Project 3.1.7: Cable Winding Mechanism
This project is the culmination of the coding part of our POE curriculum. We have been learning how to code on the VEX platform and manipulating various motors and sensors. My group and I chose to build a cable winding mechanism out of a few other choices, and the result is shown below.
This is the final design sketch. My idea was chosen by our group to be the one we would use because it was a little more complicated and seemed more suited for the task than the other designs.
This is the code we used to run the code winding mechanism.
These are the group norms that my group and I established before we started working on our project.
Team Evaluation
Joseph H was a good member of our team. He always tried to contribute effectively to our project. Whenever something would come up, he would always try to contribute his best effort to solving the problem. He was consistently putting forth effort on our project. Also, he would help redirect Joseph's and Catherine's attentions back to the project a few times. Overall, he was a very beneficial addition and really helped our team do well on this project.
Joseph C was a fairly stagnant member of our team. He would do anything that Jake and I told him to; however, if we didn't explicitly tell him anything, he would not contribute to the project and would instead do stuff on his computer. Sometimes he would be a little distracting. I do understand his behavior, though, because our design was very simple to complete and after the initial building/testing phases of the design (which he helped a lot on), there really wasn't anything extra for him to do that nobody else was doing. Overall, Joseph was useful when it really mattered but a little distracting when the slow stages of our project set in.
Catherine M was similar to Joseph, but less distracting as our project progressed. She was very involved and helpful during the building phase, but after that, she didn't contribute anymore. I believe she ended up doing the least amount of work of our group; however, as I had mentioned previously, there wasn't a whole lot to do after the mechanism had been built. Overall, she was very good only when it came to the hardware of our project.
I believe I was a significant contributor to this project. I actively tried to be involved in every step of the project, from planning to wrapping up loose ends in the code. I would redirect the attention of the group members (most of the time) to the next step necessary to complete the project (if they were drifting off-track). Overall, I believe I had an important role in completing our project. However, when I rate myself I know I am biased, so a review of my partners' evaluations of me will most likely give you the most accurate depiction of what I actually did in the group.
Joseph C was a fairly stagnant member of our team. He would do anything that Jake and I told him to; however, if we didn't explicitly tell him anything, he would not contribute to the project and would instead do stuff on his computer. Sometimes he would be a little distracting. I do understand his behavior, though, because our design was very simple to complete and after the initial building/testing phases of the design (which he helped a lot on), there really wasn't anything extra for him to do that nobody else was doing. Overall, Joseph was useful when it really mattered but a little distracting when the slow stages of our project set in.
Catherine M was similar to Joseph, but less distracting as our project progressed. She was very involved and helpful during the building phase, but after that, she didn't contribute anymore. I believe she ended up doing the least amount of work of our group; however, as I had mentioned previously, there wasn't a whole lot to do after the mechanism had been built. Overall, she was very good only when it came to the hardware of our project.
I believe I was a significant contributor to this project. I actively tried to be involved in every step of the project, from planning to wrapping up loose ends in the code. I would redirect the attention of the group members (most of the time) to the next step necessary to complete the project (if they were drifting off-track). Overall, I believe I had an important role in completing our project. However, when I rate myself I know I am biased, so a review of my partners' evaluations of me will most likely give you the most accurate depiction of what I actually did in the group.
Conclusion Questions
1. Describe the objectives for this project in your own words.
This project was designed to bring together the various pieces of knowledge we have learned about VEX so far to design a complex machine that solves a definite problem. In doing so, participants gain practical knowledge of how to integrate motors, sensors, and code into a viable, working mechanism. In addition, the project seeks to have students work together and get experience doing so.
2. What were the most difficult parts of the problem? Describe the difficulties you had with these things.
The hardest part about our mechanism was troubleshooting our code. We had to revise our original plan to allow the code to function correctly, and this took the most amount of time out of any single part of the completion of our mechanism. The code would not allow for any emergency stops at first, and would only work after multiple revisions.
3. List and describe two features that were not part of the design problem that could be added to improve your design.
To improve our design, my group and I discussed fine-tuning the distance winding code so that it would compensate for a changing diameter of the spool that the cable was being wound on to. In addition, simplifying our emergency stop would have improved the user interface of our design.
Describe how your design and program worked during the official test. Was your design successful? Why or why not?
Our design and program worked very well in the official test; the mechanism satisfied all of the requirements on the rubric and did not have any mistakes. In this sense, the design was successful. I believe there were two parts that contributed to this: the first were our pre-tests, which allowed us to find and fix any problems, and the second was Joseph's skillful presentation. Despite the operation of the mechanism being somewhat complicated, he managed to show the mechanism effectively to the judges.
5. Describe some things you learned during this project.
I learned that it can be very useful going for a minimalistic design. Traditionally, I have tried to add as many things as possible to the machine; however, I wanted to try out a different approach this time around. In doing so, I saw its potential benefits - my group didn't have to forcefully go along with what I wanted, and we finished our project very early.
This project was designed to bring together the various pieces of knowledge we have learned about VEX so far to design a complex machine that solves a definite problem. In doing so, participants gain practical knowledge of how to integrate motors, sensors, and code into a viable, working mechanism. In addition, the project seeks to have students work together and get experience doing so.
2. What were the most difficult parts of the problem? Describe the difficulties you had with these things.
The hardest part about our mechanism was troubleshooting our code. We had to revise our original plan to allow the code to function correctly, and this took the most amount of time out of any single part of the completion of our mechanism. The code would not allow for any emergency stops at first, and would only work after multiple revisions.
3. List and describe two features that were not part of the design problem that could be added to improve your design.
To improve our design, my group and I discussed fine-tuning the distance winding code so that it would compensate for a changing diameter of the spool that the cable was being wound on to. In addition, simplifying our emergency stop would have improved the user interface of our design.
Describe how your design and program worked during the official test. Was your design successful? Why or why not?
Our design and program worked very well in the official test; the mechanism satisfied all of the requirements on the rubric and did not have any mistakes. In this sense, the design was successful. I believe there were two parts that contributed to this: the first were our pre-tests, which allowed us to find and fix any problems, and the second was Joseph's skillful presentation. Despite the operation of the mechanism being somewhat complicated, he managed to show the mechanism effectively to the judges.
5. Describe some things you learned during this project.
I learned that it can be very useful going for a minimalistic design. Traditionally, I have tried to add as many things as possible to the machine; however, I wanted to try out a different approach this time around. In doing so, I saw its potential benefits - my group didn't have to forcefully go along with what I wanted, and we finished our project very early.