The Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot...

58
1 | Page The Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot (M.I.M.E.R.) Collaborative Project between Anschutz Medical Center and Colorado State University Completed Works By: Salem Al-Aqeel Electrical Engineer John Allison Mechanical Engineer Trevor Pier Mechanical Engineer Jay Vickers Computer Engineer Lucas Wadman Electrical Engineer Daniel White Electrical Engineer Project Advisors: Sudeep Pasricha, Anthony Maciejewski Approved by: ________Sudeep Pasricha_______________

Transcript of The Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot...

1 | P a g e

The Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot

(M.I.M.E.R.)

Collaborative Project between Anschutz Medical Center and

Colorado State University

Completed Works By:

Salem Al-Aqeel – Electrical Engineer

John Allison – Mechanical Engineer

Trevor Pier – Mechanical Engineer

Jay Vickers – Computer Engineer

Lucas Wadman – Electrical Engineer

Daniel White – Electrical Engineer

Project Advisors: Sudeep Pasricha, Anthony Maciejewski

Approved by: ________Sudeep Pasricha_______________

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary

The Mirror Neuron System (MNS) in every human being is crucial for development. This

system allows people to take in auditory or ocular cues to make a decision or to complete a task.

Sometimes this system is not fully developed, but this can be alleviated through repetitive

movements and practice using the MNS. Exercising the MNS not only helps with physical motor

development, but with cognitive processes as well. Mirror neuron units are thought to be

involved with the ability to imitate and learn from other’s actions and understand intentions from

body language [1].

Devices exist that utilize motion and visual cues for therapy, rehabilitation, and

development of the MNS. Robots have been developed by other institutions that have

functionality of mirroring such as the Bandit from USC and the NAO by Aldebaran Robotics.

Physical therapy is widely used for children with underdeveloped MNS, but since this requires

one on one attention it can be expensive. If some of this time could be spent with Motion

Interactive Medical Exercise Robot (MIMER), it could cut costs and resources used. MIMER

will allow a child to practice these motions to develop their MNS.

This project’s goal is to produce MIMER, which mimics and encourages movement of

underdeveloped children. The main purpose of this device is to provide therapy for the clients to

gain basic motor and neuronal function. The first hurdle in designing a robot that can mirror

motion is to select a motion sensing device. The Kinect sensor created by Microsoft provides a

software development kit that encourages developers to use the Kinect. Using infrared, the

sensor can calculate distances for 20 joints in the body and is currently one of the most advanced

motion sensing devices on the consumer market.

Distances in three dimensions are output by the Kinect sensor so that the client’s arm

position can be known. However, this data will not operate motors so the signal must be

manipulated by using an algorithm on a laptop that uses trigonometry to change the distances

into angles for the servo motor to turn. These angles are fed to the servo motors through pulse

width modulation.

Pulse width modulation is accomplished using a Pololu servo controller that allows for

the adjustment of speed and acceleration in the motors. The code from the laptop gives a signal

that provides an associated pin number, acceleration, speed, and motor position. Once the servo

controller has the information it can operate multiple motors at the same time. Many

microcontroller combinations were tested but none compared to the speed of the Pololu and

laptop combination.

Creating the arms for the robot took some extensive research and testing into motors and

finding the degrees of freedom for the joints of the arms. Once the motor number, type and

position were determined, mounting the motors became a hurdle. Lynxmotion makes servo

brackets that are inexpensive, easy to assemble, and disassemble. After some calculations and

testing the arms were made shorter and the motors were switched out to optimize torque and

reduce weight as well as current draw.

3 | P a g e

Although the original Kinect sensor does not track finger motion, hands were created in

hopes of adding the newest Kinect sensor or using a webcam by later groups that can track hand

motion. Robot hands could also be hard coded to play games that the client could mimic. Hands

were designed with three fingers rather than five to reduce weight and current draw. This would

also better resemble the hands of most stuffed animals. The fingers, made from bicycle chain, are

operated by small servo motors with stiff linkages that can flex with the finger but are stiff

enough to push the finger back open. The palms that house the motors and fingers were designed

in CAD and 3D printed.

For the robot body, parts were designed and 3D printed in plastic. A torso consisting of

three parts houses the electronics and supports the arms. 3D printing allows for the freedom to

alter the size, shape and function of the parts. The body is covered in a stuffed animal monkey

skin that was purchased and gutted. The monkey is attractive to children and it has fingers that

work well with the mechanical fingers. The robot is supported in the back by a 3D printed slat

that allows for removal from the support box. A support box was created as an anchor for the

robot during motion as well as to house the Kinect sensor and battery.

The power circuit uses a PMOS that allows for battery power and wall power switching.

The battery is 14 amp-hours and the system could pull 6 amps maximum with an average of 2-3

amps during normal operation. The Kinect sensor receives 12 volts while the motors and fans

require 5 volts. A custom made PCB was made to provide power and ground to all of the motors.

The objectives met in creating the robot were a quick reaction speed, small size, 10

degrees of freedom, autonomous, and attractive. Original budget goals were not met. However,

the project had extra support that allowed for a budget up to $2050 that was met.

Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot (MIMER) has been a great success due to its

operation and functionality. All of the sponsor’s goals were met with many bonus extras. Future

teams could add finger tracking with the new Kinect sensor just released. Other additions could

include speech recognition and more motors for more lifelike motion. MIMER is an important

step in social robotics that has a vital use in the medical field of physical therapy. The future is

bright for MIMER.

