Safety is the objective, but I don't see how this addresses falling off the trampoline. You still need a net around it, and this design doesn't have a frame to mount one to. Yes you can use one without a net, but the manufactured better have one available; if only for liability reasons. I can only imagine a separate framework for a net and wonder how it would be padded, and designed to prevent gaps between it and the new trampoline design. I understand the safety improvement of no exposed springs, but don't see how it addresses the other major safety concerns stated in the article. It could be less safe, overall.
One thing about the design that puzzles me...if you are using a ball and socket then it is going to have a point where it has a "stop" to it - whereas a spring just continues to stretch and give more and more. This becomes especially evident with heavier weight. I wonder how this design would compare with springs in that regard?
Yes cost does play a very key role in the overall delivery of the project, but it does not seem like a very expensive product(considering the parts used). Majority of the cost would have been in the researching part, but now that they have come out with a final design, I think producing it on large scale should not be very expensive.
Cabe, this is a great design. I don't about the cost, but it fits the bill.
One thing I did notice was that the picture did not really give me a good idea of how it was put together until I read the article. It is interesting how you need both together since this is such a departure.
I agree with tekochip - it does look like a slick design, but I would think cost would be a huge factor for marketability. It seems that the cost to manufacture this type of trampoline would be exponential...
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.