Team Charter — Heat Exchanger
Mission
Be the team that turns numbers into understanding. The vendor fires the engine; you receive the telemetry CSV + video and reconcile it against the Computational Engineering prediction. Your final lab report is the reconciliation report — the document that explains why measured ≠ predicted.
At school, you also instrument the atmospheric LPG demo on the TA-01 brass rig and TA-02-plastic form study, since that is the only piece of heat-flow data the school side generates.
Roles
| Role | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Lead | Schedules team work, attends cross-team standup |
| Deputy Lead | Steps up if Lead absent; owns ICD interface checks |
| Safety Officer | Owns thermal-hazard signage during LPG demo; verifies cool-down before contact |
| Instrumentation Lead | Sets up load cell, thermocouple amp, Arduino logger for school LPG demo |
| Recorder | Owns time-series CSV files; backs up after every run |
| Reconciler | Performs prediction-vs-measurement comparison and writes the residual analysis |
Deliverables
| ID | Deliverable | Due | Consumer |
|---|---|---|---|
| HX-D1 | Instrumentation plan for the school-side atmospheric LPG demo: TC and load-cell locations | W1L4 | Manufacturing (drilling/mounting spec) |
| HX-D2 | TC calibration: reading at boiling-water reference 100 °C ± 2 °C | W2L2 | Lab Report 2 |
| HX-D3 | School-side LPG demo dataset: load cell + flame T(t) + duration | W3L11 | Lab Report 2 |
| HX-D4 | Predicted vs measured reconciliation for school LPG demo | W3L12 | Lab Report 2 |
| HX-D5 | TC location specification for vendor chamber (TA-04): 3 locations on chamber wall | W3L12 | Manufacturing (vendor RFQ), Vendor |
| HX-D6 | Predicted thermal profile for vendor burn (consumed from Comp Eng prediction sheet, re-formatted for reconciliation) | W4L14 | Lab Report 4 |
| HX-D7 | Reconciliation report: measured-vs-predicted for the vendor burn, with named mechanism for each residual | After vendor delivers data | Lab Report 4 |
Syllabus dot points owned
NSW Stage 5 Science:
- PW energy transfer (heat conduction through chamber wall; combustion energy → thermal energy → wall temperature rise)
- WS6.1 Conducting investigations (instrumented experiment)
- WS7.1, 7.2, 7.3 Processing and analysing data (this is your primary contribution)
- WS8 Problem solving (when prediction and measurement disagree)
- WS9 Communicating (the reconciliation report is the formal output)
Weekly milestones
| Week | Milestone | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| W1 | Instrumentation plan drafted; school’s available equipment audited (TC, amp, load cell) | HX-D1 + equipment list |
| W2 | TC calibrated; school LPG demo planning complete | HX-D2 |
| W3 | School LPG demo executed and instrumented; first reconciliation written | HX-D3, HX-D4 |
| W4 | TC location spec for vendor finalised; prediction sheet for vendor burn formatted; reconciliation written either against expected or measured data | HX-D5, HX-D6, HX-D7 |
Team-specific risks
- R-04, R-05 present during the school LPG demo; instrumentation team works under the Test Director’s direction
- No risk-of-injury exposure during Phase 3 — students don’t attend the vendor burn
The reconciliation discipline
For every test (school LPG demo, vendor burn), you produce a row:
| Quantity | Predicted | Measured | Residual | Named mechanism for residual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak thrust | 0.15 N | 0.12 N | -0.03 N | Plastic nozzle expansion under load (we did not model nozzle flex) |
| Peak chamber-wall T (vendor) | 510 °C | 470 °C | -40 °C | TC mounted 2 mm from gas-side surface, not at surface (lag) |
| Burn duration | 5.0 s | 4.8 s | -0.2 s | Operator closed gas valve 0.2 s early — vendor log timestamps support |
A good reconciliation row explains the residual with a named, plausible mechanism. A great row suggests how the next test would discriminate between competing mechanisms.
A row that says “experimental error” is unacceptable. That phrase is how Year 10 students who don’t understand the experiment write their reports. We don’t.
What you don’t do
- You don’t run the school LPG ignition (Test Director’s job)
- You don’t run the vendor burn (vendor’s job)
- You don’t fabricate any test article (Manufacturing team)
- You don’t write the prediction model (Comp Eng team)
You instrument, you record, you reconcile.
Cross-team interfaces
- From Manufacturing: TA-01 brass rig + TA-02-plastic form study with TC ports per HX-D1; delivered TA-04 dimensions for vendor telemetry interpretation
- From Comp Eng: prediction sheets for both the school LPG demo and the vendor burn
- From Rocket Chemistry: burn-duration estimate + propellant choice
- From Vendor: telemetry CSV + MP4 video + burn-duration log (received via teacher)
- To everyone: the evidence that the engine ran the way it did, or didn’t, and why
Instrumentation budget for school-side
| Item | Source | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| K-type TC, mineral-insulated, ×2 (flame T + ambient reference) | School stock or RS Components | ~$20 |
| MAX31855 amp board ×2 | School stock | ~$15 each if buy |
| Arduino Uno + USB cable | School stock | $0 |
| HX711 load-cell amp + 1 kg cell | School stock or eBay | ~$25 |
| Mounting hardware | Lab | $0 |
If TCs and amp boards aren’t on hand, this is a ~$60 buy. Confirm in W1.
Vendor TCs (Phase 3) are the vendor’s responsibility — you specify location (HX-D5), they supply the sensor, they DAQ the signal, they deliver the CSV.