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 5

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 7

Objectives and Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 7

Design Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Fall Semester 2014 Work ............................................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 1 – Xbox Kinect Sensor ................................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2 – Computer Computation ........................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3 – Microcontrollers and Motors ................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 4 – Mechanical Design .................................................................................................................. 15

Design Decisions .................................................................................................................................... 15

Detail Design and Supporting Analysis .................................................................................................. 17

Safety and Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 5 – Power Circuit ........................................................................................................................... 21

Objectives and constraints of the power circuit ...................................................................................... 21

Advantages of chosen power circuit ....................................................................................................... 22

Final design ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Issues and solutions ................................................................................................................................. 26

Progress through the year ........................................................................................................................ 27

Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................................. 28

Conclusions and Future Work..................................................................................................................... 28

References ................................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A - Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix B – Budget .................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix C – Timelines ............................................................................................................................. 33

Timeline updated 1-8-14 ......................................................................................................................... 33

Timeline updated 1-23-14 ....................................................................................................................... 37

Timeline updated 2-9-14 ......................................................................................................................... 41

Timeline updated 4-24-14 ....................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix D – Funding Documents ............................................................................................................ 50

5 | P a g e

What is this project? ................................................................................................................................ 50

So…what do you need? .......................................................................................................................... 50

How will this benefit «Company_Name»? ............................................................................................. 51

Appendix E – Thank You Letter – Agilent ................................................................................................. 52

Appendix F – Previous Circuit Layouts ...................................................................................................... 53

Appendix G – Mechanical Results.............................................................................................................. 55

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 58

List of Tables

Table 1: Constraints (Priority Levels on a 1-10 Scale - 10 Being the Most Important) ............................... 7

Table 2: Pugh Analysis to Determine Motor Type ..................................................................................... 16

Table 3: Pugh Analysis to Determine Arm Construction ........................................................................... 16

Table 4: Pugh Analysis of Torso Design .................................................................................................... 16

Table 5: Pugh Analysis of Robot Skin Selection ........................................................................................ 17

Table 6: MIMER Power Circuit Constraints with an Impact on Circuit Design ........................................ 22

Table 7: Different Voltage Requirements by Component in the MIMER System ..................................... 22

Table 8: The MIMER Power System Component Overview ..................................................................... 23

Table 9: Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 10: Torque Calculations with a Potential Hand Attached ................................................................. 57

List of Figures

Figure 1: Final Design .................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2: Servo and Bracket Skeleton Assembly .......................................................................................... 9

Figure 3: Kinect for Windows .................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Pololu Servo Controller ............................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Aesthetic Components ................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 6: Joint Tracking for Xbox Kinect [4] ............................................................................................. 12

Figure 7: First Arm Completed Compared to Second Arm ........................................................................ 17

Figure 8: Shoulder, Elbow, Finger Motor Size Comparison ...................................................................... 18

Figure 9: Progression of Hand Design ........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 10: Torso CAD Model ..................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 11: CAD Models of Circuit Board Boxes ....................................................................................... 20

Figure 12: Skeleton View of Finished Robot .............................................................................................. 20

Figure 13: Finished Robot with Monkey Skin Attached ............................................................................ 21

Figure 14: MIMER Power Flow Chart ....................................................................................................... 23

Figure 15: Switch PCB Circuit Schematic .................................................................................................. 24

6 | P a g e

Figure 16: PCB Mounting Box ................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 17: Distribution Power Circuit ........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 18: Distribution PCB Layout ........................................................................................................... 26

Figure 19: Previous Circuit Layout ............................................................................................................. 53

Figure 20: Circuit Layout 1 ......................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 21: Circuit Layout 2 ......................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 22: Current vs. Torque at Different Voltages on HS-422 Servo ..................................................... 55

Figure 23: Motor Specifications ................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 24: Torque Calculations without Hand ............................................................................................ 56

Figure 25: Potential Length of Arm with Hand Attached ........................................................................... 56

7 | P a g e

Introduction and Background

This project’s goal is to produce a device that mimics and encourages movement of

underdeveloped children. The main purpose of this device is to provide therapy for the clients to

gain basic motor and neuronal function through use of this device. The Anschutz medical center

at the University of Colorado Denver has determined this need from observing positive results

from a child with Autism using a similar device.

There is some biological theory behind why a robot that mimics movements would help

with development. Studies have been done that determined the existence of Mirror Neuron Units

in humans, which are functional neuronal units that connect the observation of a movement with

its execution. “Exercising” these units not only helps with physical motor development, but with

cognitive processes as well.

Devices currently exist that use motion and visual cues for therapy and rehabilitation

including. Physical therapy is widely used for underdeveloped kids, however since this requires

one on one attention, such therapy can be expensive. Costs can be cut if therapy is conducted

with the robot in place of a full-time Physical Therapist.

Objectives and Constraints

It has been determined that in order to meet the needs of the sponsors and their clients we

need to meet certain constraints. The main objectives of the final product where provided by our

sponsor from Anschutz Medical Center. Below are the constraints set at the beginning of the

project and details on how each was accomplished.

Table 1: Constraints (Priority Levels on a 1-10 Scale - 10 Being the Most Important)

Objective Priority Method of

Measure

Objective

Direction

Target

Cost 8 USD Minimize < $ 1,500

Size 9 Height (in) Minimize < 24 in.

React. Speed 10 Time (ms) Minimize < 1,500 ms

Movement 10 DOF Maximize ≥ 4 DOF/arm

Weight 8 lbs Minimize < 1 lb/per arm

Autonomy 8 # Interventions Minimize < 2/session

Attractive 10 Time (min) Maximize Holds attention of 50% of

children >10mins

Cost: The above cost does not include the addition of the laptop in the final design. The laptop

was determined necessary to improve reaction speed.

8 | P a g e

Size: The size of the robot body was determined to be the size of an average stuffed animal so

the device would not be imposing, but still is easily intractable with clear movements. This was

accomplished by keeping the size of the robot close but less than 24 inches.

Reaction Speed: This was one of the most important aspects of the device, as the reaction speed

determines the effectiveness. Many systems were tested, but cost and the ability to be a closed

system was sacrificed to include a laptop for processing. This brought the reaction speed to

consistently 500 ms, well below our constraint.

Movement: To be able to do all natural arm movements, four DOFs per arm were determined to

be needed. The necessary movements are rotation and extension of both shoulders and elbows.

The final design exceeded this goal by including these, and adding three fingers per arm. While

the current Kinect cannot sense fingers, this capability can be added with later technology.

Movement of fingers is accomplished currently through a scripted program, which adds to

interaction with the device.

Weight: The weight of the arms was an important criterion as the motors needed to be able to

handle all movements while remaining structurally intact. This was accomplished through use of

the lightest motors and brackets possible in the arms.

