1.0 Challenge Analysis
As an engineering academy, we are taught that one of the most important steps to building a
robot is to understand the purpose and restrictions of the design. Only after we establish the
customer’s needs can we create a robot that will perform the ta
sks at hand. Therefore before
we began brainstorming ideas for the robot
, we analyzed the
(see Appendix 1.1 Table 1.1)
, identified the various scoring options
1.2 Table 1.2)
, and established our prel
iminary offensive and defensive strategies
1.3 Table 1.3)
Total Recall challenges our team to accomplish a variety of tasks
(see Appendix 1.0 Table
. First, the robot must be able to transport the mobile recall trailer to the MRT d
will then activate the Gadget Transport tube. Once the process flow is open, the spotter can
place the gadgets into the scanning tube. Gadgets must be collected and transported to the
Shipping Center, from there the defective gadgets are return
ed to the recall center and the
good gadgets are sorted by color into the packaging tubes. In addition to collecting,
transporting, and packaging gadgets, the robot must be capable of retrieving gizmos from the
pallet and place them in the packaging cones
before sealing them for shipping. Any defective
gadgets or gizmos that enter the manufacturing center must be recalled.
Playing Field Analysis
The field is composed of 4 separate
sections. There are no obstacles
robot to over
the playing field
is an entirely flat surface. This calls for the design of the
obot to be compact and agile
ere are two processing areas on opposite sides of the field,
the right being gizmos (golf balls) and the left being gadgets (magnet an
The recall area and data port interface are near the driver’s area and the start location of the
robot. The robot must also be able to place a
agility cone in its processing area which is 18in.
off the ground, and also be able to move
the mobile recall tray across the field.
The design of the playing field is focused more on precision and vertical movement than
power and agility, with its small work space and the height difference for the processing of
product. The spotter may only
interact with the gizmos and are confined to a work area in the
center of the field.
Scoring Option Analysis
With the many ways to score points, we originally wanted to go for the gizmos and package
We saw that the gizmos gave the most points
Unsealed gizmos were 10
points each and sealed ones were 20 points.
To add on to that, if we could package them, we’d
get an extra 50 more points.
The original design of our robot only allowed us to collect and transport
However we learned trying to release the magnetic eggs into the gadget package was
We soon discovered that the robot could collect and package the gadgets
much easier and more efficiently. Even though the gadgets only gave 2 points e
ach for being
collected and 3 points each for being packaged, the robot could collect the gadgets way faster
than the gizmos.
The scorecard shows our potential points for our robot when testing.
we tried for the gizmos we got around 2100 points.
t bad right?
Well when we did a trial
run just going for the gadgets, we got a nice total of 3000.
While gizmos earned more points
per item, they were mo
to collect, transport, and release and in the long run earned
us fewer points
than the m
uch easier task of collecting and packaging gadgets.
Preliminary Offensive / Defensive Strategy
Since there is no interaction with other team’s robots, we don’t have any defensive
Our offensive strategies are quite simple.
we’ll try to read the data port as
quickly as possible.
Second, we will collect and package gadgets as fast as we can.
will try to make sure that we will have little to zero defects to maximize our score
.0 Functional Requirements
ndix 2 Table 2.0)
Next we focused on the functional requirements of what the robot must accomplish during
ree minute window of operations, taking into consideration both
the order in which they
should be accomplished in order to achieve the hig
hest degree of six
and the constraints
placed on us by the customer. We identified four functions our robot needed: movement
around the playing field, grasping or picking up the game pieces, transporting the game pieces
, and d
epositing the game pieces in the appropriate scoring area.
The primary requirement for the robot is movement.
It has to be able to maneuver around
the playing field in order to complete any of its other tasks.
To increase the mobility
we decided to use a
with a larger diameter
so that it travels a greater distance per
see calculations in Appendix 3.0 Table 3.2.3
Since the playing field is free of
obstacles our front wheels could be designed to have a tight turning radius and ability to
maneuver easily throughout the playing field.
Another functional requirement of the robot is that it needs to
have a grasping mechanism
for grasping the cones.
Since our scoring strategy does not involve going for the Gizmos or the
lids for the cones, the grasping mechanism can be designed specifically for the cones
Appendix 3.4.2b Figure 3)
The grasping m
needs to be able to reach high
enough to place the cone in the Gizmo Pack and Ship center as well as be able to flip the cone
over to put it in right
The actual grasping mechanism itself must fit the cone, which
ts in the cone mean that we can either use them to lift the cone, or we must be
aware of them so as to not get the cone stuck on the grasping mechanism because of the slits
Another functional requirement of the robot is a transportati
on mechanism for the Gadgets.
