Applied precision design llc concept design review biomedical orbital mixer
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 29

Applied Precision Design, LLC Concept Design Review BioMedical Orbital Mixer PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Applied Precision Design, LLC Concept Design Review BioMedical Orbital Mixer. Amir Torkaman Applied Precision Design, LLC 1755 East Bayshore Rd. Suite 9B Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (650) 387-7902 Fax: (650) 493-1195 www.AprecisionDesign.com. Typical Design Cycle: Biomedical Orbital Mixer.

Download Presentation

Applied Precision Design, LLC Concept Design Review BioMedical Orbital Mixer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Applied Precision Design, LLCConcept Design ReviewBioMedicalOrbital Mixer

Amir TorkamanApplied Precision Design, LLC1755 East Bayshore Rd. Suite 9BRedwood City, CA 94063Phone: (650) 387-7902Fax: (650) 493-1195www.AprecisionDesign.com


Typical Design Cycle: Biomedical Orbital Mixer

VIDEO


L

T

Simplified Energy Model: Energy Entering System

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY:

Two Modes of Operation:

  • Cranking Cycle: Energy In = Energy Stored into System

  • Operating Cycle: Energy Stored = Work Done By System

Energy Into System

Work Done By System

Internal energy (stored)

Energy Into the System:

Energy Into System = Human Power

Work = Τ∆Θ

example: T = 2.25Nm

L = 75mm

∆Θ = 30 Turns X 2Π = 188.4 rad

W = 423.9 J

Independent of Crank Time or Speed (30 sec)


K

m

Simplified Energy Model: Energy Stored

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY:

L

T

Energy Into System

Work Done By System

Internal energy

W

I

Energy Stored in the System:

Total Energy = Potential + Kinetic Energy

Kinetic Energy = ½ Iw^2Potential = m.g.∆h Spring = ½ K ∆Θ^2

m = 5 grams (x4)m = 5 grams (x4)k ~ 23 N-mm / rad

d = 50mmg= 9.8 m/sec^2 ∆Θ = turns x 2Π

I = 50e-6 Kg/m^2 ∆h = 30mmSpring E = varies with time

Kinetic E = 0.88 J Potential E = 0.005 J


L

T

D (drag)

W

I

F (friction)

K

m

Simplified Energy Model: Energy Leaving System

Drag Force =

C ~ 0.8

A = .0012 m^2

V = 9.4 m/sec

F = .05 N (drag force)

Drag Energy = 363 Joules

Energy Out of the System:

Total Work = Frictional Losses + Drag

Frictional Losses = Σ (ζ.E + μ.N.d.∆Θ)

ζ = 3-5 % (gear efficiency)

μ = 0.2 (sliding bearing friction)

Total Energy Loss ~ 80 Joules


Critical Design Parameters

V = r.W

Power In = Work / Time = 1.90 Watts (after frictional losses)

Drag Power = = 2.02 Watts

Centripetal Acceleration = r.W^2 (120g’s)

g1

m

r

Drag Power ~ r^3

Acceleration ~ r

Minimize Distance To Center of Mass (r)

EXPERIMENTS

  • Increase Air Resistance

    (Thru addition of a thin sheet metal foil)

    Significant reduction in final velocity

  • Increase Mass 5g  10g

    (Same max speed / took longer to get to speed

  • Increase Mass 5g –> 15g

    (no change in Steady-State conditions)

     vibration and rattling, more force on bearings

  • Reduce # of Cartridges

  • Increase of Cartridge Length

Air Drag Coefficient < 0.4

Use Rolling Bearing μ< 0.01

Reduce # of Gears / Belts / & provide Good Alignment

Reduce Moving Mass / Inertia

Improve Gear Efficiency Thru Lubrication ζ < 3%

Critical Design Parameters


Mixer Design

  • Design Goals

    • Top loading

    • Cartridge top twist in holder

    • Low power loss

      • Ball bearings

      • Minimize CG dia.