Autonomy: The device should be easy to use. When set up, the device only needs input from the

user interface on the laptop to execute or stop. While running the device proved to require less

than one intervention on average to adjust a component.

Attractiveness: The end goal was to provide an engaging interactive device to provide useful

therapy. While hard testing is still yet to be scheduled with our sponsor’s clients, the device

consistently attracted patron, including high school students at the E-days presentation. Further

testing in a clinical setting is desired.

Design Summary

Overview: For a simple overview, the mimicking robot will sit on top of a small shelf that will

hold the electronics and put the robot at a height that would be easy to interact with. The robot

itself is constructed of servo motors and specialized brackets which are attached and mounted on

the shelf using 3D printed parts. Input is received from a Microsoft Kinect sensor and is sent to a

laptop which calculates motors position. This information is sent to a Pololu servo motor

controller which then provides output to the motors. The device has an onboard battery, and two

custom power circuits including a printed circuit board that provides power to the motors,

internal fan, master switch and removable connections from the body to the box, and to wall

power if needed. The main components of the design are briefly described below.

Operation: The device was designed to be as easy to use as possible. The box and body are

easily transported as one piece. When ready to use, the USB cables to the motor controller and

Kinect will simply need to be plugged into the corresponding labeled ports on the laptop. From

here, the MIMER program in visual studio will be run, opening a convenient user interface with

prompts to Run, Stop, and debug information. A port on the left side can be connected for wall

power if necessary. For access to internal components, the box has a cabinet door that can be

9 | P a g e

opened, and the skin can be removed via Velcro. The body can also be removed by unplugging

the power and controller USB ports.

Servo Motors and Brackets: These will handle the motion for the arms. Testing has been done

with many servos and a number of Hi-Tec servo motors were selected for the final design. The

HS-85 has the highest torque rating and was implemented into each shoulder. The HS-85 motors

are smaller and provide less torque, making these motors suitable for the elbows. The HS-55

motors are the smallest available and used for the fingers. To assemble these into arms, the

Lynxmotion brand of brackets were used to construct a skeletal system.

Sensor: The Kinect for Windows was decided early on to be the sensor for detecting the

movements of the user. The reason to use this sensor instead of a webcam or similar device was

because the Kinect is able to sense depth as well as the basic x and y coordinates. Microsoft also

provides open source software development resources that assisted the programmers on this

project.

Figure 1: Final Design

Figure 2: Servo and Bracket Skeleton Assembly

10 | P a g e

Controller: A Pololu servo controller is

used to send signal to the servo motors

based on input from the laptop. It is

placed inside the robot body and is

connected to the laptop through USB.

Aesthetics: To store the electronics with a convenient stand for

the device, a simple cabinet was implemented. The cabinet

housing creates a professional look for the device and provides a

more contained system. To mount the arms, internal circuitry,

and provide structure to the body and hands, 3D printed parts

were created using CSU’s Idea 2 Product lab. As for the final

look of the body, a stuffed animal was purchased and

customized to fit the robot to give the device a kid-friendly

appeal.

Figure 5: Aesthetic Components

Figure 3: Kinect for Windows

Figure 4: Pololu Servo

Controller

11 | P a g e

Fall Semester 2014 Work

From a mechanical standpoint many tasks were completed at the end of the fall semester.

Structurally the focus was placed on the arms and motors due to the nature of the project.

Initially, the correct degrees of freedom were determined by making physical and CAD

(computer aided design) models to verify motor number, position, and orientation in the arms.

Secondly, the motor type and specifications had to be determined by testing several models of

motors. Once the selection of motors was narrowed down; power, speed and torque performance

had to be determined by measuring current draw, speed while adding load to motors, and testing

the endurance and torque. A prototype arm was built consisting of brackets and hardware

purchased from Lynxmotion. Lastly, the first concepts of the hand design were developed but not

built.

Additionally in the previous semester, the MIMER team worked mostly with the

RaspberryPi due to the possibility of meeting all our criteria theoretically (i.e. responding to the

user’s input in less than a second, being small enough to fit inside MIMER, and using Wi-Fi to

communicate). Last semester was focused on setting up the RaspberryPi to use and to implement

the software PWM signals. The team also spent a substantial amount of time trying to make the

RaspberryPi functional with Wi-Fi. Last semester was focused on the basic setup of the system,

and making sure the values were being sent correctly.

The MIMER program was written using the C# programming language in an effort to

adhere to the Kinect libraries provided by Microsoft for open source development. These

libraries allow the developer to implement the Skeleton structure, which creates a skeleton and

populates it with the X, Y, and Z data points of each joint in the body. C# also allows for

external communication, which is necessary for the MIMER project as the software has to

control external servo motors through a serial controller. The language allows for the

communication to be implemented much easier than in other C based languages, resulting in

shorter and easier to read code. At the end of the fall semester, we had compiled a basic program

to read in the data points and produce angles based upon joint position.

For the MIMER project, there were a number of accomplishments with the power

requirements and circuit design. Initial calculations for the required amounts of power in the

circuit were completed. Based off these calculations, a number of initial circuit designs were

created, which are shown in Appendix F. These different designs were tested for feasibility using

simplified versions of the circuits on a breadboard. This led our team to choose a power circuit

with parallel architecture; the team continued testing various aspects of that circuit. The previous

semester testing included fusing, switching between wall and battery power, and testing the DC-

DC converter central to the power distribution circuit.

Chapter 1 – Xbox Kinect Sensor

The Microsoft Kinect has been chosen as a sensing device for our project because it

meets our Electrical and Mechanical needs. “The Microsoft Kinect is currently the most

advanced motion sensing input device, and is easiest to use that is available to consumers”; it

12 | P a g e

enables users to interact and control the application or game without the need to touch an input

device. With a familiar user interface by using gestures and voice commands the application can

be controlled. Using an object recognizing approach, the Kinect can capture 3D body joint

positions, body shape, and body movement efficiently [2]. One of the Kinect’s onboard cameras

is an RGB camera that stores three-channel data in a 1280 x 960 resolution at 12 frames per

second (FPS), or a 640 x 480 resolution at 30 frames per second and a 320x240 16-bit depth

camera. The field of view (FOV) of the cameras are 57º horizontally and 43º vertically. It has a

tilt motor that can tile the both camera 27º vertically and a microphone array used for recognize

voice commands [3].