It must be able to catch them as they fall out of the Gadget Scanning Tube, hold them securely
while it moves them to the sorting area, and then deposit them into the sorting area.
the robot to transport the Gadgets
, we solve the problem of having to use the Mobile Recall
Trailer, which we would have trouble dumping into the sorting area.
The last requirement is a way to deposit the gadgets into the manual sorting area and collect
any waste produc
There is a sweeper to direct any waste that falls onto factory floor back
product recall center, and a trigger mechanism (
, trap door, etc.) to release
the gadgets from a storage compartment into manual sorting area
(see Appendix 4.
By using these mechanisms we provide clearance over the wall of the manual sorting
3.0 Conceptualization of
(see Appendix 3 Table 3)
The next step in the engineering desi
gn process is conceptualization:
g, and sketching. We broke
down into its
major components: chassis,
wheels, arm, and grasping mechanisms, discussing possible design for each component
. To further focus our brainstorming, we ide
ntified the requirements of the
To identify the requirements we asked ourselves: What are
functions or objectives each component much achieve were
, what materials are
what constraints or limits must be taken into consideration? By understanding what we want
the robot to be able to accomplish, we were able to design the different elements to achieve
First we sketched
models using Lego’s and K
models let us visually understand how each component of the robot would be able to move. In
addition, the models further helped us understand the steps necessary for constructing the
robot. Taking the time
to create three
dimensional models was important, simply because
anything is possible in a two
dimensional drawing. You can design a robot on paper in only five
minutes but executing the actual design may take over five weeks, and time is something we
nnot replace. We could not afford to realize major design flaws a week before competition.
Since we also have limited supplie
s, it is necessary that we do
waste materials on a bad
design. These functions and constraints were then used to analyze eac
h design option before
making a final decision.
The function of the chassis is to support the weight of the robot, provide straight edges
necessary for the wheels, be sturdy yet lightweight, and provide enough room to at
various robot components. After analyzing the playing field we knew we needed a tight,
compact robot capable of maneuvering within a limited working space.
Pros / Cons
The number of wheels and their placement will determine, to a large extent, the overall
mobility and stability of our robot. Our back wheels control our speed and turni
front wheels should be smaller, mounted below the chassis, enhan
ce the stability of the
chassis, produce a tight turning radius, and produce very little drag. In order to make the
decision we focused on the playing field and demands our robot would face. The playing field is
open, without any obstacles our robot will
need to maneuver around or over.
Golf Ball Wheels
(See Appendix 3.2.2 Figure 1)
The golf ball wheels are a design we have used in the past. The golf ball wheels are wedged
between the open ends of two PVC pipe elbow and a T join
t. This design produces a very tight
turning radius with very little drag. However, one of the
drawbacks to this design is
tendency for the golf balls to come out
given the game pieces this year are golf balls we
decided any lost wheels could be cons
idered debris and reduce our overall sigma.
Shopping Cart Wheels
(See Appendix 3.2.2 Figure 2)
The shopping cart wheel design provides even distribution of weight, prevents the robot
from tipping over while also allowing a tight turning radius.
However, the shopping cart wheels
are difficult to assemble. The difficulty in assembly is worth the effort if there are obstacles to
go over because the shopping cart wheels are excellent at traversing obstacles, however, there
are no obstacles on the co
urse this year, rendering it pointless to spend extra time making
See Appendix 3.2.2 Figure 3)
Inspired by the skids on a sled, PVC pipe elbows function as
front "wheels" in a sense.
skids keep the otherwise pointed edges of
the robot from dragging on the floor, allowing it to
move more easily and have a tighter turning radius.
There is very little friction and the skids
can be placed to evenly distribute the weight of the robot.
The skids are also very easy to
the robot does not have to g
o over any obstacles, the skids are the best option.
Pros / Cons
and back wheel designs have
pros and cons. The pros of the f
s friction on the carpet and
ot jagged. The con of this
limited movement from left to right. The pro of the back wheel design is
it has a
lot of power behind it. The con of the back wheel design is that friction tape is needed to
prevent the wheels from spinning in plac
Gaining knowledge from previous years’ wheel design, we gathered an understanding for the
type of wheels compatible with different obstacles. So, when we found out that the playing
field would be all carpet, we knew the PVC skid design was ideal for our fr
provide the least amount of friction on the carpet. They weigh the least and make a gliding
effect across the carpet. We could also position the PVC pipe skids at the outer edges of our
chassis which would help distribute the weight e
venly and prevent our robot from tipping over
when transporting large numbers of gadgets.
