LFTB Proprietary Information 1 Fuser test bed ™ R I T MSD1 Project Review February 22, 2007 Fuser Test Bed P07501 IE TEAM Justin McMillan – Project Lead.

LFTB Proprietary Information 1 Fuser test bed™

R•I•T

MSD1 Project ReviewFebruary 22, 2007

Fuser Test Bed P07501

IE TEAMJustin McMillan – Project LeadChris Fink

ME TeamDamon Peters - Team LeadRobert Northrup

EE TEAMKevin Duffus- Team LeadJoe McGrathRuben Caballero


R•I•T

Project Description

A fuser test bed in which Dwell Time on Toner, Heat Transfer to Toner, and Pressure on Toner can be varied and monitored.

This system must be controlled by an easy to use, software and user interface package. Mathematical modeling of the test bed must be completed. The test bed must be adaptable to many different types of toner and material, as well as parameter of interest changes.

Sensing and controlling of the parameters of interest must be accurate.

Energy consumption must be monitored.

Must be able to produce desired pressure profiles on toner.


R•I•T

Selected Concept

Self leveling bushings

Self leveling bushings

Interchangeable Plunger

Strip heaters

Removable Sample Plate

Dual wall for insulation


R•I•T

Selected Concept

• Temperature Application – Heat will be provided to the system with strip heater along the

base of the test bed. This will provide equilibrium temperature to the system.

– There is also the added capability of heating the plunger through the use of cartridge heaters.

• Pressure Application – A motor driven cam is used to reproduce desired pressure

curves, through a roller/plunger mechanism.– An vertical adjustment is available by means of a lead screw

which will be ale to adjust the cam shaft up and down.

• Structure Control – A piezoelectric load cell placed directly beneath the axis of

pressure application will measure the actual force applied to the toner. From this force the pressure will calculated.

– Thermocouple wire will be strategically placed inside the “oven” area of the test bed to determine temperature.


R•I•T

High Risk Assessment

• Motor vs. Manual (Vertical positioning system)

Issue: Complexity and cost of motor vs. a manually controlled device.

Deciding Factor: Necessity for accuracy and repeatability of testing led to the motor driven drive screw system.

• CAM vs. Actuator (Pressure application system)

Issue: Complexity of a cam and follower set up vs. possible ease of programming a pneumatic actuator to produce the pressure profiles desired.

Deciding Factor: Programmable actuator that can produce the pressure curves necessary in the allotted time not found.


R•I•T

High Risk Assessment

• Heating toner prior to pressure application

Issue: Will not directly mimic current fuser heating conditions.

Deciding Factor: Unable to accurately detect temperature instantaneously in a pile of 6µ micron toner particles.

• Controls system

Issue: Which DAQ board to use according to budget considerations.

Deciding Factor: Necessity of Analog I/O’s and relative importance to the entire system.


R•I•T

Prototype Description

• Heating system– Strip and Cartridge heaters– Closed loop feedback system

• Pressure system– Cam actuated– Dwell time controlled through cam shape– Magnitude adjustable

• Data Acquisition System– DAQ board– Analog I/O– Digital I/O– Signal conditioning– LabView ®


R•I•T

Summary of Design Review

• Disagreement on pressure system– Suggested manual instead of motor controlled vertical

positioning system, citing complexity and cost.

• Misunderstanding of heating system– Cornerstone concept of heating the system to a precisely

measured equilibrium temperature was called into question.

• Over all positive review– An analysis and reason for decision will be provided to HP

regarding manual vs. motor controlled vertical positioning system.


R•I•T

Current Phase of Product development

Phase 0: Planning

Phase 1: Concept Development

Phase 2: System Level Design

Phase 3: Finalize System Design

Phase 4: Assembly, Testing & Refinement

MSD I MSD II

0 1 2 3 4

Current Phase of Development


R•I•T

• Design Meets all customer needs most notably– Heat and sense heat in toner– Apply and sense desired pressure profiles on toner– Control and monitor dwell time– Independently control temperature, pressure and dwell

time on toner• Design Meets all engineering specifications except

– May possibly need to used 240VAC plug for one of the motors

• Budget– Original budget was $5,000.– Current BOM expenditures are approximately $8,000.– Issue was addressed with faculty guide and HP with a

resulting new budget limit of $10,000.

State of design


R•I•T

Schedule of MSD II milestones

•Mar 15: Quick review with HP regarding questions posed in the design review

•Mar 17: finalize all remaining parts necessary to order

•Apr 20: Functional prototype

•May 1: Design verification testing complete, make necessary adjustments

•May 4: Design Review, testing results

•May 11: Documentation Finalized

•May 18: Project Review – Project completion


R•I•T

Fuser Test Bed

QUESTIONS ?

LFTB Proprietary Information 1 Fuser test bed ™ R I T MSD1 Project Review February 22, 2007 Fuser Test Bed P07501 IE TEAM Justin McMillan – Project Lead.

Documents