Meeting minutes with Dr. Lipsett

[Arjun Sodhi]

Meeting with Dr. Lipsett,

Phase 1 Discussion

- Lack of clarity in description (fluid)

- Tech specs should be a number or something (quantifiable) Ex transparency of fluid or spectrum of index (transparent to red light), certain amount of absorption related to that.

- Agreement being made with client. Properties of fluids (is it not explosive, toxic, something you could filter and reuse). Tech matrix should be very clearly structured so there is no misunderstanding.

Phase 2

- Check phase 2 marking guide

- Lecture slides about phase 2

Can we modify the matrix? YES...and you should modify for Phase 2 and in consultation with client.

Three SYSTEM concepts NOT COMPONENT VISE

1 of them should be best combination with everything working together very well (All of the musts of the client plus anything that you consider is important, that you care about it to be efficient into design)

1 aspect which looks really good, but not working well in ALL aspects? got some challenges

1 should be EASY TO REJECT

Great material (liquid) but could be toxic or frothing?

Shows some range of concepts you've looked at

Show some calculations, wall thickness, power calculations

DONT HAVE TO BE 3 DIFFERENT IMPELLER TYPES

Assess each design on those criteria above that you choose and client needs and put into the matrix to get highest score which shows best design!

Ex: Maybe price is less important than Efficiency/Performance

Pyrex glass NO PROBLEM with optical clarity

Any issue on how accurate the inside geometry needs to be? refraction indices. Not easy to machine glass (It is possible), won't be cheap

Economic factors like its pretty cheap as long as you don't have to fancy machine it.

Tank Geometry for inside tank?

Really easy to get cylinders.

ALL OF OUR CHOICES WOULD WORK AND BE FINE if we are going with the outer frame octagonal and inside cylinder tank

Different types of impellers will help make different vortexes. Client is looking into that for his research.

Looking for making maybe detachable baffles for unwanted vortexes that may come in the mixing

Dr. Lipsett says this is one of the ways you can exceed your Client's expectation

How to ensure what particles are wanted or unwanted?

Are you going to centrifuge them? Or filter them? Or leave them as they are. Look at PIV. Typically less than 1% of unwanted particles like dust etc.

May want to get an opaque particle to capture the flow

Particles WILL hit the wall, but they are very small so less momentum when in contact. Could make the particles softer than the wall so they don't affect/wear the wall.

Can send the PDF for how to account for less damage of the wall. There is a formula

- Another question arises because Impeller material is same as wall, so how to see Impeller's wear?

Create artificial damage. Still out of the material that is optically clear. Synthetic damage by the shape of the impeller?

DONT USE HARD PARTICLES, if you don't want wear on wall or momentum from those particles that also affects those hard particles as they hit

Can end up with air in the fluid if filtering. Can increase the temperature to resolve this issue. Best way to take care of it is to not have that air at all which happens if filter is completely submerged.

What should be a good Safety factor thing for Drive System?

Motor that is driving the impeller. Client hasn't specified speed

If picked a quarter horse power motor, there are calcs that can be done for power consumption. 25% more for Safety factor is good

Other factors such as impact resistance

Impact mechanics tests-easily able to set up a test to ensure a particular thickness of structural material is not prone to hard particles as they hit (This is Phase 3).

All of the energy from the stirring and mixing eventually turns into heat

Want to have enough calcs to show that you've got a reasonable solution for the scale of problem of interest.

Lets say you have a 0.001 hp pump, which will turn the impeller but only to 2RPM. Gives a reality check, not hard to do. Is it technically feasible, can turn the shaft all that level of cals required for phase 2, might want to quote that you've got your outer material, you're making it this much thick, can sustain certain amount of impact resistance as it is hit by particles.

Everything should go back to your Design matrix. Feasible by looking at range selected.

Show enough calcs, preliminary, that show that you can put a shaft on this thing and turn it. No fatigue calcs, or any in depth ones, or tolerancing in solid model drawings (All this is phase 3).

Mention about the figures in the report. The figure should not be disconnected from the report. If there is a figure, talk about the things in the figure so then the reader has an idea about the figure even if he choses not to look at it at the moment.

Not mandatory to do experiments. NOT a requirement at all.