The decision to use the PVC skids was also
influenced by the design we chose
to collect any debris from the factory floor.
For the rear wheels we debated between a 10” or 14” diameter wheel. In order to make an
informed decision, we calculated the circumference to determine the distance traveled per
Explain the testing procedures.
From our testing we learned t
hat the combination of
the small motor and 14” diameter wheel produced the greatest velocity.
We also evaluated the large and small motor to determine which produced the greatest
velocity and torque. Although the small motors had more revolutions p
er minute and would be
faster, the large motors
produced about three times
Given the challenge of
transporting the weight of the robot along with over a hundred gadgets at once, we
determined our best decision would be to use the larger motor
even if we had to sacrifice
Gadget Collection and Transport
The gadget mechanism should be designed to maximize the number of gadgets (golf balls)
that can be collected and transported at one time. While the mob
ile recall trailer can be used
to collect and transport gadgets to the gadget sorting area, the spotter is not allowed to
remove the gadgets from the trailer. As a result our robot will then have to remove the gadgets
from the trailer one at a time, or fi
gure out how to flip the trailer over without sending gadgets
all over the factory floor. If the trailer is flipped over, will the robot be able to turn it right side
up so the spotter can return any defective gadgets to the recall center.
(See Appendix 3.3.2a Figure 1)
For our initial design of the carrying system, we wanted to keep it very simple. We used a
simple box to hold the golf balls as we collected them.
(See Appendix 3.3.2a Figure 2)
design again is a simple box but with
the hinged door on the side similar to a doggie
(See Appendix 3.3.2a Figure 3)
This led us to our final design, with the hinge
d door is
still on the side but, with the bottom
led so that gravity will help the circular golf balls roll out of the door into
Pros / Cons
While each design served the purpose of collecting and transporting large number of
gadgets, only one allowed for a controlled release
of gadgets into the sorting area. The first
prototype of the flat box with the hinged trap door resulted in the trap door opening
prematurely due to the weight of the golf balls.
Upon testing the doggie door design, we
concluded that while we could cont
rol the opening and closing of the door, the golf balls would
simply sit motionless on the flat bottom of the carrier. Again, if we can’t release the golf balls
into the scoring areas the design is not practical.
The final prototype of the angled dumpster solved the problem of the gadgets remaining
stuck within the box. The sheer weight of the golf balls and the angled bottom directs the golf
balls out of the dumpster and into the sorting area.
Of the three types
of objects available to collect
” agility cones, the Gizmos, and the
, the agility cone is worth
points and is essential to packaging and sealing the
re our team
has decided to focus primarily on getting the cones. Because of this, the
requirements of the Gizmo Grasping Mechanism are as follows: 1) it must grasp the cone
without dropping; 2) since the cone has slits, the mechanism must not get caught in the slit
use the slits to grasp the cone. In order for a design to be considered for use on
the final design, it must meet
at least requirements 1 and 2
Grasping Mechanism #1
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure 1)
sm #1 was designed as a clasp that opens moving side to side.
There is a
motor at the base that allows it to rotate.
There is a small cutout in it that allows for the cone
to fit in it.
This design limits what can be picked up, because of its rigid shap
Grasping Mechanism #2
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure 2)
ism #2 was designed with the int
ent to pick up the agility cones and the eggs. It
would be made of plastic or metal with a rubber
like grip to increase the friction. There is a
groove in t
he top for the eggs to be picked up one by one. It can open and close like a claw,
and has a rotating axis at the base of it. The advantage of this design is that it is efficient in
gripping, but cannot pick up large quantity of gizmos at one time.
sping Mechanism #3
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure 3)
Mechanism #3 was used in the final product. The design uses an optimized gripper that
utilizes the slits on the cones. The skewer
rotates to allow an opening and the gripper raises
and lowers to allow
a stronger grasp on the cone.
Grasping Mechanism #4
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure 4)
Mechanism #4 was designed as a barbed fork that will be able to open and close in order to
pick up the cones and gizmos. It also rotates around the base so that it can pick them up no
matter how they are laying. This idea is practical in that it can pick
up any of the objects,
could also easily drop them.