Figure 6: Joint Tracking for Xbox Kinect [4]

One of most important needs for the MIMER project is the ability to write code for the

motion sensor. The Kinect supports many different coding languages. Microsoft released a

Software Development Kit (SDK) to encourage developers to use the Kinect. This SDK was

meant to allow developers to write applications in C++/CLI, C#, or Visual Basic [5]. The SDK

also provides joint tracking libraries, which allow developers to obtain positional data related to

the user. This data is then processed through the main code body to produce the expected motor

outputs. The ease of obtaining positional data as well as a large field of view, high resolution,

and rapid refresh rate make the Kinect a great solution for the MIMER project.

Chapter 2 – Computer Computation

The programming aspect of the MIMER project is relatively simple in concept, but is

complex in application. The overall purpose of the code is to initialize the Kinect, read in raw X,

Y, and Z data points from the user, calculate the degrees required for each motor, and send this

data out to the Pololu servo controller. The MIMER application is structured as an infinite loop,

constantly reading in user data and sending out the processed data at 30 frames per second.

The MIMER program is written using the C# programming language in an effort to

adhere to the Kinect libraries provided by Microsoft for open source development. These

13 | P a g e

libraries allow the developer to implement the Skeleton structure, which creates a skeleton and

populates it with the X, Y, and Z data points of each joint in the body. C# also allows for

external communication, which is necessary to the MIMER project as the software has to control

external servo motors through a serial controller. The language allows for the communication to

be implemented much easier than in other C based languages, resulting in shorter and easier to

read code.

Development over the course of the spring semester focused heavily on improving the

execution speed of the code, as well as shortening the communication time between any

microcontrollers and the laptop used for processing. In terms of code execution, the main data

storage structure used is a series of three element arrays corresponding to each joint in the body.

These arrays are populated with the X, Y, and Z coordinates of each respective joint. The index

of each element is hard coded in such a way that the first position of each array will always be

the X coordinate of the corresponding joint while the second and third indexes account for the Y

and Z coordinates. During the spring semester, many intermediate arrays were removed, which

resulted in any data manipulation occurring on the first structure that the coordinates are

originally read into. This effectively results in eliminating unneeded structures and speeding up

code execution.

Execution time was further improved by managing which sections of the code are

executed in the overall infinite loop of the program body. For the MIMER program, it was

necessary to minimize the amount of code within the loop as the loop's code executes at 30

frames per second. Over the course of the semester we were able to structure the program in such

a way that only the essential data handling and angle calculation code was being looped and

repeated for each frame. All initialization and auxiliary functions are performed outside of the

main loop, further improving execution speed.

In terms of communication, the MIMER software has changed significantly since the Fall

semester. Over the course of the last semester, multiple communication methods have been

implemented and tested for speed. Early builds included codes that allowed communication via

Wi-Fi 802.11x interface; unfortunately this communication method was too slow with a response

time of one to three seconds. The final build of the MIMER program implements USB

communication over a COM port to send commands to the USB Pololu Serial Controller. With

this implementation, we noticed a substantial decrease in communication time to 500

milliseconds. This change allowed us to reach and improve upon our original design goal of a

one second response time.

The code body of the MIMER software has not changed substantially over the spring

semester, but has become more refined in its operation. Overall the code layout is still the same;

coordinate points are read in and angles are calculated between the points. These angles are what

are converted into a readable format by the USB Pololu Serial Controller and send out via COM

port to the controller itself. We were able to refine the angle calculation method for some of the

angles as they were not originally correct for the majority of positions. These refinements

generally refer to the method of creating reference points and vectors around the detected body

which help to create right triangles around a specific joint. Once a triangle is created around the

joint's coordinates, simple trigonometric functions allow for calculation of that angel.

14 | P a g e

Through the refinement of the angle calculation methods, as well as execution and

communication time improvements, we were able to reach many of our original design goals.

Response time was reduced to 500 milliseconds through the use of the Pololu Serial Servo

Controller, resulting in a more interactive system as the user is not waiting for MIMER to

respond to movements. Angle calculation was vastly improved and now provides more accurate

readings for each joint. This refinement results in a more accurate mirror system, and also

improves the user experience as the limb position of MIMER better reflect the position of the

user's limbs.

Chapter 3 – Microcontrollers and Motors

The Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot’s (M.I.M.E.R.) biggest challenge for the

team was the speed at which the robot had to respond to the users input. The initial goal for the

project was to have MIMER work over Wi-Fi with a response to the user’s input of less than one

second. The team was not able to get MIMER to respond to user’s input in less than one second

over Wi-Fi. Once we eliminated this constraint the MIMER team selected a Pololu USB Serial

Servo Controller. The system design from sending information from the Xbox Kinect to a

computer and out to the serial servo controller allowed MIMER to respond to users input in less

than a second.

In order to arrive at the decision to use the Pololu Serial Servo Controller, the MIMER

team first used what they were familiar with. The project first started out on a RaspberryPi in

order to meet the Wi-Fi constraint of the project. The servos were being controlled using C# and

with software pulse width modulation (PWM). At the time this was the cheapest route to go to a

theoretical solution meeting all of our design constraints. The first problem to evidence itself

within the MIMER system was the non-scalable software PWM generation. The team created a

delay (with a “ticking” function) on the RaspberryPi to generate the pulses to control the servos.

This worked for about 3-4 motors; a long way from 16. This led us to the Pololu Serial Servo

Controller (Non-USB and controlled from the Raspberry Pi; Serial Servo Controller ROB-

08897) [6].

The MIMER team struggled with the Pololu Serial Servo Controller; this was due to a

common ground issue being overlooked for 3-4 weeks. This issue was not found until after the

team moved onto another device to solve their issues. The team moved on to the Arduino Mega,

before figuring out the issue (by this time the team felt they had spent too much time on the

Pololu with no results).

