAD drawings.

In Progress

            I have decided to stop working on the 2D AutoCAD drawings and switch to making the 3D CAD drawing because I am having trouble visualizing how the land sailor will look.

In the Future

            Once my 3D CAD representation is done, I will begin to work on the model and then continue work on my @D drawings once I get the size ratios the way I want them.

10/17/12

Finished

            I have continued work on the 3D AutoCAD models and I have also worked out how I want to steer my land sailor through planning and 3D modeling.

In Progress

            I have finished a 3D model of the steering component and I am still in the process of finishing my 3D computer model.

In the Future

            My 3D AutoCAD models will be completed and after that, I will begin to work on my model and continue work on my 2D CAD drawings.

10/19/12

Not in school

10/26/12

Finished

            No work was done in between the 17th and the 23^rd.  As of the 25^th I had finished the 3D AutoCAD model on the computer.

In Progress

            Being pressed for time to finish the physical model, I am putting off work on the 2D orthographic views until a later date.  The wheels are completed and I have begun to work on the frame and rear axle of the land sailor

In the Future

            The model will be completed early next week and the 2D CAD drawings will be finished in time for the presentation that will take place on Wednesday.

Alternate Solution 1

            Design #1 uses the simple T shaped frame that is common in RC Land Sailors.  However, the T is inverted so the intersection faces forward.  Keeping with the original idea to keep the design lightweight, the frame materials are strips/rods of sheet metal, preferably made from aluminum.  The batteries do not need to be very powerful, as only the two motors and the receiver need power, connected with insulated copper wiring.  The design will be about 40 inches long and 30 inches wide for stabilization purposes.  The wheels are 90 mm urethane roller blade wheels with ball bearings on the axle for speed purposes. 

            The design works by having the boom connected to two motors in the front by strings.  The motors are able to withdraw and release string in order to pull the boom in different directions.  This action is controlled by the user who signals the boom to move depending on where the sail is in relation to the wind.  The ball bearings in the wheels will reduce friction between the axle and the wheel when moving during the racing testing stages.

            This design is stable in the front because of its width, being that stability is one of the most important factors to take into consideration.  With more traction in the front, the rig will turn easier without sliding on the surface.  However, the design is less aerodynamic with most of its mass in the front.  Also, the design may require power steering in order to turn, as two wheels in the front may make sharp turns difficult.  Implementing power steering is difficult, as the motors that operate the strings that turn the boom are in the way of where the steering for the front wheels would be.

Figure 1

Calendar

Testing Procedures

           RC Land Sailor should match several specifications by the time the final solution is ready to be tested.  The model should be able to complete the courses in not only quickly, but with stability as well.  An unstable design would mean that there will be something wrong with the design produced as well as the research collected.  The device should be driven by the wind, and all onboard components must be powered by the onboard battery.  There are no loose components and the frame should be able to withstand the weight of all the added components once assembled.  The final product should be able to make turns cleanly on flat surfaces, which will be the terrain of the testing site.  Obviously, the battery will last for the duration of the test.  Lastly, the goal for the land sailor will be to complete the tests with the highest score possible.

            When the process comes to testing, course completion time and stability will be two of the biggest criteria.  The device is tested on the ability to make turns cleanly and stay upright for the test.  This ties into course time, as the more stable the device will be, the greater the handling and therefore the better the time.  The components on the rig, such as the receiver, battery, and motors, should be tightly secured.  Loose components will not only look bad, but have the possibility of hindering the device during testing.  The motors and sail should move smoothly and they should not jerk or struggle when turning.  The wheels should also be secured so that they do not wobble and throw off the design during testing.  This will definitely affect the efficiency and overall effect of the land sailor.  The receiver will be standard with not much to test, but battery selection will be important.  The energy output versus how much the sailor needs will be taken into account through the group’s calculations, and battery choice compared to weight will be noted.

            The testing will be administered by the Systems engineering II teachers, Mr. Cuttrell and Ms. Green with the testing forms in hand.  The evaluation will be based on the group requirements, as listed above.  The land sailor will be tested by the group because they are the ones who know how the model runs.  The group should have practiced with the rig beforehand to get a feel for the handling and how to control the land sailor during the testing phase. 

            The location for testing will be in a parking lot on Sandy Hook.  Due to the disrepair of the school’s parking lot, testing will most likely take place in one of the beach parking lots.  Because the parking lot is in in an open area, there will be a large amount of wind, which is vital to our testing.  The flat ground will make sure that any instability issues are the design’s fault, not due to surface protrusions or divots. 

Testing Stages

Test 1- Assessing the Alternate Solutions (Assessment preliminary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Stationary

·         Equipment: All alternate solution designs

1.      Group designs alternate solutions to the problem

2.      Group meets to discuss pros and cons of each design

3.      Pros and cons analyzation

Test 2- Choosing the Solution (Comparison secondary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Stationary

·         Equipment: All alternate solution designs

1.      Pros and cons of alternate solutions are compared to what is required of the final design

2.      Group chooses the design based on comparison

3.      Final design is drawn up to be built

Test 3- Construct the design (Assessment tertiary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Stationary

·         Equipment: Building supplies listed in Descriptive Abstract, power tools to put together the materials.

1.      Equipment is gathered and building tools are set up

2.      Parts are assembled as outlined in the chosen solution

3.      Assembly is double checked to reduce deviations and flaws

Test 4- Design evaluation (Validation quaternary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Moving/stationary

·         Equipment: Specifications list, grading evaluation

1.      Group arrives at the first testing site with rig to be evaluated

2.      Design evaluation takes place

3.      Group makes adjustments according to criticism

Test 5- Maneuverability Test (Validation quinary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Moving

·         Equipment: Traffic cones, stopwatch, chalk

1.      Group moves with rig and administrators to the second testing site

2.      Group sets up a figure 8 course with cones and chalk to mark the starting line

3.      Course evaluation takes place based on criteria/ completion time compared to other group times

4.      Course is disassembled when testing stage is finished

Test 6- Speed/acceleration Test (Validation Senary)

·         Conditions: Dry, Moving

·         Equipment: Traffic cones, stopwatch, chalk

1.      Group sets up straight line course with cones and chalk to mark the starting line

2.      Course evaluation takes place based on criteria/ completion time compared to other group times

3.      Course disassembled and testing is completed.

Testing Area Visuals

A parking lot similar to the one used for testing

A workbench similar to the ones wherewhere several tests will take place