Grasping Mechanism #5
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure
Mechanism #5 is designed to grip the object using magnets for fingers. The gri
up and down and rotate side to side.
g Mechanisms #6
(See Appendix 3.4.2 Figure 6)
Mechanism #6 was designed as a pincer
like device. The mechanism should be made out of
plastic or wood and the support should be made out of wood while the forklift part should be
made out of either coat
hangers or wood. The benefit of having a plastic grasper is that it
requires less energy to move, however it is not as strong as a wood grasper and may or may not
fall apart during the competition. The wood grasper is stronger and less likely to fall apa
during the competition but requires more energy to move and more force to support. A coat
hanger would be easy to move but would also be easier to bend and break. The benefit of
wood support is that it provides enough support to handle either design f
or grasper and forklift.
Pros / Cons
After close examination of each design for the Gizmo Grasping Mechanism, it was discovered
that many of the designs are very similar to each other.
Designs #1, 2,5 &6 involve creating a
grasping mechanism th
at opens and closes around the agility cone or egg while designs #4 and
5 take advantage of the slits on the agility cones in order to lift and rotate the cones.
After long hours of debate, we chose to construct a grasping mechani
sm similar to design #2.
The “fingers” of the grasping mechanism would be constructed from the lightweight plastic and
shaped to fit the circumference of the agility cone. In order to mechanize our grasping
mechanism we used the hand from a hydraulic rob
(See Appendix 3.4.4 Figure 1)
inspiration. The plastic fingers would be attached to a metal plate by screws
. Rubber bands
would provide tension to keep the fingers closed. When a servo pulled back on the bicycle
brake cable t
, when the bicycle cable was released the fingers would
around the cone.
The metal plate would be attached to a second servo which
would allow the entire grasping mechanism to be rotated.
Unlike challenges in the past which required the arm to reach upwards of 3
5’ in height, the
game this year requires a maximum reach of 18
24”. The arm must be able to reach agility
cones, eggs, and frizbees placed on the floor and deposit them into a sta
nd 18” off the ground.
In addition, the arm must remain within the 24”x24”24” size constraints, be easy to construct
and control, and be operated by a small motor.
Two Stage Extendable Arm
(See Appendix 3.5.2 Figure 1)
gn has pulleys on the
of the arm, allowing one motor to double or even triple
the arm length. This extension will allow the grasping mechanism to reach the cones
floor as well as place the cones in the Gizmo Packaging Center
. The arm would
from PVC pipe and a threaded rod, which acts as the pivot point.
A second segment of PVC
would be attached at the “elbow” allowing the arm to double the arm length.
would be made out of plastic. While this arm design allows th
e claw to reach the cone while
conserving space, it is at a disadvantage since we only have one small motor at our disposal
(the other one designated for
gadget transport mechanism). Since this design
cannot pivot at different angles it grea
tly restricts the maneuverability of the arm
Single Stage Arm
(See Appendix 3.5.2
The single stage arm design is simple to create and can allow for over 270 degrees of
rotation if constructed properly. In additi
on to being easy to construct,
the arm design is light
in weight and can be operated using the smaller motor. With appropriate tension in the pulley
belt, the arm can be precisely controlled by the operator; giving us an advantage when placing
the cones o
n the storage areas. The main limitation to such a design is the limit to the overall
reach it can attain.
Chain and Sprocket
(See Appendix 3.5.2 Figure 3)
A rod would hold a motor perpendicular to itself, and parallel to the body of the ro
motor would turn a chain, which would either lower or raise the carriage/lever. The pros of this
mechanism include: good mechanical advantage, sturdy, simple. The cons of this mechanism
include: difficulty making gears, and difficulty balanci
ng the rod to hold the motor.
Rack and Pinion
(See Appendix 3.5.2 Figure 4)
A rack would support a gear which would connect to our lift enabling it to move up or down.
There are no pros for this due to the fact we were unable to prototype
it. The cons of this
mechanism include: its complexity, the inability to mechanize, and the inability to connect the
lift to the rack which would raise it.
Pulley System Forklift:
(See Appendix 3.5.2 Figure 5)
A motor, M, would act as a “reel” and
wind a string which runs over a pulley and connects to
our lift. When the motor turns one direction the string winds up lifting the mechanism and in
the other direction it un
winds the string lowering the mechanism. The pros of this mechanism
it is simple, it shows consistent lifting force, it is sturdy and it has good mechanical
Pros / Cons
4.0 Building the Robot
Safety is important for building a robot because
safety rules, people could get hurt.
