1 / 20

Team Solar Fig Dehydrator XE: 388 Fall 2011 "The Figtastic Four"

Team Solar Fig Dehydrator XE: 388 Fall 2011 "The Figtastic Four". Mati Ayana Stephen March Dustin McLean David Mindham. Project Background. Purkal Youth Development Society (PYDS) 3rd project year Overall project: Develop a fig dehydrator Why: Short Shelf life (7-10 days) Easy to Bruise

urania
Download Presentation

Team Solar Fig Dehydrator XE: 388 Fall 2011 "The Figtastic Four"

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Team Solar Fig DehydratorXE: 388 Fall 2011"The Figtastic Four" Mati AyanaStephen MarchDustin McLeanDavid Mindham

  2. Project Background Purkal Youth Development Society (PYDS) 3rd project year Overall project: Develop a fig dehydrator Why: • Short Shelf life (7-10 days) • Easy to Bruise • Transportation of figs is difficult Our Part: • Perform data analysis on the designed and created unit from previous groups • Use our findings to implement design changes to improve the overall efficiency of the dryer 

  3. Scope and Objectives Develop understanding of previous groups’ work Collect data to assess the capabilities of the dehydrator Analyze the collected data Determine any needed design modifications based on data analysis   Prepare design modifications for next group to implement Develop economic analysis for dehydrator use Construct outline for future group(s) to finish the project 

  4. Data Collection and Analysis Used other fruits than figs Daily data collection • Before temperature probe • After temperature probe Results showed temperature dependency on: • Ambient air temperatures • Wind Speed • Solar Intensity • Thickness of Fruit slices

  5. Start of Day End of Day Before and After Comparison

  6. Ideal Conditions Profile 20 October 2011

  7. Profile Comparison

  8. Solar Intensity- All days

  9. Wind Speed

  10. Temperature Probe Data

  11. Design Change 1: Aluminum Foil Old design shortfalls: • Oven took long time to reach high heat level • Hot air not dispersed evenly • Need higher oven temperatures on slightly cooler days  Acts as Heat sink • Pulls hot air into oven • Evenly disperses hot air throughout oven • May not be needed in warmer climate Adds approximately $1.00 to the cost of the dehydrator. Implemented 10/10/11

  12. Design Change 2: Circuit Changes Shortfalls of old design: • Wastes power when not running • Fan draws more power than needed • Large battery is expensive Proposed changes: • Decrease Battery from 33 Amp-hr to 3 Amp-hr • Install switch to turn machine off when not in use • Install resistor to reduce fan's power consumption 

  13. Design Change 2: Circuit Changes

  14. Design Change 2: Circuit Changes Advantages of Changes: • Lower power consumption means smaller and cheaper battery • Turning circuit off leads to longer circuit life. • More control over when fans run. • Reduces cost of machine by $40.00. • Smaller battery has less environmental impact Design Alternatives: • Batteries from 3-33 Amp-hr considered. • Photo transistor vs. physical switch • Resistor vs. no resistor

  15. Design Change 3: 2nd Plastic Cover Old Design: • One plastic cover for sun hitting area • Not adequate to prevent heat loss 

  16. Design Change 3: 2nd Plastic Cover New Design: • Additional plastic cover for sun hitting area  • Potentially adequate to prevent heat loss

  17. Design Change 3: 2nd Plastic Cover Plastic cover Benefits: • Locally available • Easily replaced • Inexpensive • Little waste • Gives additional cover preventing heat loss Plastic cover Cost: • Adds a small amount of cost ($14.26) • Must be periodically changed • Benefits not fully determined

  18. Cost Predictions Cost Comparison: • The 2011 price design only 88% of 2010 design • Payback period longer, last group used questionable data.

  19. For the Next Group(s) • Report outlines process for next groups • Challenges to expect

  20. Questions?

More Related