CEB 4 design planning

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.

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.

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.