Merganser Duck Trap Final Design Proposal

Calvin College

Engineering 340

May 12, 2006

Team Two: Duck Hunt

Ashley Baker

Ann Nieuwkoop

Chad Nyenhuis

© 2006 Calvin College and Ashley Baker, Ann Nieuwkoop, and Chad Nyenhuis

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the Senior Design project of Team 2: Duck Hunt. The

team members include Ashley Baker, Ann Nieuwkoop, and Chad Nyenhuis. The main

goal of this project was to design and build a device to capture Common Merganser

ducks for medical treatment of a parasite that causes swimmer’s itch. This project was

done in conjunction with SICon, L.L.C., a company focused on the research and control

of swimmer’s itch. This project provides SICon with a more efficient method of

capturing Common Merganser ducks than their current method and will therefore aid in

the control of swimmer’s itch on affected lakes. The main issues SICon was concerned

with include net visibility, remote activation, and adaptability.

A final working prototype, a user’s manual, a parts list, and this final design

report were completed. The final working prototype design consists of four poles that are

set up in a lake. A net that is initially underwater is connected to each pole. When the

trap is triggered, a spring-loaded mechanism pulls the nets vertically out of the water and

traps the ducks in an enclosed area. The final cost of this prototype is $528.04 and the

prototype will be given to SICon for their use in capturing Common Merganser ducks to

control swimmer’s itch.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. Background Information ......................................................................................... 7

1.2. Project Overview .................................................................................................... 7

2. Problem Specification ................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Problem Description ............................................................................................... 8

2.1.1. Current Method .............................................................................................. 8

2.1.2. Current Problems ........................................................................................... 8

2.2. Project Requirements .............................................................................................. 8

2.2.1. Weight ............................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2. Size ................................................................................................................. 9

2.2.3. Setup .............................................................................................................. 9

2.2.4. Material .......................................................................................................... 9

2.2.5. Performance ................................................................................................... 9

2.2.6. Course ............................................................................................................ 9

3. Design Norms ............................................................................................................. 10

4. Proposed Solution ....................................................................................................... 11

4.1. Research ................................................................................................................ 11

4.2. Design Decisions .................................................................................................. 11

4.3. Trap Design ........................................................................................................... 13

4.3.1. Design Decisions ......................................................................................... 13

4.3.2. Setup ............................................................................................................ 13

4.3.3. Structure ....................................................................................................... 13

4.3.4. Trigger Mechanism ...................................................................................... 14

4.3.5. Electrical Components ................................................................................. 14

4.4. Testing and Modifications .................................................................................... 15

4.4.1. Basic Design and Spring Force Test ............................................................ 16

4.4.2. Spring Test ................................................................................................... 16

4.4.3. Working Prototype Test ............................................................................... 16

4.4.4. Modified Prototype Test .............................................................................. 16

5. Project Management ................................................................................................... 17

5.1. Team Organization................................................................................................ 17

5.2. Work Breakdown Structure .................................................................................. 17

5.3. Schedule ................................................................................................................ 18

5.4. Budget ................................................................................................................... 18

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 21

6.1. Lessons Learned.................................................................................................... 21

6.2. What We Would Have Done Differently.............................................................. 21

6.3. Future Work .......................................................................................................... 22

7. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 22

Appendices

Appendix A: User’s Manual

Appendix B: Design Alternatives

Appendix C: Design Development

Appendix D: Finite Element Analysis

Appendix E: Component Drawings

Appendix F: Assembly Drawings

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Block Diagram

Table 1: Budget Report and Parts List

Figure A.1: Trap Components

Figure A.2: Feed Cable through Base of Housing

Figure A.3: Attach Spring to Quick-Clip

Figure A.4: Feed Spring into Pole

Figure A.5: Slide Pole into Collar on Housing

Figure A.6: Tighten Thumb Screws

Figure A.7: Feed the Long Hook in the Pole

Figure A.8: Extend the Spring by Pulling Down on the Long Hook

Figure A.9: Feed the Bolt through the End of the Spring

Figure A.10: Insert the Auger into the Pole

Figure A.11: Insert the Bolt through the Auger

Figure A.12: Insert the Collar and Spacer on Bolt

Figure A.13: Feed the Bolt through the Pipe

Figure A.14: Insert the Collar and Spacer on Bolt

Figure A.15: Screw Bolt into Collar

Figure A.16: Turning on the Receiver

Figure A.17: Turning in the Poles

Figure A.18: All Four Poles Set

Figure A.19: Laying Out the Net

Figure A.20: Attaching the Net

Figure A.21: Attaching the Lead Line

Figure A.22: Hanging the Net

Figure A.23: Submerging the Net

Figure A.24: Pressing the Button

Figure A.25: Net Springing Upward

Figure B.1: Alternative One – Duck and Trap Layout

Figure B.2: Alternative One – Wheel Device – Top View

Figure B.3: Alternative Two – Dock and Trap Layout

Figure B.4: Alternative Four – Retractable Poles With Net

Figure B.5: Initial Setup of Preliminary Design

Figure B.6: Preliminary Design Mechanism

Figure B.7: Final Setup of Preliminary Design

Figure B.8: Electrical Block Diagram

Figure C.1: Original Pulley Design

Figure C.2: Ratchet System: The First Locking Mechanism

Figure C.3: Two-Part Lever Arm Locking Pin Design

Figure C.4: Front View of Locking Pin Mechanism

Figure C.5: Rear View of the Locking Pin Mechanism

Figure C.6: New Z-Shaped Swiveling Lever Arm and Triggering Mechanism

Figure C.7: The Final Design: Internal Triggering Mechanism

Figure D.1: Stress Calculations for the Locking Pin

Figure D.2: Deflection Calculations for the Locking Pin

Figure D.3: Stress Calculations for the Gear Tooth

Figure D.4: Deflection Calculations for the Gear Tooth

Figure D.5: Stress Calculations for the Trap Pole

Figure D.6: Deflection Calculations for the Trap Pole

Figure D.7: Stress Calculations for the Housing

Figure D.8: Deflection Calculations for the Housing

7

1. Introduction

1.1. Background Information

Schistosome cercarial dermatitis, commonly known as swimmer’s itch, is a

reaction people have to a parasite entering the top layer of their skin. The larval stage