The Arduino Mega is a part of the Arduino network which contains a nice library to

control servo motors. This allowed the team to generate PWMs easily to control servos. At this

time the RaspberryPi was used for the Wi-Fi, and then the information was sent to the Arduino

via serial line. The team received that information from the RaspberryPi into a buffer. The

information was parsed and put into arrays to write out to the PWM pins. The problem the team

incurred with this system was after 15 iterations the information was incorrect. The information

coming in was not the same as the information “going out” of the RaspberryPi. At this time the

team believed the problem was with the RaspberryPi serial line due to the problem with the

15 | P a g e

Pololu Serial Servo Controller and the Arduino (the team did convert the 3.3v coming out of the

RaspberryPi to 5v for the Arduino and the Serial Servo Controller).

The team then purchased the Wi-Fi shield for the Arduino. This allowed the team to

finally test the speed at which information was being sent and received. This also allowed to

team to finally test the orientation of motors and the angles that were being computed. With this,

the system values were being sent and received and written to the motors in two to four seconds.

This was considerably slower than the team thought it would have been. This is when the team

realized the real time speed could not be achieved with Wi-Fi.

The team moved to connecting the computer to a hub to the RaspberryPi to the serial

servo controller. The RaspberryPi was chosen over the Arduino because of the faster processor

speed. This system was still too slow; the information was sent from the computer to the

RaspberryPi in one to two seconds. This does not include sending the information to the Pololu

Serial Servo Controller. The system was still too slow because the information had to go through

the network. In order to solve this problem the team thought to just send the information through

USB. This could be done with the Arduino.

The team implemented the USB to Arduino and out to the motors through the PWM pins

and also on a separate system with the serial servo controller on the Arduino. This was very

promising in that the motors were delayed by 800 milliseconds before putting the motors into an

arm configuration. Once the motors were put into the arm the motors speed slowed down

significantly to one to two seconds once again. The team then found the USB Pololu Controller

online.

The output of the program on the computer directly goes into a USB serial line into the

USB Serial Servo Controller. The speed for the output to the motors in the arm configuration is

now below one second. This is fast enough for a user to be engaged with the product, and to have

a good experience. Once this system was implemented the team was happy with the speed.

Chapter 4 – Mechanical Design

Design Decisions

The following Pugh analyses demonstrate design concepts that were considered and the

associated design objectives that were most important. Table 2 shows that the analog servo

would work best for the application needed. Current drain had a significant part in that decision.

16 | P a g e

Table 2: Pugh Analysis to Determine Motor Type

Design Objective Stepper Servo-Analog Servo-Digital

Speed 7 10 10

Acceleration 5 8 10

Position Control 6 9 10

Torque 8 9 10

Price (low) 10 8 5

Weight 4 10 9

Current Drain 6 8 5

Sum 46 62 59

Table 3 determines that Lynxmotion servo brackets would be the smartest selection for

arm construction. The ease of use including time to build distinguished the Lynxmotion

hardware from its competitors.

Table 3: Pugh Analysis to Determine Arm Construction

Design Objective Metal-Fab Plastic-Fab Lynxmotion

Durability 9 8 10

Time to build 5 6 10

Ease of Replication 6 8 10

Price (low) 8 10 9

Weight 7 10 9

Sum 35 42 48

Torso design was important to house the electronics and to carry the arms.

Table 4: Pugh Analysis of Torso Design

Design Objective 3D Printed

Plastic Aluminum

sheet metal Robot Shop

Torso

Price (low) 9 7 5

Weight 10 8 8

Functionality 10 9 7

Durability 7 9 9

Originality 10 8 6

Time to make 7 8 10

Easy to replicate 8 8 10

Sum 61 57 55

17 | P a g e

Three types of robot skins were considered that would be pleasing to a child and could

have moving fingers attached. Table 5 determines that a premade monkey would satisfy the

design objectives best. Premade stuffed monkeys tend to have longer fingers than most teddy

bears which are more favorable for visual clarity to the client.

Table 5: Pugh Analysis of Robot Skin Selection

Design Objective Premade

Teddy

Bear

Premade

Monkey Custom

made skin

Price (low) 9 9 5

Aesthetics 9 9 6

Functionality 7 8 9

Durability 8 8 7

Finger

Compatibility 8 10 10

Time to make 9 9 6

Easy to replicate 9 9 7

Sum 59 62 50

Detail Design and Supporting Analysis

Throughout motor testing and torque measurements it was discovered that the motors

were not able to lift an arm consistently with the torque rating provided by the supplier. Figure 7

shows the first prototype arm that is long and heavy. With thorough research, measurements, and

testing it was clear that the solution would need to be multipronged. Calculations can be found in

Appendix G. The solution included reducing the length of the arm, increasing the torque of the

shoulder motors, and reducing the size and weight of the elbow motors. The length of the second

arm compared to the first arm is displayed in Figure 7. The second arm is the final design.

Figure 7: First Arm Completed Compared to Second Arm

18 | P a g e

The motor size and weight decreases as it approaches the tip of the arm. This reduces the

torque on motors further up the arm towards the shoulder and in turn reduces the current draw

needed by those motors. Figure 8 demonstrates the size relations of the different motors.

Figure 8: Shoulder, Elbow, Finger Motor Size Comparison

Solving this torque issue reduced the current draw needed by the system and insured that

motors would not be overstressed which could have caused durability and overheating issues.

The selection of Lynxmotion brackets and hardware to mount the servo motors provided

arms that are easy to install and disassemble which is beneficial for repairs or alterations. These

brackets are easy to acquire for replication purposes as well.

Priorities of the sponsor focused on arm motion. However, the implementation of hands

would be a secondary benefit to this social robot. Finger design involved extensive research into

current designs. A concept was developed that considered low cost, simplicity, and durability.

Bicycle chain was chosen because it did not need to be manufactured, it is easy to replicate,

inexpensive and it is segmented with smooth pivoting action similar to a human finger. The

finger is pulled down by a tennis racquet string attached to a micro-servo motor. The string that

was chosen is very strong and flexible enough to bend with the finger yet stiff enough to push the

finger back open when the motor is reversed. Next, the palm that holds the motors and fingers

was modeled in CAD and 3D printed with extra plastic from the torso printings. Figure 9 shows

the progression of the hand design starting on the left with the first proof of concept to verify that

the motor and string could operate the bicycle chain like a real finger.