Power tools are useful for drilling and sawing quickly, but they are also very dangerous devices.
There is a power tool safety
test that all robotics team members at SVTA have to get 100% on in
order to use any power
This test is basically common sense on power tool safety, and
what to do if an accident occurs.
Our OSHA certified safety instructor William White
prevent any accident from happening in the first place.
White identified four basic areas in which safety violations can occur; 1) use of safety
equipment 2) poor communication 3) improper use of tools or use of defective tools and 4)
hazardous work environment.
One of the most important and often forg
otten safety rule to follow is
the use of safety
equipment. Shades Valley stresses the need for wearing eye and ear protection whenever using
Ear protection is required when using the band saw, miter saw, jig saw and miter
saw. Prolonged expo
sure to loud sounds can cause permanent damage to one’s hearing.
Safety glasses are required whenever working with any tools.
The lack of good communication can lead to injuries in any work environment. Telling others
what you are doing can keep th
em aware of circumstances in the work space and help them to
make better decisions upon what to do and where to move.
This includes communicating to
other students in the vicinity that a power tool is about to be used. A student unaware is a
otected. Even though students are trained and tested on power tool safety,
tudents are required to be supervised by an adult whenever
When using a tool the safest way to use it is the way it was designed to be used. If one d
not use a tool in a proper manner it can malfunction, break, or cause an unsafe work
To ensure tools are in proper working order, we have our OSHA trained
instructors inspect our tools at the beginning of each season. Currently our team
does not have
the tools or training to be able to cut metal safely. Thankfully the students in our welding and
electrical programs have the tools, training, and proper supervision from OHSA trained
Hazardous work environments are very
dangerous. Leaving sawdust on the floor, tools out of
place, and extension cords out could cause someone to slip, fall, and seriously injure
themselves. Cleaning up a work area is the only way to prevent the hazards.
Safety Posters are
posted around the
work areas to remind students to follow all established safety procedures.
The chassis is constructed from the polypropylene plastic and serves as the center of the
entire robot. Our first choice of material was the 1/8” p
lywood, however we felt it was too
flimsy to withstand the rigor of the competition. The plastic is light in weight while providing
the rigidity necessary to support the weight of the robot. Given the tight confines of the
playing field, we knew the robo
t needed to be small and compact in size. To determine the
exact dimensions, we created a blueprint identifying where each component needed to be
placed. We decided a 16”x12” rectangular base would accommodate the four motors, VEX
cortex, arm, and gadge
t collection mechanism.
The original layout for our chassis involved our gadget collection mechanism to be mounted
on a stand
thereby providing room underneath to place the VEX cortex and battery. Later we
discovered that the stand interfered with our robot’s ability to collect
gadgets. As a result we
had to mount the gadget collection mechanism directly on the chassis. Space on the chassis
was now at a premium and our conclusion was to of place the small motor operating the
gadget collection mechanism under the chassis.
The wheel is made out of ¾ inch plywood
and is 14” in diameter.
We determined a larger
diameter wheel produced a faster robot since the robot travels a greater distance per rotation
of the motor. Instead of constructing small fr
ont wheels, we created skids from PVC pipe
The PVC pipe skids would be mounted to a
frame designed to collect any
game pieces that may fall on the factory floor and return them to the recall area.
You would thin
k attached round wheels to a rectangular base would be easy
encountered several problems. Since we received new motors this year our first challenge
create new support stands to attach the motors to the chassis.
Even though the new design
s almost identical to the support stands we used last year, we had difficulty keeping the motor
shaft perpendicular to the chassis. Because the motors could flex up and down, our wheels
would “wobble” back and forth and we were unable to drive in a straig
ht line. To solve this
problem we incorporated straps made from the metal tape to keep our motors “locked” down
Another problem was the
lack of traction which caused our wheels to spin in place.
cause of the slipping was due to the
walls of the “gutter guard” being too high
as a result the
touch the ground. As a solution, we shaved off
the wheels are now
able to touch the ground.
We also discovered that as the robot moved, the
n of the PVC pipe elbows would slide toward the center of the robot. When this
occurred the robot
unstable and tilt over when it came to a
screwing the PVC pipe elbows into position we produced a more stable chassis and crea
much smoother ride. Our final touch was to replace the friction tape with the rubber from the
icycle inner tube to su
rround the edge of the wheels and
create more traction.