of this parasite lives in snails, while the adult stage of this parasite lives in birds,

typically Common Merganser ducks. Swimmer’s itch is due to the larval stage of the

parasite accidentally entering the skin of an unsuspecting swimmer instead of a bird

host. Symptoms of swimmer’s itch include an itchy red rash that can last for up to a

week. Swimmer’s itch is a common problem in northern Michigan lakes, as well as

other northern states and other parts of the world.

In the past, the state of Michigan has treated swimmer’s itch in northern

Michigan lakes primarily by depositing chemicals into the lakes to kill the snail hosts.

The long-term effects of this control method are unknown. SICon has found that

treating the duck hosts with a medicine that kills the parasites is an effective and

environmentally safe method of controlling swimmer’s itch on northern Michigan

lakes.

1.2. Project Overview

The purpose of our senior design project was to design and build an efficient

device to trap Common Merganser ducks for medical treatment and further research

of swimmer’s itch. Once the ducks are trapped, they will be treated for the parasites

that cause swimmer’s itch and released back into their natural environment unharmed.

This process will help control swimmer’s itch by eliminating only the parasites that

cause swimmer’s itch and not harming the ducks or the lake environment. The

deliverables of this project include a working prototype, a user’s manual, a parts list,

and this final design report.

8

2. Problem Specification

2.1. Problem Description

2.1.1. Current Method

SICon’s current method of trapping the ducks is to chase them into the

open end of a stationary, V-shaped net. Two sides of the net are hidden

underwater, while the third side is approximately three feet above the water and

visible to the ducks. The sides of the net are pulled up from under the water by

two people on shore. The open end is then blocked by people to ensure that the

ducks do not escape, while other people catch the ducks and give them a pill to

kill the parasites. The ducks must be trapped and treated twice a year to eliminate

the parasites.

2.1.2. Current Problems

One problem SICon has with their current trapping method is that the

ducks begin to catch on to the trapping method. This makes the ducks difficult to

catch a second time because the ducks can see the net above water and will avoid

it.

Another problem SICon has with their current trapping method is that it is

not versatile enough to be positioned at various locations around a lake. SICon

has found that Common Merganser ducks usually stay nears certain boat docks.

There is great potential for trapping the ducks while they are in this area.

However, the current trapping system would not work to be positioned around a

dock.

Finally, their current trap is not fully enclosed. In order to trap the ducks,

people must be close enough to block the open end of the trap. This requires

more people to trap the ducks and increases the likelihood of the ducks being

scared away.

2.2. Project Requirements

From the problems SICon had with their current trapping method, we

developed a set of design requirements we wanted to meet with our new trap.

9

These requirements related to the design of the trap and also to the overall Senior

Design course.

2.2.1. Weight

The weight of the trap shall be minimal to ensure portability

The weight of the trap shall be minimal to ensure that an adult can carry

one pole

2.2.2. Size

The trap components shall be as small as possible to ensure portability

The trap shall be no larger than 25 feet by 25 feet to ensure that the ducks

will not be able to begin flight

2.2.3. Setup

The entire device shall be able to be set up by no more than two people

The set up time shall not exceed 15 minutes

Once the trap has been triggered, it shall be able to be reset in less than

five minutes

The trap shall be adjustable to be set up in multiple areas near the shore

and in various water depths

2.2.4. Material

All materials shall be durable and corrosion resistant in order to withstand

relocation and the lake environment

All materials shall be water resistant and/or waterproof

2.2.5. Performance

The trap shall be able to trap ducks that dive below the water

The trap shall not harm the ducks

The trap shall be activated by a remote trigger

2.2.6. Course

The team shall work together effectively

The team shall complete all course requirements on time

10

One focus of the team shall be on learning about engineering design and

production in a real-world scenario

One focus of the team shall be on learning about design from a Christian

perspective

3. Design Norms

In product design, there are certain guidelines or design norms that Christian

engineers must consider. The design norms that directly relate to our project are

stewardship, caring, cultural appropriateness, transparency, trust.

Stewardship is important for our project because our project will provide an

environmentally safe method of controlling swimmer’s itch. In the past, the state of

Michigan deposited chemicals in lakes affected by swimmer’s itch to kill the snails that

hosted the parasites. The long-term consequences of this control method are unknown.

Our project will aid in controlling swimmer’s itch without harming the ducks or the lake

environment.

Another design norm that affects our project is caring. Our project will not injure

the ducks or the lake environment; it will only trap the ducks in order to treat them for the

parasites. Our project will also help people enjoy the lakes safely. Children are more

susceptible to swimmer’s itch than adults. Our project will protect children who swim in

affected lakes and also relieve parents from treating their children from swimmer’s itch

as frequently.

Cultural appropriateness is another design norm that is important to our project.

SICon expressed that Common Mergansers are very intelligent ducks and that they can

recognize things that do not fit into their ordinary lake environment. Since our trap has

four poles that are visible to the ducks, we designed them to look like dock poles.