    • Mixer: 2mm orbital diameter

    • Centrifuge: 1800 RPM


COMPARISON CONCEPT 1 - CONCEPT 2

CONCEPT 2: Combined Mixer / Centrifuge

  • + REDUCES OVERALL BOX LENGTH FROM 15.75 TO 14.5

  • - REQUIRES CLUTCH AND BRAKE TO STOP MOTION OF SPINNER WHILE MIXING

  • - INTERFERENCE IF CARTRIDGES ARE NOT REMOVED FROM NON-USED MECANISM

CONCEPT 1: Separate Mechanisms

  • + SEPARATE MECHANISMS SIMPLIFY DRIVE

  • + EASY ACCESS TO CARTRIDGES

  • - SEPARATE SHAFT AND SUPPORT

  • - TWO ENCLOSURES REQUIRED


CONCEPT 1CONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER


CONCEPT 1CONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER

PINS IN SLOTS GUIDED IN SLOTS OF POLYMER BEARING


CONCEPT 2SEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLYTOP VIEW

15.75”

9”


ECCENTRIC DRIVE

Orbital Mixer Design

ECCENTRIC SHAFT

UPPER BEARINGS

LOWER BEARINGS

TIMING BELT COG


Centrifuge Design

  • Design Goals

    • Top loading

    • Low power loss

      • Ball bearings

      • Minimize CG dia.

      • Aerodynamic Holders

    • G1 > 50G

    • G2 ~ 120G

    • G-load axial to cartridge

    • Contain Blood Spill


CONCEPTCONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER


DETAL DESIGN


CONCEPT SEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLY


Typical Design Cycle: Biomedical Orbital Mixer

VIDEO


  • BACK UP SLIDES


CONCEPTSEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLYFRONT VIEW

7.75”


Centrifuge Design

  • Calculated Cartridge G’s


CARTRAGE RETAINER

RIBS ON CARTRAGE PREVENT ROTATION SO THAT CAP CAN BE TWISTED IN PLACE


CONCEPT 1 - ARM WITH PIN IN SLOT PREVENTS ROTATION

DOES NOT YIELS TRUE ORBITAL MOTION.

  • CARTIRIDGES NEARIST PIN RESTRICTED IN Y MOVEMENT

  • CARTRIDGES AWAY FROM PIN EMPHASIXED IN Y MOVEMENT

PIN IN SLPT

Y

X


CONCEPT 2 - SPRING ROTATION PREVENTER

4X SPRING POST

SPRING NOT SHOWN


COMPARISON OF MIXER ANTI-ROTATION DEVICES

ARM IN SLOT

  • - DOES NOT YIELD TRUE ORBITAL MOTION.

    • CARTIRIDGES NEARIST PIN RESTRICTED IN Y MOVEMENT

    • CARTRIDGES AWAY FROM PIN EMPHASIXED IN Y MOVEMENT

  • + Simple Design

  • - FRICTION

    SPRING

  • - SPRINGS PRONE TO BREAKAGE

  • - UNKNOWN HARMONICS

  • + LOW FRICTION

  • - NOT GOOD WITH CAP TWIST

  • + Simple Design

    SWASH PLATE

  • + ROBUST DESIGN

  • - FRICTION


MECHANICAL GOVERNOR WITH SPEED INDICATOR

GOVERNOR


MECHANICAL GOVERNOR WITH SPEED INDICATOR

WITH INDICATOR SIGHT

WITHOUT SIGHT

CORRECT SPEED

OVER SPEED


ELECTRONIC GOVERNOR

GENERATOR


COMPARISON OF GOVERNORS

MECHANICAL GOVERNOR

  • - MULTIPLE MOVING PARTS

  • - DIFICULT TO CALIBRATE

  • - INDICATOR APPROXIMATE

  • - DRAG DEPENDENT UPON WIND RESISTANCE

    ELECTRICAL GOVERNOR

  • +/- POSSIBLY COUPLED WITH RECHARGABLE BATTERY TO INDICATE CRANK WIND

  • + ELECTRIC SPEED INDICATOR

  • + GOOD GOVERNOR SPEED CONTROL

  • - ADDITION OF MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS

  • - COST OF GENERATOR & CIRCUIT BOARD

    NO GOVERNOR – CENTRIFUGE ACTS AS FLYWHEEL

  • + ELIMINATES MECHANISN

  • - DIFFICULT TO BALANCE/CALIBRATE

  • - NO INDICATOR


3 MINUTE ROTATION STOP

PUSH ROD TO RELEASE

SPRING LOADED CATCH LEVER

GEAR REDUCTION STACK

INPUT SPROKET


  • Login