Gadget Collection and Transport
The material for
the dumpster is the 1/8” plywood. We used this material because it is light
and durable. Since we were only give
4 angled brackets we created our own from the thin
m sheet. The overall dimension
of our dumpster is 11.25” long, 10” wide and 11.5”
deep. The bottom of the dumpster has an angled slope that makes it easy for the gadgets to
slide down. The reason it is so large is because it would be able to hold more gadgets which
would give us a scoring advantage by reducing the number of trips our
robot has to make
between the gadget process tube and the gadget sorting area.
During Mall day we were able to
collect and transport 115 golf balls easily in one trip.
The dumpster also has a flap that releases
the gadgets at a steady rate. The flap is c
onnected on two hinges. The small motor that is under
controls the opening and closing of
n the beginning we had multiple problems. One of them was that the dumpster itself was
and could not drive under
the gadget process flow tube. If we can’t collect the gadgets
then we can’t score. Thankfully all we had to do was to remove the support
Unfortunately mounting the dumpster directly on the chassis created another problem. Now
the dumpster was too
low to release the gadgets in the sorting department. This led to the idea
of putting a 1x4 under the base of the dumpster to elevate
to the right size for
releasing the gadgets
while still allowing it to fit under the gadget process flow tub
While the majority of gadget land in the sorting compartment, there was still a ten
gadgets to fall on the floor. Because of this, we’ve created a
with guard rails
would guide the gadgets into the sorting area more effic
iently. Sometimes, the gadgets would
get stuck inside of the dumpster, so we must ram the robot to the edge of the sorting area to
have the gadget return to flowing out of the dumpster.
Going into the competition our
potential problem is if the str
ing that releases the flap wounds around the motor shaft. Then
the dumpster won’t be able to release the gadgets.
Gizmo Grasping Mechanism
resembles a two pronged fork
and is made from the galvanized sheet metal
teeth are 7” long and 2” wide and bent to match the angles of the slits found on the “gizmo
package” or agility cone. We are able to “grasp” the gizmo package by inserting the tines of the
fork inside the slits of the agility cone. Friction tape has been
added to the tines to reduce the
likelihood of the gizmo package from slipping off the tines
. Once the agility
cone is “skewered” the arm raise
to a height of 20 inches
. The cone is then rotated
into position by a servo, the ar
m lowers the cone into place and the
robot simply drives
the cone into the gizmo packaging center
Since the skewer is made from
the galvanized metal, it is also able to pick up the magnetic gizmos.
design has two tines to go into the slits of the agility cones and is made from
the galvanized metal. The metal provides enough rigidity to prevent them from being bent and
yet is lightweight. The design is easy to attach to the arm design in order to ra
ise and lower to
the appropriate height. Its light weight means it can easily be rotated using a servo motor in
order to place the agility cones in the scoring area. It also has the bonus of being capable of
picking up the magnetized Easter eggs.
Since all the
motors were designated elsewhere, we had to rely on a servo to rotate the
skewer. Originally we believed the servo would have the ability to rotate a full 180
it wasn’t until we were to the programming stage that we learned the se
rvo is only capable of
rotating a total of 127
. While we could rotate the cone, we couldn’t achieve enough of a
rotation that would allow our drivers to deposit the cone into the gizmo packaging center. To
solve this problem we
attached a metal plate to
the servo and then attached the skewer to the
plate (see Appendix Figure). As a result we were able to achieve close to 180
In order for our design to be effective the driver’s must have plenty of practice in order to
nsport, rotate, and deposit the agility cone without dropping. The biggest challenge
comes in “skewering” the cone since the driver is
” and must rely on the
spotter to provide direction.
However, there are three main problems with this
design: 1) if the
cone falls off, the robot may not be able to pick it back up and 2) we are unable to collect the
magnetized Easter eggs and 3)
the skewers tendency to fall off the servo
the small servo
screw tends to work lose as the plate rotates
back and forth.
While it is not a perfect design,
we feel given the difficulties with the two other designs we tried, it at least will allow us to
achieve some success.
The arm consists of a small motor and two
slide is stationary and is
attached to a 1x4, the other
slide is inserted into the grooves of the first slide and is free
to slide up and down. A string is tied to the end of the free
slide (serving as a lower limit)
and is fed through a
hole at the top of the attached
slide (serving as an upper limit).
