1. The Flying Uber Monkeys1 John Giesler Kristen Shimizu Engr 5 University of the Pacific December 3, 2002

2. The Flying Uber Monkeys2 Presentation Outline Problem Definition Approach (Design Process) Results/Discussion Suggested Improvements Conclusion Acknowledgements

3. The Flying Uber Monkeys3 Problem Definition Introduction/Background –Problem Identification Criteria/Constraints Project Objectives

4. The Flying Uber Monkeys4 Introduction Problem Identification –To design and build a mobile parabolic food aid delivery system (PFADS) that is able to launch a standard Food aid package (FAP) down an inclined ramp without falling off or over the ramp.

5. The Flying Uber Monkeys5 Criteria To design and construct a mechanism that would roll down the inclined ramp and launch the FAP successfully Be able to set up the device within a maximum of 60 seconds

6. The Flying Uber Monkeys6 Constraints Cannot exceed 18 in. x 18 in. x 18 in. No Prefabricated materials No Electric powered materials –eg. No motors No part of the mechanism can go into the “Piranha infested water”. Maximum cost of $20

7. The Flying Uber Monkeys7 Project Objectives To travel down the inclined ramp and clear a 6’2” wall Deliver the 4-3/8 in. x 4-3/8 in. x 5-1/2 in. package accurately Build an effective mechanism

8. The Flying Uber Monkeys8 Project Objectives Fig 1. Launch Ramp and Target Area

9. The Flying Uber Monkeys9 Project Objectives Fig. 2 Launch Ramp and Target Area

10. The Flying Uber Monkeys10 Approach (Design Process) Preliminary Ideas Refinement Decision/Implementation Construction & Testing Final Mechanism

11. The Flying Uber Monkeys11 Preliminary Ideas Pros –Cheap –Simple –Has a FAP holder Cons –No effective mechanism –Wheels are big

12. The Flying Uber Monkeys12 Preliminary Ideas Pros –Cheap –Simple –Has a FAP holder Cons –No effective mechanism –Might not roll down

13. The Flying Uber Monkeys13 Refinement Applied Criteria –Must be “cheap”, light and feasible –Must have an effective launch mechanism –Must use materials that are easy to work with –Must abide by all criteria and constraints

14. The Flying Uber Monkeys14 Decision/Implementation Why we Chose it –Feasible –Effective launch mechanism –Stable and Sturdy –Easy to work with materials

15. The Flying Uber Monkeys15 Construction & Testing Process and Results

16. The Flying Uber Monkeys16 Construction & Testing Modifications based on testing –Used pipes to propel the launch mechanism down the ramp instead of hot wheel cars

17. The Flying Uber Monkeys17 Final Mechanism

18. The Flying Uber Monkeys18 Results/Discussion Performance in Competition –Finished 27 out of 36 teams –Final FOM of 3.62

19. The Flying Uber Monkeys19 Results/Discussion Disadvantages –Release mechanism did not work each time –Mechanism did not go down the ramp smoothly –Mechanism did not launch Advantages –Stable –Strong

20. The Flying Uber Monkeys20 Suggested Improvements Enable the mechanism to travel down the ramp smoothly Add a section that holds the FAP

21. The Flying Uber Monkeys21 Conclusion Final design met the project criteria and constraints and was not disqualified prior to competition Placed 27 out of 36 competitors Overall –Accomplished objectives of construction but did not successfully compete

22. The Flying Uber Monkeys22 Acknowledgements ENGR 5 Faculty –Dr. Schulz & Dr. Saviz ENGR 5 webpage –http://www1.uop.edu/eng/courses/engr/engr5/http://www1.uop.edu/eng/courses/engr/engr5/ John’s Roommate Chris Stenger