Results
The Weight Test revealed that the complete scale model weighed 10.6 pounds, meeting the prorated weight requirement of 200 pounds. The scale model was much lighter than the requirement because it did not utilize a hydraulic and portions of the device would not scale linearly from full-scale to ¼-size in terms of weight, such as the boom tubes (with smaller thicknesses) and wear pads (with slightly different material).
​
The Extension Test revealed that the overall extension length was 51.5 inches, passing the prorated design requirement of 48 inches or more. The booms could only partially extend, however, thus failing the functionality test. This is likely due to size requirements forcing the replacement of the original chain and sprocket design with a wire rope system.
​
The Retraction Test revealed that the retraction length of the device was 25.5 inches, thus failing the 21-inch maximum requirement. This failure was due to the scale model using a 24-inch steel tube for the largest boom for construction viability. On the full-sized model, measures would be taken to ensure the device remained in the 7-foot design window.
​
The Foot Rotation Test revealed that the lowest angle of rotation for either foot in either direction was 12 degrees, and all other angles were between 12 and 18 degrees. The 12-degree value met the minimum 8.53-degree requirement of the device to keep the trailer level and operate on a 15% grade.
​
The Structural Support Test revealed that the device could support loads of up to 150 pounds, but the device failed at 170 pounds. In doing so, the device did not meet the design requirements of being able to counter the wind tower weight and thrust moment, because it could not support up to 625 pounds. The cause of the device failure was the 3D-printed wear pads, which gave out once 170 pounds was loaded. The steel tubes of the device appeared to be able to withstand much more than 170 pounds, but because the device failed at 170 pounds this was not able to be measured. On the full-sized system, the wear pads would not be 3D-printed and glued on, so they would be much stronger and better able to transfer the forces to the booms themselves.
​
Overall, the main function of the constructed device, to prove the design of the full-sized system, was met. The greatest source of limitation during the manufacturing and testing phases was the device being scaled to 1/4 size. To evaluate the full-scale design further, it is recommended that a larger model be constructed. With a larger model, certain modifications, such as the switch from a chain and sprocket extension/retraction design to a wire rope and pulley system, could be avoided. As such, the design requirements that failed due to the model being scaled down could be tested in greater detail.