Therefore, the trap will blend into the lake environment.

In the process of designing our project, we also considered transparency.

Throughout the project, transparency was achieved through open communication with

SICon and complete documentation of meetings, information, and tests. Also, it is

important that our trap can be setup quickly and without much difficultly. Our design is

simple, so that it will be as easy to set up and use as possible. It will require minimal

11

training and skill to use and operate. The final product includes a user’s manual and parts

list to help others understand how to use, maintain, and repair the trap.

The final design norm we considered was trust. The final design is dependable

and made of durable materials specific to the lake environment in order to reduce wear

and corrosion. All parts used to construct our final design are available from many

different manufacturers for easy replacement. The trapping process is repeatable. It can

take three to four hours to guide the ducks into the trap area, so it is very important that

the trap works every time.

4. Proposed Solution

4.1. Research

Before we began designing, we researched our client’s needs and swimmer’s

itch. We spoke with SICon several times to make sure we understood their

problems with their current trap and the improvements they wanted to see in our

trap. We also researched swimmer’s itch and how it is transmitted by Merganser

ducks.

4.2. Design Decisions

Throughout the course, we made several decisions regarding significant

features and components. The design alternatives initially considered in this project

can be found in Appendix B. The first major decision made was between stationary

poles with a moving net or retractable poles where both the poles and the net

moved. After first learning about the problems SICon was experiencing with their

current trap, we thought the entire trap should be submerged below water.

However, after further discussion with SICon, we found that the net was the most

important thing to hide and that we would be able to disguise the poles as dock

poles. SICon had found in the past that by using a hidden net, it was much easier to

trap the ducks. So, we decided to design our trap using stationary poles and

disguise them to fit into the surrounding lake environment so that they don’t scare

away the ducks.

The next design decision we encountered was what type of material to make

the trap out of. Steel was initially considered because it is easy to weld and readily

12

available. However, aluminum was chosen as the primary material for the trap for

several reasons. Aluminum is lightweight and would allow for easy transport.

Also, aluminum is corrosion resistant, making it a great choice for the lake

environment. Finally, using aluminum would aide in disguising the poles as = dock

poles commonly found in the lake.

After we decided on the type of material for the poles, we considered the

shape of the pole. We had the choice between square or round poles. Our initial

design was to use square poles because it would be easier to mount a mechanism

onto a flat surface and our pulley system would also fit better. However, we

decided to use round poles because they are easier to screw into the lake using

augers. It was then decided that we would mount a square housing on the top of the

pole to solve the problem of attaching a mechanism to a round surface. Also, a

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) showed that round poles were stronger than square

poles. More information on FEA can be found in Appendix D.

Another major design decision was whether to use a spring or a compressed

air cylinder to pull the nets out of the water. Compressed air cylinders were

reviewed because they had very controlled strokes and could be triggered easily.

However, air cylinders included the inconvenience of having to recharge the

cylinders with air after each firing. Another problem with air cylinders was the

introduction of possible failure. Because the trap will be used in a lake

environment, water could possibly leak in and ruin them, leaving the trap useless.

Also, springs are less expensive, available at most hardware or home improvement

store, and were more adjustable for different situations.

The next design decision was how to use the spring to lift the net out of the

water four feet. Our first idea was to use a spring that would stretch the entire

length of the pole combined with a single pulley. The problem with this idea was

that the spring would not be able to pull the nets up the necessary distance. This

forced us look at different methods of getting the net to travel two or three times as

far as the spring length. A two-stage pulley system was developed with a diameter

ratio of 3.5 to 1. This system would allow the net to travel seven feet for every two

feet the spring traveled.

13

Different types of springs were researched. We looked into using a clock

spring, similar to the action of a seat belt. This idea looked very promising at first

because it didn’t require making a pulley system and it kept the entire spring inside

the cylinder that the cable would wrap around. However, we found that high force

clock springs were not available for winding up seven feet of cable. The highest

force we found was around 15 pounds which was far to low for our application.

After testing other types of springs, we chose garage door springs.

Several times we had to decide between building and buying our parts. We

decided to fabricate many of our parts in our shop because this project is very

specialized and will not be massed produced. Even though this would be costly to

machine each part special, we would not be able to receive large cost reductions for

having our parts manufactured.

4.3. Trap Design

4.3.1. Design Decisions

4.3.2. Setup

The trap can be set up by two people in approximately fifteen minutes.

The trap is designed to be set up in one to three feet of water with a sandy lake

bottom. Methods are provided to adjust the trap based on water depth. Refer to

the user’s manual in Appendix A for full setup instructions.

4.3.3. Structure

The frame of the trap is four nine foot aluminum poles. They are screwed

into the lake bottom using augers. A PVC frame was considered in cases where

the augers would not be able to screw into the lake bottom. However, based on

SICon’s specifications and our research, we found that Merganser ducks typically

only spend time in areas with sandy lake bottoms. Therefore, since the trap would

only be set up in these areas, we did not design a frame structure.

Strung between each pole is a lead-lined, nylon net. The nets are attached

to a cable via quick-clips, which are then attached to a two inch ring. This ring

runs up and down a cable guide that is mounted onto the outside of each pole.

14

The cable guide ensures that the nets rise vertically out of the water after

triggering of the trap.

4.3.4. Trigger Mechanism

Note that the trigger mechanism described is duplicated for all four poles.