19 | P a g e

Figure 9: Progression of Hand Design

A torso was needed at the core of the robot to house electronics and wiring, support the

arms, and to hold a stuffed animal skin. CAD modeling and 3D printing the torso provided

freedom to alter the size, shape and function. The torso consists of a front, back and a support

slat in the back as shown in Figure 10. It has a front and back so that it can be opened to access

circuits and to install or remove shoulder motors. The front was designed with a hole for easy

quick access in case of repairs. The front and back are connected by small latches. The support

slat prevents the robot from rocking and swaying while the arms are in motion. The slat also lifts

the torso to make room for the stuffed monkey legs.

Figure 10: Torso CAD Model

Inside the torso, boxes were needed to house circuit boards for neatness and to prevent

accidental shock on human fingers. Several meters of PLA (polylactide) plastic remained after

printing the hands and torso which was useful for making the boxes. The two boxes are pictured

in Figure 11.

20 | P a g e

Figure 11: CAD Models of Circuit Board Boxes

All of the design concepts mentioned are brought together in the finished product shown

in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Skeleton View of Finished Robot

The skin is important for covering the less appealing skeleton and to make the robot

attractive to children. As mentioned previously, the monkey skin has longer fingers to easily

display the robot fingers in motion. Figure 13 shows the finished robot with monkey skin

attached that goes by the name MIMER.

21 | P a g e

Figure 13: Finished Robot with Monkey Skin Attached

Safety and Ethical Considerations

The mechanical designs had to consider safety involving overheating, electrical safety,

sharp objects, and pinching. The robot is covered in a skin that is soft and prevents pinching in

between brackets. It also prevents human hands from entering the electrical circuitry in the torso.

The plastic boxes for the circuit boards provide a secondary barrier for preventing hands from

entering the circuitry. The reduced current draw and smaller motors in the extremities lower the

risk of overheating and possible heat related injuries. Plastic is a safe material for the torso to

house the electrical components so that no charge is transferred to a human. All materials have

sharp edges and corners removed to prevent injury. Finally, all motors are strong enough to

operate robot arms and fingers but lack the strength to physically injure a human by pinching or

hitting.

Chapter 5 – Power Circuit

This section covers the year’s progress made in powering the MIMER robot. One design

requirement of the robot is that it be self-contained, meaning it operates with little to no external

interfaces, e.g. power plugs. It was clear in the concept exploration stages early in the project that

the design would require our team to design custom power electronics given the unique

combination of the Kinect, servo motors, and other electronic equipment in the robot.

Objectives and constraints of the power circuit

The MIMER robot has a unique set of power requirements, a characteristic owed to the

compact size but high complexity and quantity of electrical components. Creating a mimic robot

for use in a clinical environment requires that the unit must be compact, which constrains the

types of motor technology we can utilize in the robot. Given these constraints and a number of

other design decisions, the MIMER robot has low voltage components with potentially high

current draws in certain conditions. These constraints that influenced the design decisions made

for the power circuit are shown in Table 6 below.

22 | P a g e

Table 6: MIMER Power Circuit Constraints with an Impact on Circuit Design

Requirement Circuit Design Impact

Compact size Use of smaller motors, smaller electronics

Safety concerns Must use safer power electronics, remove heat from enclosure

High

performance

Must use accurate control electronics, higher power requirement

Advantages of chosen power circuit

Designing custom circuitry for the MIMER project allows the project flexibility in a

number of areas versus purchasing an off the shelf power solution for the robot. It also allows for

expansion and addition of components and features for future designs as well. We have

flexibility in the power delivery to different components that have different voltage

requirements, which are listed in Table 7 below. Given components that require such a variety of

power levels, designing our own power circuit is the best option we have to accomplish a self-

contained solution in the final product.

Table 7: Different Voltage Requirements by Component in the MIMER System

Component Power Requirement (volts)

Kinect 12 (Stack Exchange, 2012)

Fan 12 (Digikey Corporation, 2013)

Motors 5-6 (RC Helicopter Fun, 2013)

Pololu Microcontroller n/a (runs off USB power)

Final design

The final MIMER power circuit involves a few different components all working

synchronously to provide consistent power to our robot and some associated components. The

components needing power, as indicated in the table above, are the Kinect, 12V fan, and motors.

Our final choice for microcontroller which is used to control our motors, the Pololu Serial Servo

controller, does not require any power from our circuit because it is connected via USB to our

central processing laptop. This USB connection provides both power and data to the Pololu, so it

is left out of the final circuit. But, there are still legacy interconnections from previous designs

and even in the current design in some form that would allow for a microcontroller to connect to

our power circuit directly.

The final circuit consists of the components shown in the table below, shown in the

sequential order that they appear in our circuit, along with some basic notes on their function:

23 | P a g e

Table 8: The MIMER Power System Component Overview

Power components Notes

1. 12V, 6A AC to DC wall power converter Plugs into side of MIMER lower case

2. 12V, 14A-h DC battery Sits inside the MIMER lower case. Sits

behind a P-channel MOSFET to switch

3. Switching Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Sits inside the MIMER lower case. Also

distributes power to Kinect

4. Distribution Printed Circuit Board

(PCB)

Sits inside the MIMER torso. Distributes

power to motors, with potential for future

centralization

5. DC-DC converter Sits inside the MIMER torso, as a component

of the Distribution PCB.

The figure below shows the MIMER power flow, including the switching and

distribution circuits:

Figure 14: MIMER Power Flow Chart

First, there is need to switch seamlessly between wall and battery power. When there is

no wall power present, the battery needs to automatically engage to power the whole system. We

integrated this switch on the circuit level. This switch is constructed using a P-channel MOSFET

to toggle back and forth between power sources. During this switch, all of the components in the

MIMER power pipeline will remain active. The figure below shows the switch in a schematic

form. The diode (D) near the 12V input prevents the battery power from flowing back into the

wall source when the battery is engaged.

24 | P a g e

Figure 15: Switch PCB Circuit Schematic

On this circuit, there is also a switch (SW) which turns the entire MIMER system on and

off. A basic toggle switch, shown in the figure below, was integrated into the main 12V line.

This entire switch circuit was placed onto a generic PCB, purchased from Radioshack.

Putting this circuit onto a generic PCB, versus the custom one printed for our power distribution

circuit, made sense because of the simplicity of the switch. The figure below shows a picture of

that PCB, with the different combinations of horizontal and vertical traces clearly visible. This

type of layout was very suitable for our project’s needs.

This PCB, and the distribution PCB, are contained in custom size 3D printed PCB boxes,

to protect the components from the environment, and to protect any users who must perform

maintenance inside the MIMER system. The figure below showcases one of these boxes.

Figure 16: PCB Mounting Box

25 | P a g e

We can also see that the Kinect draws its main power from this switch circuit. The reason

for this was the physical location of the Kinect in the MIMER system – inside of the lower case.

Because of this location, it was deemed simpler to have the Kinect directly plug into the 12V

source before the main 12V output into the torso of the MIMER, where the distribution PCB is

located. The plugs used to interface between the switching and distribution PCB, as well as the

wall power removable plug, is shown below.

The distribution circuit is shown in the figure below.

Figure 17: Distribution Power Circuit

The primary components on this schematic are the fan, DC-DC converter, motors, and

Pololu. The Pololu is shown being power by the computer’s USB connection (CUSB), but is

included in the schematic so its connection with the motors can be seen. It connects directly with

the motors rather than through a control pin plug like the one seen in the schematic, but we will

see that the capability for this expansion is included in the final distribution PCB.

The DC-DC converter takes the 12V input from our switching circuit, and steps it down

to 5V for the motors. This converter has the capability to carry 75W. At peak operation, the

circuit used in MIMER can provide 72W of power (12V * 6A supply current – 72W), but the

additional overhead of this converter is welcome from a safety and reliability standpoint. The

figure below shows this converter, from Car Power Technology (CPT).

From the converter, the rest of the circuit is for powering the motors. The figure below

shows the final distribution PCB that was manufactured for the project, and this PCB will be

discussed in further detail for the rest of this section.

26 | P a g e

Figure 18: Distribution PCB Layout

This design shows a few holdovers from previous power designs, namely the inclusion of

the Arduino power supply and battery/PMOS switching circuit. When the PCB was

manufactured, the requirement of separation between the lower case and torso was unknown. At

that time, the Arduino was the microcontroller being used to control our motors, and it required a

5V power supply. But, the PCB still functions without these components.

The distribution PCB has a 12V input from the switching PCB, which feeds into the fan

power and DC-DC converter. The 5V output from the DC-DC converter then feeds power to all

the motors, with breakaway machine pin headers being put into the PCB where the rows of holes

are connected horizontally. The two rows of vertically connected pins were originally used for

signal input and output, and can still be used for that purpose in future projects. For our final

system, the signal communication with the motors is offloaded from the distribution PCB.

Issues and solutions

The complex requirements of the MIMER robot lead to many potential issues. Because of

the high power requirements of the circuit, mainly owed to the numerous current – drawing servo

motors, battery life was a concern. As a solution, we used a large, 14 amp-hour battery to ensure

our system can run well beyond customer assumptions in ideal conditions.

The heat level of the circuit was also a concern. If the circuit gets too hot, this can cause

safety issues through either physically touching the MIMER case structure or damaging the

components of the robot. The worst case scenario is MIMER catching fire. The solution to avoid

this potential issue is the addition of the fan for heat removal from the internal robot environment

and the selection of heat dissipating components in the circuit design. In our final MIMER

system, the separation of the switch PCB and the distribution PCB between the body and the

torso, respectively, helps with heat management by separating two of the most power consuming,

and potentially hottest, components in the entire system.

Another potential issue is maintaining the integrity of all circuit components when

switching between the battery and wall power supplies. The final circuit has a built-in switch

27 | P a g e

using a P-channel MOSFET that toggles from the wall to the battery supply in the event of

unplugging the DC input, and then back from the battery to DC, given the DC input is connected.

If any components turn off at any point, there will be a severe lapse in MIMER operation,

which would be unacceptable given our design requirements. To work around this issue, we have

integrated capacitors into the circuit design to help maintain the required voltage and current

levels that the motors and Kinect need to have uninterrupted operation during the switching

process.

The final issue that required significant attention in the circuit design process is the

different voltage requirements for different circuit components mentioned above. Stepping

voltages down in a circuit is a relatively straightforward process, but the design of MIMER

brings significant complications. The power requirements of MIMER are low voltage, but high

current given the number of motors. In dropping the voltage in our circuit from 12V for the

Kinect and other miscellaneous components to 5V for the motors required a controlled voltage

drop either through a component or a number of components that could withstand high levels of

power because they will carry large amounts of current to power the motors. To resolve this

issue, we have integrated a 12V to 5V DC-DC converter capable of carrying up to 14A at peak

operation.

Progress through the year

Since the end of the first semester, significant progress was made on the power circuit. At

the end of the 1st semester, there were prototypes and a design methodology selected for the

project. Since then, numerous prototypes have been tested, and the final product integrating two

different Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) has been integrated into the MIMER system.

In the first semester, we explored a number of different design methodologies for the

MIMER power solution. One design possibility was to “stack” the motors, or put two of the

motors in series with one another, the rest of them laid out in parallel. The logic behind this

architecture was to not have to drop the circuit voltage from 12V that is required for the Kinect,

which would alleviate some of the potential design problems in relying on other components to

carry the voltage drop with such a high current requirement. Such a reliance on, for example, a

+12V/+5V DC-DC regulator, would create a potential single point of failure for the entire robot

architecture. But by choosing a DC-DC regulator with specifications far above the power

capabilities of our power supply and battery, we were able to avoid the possibility of a single

failure point.

