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

Brainstorming/Research

Introduction

            Cole Reimann goal is to design and build frame for a remote controlled land sailer that is meant to be used competitively or leisurely depending on the user.  During testing, the frame must hold the land sailer steady and help the system achieve its maximum possible speed while producing minimum drag.  The land sailer must also be able to operate on flat terrains and in dry conditions.  The land sailer as a whole must also be entirely wind driven and remotely controlled, allowing it to qualify and perform well in tournaments or during recreational use.  With these goals in mind, the final design of team’s land sailer should be able to perform all of these specifications as intended and achieve the highest score they can during the final testing stages.  

The Problem/Opportunity

            In extreme conditions, land sailors have been documented to go as fasts 30.3 miles per hour, and at this pace, rough surfaces can cause resonation and bumping on the land sailor.  This jostling could be enough to knock vital components loose or at least hinder performance and is something to take into consideration when choosing designs.  Depending on the wheels and suspension, land sailors needs to travel on a variety of surfaces, including stone, assault, or concrete in a variety of weather conditions.  Additionally, the land sailor must follow all specifications and limitations outlined previously. With all of these problems, the group has many opportunities and possibilities to find solutions, making your final design adaptable and able to handle a variety of problems as documented throughout the blog.

The Climate/Atmosphere/Environment                       

            The climate during the use of the land sailer must be relatively dry with moderate to high winds. Any less wind and the design will have trouble propelling itself, and any more wind will risk performance as well as structural integrity.  The average wind speed recently is around 14 mph, which is no problem if the land sailer is well constructed.  Additionally, moisture will interfere with the electronics onboard, so rain and days with high humidity would be detrimental to vital apparatuses.  Terrain must be flat for the most affective acceleration and speed during the final stages of testing, and uneven terrain could flip the land sailor.  Also, large obstructions of the wind, such as buildings or trees, will cause choppy wind and consequently poor performance. 

Conditions of Use

            The RC land sailor should be used in windy environments with little to no obstructions to the wind.  The land sailor would perform best where the wind blows constantly and powerfully.  The land sailor is to be used on flat ground, as uneven terrains may be enough to flip the model during testing.  The user should also have experience on how to drive the land sailor and knowledge on the principles of sailing. The design will be used most effectively if the controllers know what they are doing.

The End User

            The end user should be skilled at driving the land sailer, as described in the Conditions of Use section.  The user must know how to steer and position the sail without tipping the land sailor of luffing.  The end user could come from a variety of cultural demographics, some of which may have no knowledge on sailing at all.  It would be difficult for some users to learn over the others.