I. Project Scope
This project was undertaken to create a product, which will attempt to fulfill a specialized need, specifically, to provide a mechanism, which enables the adjustment of an oarlock fitting. As most, if not all types of oarlocks mounted on rowing vessels exhibit no form of adjustment, this product would exist as the only one of its type on the market, that market being all those who would benefit from a customized rowing experience. The customers who form this market include those who would use a dinghy to a gain access to a mooring field, fisherman who rely upon oars for silent propulsion, and any boat owner who uses oars on a regular basis.
II. Solution
The solution to this problem was the result of months of meticulous planning and design work. Three alternate solutions were constructed, and the final one selected after weighing the individual pros and cons of each solution, the exploded view visible in figure 1. The chosen solution is constructed of ¼ inch steel flats of different sizes. These steel flats were tapped with ½ inch holes at regular intervals, which serve as access for the oarlock to be placed through. The central hole is reserved for a stainless steel bolt, which attaches through the steel flat and into the vessel’s mounting brackets. Small portions of steel flats were welded at right angles on the bottom of the main steel flat, to prevent the oarlock from twisting under pressure of use. The design was relatively easy to construct, and the pieces were fitted together relatively quickly. This is beneficial if the design were ever to be replicated for purposes of mass production.
III. Design Discrepancies
The final product evolved over the course of construction, with the steel model having several design characteristics not present in the design plans. Likewise, the design plans include provisions for other pieces of metal that were discarded in the final incarnation of the design. The most noticeable difference between the two designs is the absence of two 1.5” pieces of metal attached to the undersides of the steel flat, these pieces are present in the wooden model, figure 2. These pieces of metal were designed to provide a more stable base for the oarlocks, but were removed from the product after it was discovered that these pieces would not allow the design to fit the test vessel. The design plans also called for a much smaller hole for the central bolt, before it was determined that a full 1/2” bolt would represent the best choice for the design. The final element of change, not present in the blueprints, was the addition of two 3” pieces of 1.5” steel flats, welded at right angles to the base of the steel flat. These pieces of metal prevented the block from twisting under use, and are vital for the design’s success.
IV. Successes & Failures
A project of such scope and scale, taking over a year from start to finish, obviously involves a great deal of both success and failure. During the course of completing this project, I experienced leaps and bounds, but for every success there was a drawback of some kind. My first three designs, brought in from the summer, were unusable in their first iterations. A great deal of design would need to take place before these designs would be worked into something worthwhile. On the flip side, my summer work included obtaining the test vessel for the project, which meant I would not have to spend my on money on providing a boat for use in this project. I was also fortunate to find a website where I could order the steel flats at an affordable price rate.
These successes were negated somewhat by the bigger overestimations and failures during the construction phase. These include the retrofitting of a ½’ bolt to the steel block, as the original bolt was deemed to small in diameter to effectively work in the final project. Another consequence of the design was the use of ¼’ steel without regard to my ability to cut it. I ended up using a manual hacksaw to cut through the steel, an experience I do not wish to repeat. The process was slow and did not provide much room for detail, but did rend the large piece of steel into two workable sizes effectively enough. The final failure worth mentioning is the lack of regard for the test vessels existing oarlocks, which consisted of two mismatched pairs, with the starboard side oarlocks having been repaired at some point in the past.
V. Learning from Mistakes
The mistakes mentioned above represent the majority of the failures in design and construction, and although they were almost always difficult to work through, did not prevent the finalization of the design and construction of the overall product. Mistakes such as not accurately measuring the inside of the test vessel and estimating the dimensions in general, are preventable in the future through more careful and conscious work. Other failures, such as having to saw through ¼” thick steel with nothing but a hacksaw, are unfortunate, but impossible to correct outside of obtaining more effective methods of cutting through steel. The project has made me aware of the intricacies of building a product from paper to finished prototype, and has revealed several aspects of the design process, which I was not aware of prior, including the selection & rejection process of three or more alternative solutions.
VI. Additional Learning
Through development of the adjustable oarlock, I set time aside for the restoration of the test vessel itself. A 1976 Skimmar, the dinghy was in rough shape when received, and I had always intended to restore the boat along with the development of my senior project. Through its restoration, I learned several key skills, which include but are not limited to:
• Fiberglass repair- several holes repaired in the hull of the test vessel with epoxy resin products
• Painting- application of heavy duty, weather resistant paint to the inside of the test vessel
• Rub Rail- attached a 20’ length of rub rail to the outside of the boat, using stainless steel screws, pre-drilling each hole.
VII. Design Flaws
Despite best intentions, there exist a few design flaws on the final product. The most glaring of these flaws is the design of the two pieces of metal, which act to steady the oarlock under operation. These pieces of metal push up against the sides of the test vessel, preventing the steel from twisting. As they are designed, these pieces dig into the painted surface of the hull, unfortunately scratching the test vessel. This flaw could be corrected with the addition of padding along the piece of metal, which would protect the surface of the hull quite effectively. The second design flaw is that of the central bolt. On the test vessel, this bolt, once attached to the boat, remains too close to the side of the hull, making the attachment of a nut quite difficult, as seen in figure 4. This could be corrected with a smaller sized bolt, or a shorter bolt, to match the curvature of the hull.
XIIIA. Personal Improvement: Problem Solving Skills
This project was designed to test a student’s ability to break a complex task down into component steps, and assign priority to each of these steps in turn. This part of the project was seldom discussed and left to the individual to determine the best way to proceed. Throughout this process, I attempted to make decisions based on what was required of the project as a whole, thinking more of the completed model instead of the individual steps. This taught an important lesson in problem solving, as I was often required to solve the problems that cropped up during the course of the project. I learned to work methodically, fixing each problem as they occurred, and found that steady and consistent work was the most vital ingredient in the building of my final solution.
XIIIB. Personal Improvement: Communication Skills
This self-evaluation represents one of the final pieces of any length which I will need to write for my Systems Engineering class, and is a reflection of what I have discovered in my writing over the course of this year. I have attempted to present the facts in a clear, concise manner, with few extraneous facts to confuse the reader. This style of writing attempts to follow the guidelines that “technical writing” provides, and while it is not my preferred style of explicating what needs to be said, it is nonetheless effective for what needed to be conveyed.
XIIIC. Personal Improvement: Organizational Skills
Proficient organizational skills are essential in any type of long-term project, and the design and construction of the adjustable oarlock was no exception. I attempted to budget my time effectively, so I would have ample opportunity to address all parts of the design process fully, but this was not always the case. In reality, it was far easier to complete work just before the deadline, and to spend an exorbitant amount of time on activities that were not pertinent to the overall construction of my final design. I see the time spent on this project as a learning experience, one that I will carry with me through my years at college, where my organizational skills will truly be tested.
IX. Conclusion
It was difficult for me to imagine how my final product would look, even after months of preparation. It is also hard for me to imagine the final days of my senior year, but this self evaluation has given me a chance to look back on the time I have spent in the drafting and design of my senior project, through the pitfalls and successes, and provided me with a chance o objectively examine my experience as a whole. I am quite pleased with what I have accomplished over the course of my final year at high school, and the results of my project play a large role in my optimistic look at senior year in general. I look forward to attempting similar style projects in my college career, and beyond. I know full well that I have been adequately prepared for this task, and view the future as yet another challenge just waiting to be undertaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment