EGR110 Final Report

EGR110 Final Report - Date: To: From: RE: 10/10/06 Dr....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Date: 10/10/06 To: Dr. Peter Osterberg From: Paul Moses (Group B1) RE: B1 EGR110 Final Report The following is my final report on my group, B1. I had help compiling this report from the others in the group. This report contains the final design of our device and assessment of the competition. If you have any questions on these contents, feel free to email me at [email protected] Paul Moses 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Midterm Report Freshman Design Competition 2006 Paul Moses Group B1 EGR 110B School of Engineering University of Portland December 6, 2006 2
Background image of page 2
Introduction Group background 4 4 Figure 1 5 Figure 2 6 Team Goals 6 Discussion Design Process 7 Final Device Description 7 8 8 Final Material Cost 9 Figure 3 9 Schedule 10 Figure 4 10 Conclusion 11 Course Comments 12 Attachments Appendix A- Front View 13 Appendix B- Top View 14 Appendix C- Side View 15 Appendix D- Action View 16 Appendix E- Schematic 17 3
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
INTRODUCTION We are group B1, in the B section of EGR 110. My group consists of Kurtis Partain, Nick Bankus, Lane Johnson, and myself. Lane and I are civil engineering majors, Nick is mechanical, and Kurtis is electrical. Competition Background/Purpose The Freshman Design Competition took place on December 2 nd , 2006. All freshman engineers spent the entire semester working towards the event. The Engineering 110 class was centered on the design competition. This competition helped familiarize all of the freshmen with practical uses of engineering. The competition’s goal this year was to build a device that can put wiffle balls through a basketball hoop. The competition area was set up to reward teams who could make balls from further away. The teams were given 20 wiffle balls and attempted to make them in a basketball hoop (see fig. 1), which was 3.5’ high. The competition area (see fig. 2) was divided into different point zones and a setup zone. The point value of the zones ranged from one point per made ball to seven points per made ball. One of the 20 balls was assigned a value of twice as many points as the others. This means that the maximum possible score, achieved by making all 20 balls from the seven-point zone, was 147 points. 4
Background image of page 4
QuickTime— and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Figure 1: Basketball Hoop 5
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
QuickTime˜ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Figure 2: Competition Area Team Goals Our team planned on winning the points per second category and advancing to the 2 nd round. Unfortunately, due to design constraints, we were unable to meet this goal. Our strategy did not lend itself well to making a huge overall score, so we didn’t plan to make the final round. We also planned on making all 20 of our wiffle balls. Due to last-minute modifications to our box, several balls got stuck on the inside, so we fell short of this goal
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This lab report was uploaded on 04/16/2008 for the course EGR 110 taught by Professor Osterburg during the Fall '06 term at Portland.

Page1 / 12

EGR110 Final Report - Date: To: From: RE: 10/10/06 Dr....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online