Inside the pole is a ninety pound garage door spring which is initially extended

two feet. This spring is attached to another cable via a quick-clip. To secure the

spring, a bolt is inserted through the side of the pole. The other end of this cable

winds around a one inch diameter pulley. Fixed to this pulley is a three and a half

inch diameter pulley around which the cable attached to the net winds. Because

of this one to three and a half pulley ratio, for every foot the spring extends, the

net is able to pulled up three and a half feet. Therefore, when the spring is

extended two feet, the net will travel seven feet, allowing it to be submerged in

three feet of water while maintaining a height of four feet above the water.

On the outside of the three and a half diameter pulley is a gear with teeth.

A spring-loaded locking pin fits inside the teeth on the gear. The locking pin

allows the gear to only rotate in the direction that extends the spring, preventing

the net from accidentally shooting upward while the trap is being set. This

locking pin is attached to a forty pound solenoid. When the trap is triggered, the

solenoid pulls the locking pin out of the gear, allowing it to freely rotate in the

opposite direction as the spring compresses. This action unwinds the cable

around the smaller pulley that is attached to the spring and the winds the cable

around the larger pulley that is attached to the net. This causes the net to rise

vertically seven feet. This ratchet and pulley system is located on the top of the

pole in an aluminum housing box 3.75 inches wide by 20 inches tall.

4.3.5. Electrical Components

Note that the electrical components described are duplicated for all four

poles. Inside the housing is a plastic, water-tight box containing the electronic

components of the trap. Figure 1 shows a block diagram of the electrical

components.

15

Figure 1: Block Diagram

All components are powered by a 12 volt, 2.2 amp-hour gel cell battery.

Because the battery is a gel cell, it can be rotated in any position and still work.

Each box also contains a receiver. All four receivers run off the same frequency,

so they are able to be triggered simultaneously by a single transmitter. A relay is

necessary to connect the receiver and solenoid because the solenoid draws a much

higher current than the receiver can provide. A 35 amp fuse is used protect the

components from a power surge. Also wired into the circuit is a toggle switch to

allow users to easily turn the trap on or off to prevent draining the battery while

the trap is not in use.

4.4. Testing and Modifications

All lake testing took place on Reed’s Lake, located in East Grand Rapids,

Michigan. Documentation for all testing was taken with a digital camcorder and can

be found on our website.

16

4.4.1. Basic Design and Spring Force Test

Our initial testing took place on March 31, 2006. First, we tested the force

to pull the wet net through the water to a vertical height of four feet above the

water surface. This was done using our initial prototype and a scale. The force to

pull up approximately 15 feet of net was measured to be 20 pounds. Also, the

initial spring and ratchet system was set up, tested, and analyzed. This testing

verified that releasing the locking pin would pull the nets out of the water.

4.4.2. Spring Test

We used our initial prototype to decide which spring to use in the final

prototype. A 90 pound garage door spring, an extra-stretch extension spring, and

clock spring were tested. One end of the springs was fixed and the other ends of

the springs were stretched. They were weighted down with 15 pound weights and

stretched to their maximum ability. The distance the springs pulled the weights

up was measured. We chose to use 90 pound garage door springs for our final

prototype because they were able to get the force and distance required and were

also widely available.

4.4.3. Working Prototype Test

The second testing in the lake took place on April 28, 2006. The setup

process for the prototype was timed and analyzed for ease and simplicity. A

problem discovered during this testing was that the cable attached to the nets had

a tendency to drift to the center of the trap. This was due to the tension on the

cables between each pole after they were attached. After triggering the trap, it

was clear that that drifting nets caused the cables to jam the ratchet mechanisms

and stop the nets from rising out of the water. To solve this problem, we used

0.75 inch diameter conduit make a cable guides. So, instead of the cables being

attached directly to the nets, they would be attached to rings that would slide up

and down the guides.

4.4.4. Modified Prototype Test

The final testing event took place on May 3, 2006. The setup was again

timed during this test. We found that it took approximately 15 minutes for two

17

people to set up the trap. The new cable guides were used during this test. They

kept the nets tight to the poles, but increased the force necessary to pull the nets

out of the water because of the friction between the rings and the conduit.

We found that in order to achieve the best performance of the rising nets,

initial pre-tension of the spring was needed. To do this, we fashioned a device

with a long hook at the end that is inserted into the end of the pole. The hooked

end is used to pull the springs down and bolts and used to keep the springs in

place.

5. Project Management

5.1. Team Organization

Because our team consisted of only three people, tasks tended to overlap and

specific roles were not assigned to each member. The workload was shared fairly

equally among teammates. At times, however, it was necessary for one person to

take responsibility over a specific part of the project to ensure that the work would be

completed correctly in that area while the others assisted. Ashley was responsible for

managing the budget, updating the website, and coordinating the purchase of

materials. Chad was the AutoCAD Inventor specialist. He drew out each component

in AutoCAD and also made an assembly drawing. Ann kept the group in line with

the class schedule of deliverables. Also, because we lost our electrical team member

after the first semester, Ann and Chad took over the electrical components. Overall,

our working styles complimented each other and helped to complete the project

successfully.

5.2. Work Breakdown Structure

Our work schedule in the fall consisted of meeting one to two set times a week,

depending on the amount of work or documents that needed to be completed. During

January, weekly meetings were called in order to keep the team focused. In the

spring, the number of meetings increased to as many as necessary in order to

complete the project in time. Our team was devoted to finishing project and put in

the time necessary to make it a success.

18

Meeting time was used for brainstorming, design, review, task assignment,

planning, and managing the budget. Meeting documentation was taken by each team

member and stored in their Senior Design project workbook. All documents were

saved in the team two folder on the X:/ drive, which is specific to Senior Design.

