CEB 4 design planning: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "This is a page to display the rationale and get more opinions on CEB 4 design features. Listed below are discussions on which design changes should be made and why. ==Hopper Cha...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Hopper Changes== | ==Hopper Changes== | ||
===Shape=== | ===Shape=== | ||
'''Problem Statement''': In Prototype 3 (P3 for short), the hopper had gaps at the top, and the seams didn't go together well; the 4 sides ended at different heights, making it difficult to mount the grate. | '''Problem Statement''': In Prototype 3 (P3 for short), the hopper had gaps at the top, and the seams didn't go together well; the 4 sides ended at different heights, making it difficult to mount the grate. | ||
'''Solution''': Dan Schellenberg's CEB used the same general shape of OSE's prototype, but cut off some of the top section, and a portion of the sides. [http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=242db108c35b8694367c66ca14350bfd Link] to hopper model. This saves material and simplifies mounting the grate. No disadvantages are seen. | '''Solution''': Dan Schellenberg's CEB used the same general shape of OSE's prototype, but cut off some of the top section, and a portion of the sides. [http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=242db108c35b8694367c66ca14350bfd Link] to hopper model. This saves material and simplifies mounting the grate. No disadvantages are seen. | ||
===Mounting, on sides=== | ===Mounting, on sides=== | ||
'''Problem Statement''': The grate supports were time-consuming to mount, and used a lot of material. Also, bolting to the hopper is time consuming. | '''Problem Statement''': The grate supports were time-consuming to mount, and used a lot of material. Also, bolting to the hopper is time consuming. | ||
In P3, we mounted using 4x4 angle supports which bolted to the primary legs and hopper, and 2x2 tubing which bolted to the hopper and into leg-holders on the frame. | '''Back Story'''In P3, we mounted using 4x4 angle supports which bolted to the primary legs and hopper, and 2x2 tubing which bolted to the hopper and into leg-holders on the frame. | ||
'''Discussion''': Dan's machine welded the tubing to the CEB instead of bolting. This uses less material and takes less time. Dis-advantage is that you can no longer disassemble tubing from hopper. | '''Discussion''': Dan's machine welded the tubing to the CEB instead of bolting. This uses less material and takes less time. Dis-advantage is that you can no longer disassemble tubing from hopper. | ||
For the angle supports, He replaced them with more tubing with a bent 1/2" plate welded to it. These attached to the frame via leg-holders. There was 2x2 angle welded to the front of the hopper, and the hopper sat on top of the bent plate. Advantage is easier assembly, cleaner appearance. Disadvantages- can only support force coming downwards, not upwards. We could bolt them together to solve this. | For the angle supports, He replaced them with more tubing with a bent 1/2" plate welded to it. These attached to the frame via leg-holders. There was 2x2 angle welded to the front of the hopper, and the hopper sat on top of the bent plate. Advantage is easier assembly, cleaner appearance. Disadvantages- can only support force coming downwards, not upwards. We could bolt them together to solve this. | ||
===Hopper Interface Plate=== | |||
'''Problem Statement''': The Hopper interface plate of P3 is arguably obsolete. | |||
'''Back Story''': The initial reasoning behind it was to set a gap between hopper and frame, so the hopper could shake more easily. There were nuts welded to the top of the frame to make that gap. In testing, OSE realized that the gap was not giving any extra shake, and that it let soil leak out thru the sides. So, for the prototype release, the nuts were removed from between the plate and the frame, and the plate simply bolted to the frame, with nuts welded underneath the C-channel. | |||
'''Discussion''': The reason the plate was necessary initially was for shaking, and preventing soil from leaking out around the bottom. Since the shaking is ruled out, the only purpose is preventing leaking. This can be acheived by welding thinner plate (probably 1/4" or 1/2") directly to the frame U channel. This lowers part count, and at least an hour of labor in drilling and torching holes. No disadvantages are seen. | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 19 June 2012
This is a page to display the rationale and get more opinions on CEB 4 design features. Listed below are discussions on which design changes should be made and why.
Hopper Changes
Shape
Problem Statement: In Prototype 3 (P3 for short), the hopper had gaps at the top, and the seams didn't go together well; the 4 sides ended at different heights, making it difficult to mount the grate.
Solution: Dan Schellenberg's CEB used the same general shape of OSE's prototype, but cut off some of the top section, and a portion of the sides. Link to hopper model. This saves material and simplifies mounting the grate. No disadvantages are seen.
Mounting, on sides
Problem Statement: The grate supports were time-consuming to mount, and used a lot of material. Also, bolting to the hopper is time consuming.
Back StoryIn P3, we mounted using 4x4 angle supports which bolted to the primary legs and hopper, and 2x2 tubing which bolted to the hopper and into leg-holders on the frame.
Discussion: Dan's machine welded the tubing to the CEB instead of bolting. This uses less material and takes less time. Dis-advantage is that you can no longer disassemble tubing from hopper.
For the angle supports, He replaced them with more tubing with a bent 1/2" plate welded to it. These attached to the frame via leg-holders. There was 2x2 angle welded to the front of the hopper, and the hopper sat on top of the bent plate. Advantage is easier assembly, cleaner appearance. Disadvantages- can only support force coming downwards, not upwards. We could bolt them together to solve this.
Hopper Interface Plate
Problem Statement: The Hopper interface plate of P3 is arguably obsolete.
Back Story: The initial reasoning behind it was to set a gap between hopper and frame, so the hopper could shake more easily. There were nuts welded to the top of the frame to make that gap. In testing, OSE realized that the gap was not giving any extra shake, and that it let soil leak out thru the sides. So, for the prototype release, the nuts were removed from between the plate and the frame, and the plate simply bolted to the frame, with nuts welded underneath the C-channel.
Discussion: The reason the plate was necessary initially was for shaking, and preventing soil from leaking out around the bottom. Since the shaking is ruled out, the only purpose is preventing leaking. This can be acheived by welding thinner plate (probably 1/4" or 1/2") directly to the frame U channel. This lowers part count, and at least an hour of labor in drilling and torching holes. No disadvantages are seen.