Preliminary Design The preliminary design uses the concept of having the mousetrap mounted onto a square block

of wood, where the mousetrap would directly hit the ping-pong ball through an adjustably angled barrel. This initial design used a toilet paper roll as the barrel for the ball to shoot through in order to stay straight. A semicircular hole was cut from the bottom of the barrel so that the arm of the mousetrap is able to hit the center of the ball each and every time. An elastic band was used at the bottom of the barrel to keep the ball in place. The mousetrap was nailed to the wooden board in order to keep it in place as well as reduce the amount of energy lost by the mousetrap moving backwards. The toilet paper roll was adjusted by moving a block of a constant height closer and further away from the start of the barrel: closer for greater angles and further away to create small angles. preliminary concept was the bases for the final design. The materials used for the preliminary design included a mousetrap, a few pieces of duct tape, a paper towel roll and a block of wood, a couple nails and 3 elastics. These materials were chosen because they were convenient and available at the time of the testing. The main purpose of the preliminary design was to test the general concepts of the design. Testing The first set of tests conducted on the preliminary design was very important in determining the main flaws of the initial design. The results of these tests were used in the iteration process to fix the imperfections. Each of the tests was set up with a ping-pong ball placed in the barrel, with elastics holding it in place. The mousetrap arm was pulled back until it couldnt be pulled any further and then it was let go. The arm would then hit the center of the ball and the ball would shoot out at the angle the barrel was set at. The values of each test at each 15-degree angle between 0 and 90 degrees were recorded and taken down. These values collected were used to create a range at each angle of how far the ball should travel, and were used in the final competition. The main issues with the initial testing included: the ball not travelling far enough, not travelling a constant distance while the apparatus was not changed and sometimes the ball not exiting the barrel. This

These first tests were used to identify which parts of the prototype worked well, and what needed to be fixed. In the first test, the idea of the mousetrap directly hitting the ball was tested. After numerous trials, it was found that this concept did work well, but not 100% of the time and needed to be altered slightly. When pulled back all the way, the mousetrap arm was able to hit the ball with reasonable accuracy. The concept of the barrel used to increase the accuracy was also tested. Throughout the testing, the ball very rarely wavered far from a straight line of flight, proving that the barrel concept was a good choice to have a highly accurate shot. The ping-pong ball, which shot the furthest and most accurate, was also tested for. Each ping-pong ball was a different size and many had deformations that caused the ball to not travel straight. The ball with the size closest to the diameter of the barrel was found to work the best, as the ball could not move around in the barrel. The barrel was also just big enough for it not to cause a significant amount of energy lost due to friction. The best ball to be shot was found, but no results were recorded for this test. Table 1: Preliminary Testing
15 Degrees Test Number 1 2 3 4 5 Average 3.55m 3.78m 3.27m 0m 2.98m 2.72m 30 Degrees 4.67m 4.53m 1.34m 4.32m 4.96m 3.96m 45 Degrees 5.76m 5.42m 5.97m 5.3m 5.55m 5.6m 60 Degrees 5.22m 4.87m 5.02m 4.66m 3.98m 4.75m 75 Degrees 3.36m 2.97m 0.55m 3.5m 3.11m 2.69m

Figure 1: Preliminary Testing

7 Distance Travelled (m) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 Test Number 10 15 Degrees 30 Degrees 45 Degrees 60 Degrees 75 Degrees

Iteration The first problem addressed was the issue that the ball did not shoot far enough. From the testing, it was concluded that the arm of the mousetrap did not hit the ball at the same place each time. The spring used in the preliminary design had also been used many times and was worn out and therefore provided less energy to the ball. For the final design the trap used was changed to provide for energy to the ball. A PVC pipe that was the perfect size for the ping-pong ball replaced the paper towel barrel. This increased the accuracy of the shot, as well as increasing the overall distance. The ball was placed in the barrel so that it could only sit in the same place each time, reducing the error caused by the elastics. This caused the trap arm hit the ball in the exact same location every time, making the cannon much more reliable. The ball no longer would get stuck in the tube, or shoot a very minimal distance, proving that the piping was an excellent choice for the barrel of the cannon. The next problem addressed was the placement of the mousetrap. In the preliminary design, the angle of the tube was changed, but the placement of the mousetrap was not. This caused the arm of the mousetrap to hit the ball in different spots at each angle, and creating spin on the ball. To fix this problem, a new method for changing the angle the ball is shot at is developed. Two long thin boards were used, and were hinged to each end of the wooden base. The boards fold into each other and one rests on nails placed on the other board at many different positions. These nails are the basis of the different angles the cannon will shoot at. The mousetrap was placed at the top of the board with the piping. This concept made the mousetrap and the piping wove with each other, so the ball was hit with the same force and accuracy every time. This addition also helped with the distance problem because it means that the ball starts from a higher spot above the ground each time. Testing was done with these new changes to the design of our cannon, and the results proved to be much for consistent, compared to the preliminary design testing. The ball never got stuck in the barrel, and the ball was able to travel much further distances, as seen in the figure below. These tests were used to determine what angle would travel certain distances, and the average distance travelled at each angle was used as a basis in the final testing (the competition).

Table 2: Testing after Modifications

Second Screw 7.5 7.59 7.67 7.545 7.73 7.61 Third Screw:Half Power 4.04 4.12 3.95 3.89 4.09 4.02

No Screw Test Number 1 2 3 4 5 Average 6.43 6.25 6.62 6.61 6.35 6.45

First Screw 6.15 5.48 5.76 5.92 5.91 5.84

Third Screw 8.05 8.17 8.08 7.92 7.96 8.04

Figure 2: Testing After Modifications

9 8 Distance Travelled (m) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 Test Number 6 8 Third Screw Third Screw:Half Power No Screw First Screw Second Screw