PVC pipe is attached to the top of the 1x4 and acts as the fulcrum allowing the pulley to raise
and lower the arm effortlessly.
By utilizing the two
slides together we c
an easily fit within the 24” height constraints.
to its bottom limit allows us to capture the agility cones off the floor, raising
slide to its upper limit allows us to place the agility cone into the gizmo packaging
5.0 Testing and Evaluation
Mall Day Results
(see Appendix 5.0 Table 5.0)
Gadget Storage & Transport:
The Gadget Storage and Transport mechanism was originally 23 inches high.
Mall Day we learned that the Gadget Process Transport tube was only 17 inches off the
Our storage and transport mechanism was 6 inches too high.
To fix this, w
the mount and placed it on the base of the chassis and moved the motor and pulley to
underneath the chassis.
This resulted in a mechanism that could fit under the flow tube but
was too low to release the gadgets into the sorting area.
4 board underneath the
gadget storage compartment allowed the mechanism to release the gadgets into the sorting
area, as well as fit underneath the flow tube.
Mall day also informed us that when the
compartment was totally full of golf balls, the weigh
t sometimes prevented the trapdoor from
To compensate, we
” from the height of the trap door and place an
angled plate to direct the balls into the sorting compartment.
We learned that in order to learn which co
lor Gadgets are defective, all of the data ports
must be accessed, not just the first two.
Since we have changed our strategy, this is extremely
Whereas before we could just go for the cones until the defective
ed, this strategy is no longer viable because our strategy is now to go for
the Gadgets the entire time.
We now need to interface with the data port.
Our Gizmo Transport Mechanism could pick up the magnetic Gizmos, but it had
placing them in the cones.
It could not pick up the non
mos at all, and if the
Gizmos happened to be defective during a round, we could not score any points from
Gizmos at all.
This meant that Gizmos were not a viable scor
We fixed this by
modifying our strategy to go only for Gadgets.
6.0 Driver Strategy
At the beginning of each round, our first priority will be moving the mobile cart to the
information port since the gadget assembl
y line cannot be activated until this is accomplished.
Next will be having our robot interface with the Data port in order to determine which golf balls
are defective. By learning the color of the defective golf ball early, we can ensure that our
will not introduce defective materials into the production line. The design of our gadget
collection device will allow us to transport 100 or more gadgets at once, time will not be wasted
having to pick the golf balls up off the floor or flipping the mob
ile cart into the gadget sorting
area. After releasing the gadgets into the sorting area we will wait for the spotter to return any
defective materials to the mobile cart so our robot can return them to the recall center thereby
increasing our degree of S
ix Sigma. Hopefully we will have enough ti
me to make a second trip
gather more gadgets.
If it looks like we do not have enough time to make a second trip, then
our spotter will begin
During practice the majority of our problems were
due to mechanical problems
gathering enough traction in order to move, “skewer” falling off when we tried to flip the agility
cones, unable to release the gadgets.
Our number one concern is with our gadget collecti
on and transport mechanism. If the
drivers aren’t careful, they could end up winding the pulley string around the motor mount. If
we aren’t able to release the gadgets into the sorting area we won’t be able to score.
.0 Research Paper
is the measure of the number of defects that can be in a certain task or operations.
It is a business strategy and management philosophy that set high standards and expectations
by collecting data and analyzing results. The goal of six
is to get zero degree of error
tolerance so it can reduce waste, defects, and irregularities in products and services.
In the mid 1980’s six sigma was created by a quality engineer named Bill Smith. Six
comes from the idea that
six standard deviations between the process average and the nearest
specification limit, then almost no items will fail to meet the processes specifications. It was
created to improve company’s quality, productivity, resources, order entry, technical supp
and customer satisfaction. Six sigma works by locating and eliminating causes of different errors
causing a decrease in the chance to get a defect. A defect is and output in a process that does
not meet specifications. (isixsigma.com)(Microsoft.com)
Six sigma uses 2 methodology’s to help create new products and process designs and to
help improve an existing business process. The two methodology’s six sigma uses are DMADV
AND DMAIC. DMADV stands for Define goals, Measure product capabilities, Ana
lyze the design
alternative design details, and Verify design. DMAIC stands for Define problem, Measure key
aspects of the current process, Analyze data, Improve current process, and Control future state
who are experts in Six Sigma are called black belts and green belts. The courses for
certification are available at the Industrial Engineers and by the American Society for Quality.