Budget updates were put in the administrative folder on the X:/ drive. Information on

the project and team can be found on the project website, at

http://engr.calvin.edu/SeniorDesign/SeniorDesign05-06/team02/.

5.3. Schedule

A preliminary schedule was drawn up using Microsoft Project. This schedule

was followed very closely during the fall semester. However, in January, after

finding most of the electrical components specified were unavailable, we were forced

to analyze different design alternatives for our project. This put our team behind our

preliminary schedule. In the spring semester, we found the best way to keep on

schedule was to follow the course syllabus and keep a working task schedule in our

planners and on our dry erase board. Our team found that communication was vital to

staying on schedule and meeting deadlines.

5.4. Budget

The budget for our project consisted of $300.00 given by the Calvin College

Engineering Department. Also, many donations and discounts were given to our

team by people in industry. Materials were thoroughly researched to ensure we were

obtaining the least expensive component, without compromising quality.

Unfortunately, we nearly doubled our budget and spent $528.04. After discussing

this issue with our team mentor, Professor Ned Nielsen, we were approved to

continue with our project, despite that we were over our budget. The reason we were

able to continue our project is because some civil Senior Design teams would not use

their project budget money. So their extra money would be able to cover the rest of

our project expenses.

The complete budget report can be seen below in Table 1. Included is the price

paid by our team, as well as the regular pricing without the discounts we received.

19

Additional purchases needed to include a new set of receivers and transmitters and a

new nylon net. These expenses will be covered by SICon.

20

Table 1: Budget Report and Parts List

Part Quantity

Price

Paid

(each)

Regular

Price

(each) Supplier Information

Inside the Watertight Boxes:

Watertight Acrylic Boxes 4 $12.50 $18.00 Alro Plastics - Kentwood, MI

On/Off Toggle Switch 4 $3.88 $3.88 Lowe's

Transmitters 3 $28.00 $39.50 www.ebay.com - China

Receivers 5 - - Included with the transmitters

12 V Batteries 4 $19.99 $24.99 Batteries Plus – Grand Rapids, MI

40 Amp Relays ( 255-1834-ND) 4 $4.07 $4.07 www.digikey.com

Electrical Connectors - $3.75 $3.75 Lowe's (Price varies based on connectors)

Wire - $2.50 $3.50 Lowe's/Donations

Grey Vinyl Weather-Strip 1 $2.88 $2.88 Lowe's

Silicone Sealant 1 $2.79 $2.79 Lowe's

Inside the Aluminum Boxes:

Solenoid 4 $37.00 $44.98 www.slickcar.com (1-800-780-1409)

Velcro 4 $2.97 $2.97 Lowe's

Hinges (2 per pack) 4 $1.97 $1.97 Lowe's

Plastic Bearings (2639T31) 8 $4.40 $4.40 www.mcmaster.com (also available at Lowe's)

Climbing Rope ($/ft) 80 $0.32 $0.32 Higher Ground - Grand Rapids, MI

Aluminum Sheet (0.0625 in. thick) 4 - $15.00 Wyser Innovative Products – Kentwood, MI

Hex Bolts - (5/8 in. dia. / 5 in. length) 4 $1.43 $1.43 Lowe's

Clamp Latch (2 per pack) 4 $3.78 $3.78 Lowe's

Other:

Garage Door Spring 4 $14.28 $14.28 Lowe's

Aluminum Poles - 9ft. 4 - $52.10 Genzink Steel - Holland, MI

Augers 4 - - Harvey Blankespoor

Miscellaneous Hardware $20.00 $20.00

Total Estimate for Four Poles $528.04 $882.86

Note: This excludes labor and machinery costs

21

6. Conclusion

6.1. Lessons Learned

This project provided us with an experience similar to what we should expect in

industry and we learned many lessons from this experience. First, we were forced to

make and follow our own schedule. We were given deliverable deadlines, but our

overall schedule was our responsibility. Second, we soon discovered that everything

took a lot longer than we expected. All of the time we planned for tasks should have

at least been tripled. In the end, we were working furiously to complete our

prototype. Third, we learned that nothing runs as smoothly in reality as it does on

paper. There were many different components that needed to be adjusted during

production that we had not planned for. Also, testing should be done often to ensure

problems are caught early on rather than after components are purchased or

assembled. Fourth, communication is vital to the success of a project. Often we

found that we thought we were all thinking the same thing, we soon found out we all

had different ideas and viewpoints. Therefore, effective communication skills were

very important in our success. Finally, losing a team member put us in a situation

that is often encountered in industry. This situation forced us to take responsibility of

our project and areas that were not necessarily assigned to us or were our area of

strength. These are just a few of the lessons we will take with us as we begin our

careers.

6.2. What We Would Have Done Differently

If we were to do this project again there are a few things that we would change.

First, we would make the pulley systems narrower overall so that there would be

room for washers to fit between the pulleys and the inside walls. We had difficulties

making the pulleys fit inside the housings without them scrapping their inside walls.

This produced a lot of friction, which greatly reduced the ease at which the pulleys

rotated. It also created points where the pulleys would stick and prevent the nets from

rising as high as they could. Washers would increase the ease at which the pulleys

rotate and prevent wear on the side walls and pulleys.

Another advantage to using washers is that the lever arms would have worked

better. Because the gears were so close to the walls, the lever arms had to be rounded

22

down to allow them to rotate past the walls without hitting them. Spacing the pulleys

away from the walls, would allow for more clearance of the lever arms, making them

run smoother.

