Applied Precision Design, LLC Concept Design Review BioMedical Orbital Mixer

1. 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

2. Typical Design Cycle: Biomedical Orbital Mixer VIDEO

3. 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)

4. 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 = 50mm g= 9.8 m/sec^2 ∆Θ = turns x 2Π I = 50e-6 Kg/m^2 ∆h = 30mm Spring E = varies with time Kinetic E = 0.88 J Potential E = 0.005 J

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. CONCEPT 1CONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER

10. CONCEPT 1CONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER PINS IN SLOTS GUIDED IN SLOTS OF POLYMER BEARING

11. CONCEPT 2SEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLYTOP VIEW 15.75” 9”

12. ECCENTRIC DRIVE Orbital Mixer Design ECCENTRIC SHAFT UPPER BEARINGS LOWER BEARINGS TIMING BELT COG

13. 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

14. CONCEPTCONCENTRIC MIXER/SPINNER

15. DETAL DESIGN

16. CONCEPT SEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLY

17. Typical Design Cycle: Biomedical Orbital Mixer VIDEO

18. BACK UP SLIDES

19. CONCEPTSEPARATE MIXER/SPINNER ASSEMBLYFRONT VIEW 7.75”

20. Centrifuge Design • Calculated Cartridge G’s

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

22. 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

23. CONCEPT 2 - SPRING ROTATION PREVENTER 4X SPRING POST SPRING NOT SHOWN

24. 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

25. MECHANICAL GOVERNOR WITH SPEED INDICATOR GOVERNOR

26. MECHANICAL GOVERNOR WITH SPEED INDICATOR WITH INDICATOR SIGHT WITHOUT SIGHT CORRECT SPEED OVER SPEED

27. ELECTRONIC GOVERNOR GENERATOR

28. 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

29. 3 MINUTE ROTATION STOP PUSH ROD TO RELEASE SPRING LOADED CATCH LEVER GEAR REDUCTION STACK INPUT SPROKET