The Six Sigma Academy says that a black belt can save a company about $23
0,000 a project and
could probably complete four to six projects a year.(businessballs.com)
An important part of Six Sigma is the Five Whys. The Five Whys of Six Sigma are an organized
way to solve problems in a company. This problem solving solution
was invented by Sakichi
Toyoda. The process of Six Sigma is just asking the question why. By continuously asking this
question the main cause of the problem will appear. The Five Whys doesn’t necessary mean
that the company should ask five whys and the pr
oblem is solved. The Five Whys means that
the company starts to solve their problems by coming up with proof of why this problem has
occurred. The benefits of the Five Whys are simplicity, effectiveness, comprehensions,
flexibility, engaging, and it
While researching Six Sigma we came to find out that it we could apply its applications to
marble sorter project in our Principles of Engineering course. The objective of the marble sort
is to transpor
t, scan, and sort marbles based upon their color. Since Six Sigma is designed to
scan for defeats; Six Sigma would have been good to design the marble sorter and the program
for the marble sorter. Without Six Sigma problems could occur in the design or th
e program and
it could not be told what it is unless it was started scratch. If the marble sorter was to be used
trying to sort marbles it would be a lot easier because it would tell you if it would have a defeat
in the design and the program.
Six Sigma co
uld also help with the marble sorter when it
s time to determine the value for the
marbles. Trying to determine the value for the marbles depended on the space between the
photocell and the light, but it is hard to determine how much space is needed betwe
en the light
and the photocell. Sometimes the environment was the problem with the values of the
marbles. Six Sigma would be a lot easier to determine the values of the marbles because it
would tell you if it has a defeat. Meeting deadline would not be a p
roblem anymore in fact
could even get done with it before the deadline.
While researching six sigma we found out that
it would be useful to apply applications to
one of our previous Engineering projects. This previous Engineering project was called the
Marble Sorter Project. The Marble Sorter Project is a project that allows Engineering students
to put use their problem
solving techniques and their creation skills. A Marble Sorter is a system
created for the principal of engineering class that is designed to separate different color
marbles from clear to black into three to four different bins. To build a marble sorter
shertecnicks pieces were needed for the overall design but a phototransistor, a light, and
switches added to the design.
There were a lot of problems encountered will using the marble sorter. These problems
included: trying to get marbles onto a plat
form, the marble bouncing off the base of the
marble sorter, marbles not reading correctly which caused marbles to go into other bins,
writing new programs, working with different designs, redesigning the marble sorter, marbles
getting stuck in the hopper
(funnel for marbles to go through), switches, and the
phototransistor’s readings. All of these problems could have been fixed using six sigma’s five
whys. If we would have came up with logical reasons why things were not working instead of
just changing th
ings hoping we changed the right things.
The first set of problems that the five whys could have fixed were trying to get the marbles
onto the platform, the marbles bouncing off the base, and the marbles getting stuck in the
hopper. If we would have a
sked the simple question why we would have found out that
because the building structure was a little off it caused the marbles to fall off the platform and
bounce off the base. The solution to this problem in turn would be to make the structure
The second sets of problems that the five whys could have fixed were the marbles going into
the wrong bins, the phototransistor, and the switches. If we would have asked why we would
have found out that because of the lighting in the room, it caused t
he phototransistor to read
the wrong light causing the marbles to go into the wrong bin. If we asked why again we would
have found out that because the wires of the switches kept coming out the interface box (a
device that is hooked up to the back end of t
he computer that allows wires to get plugged into
it allowing the user to create a program based on their designs) this cause the switches not to
work. The solution to these problems would be to cover up the area around the phototransistor
light to penetrate and to tighten up the wires on the switches to work.
The last sets of problems that the five whys could have fixed were to write a totally new
program, a different design, and redesigning. If we asked why we would have found out that
ause the marble sorter was someone else’s it caused the new people working on it to have
difficulties with the programming, and design causing them to redesign. The solution to these
problems would have been for the new people working on the marble sorter
to use there own
marble sorter or to ask the person’s who marble sorter they’re working on to help them with
programming and design. The five whys would have been an excellent tool to have with the
marble sorters because it showed that all the problem
s with the marble sorter were all linked
The main problems were working with a new design and program. These problems
linked to the problems of the hopper, and the structure. These later lead to the problems
dealing with the phototransistor’s re
ading, the separation of marbles into the correct bins, and
the wiring or the switches. By Six Sigma’s Five whys helping this would allow the marble sorter
to be completed on time with hardly any mistakes.