We would use thicker plastic bushings. After we installed our bushings, we

realized that there was not enough clearance between the inside of the pulleys and the

bolts for the knots that hold the cables in place to be tied. Since we had already

drilled the holes for our bolts in our housings, we decided to keep the bushings and

adjust our bolts to fit the design. We had to fabricate our own bolts by turning down

their centers and milling the end of the bolts flat. If we used thicker bushings, we

could have used smaller bolts with more clearance and avoided a lot of extra work

and time spent.

The final thing that we would change would be to use a thicker aluminum sheets

for the door panels. After we did our testing, we realized that there was a higher

force pushing on our lever arms than we anticipated. Under higher loads, the

aluminum sheets do deform slightly and over time it might deform permanently. A

thicker sheet would allow for even higher spring forces to be used in the future.

6.3. Future Work

Future work for this project includes providing training to SICon for the

trapping device. We will be assisting them during their first Common Merganser

duck trapping on June 1, 2006 at Glen Lake.

7. Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the people listed below for their time, guidance,

donations, and/or any other help they have given to our team. Without them, we would

not have been successful.

Alro Plastics

Greg Bock

Bob DeKraker

Genzink Steel – For the donation of the aluminum poles

Ned Nielsen – Our team advisor

Dave Ryskamp

23

SICon L.L.C

Chuck Spoelhof

Ren Tubergen – Our team mentor

Wyser Innovative Products – For the donation of the laser-cut gears and aluminum for the

housings

24

Appendices

25

Appendix A: User’s Manual

26

User’s Manual

For the Merganser Duck Trap

** Warning** This device contains moving parts that could cause serious injury or death

if not operated properly. Please read the following manual before operating this device.

27

Step 1. Arrange the components: Lay out the components to each pole to make sure that you have

everything that you’ll need.

Figure A.1: Trap Components

28

Step 2. Attach the Spring Feed the cable from the small pulley with the quick-clip attached through

the hole in the bottom of the housing.

Attach the quick-clip to the end of the spring.

Figure A.2: Feed Cable Through Base of Housing

Figure A.3: Attach Spring to Quick-Clip

29

Step 3. Insert Spring Into Pole Slide the spring into the pole with the spring attached and feed any slack

in the cable into the pole as well.

Figure A.4: Feed Spring Into Pole

30

Step 4. Align and Attach Housing to Pole Slide the pole into the collar on the bottom of the housing so that it slides

tight up against the bottom of the rectangle portion. Make sure that any

extra cable is completely inside the pole.

Tighten the thumb screws on the side of the collar so that the pole is fixed

in place. Make sure to align the pole so that the ¼ in holes at the bottom

face up (the same direction as the open side of the top housing).

Figure A.5: Slide Pole Into Collar on Housing

Figure A.6: Tighten Thumb Screws

31

Step 5. Fix Spring In Place Stand the pole on end so that the spring slides down the pole and then set

the pole back on the ground. Then feed the long hook up the pole from

the bottom and hook onto the end of the spring.

Extend the spring downward until it is inline with the fourth hole.

With the help of another person, feed a bolt through the hole and through

the loop on the end of the spring and thread a nut on the end fixing it in

place. Then remove the long hook from the spring and take it out from the

pole.

Figure A.7: Feed the Long Hook in the Pole

Figure A.8: Extend the Spring by Pulling Down on the long Hook

Figure A.9: Feed the Bolt Through the End of the Spring

32

Step 6. Attach Auger Slide an auger into the end of the pole and align it with the bottom hole.

Insert the bolt and thread a nut on the end to keep it in place.

Figure A.10: Insert the Auger into the Pole

Figure A.11: Insert the Bolt Through the Auger

33

Step 7. Attach Cable Guide Slide the 4 in Bolt through the pole in the 4

th ¼ in hole from the bottom

(use other holes to adjust collar height). Then slide a ½ in spacer on the

bolt followed by the 7 ft cable guide pole. Put a nut on the end of the pole

to hold it all in place.

Next move to the top of the cable guide and slide the 2 in ring onto the

cable guide before attaching the top of the guide. Once the ring is in

place, put the 1½ in bolt through the cable guide with a spacer on the

bottom side of the guide. Then thread the bolt into the hole at the bottom

of the collar on the housing box. This will fix the guide in place

Figure A.12: Insert Collar and Spacer on Bolt Figure A.13: Feed Bolt Through Pole

Figure A.14: Insert Collar and Spacer on Bolt Figure A.15: Screw Bolt into Collar

34

Step 8. Turn the Trap On Open the top housing and flip the switch to the on position. Check to

make sure that the red LED light turns on. While closing the housing

door, make sure that the lever is properly positioned on the gear before

securing both of the latches.

Figure A.16: Turning on the Receiver

35

Step 9. Set the Poles Warning: The poles are top heavy when they are full assembled. Hold

the assembled pole closer to the top so that it doesn’t cause you to fall as

you are carrying it.

Begin by screwing one of the poles into the ground in the desired location

of the lake. Turn the poles by hand until it becomes too difficult. Then

continue screwing them into the ground by inserting the steel rod into the

available holes along the pole and turning in the pole deeper (this may

require two people if the lake bottom is difficult to screw into).

Repeat this process with the other three poles in each corner of the trap.

Figure A.17: Turning in the Poles

Figure A.18: All Four Poles Set

36

Step 10. Lay out the Net Begin by unwinding 125 ft of both the top and bottom ropes of the net

along the shore. Then stretch out the net along the ropes until it is fully

extended.

