the flying uber monkeys1 john giesler kristen shimizu engr 5 university of the pacific december 3,...

The Flying Uber Monkeys 1

The Flying UberMonkeys

John GieslerKristen Shimizu

Engr 5University of the Pacific

December 3, 2002


Presentation Outline

• Problem Definition

• Approach (Design Process)

• Results/Discussion

• Suggested Improvements

• Conclusion

• Acknowledgements


Problem Definition

• Introduction/Background– Problem Identification

• Criteria/Constraints

• Project Objectives


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.


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


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


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


Project Objectives

Fig 1. Launch Ramp and Target Area


Project Objectives

Fig. 2 Launch Ramp and Target Area


Approach (Design Process)

• Preliminary Ideas

• Refinement

• Decision/Implementation

• Construction & Testing

• Final Mechanism


Preliminary Ideas

• Pros– Cheap

– Simple

– Has a FAP holder

• Cons– No effective

mechanism

– Wheels are big


Preliminary Ideas

• Pros– Cheap

– Simple

– Has a FAP holder

• Cons– No effective

mechanism

– Might not roll down


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


Decision/Implementation

• Why we Chose it– Feasible– Effective launch

mechanism– Stable and

Sturdy– Easy to work

with materials


Construction & Testing

• Process and Results


Construction & Testing

• Modifications based on testing– Used pipes to propel the launch mechanism down the

ramp instead of hot wheel cars


Final Mechanism


Results/Discussion

• Performance in Competition– Finished 27 out of 36

teams

– Final FOM of 3.62


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


Suggested Improvements

• Enable the mechanism to travel down the ramp smoothly

• Add a section that holds the FAP


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


Acknowledgements

• ENGR 5 Faculty– Dr. Schulz & Dr. Saviz

• ENGR 5 webpage– http://www1.uop.edu/eng/courses/engr/engr5/

• John’s Roommate

• Chris Stenger

the flying uber monkeys1 john giesler kristen shimizu engr 5 university of the pacific december 3,...

Documents