Figure A.19: Laying Out the Net

37

Step 11. Attach the Net Begin by attaching the net on the pole that is closest to shore. Pull down

the 2 in ring on the end of the red cable until it is approximately 3 ft above

the water. Then attach the end of the net to the quick-clip and clip it onto

the 2 in ring. When clipping on the net make sure that at least one loop of

the net is looped through the clip with the top cable to ensure that the net

will not pull away from the pole when it is being drawn upwards.

Once the top of the net is attached to the pole, loop the lead line on the

bottom of the net around the pole near the sand to ensure that it stays in

place when while the net is set up.

Figure A.20: Attaching the Net

Figure A.21: Attaching the Lead Line

38

Step 12. String the Net Between the Poles After the net is attached to the first pole, stretch the net to the next pole.

Pull the top rope tight so that there is minimal sagging between the poles.

Pull down the 2 in ring as done previously and attach the net to the quick-

clip on the ring.

Repeat this process with the remaining two poles.

Once the net is attached to the forth pole, stretch it across the opening

back to the first pole. Tie a temporary knot where it attaches to the quick-

clip on the first pole to prevent the net from sagging.

The net should now enclose the entire area and should be approximately 3

ft above the water.

Figure A.22: Hanging the Net

39

Step 13. Submerge the Net Begin at the first pole and finish pulling the net down until it is

approximately 1 ft under water. Repeat this step on the remaining three

poles so that the entire net is submerged underwater.

Figure A.23: Submerging the Net

40

Step 14. Trigger the Trap Once the net is in place and the ducks are

within the netted area, the trap can be

triggered. To trigger the trap PRESS and

HOLD down the button until the net has

been completely lifted out of the water. It

is very important that you hold the button

down the entire time the net is moving.

Failure to do so could result in damaging

parts of the triggering mechanism as well

as stopping the net before it reaches the

max height. This creates the potential for

the ducks to escape from the trap.

Figure A.24: Pressing the Button

Figure A.25: Net Springing Upward

41

Please use responsibly.

42

Appendix B: Design Alternatives

When beginning the design process, we each though of different ways to fix the

problem SICon was experiencing. From these ideas we put together different alternative

ways to design the trap. The first alternative includes four poles anchored in the sand

around the dock as seen in Figure B.1.

Figure B.1: Alternative One – Dock and Trap Layout

The net is attached to the poles and is submerged below the water. The net is not

attached between the poles that are next to the dock. Lead weights are attached to the

bottom of the net in order to keep it at the bottom of the lake. When the ducks are

positioned within the trap, a remote control device triggers the net to rise vertically and

traps the ducks in a confined area. The net slides up and down along each pole. The

mechanism that slides the net up and down the pole consists of wheels that roll vertically

inside the pole. A diagram of this device can be seen in Figure B.2.

43

Figure B.2: Alternative One – Wheel Device Top View

Design alternative two is similar to alternative one, with four poles placed around

the dock. However, the poles are in a wider area, as seen in Figure B.3.

Figure B.3: Alternative Two – Dock and Trap Layout

The basic function of alternative two is the same as alternative one, except that it is more

flexible than alternative one. Instead of being position around the dock, alternative two

can be used in multiple locations. The net will be present on all four sides, instead of just

44

three sides. This flexibility in location is beneficial for SICon because the ducks learn the

locations of the traps.

Alternative three consists of a box resting at the bottom of the lake. It contains

four retractable arms or linkages that are attached to a net. The net is outside of the box

initially, submerged below the water. When the trap is triggered, the arms shoot out of

the box at an angle via the corners. When the arms are in the final position, the confined

area will be created with the nets.

Alternative four is a box that is floated and position in the water. The weight

required for the box to sink is achieved when the box fills with water. When the box is in

position at the bottom of the lake, four retractable poles, as seen in Figure B.4, extend

into position. The net is attached to each pole. When the ducks are positioned inside the

nets, a remote control device triggers the net to rise and trap the ducks. The arms will

have the ability to move in and out and up and down, in order to make adjustments to the

area or environment in which the ducks are trapped.

Figure B.4: Alternative Four – Retractable Poles with Net

Design alternative five consists of four retractable poles positioned in a square

near the dock in an arrangement similar to figure three. The poles are anchored to the

bottom of the lake. A square net is attached to each pole and is positioned on the bottom

of the lake with a few lead weights in the center of the net. Prior to the trap being

triggered, the net is submerged under the water of the lake. When the ducks are within

the trap area, the poles are triggered and move upward, similar to Figure B.4.

The sixth design alternative consists of a box that rests on the dock and holds a

spring-loaded net. At the push of the button, the net springs out similar to a ‘jack-in-the-

45

box’, encompassing the dock. The net will sink to the bottom in order to prevent the

ducks from escaping.

After deciding to begin our design with design alternative two, different

alternatives for what type of mechanism or device would actually raise the nets up out of

the water. One alternative to aid in triggering the trap that was analyzed is using

compressed air cylinders. When the trap is triggered, the air cylinders release enough

pressure to push the poles up. However, when reviewing this alternative more closely,

we felt it would introduce possibilities for failure. For example, if water leaked into the

air pump apparatus, the operators would have to let the air pump apparatus dry

completely before being able to reuse the trap.

Another alternative to aid in triggering the tap includes wireless solenoids. When

used in conjunction with a mechanical device, they would produce enough force to aid in

pulling the nets out of the water.

Our preliminary design is a combination of many of the design alternatives. As

shown in Figure B.5, it consists of four poles secured into the bottom of the lake with

augers.

Figure B.5: Initial Setup of Preliminary Design

Each pole has its own mechanical device consisting of two pulleys and a spring to

raise the net vertically out of the water. The bottom of the net is attached to a lead-lined

46

cable which is used to sink the net to the bottom of the lake. Each pole has a cable

connected to the corners of the nets. This cable is connected to a three inch diameter

pulley located in the top of the pole. The three inch pulley is fixed to a one inch pulley.

A second cable is fixed to this pulley and to a tension spring inside the pole. When the

net is underwater, the spring is fully extended and the cable is wound around the one inch

pulley. A wireless transmitter will be used to trigger a solenoid, which is used to release

the spring and allow it to compress. Compressing the spring will wind up the cable

attached to the net and pull the net up out of the water. The force to pull the net up out of

the water is approximately 50 pounds-force. By using a spring that stretches an

additional 24 inches from its original length, the pulleys will revolve nine times and the

net will travel up seven feet. Once the net has traveled seven feet it will lock into place to

prevent it from sagging in the middle as the spring relaxes or from being pulled down by

the ducks. This mechanism is shown in Figure B.6.

Figure B.6: Preliminary Design Mechanism

47

The trigger and locking mechanisms will be controlled by a tooth gear and locking pin on

the larger pulley. The locking pin will only permit the pulley to rotate in the direction of

lowering the net into the water when it is in place. This allows the user to easily set the

trap by pulling the net down without worrying about it springing up in the process.

Figure seven shows the trap after being triggered.

Figure B.7: Final Setup of Preliminary Design

To trigger the trap, a wireless transmitter will send a signal to a four-channel

receiver, which will in turn send a signal to four solenoids on each of the poles. The

solenoids will extend out, pushing down on a lever arm which will pull the locking pin

out of the gear and allow the larger pulley to spin freely. The lever arm is used to convert

the small force from the solenoid into a large enough force to overcome the friction on

the locking pin. Figure B.8 shows the electrical block diagram.

48

Figure B.8 Electrical Block Diagram

The trigger serves as a signal transmitter. It sends out a digital signal to the receiver

which has a multi-channel output. The receiver sends out a wireless signal to each

solenoid simultaneously and triggers the solenoid.

49

Appendix C: Design Development

This was a first attempt at visualizing

the pulley system that we had proposed using

to pull up our nets. It was simply a one inch

and three and a half inch diameter shaft

attached together with plates in-between to

keep the cable around the shaft.

Figure C.1: Original Pulley Design

This picture shows our first design

idea for creating a lock-and-release

mechanism for triggering the trap. It

involved the use of a solenoid to push a lever

arm which would swivel around the

mounting bracket pulling the locking pin out

of the gear.

Figure B.2: Ratchet system: The First Locking Mechanism

50

This was a new design we

came up with that was much

stronger and more robust. It also

used a long lever arm attached to

the solenoid. This was because at

the time we were unable to find a

solenoid with a strong enough

stroke force to remove our locking

pin from the gear. We used a lever

arm to convert the small, downward

force of the solenoid to a large,

upward force on the locking pin.

With this design, the locking pin

was pinned into two slotted holes

which allowed vertical movement

over the gear teeth. A closer image

of the design is shown below.

Figure C.3: Two-Part Lever Arm Locking Pin Design

51

In this picture the housing is

clear to show how the locking pin

mechanism works. Two pins are

attached to the back of a thin, flat bar.

The pins are inserted through two

slotted holes which allow for vertical

movement. The pins are then clipped

into place. The picture below shows

how the spring mechanism is

designed

Figure C.4: Front View of Locking Pin Mechanism

This picture demonstrates how

the locking pin is spring loaded to stay in

place over the gear teeth. On the inside

of the housing is a small block with an

extension spring attached to it. The

other end of the spring is then attached

to one of the pins on the locking pin. As

the locking pin is forced upward over the

gear, the spring extends and pulls it back

into place as the tooth drops off.

Figure C.5: Rear View of the Locking Pin Mechanism

52

Figure C.6: New Z-shaped Swiveling Lever Arm and Triggering Mechanism

We designed a new lever arm and locking pin that was combined into one lever.

This lever worked by rotating around a center pin. The lever was then moved out of

place when the solenoid was tripped forcing the lever to swivel around the pin and out of

way of the gear teeth. This design had fewer parts and was more robust than previous

designs.

53

Figure C.7: The Final Design: Internal Triggering Mechanism

We decided to locate our triggering mechanism and electronic parts on the inside

of the housing instead of the outside. We used a hinging door panel that we mounted our

device onto. This provided a smaller, easier to handle design. It also provided protection

of our parts because they were no longer exposed outside where they can be easily

damaged.

54

Appendix D: Finite Element Analysis To ensure that our material was strong enough, we used Finite Element program

called Algor to perform a Finite Element Analysis. Each area of the design was

investigated by team members. Ann analyzed the stress on the locking pin. Ashley

analyzed the stress on the gear teeth. Chad analyzed the stress on the poles due to the

force of the nets pulling up out the water and also from the duck hitting the net. The

force on the side walls of the aluminum housing were also modeled and analyzed.

Aluminum was used as the material in all models. The following figures are the results:

Figure D.1: Stress Calculations for the Locking Pin

55

Figure D.2: Deflection Calculations for the Locking Pin

Figure D.3: Stress Calculations for the Gear Tooth

56

Figure D.4: Displacement Calculations for the Gear Tooth

Figure D.5: Stress Calculations for the Trap Pole

57

Figure D.6: Deflection Calculations for the Trap Pole

Figure D.7: Stress Calculations for the Housing

58

Figure D.8: Deflection Calculation for the Housing