In the 1st semester, we validated the switching architecture between the wall and battery,

but not from the battery back to the wall. We validated the need for a parallel layout of the servo

motors for proper power and control. We validated the need for fuse protection for the Kinect

and potential microcontrollers in the circuit. We also spent a great deal of time troubleshooting

different design alternatives in order to select the best possible design to power MIMER.

In the 2nd

semester, we constructed circuits based off our prototypes and carried out

significant tests. We discovered that the power requirements of our circuit were far lower than

28 | P a g e

our initial tests indicated. We tested DC power supplies with varying specifications, and ended

up selected a 12V, 6A capable DC power supply for our primary power. We maintained the

usage of the 12V, 14A-h battery purchased in the 1st semester, even though we could have

integrated a smaller battery into the design. The weight of this battery ended up being a

necessary feature of the robot design, because additional weight was needed to stabilize the torso

and arms during the rapid movements involved in mirroring. We integrated systems of plugs and

switches to make the MIMER system very user friendly overall. We designed and ordered a

custom PCB for power distribution, and integrated a switching circuit onto a generic PCB. We

made the MIMER system run reliably and consistently for long periods of testing, with the final

design operating with minimal power interruptions to the motors.

Ethical considerations

In designing the power circuit for MIMER, there are generally fewer ethical

considerations to be made than in other areas of the project. The most important ethical

consideration is that the power system will meet the customer requirements in all aspects and be

as safe as any commercially available power solution. With the addition of the fan inside the

MIMER torso and the separation of the two critical PCBs, we have taken these safety

considerations into account. Our team feels that the MIMER power system meets all of these

ethical requirements.

Future teams could expand on the compactness of the power system, which would reduce

the overall environmental impact of MIMER if it were to be a commercial product. As we were

producing a prototype, these considerations were less at the forefront of our decision making

process, but could certainly be improved upon.

Conclusions and Future Work

The MIMER team made great progress over the course of the 2013-2014 school year.

The team completed a robot that mimes children in under one second, 60% of the movements are

mirrored well, and MIMER is easily set up and maintained. Although most goals were met, some

tasks can still be upgraded and improved. Features that can be updated are speech recognition

functionality, finger tracking, and battery charging while MIMER is plugged in.

First, speech recognition can be added to MIMER for a more complete experience.

Anschutz Medical Center is not explicitly asking for this feature, but they were not opposed to

the idea. This speech recognition would prompt the user to do a series of movements, and

possibly provide feedback after each individual movement. The system would be beneficial to

the user because this could allow the user to see what sort of progress they are making in the

physical therapy process.

Another feature that can be added to MIMER is finger tracking. The new Xbox Kinect

can track a pinching motion for fingers. This would allow a physical therapy client to work on

finger movements. This would help further with the rehabilitation process.

A functionality that should be added to MIMER is the battery should be charging while

MIMER is plugged into the wall. Currently, the battery needs to be taken out of MIMER before

being charged. This would allow ease of use for the nurse using MIMER.

29 | P a g e

Overall MIMER is complete according to Anschutz Medical Center’s expectations, but

MIMER still can possibly have further functionalities added to him.

30 | P a g e

References

[1] M. Trail, "Learning by Imitation," March 2008. [Online]. Available: http://occupational-

therapy.advanceweb.com/Article/Learning-by-Imitation-1.aspx. [Accessed 15 September 2013].

[2] T. Kim, "The Microsoft Kinect," 27 February 2012. [Online]. Available:

http://tkim2012.blogspot.com/. [Accessed 25 November 2013].

[3] Microsoft Corporation, "Kinect Sensor," Microsoft Corporation, [Online]. Available:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh438998.aspx. [Accessed 25 November 2013].

[4] Microsoft, "Introduction to Kinect for Windows Audio," Microsoft, [Online]. Available:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/kinectforwindowsdev/Videos.aspx. [Accessed 25 November

2013].

[5] "Getting Started with Microsoft Kinect SDK," I-Programmer.info, 06 February 2012.

[Online]. Available: http://www.i-programmer.info/programming/hardware/2623-getting-started-

with-microsoft-kinect-sdk.html. [Accessed 26 November 2013].

[6] Sparkfun Electronics. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8897 [Accessed Apr.

26, 2014].

31 | P a g e

Appendix A - Acronyms

AC- Alternating Current

CAD – Computer Aided Design

COM - Communication port

DC – Direct Current

MIMER – Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot

MNS – Mirror Neuron System

MOSFET - Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor

PCB – Printed Circuit Board

PLA - Polylactide

USB - Universal Serial Bus

32 | P a g e

Appendix B – Budget

Table 9: Budget

Component Price Quantity Total Vendor

Robot Components

HS-645MG servo motor $29.29 4 $117.16 RobotShop.com

HS-85BB servo motor $19.95 4 $79.80 RobotShop.com

HS-55 micro servo motor $9.99 6 $59.94 RobotShop.com

Standard servo pan and tilt kit $9.95 2 $19.90 RobotShop.com

Micro servo pan and tilt kit $12.69 2 $25.38 RobotShop.com

2 pack standard servo brackets $11.95 1 $11.95 RobotShop.com

2 pack micro servo brackets $11.95 1 $11.95 RobotShop.com

Mounting hardware (estimated) $5.00 NA $5.00 Home Depot

PLA 3D printing plastic (per

yard) $1.66 100 $166.00 CSU I2P Lab

Total $497.08

Aesthetics

16"x2"x4' wood board $15.00 1 $15.00 Home Depot

3' baseboard trim $5.00 1 $5.00 Home Depot

Black Spray Paint $4.85 1 $4.85 Home Depot

Animal skin $30.00 1 $30.00 Toys R Us

Velcro mounting strips (per yard) $5.00 3 $15.00 Joann's Fabrics

Extra Material (per yard) $4.50 3 $13.50 Joann's Fabrics

Total $83.35

Electronics

DC-DC converter $17.99 1 $17.99 Autek

NMOS $1.06 1 $1.06 Digikey

Diode $1.85 1 $1.85 Digikey

DC power supply $10.00 1 $10.00 Amazon

Plugs and switches $25.00 1 $25.00 Radioshack

Battery $61.00 1 $61.00 BatteriesPlus

PCB $65.70 1 $65.70 ExpressPCB

Pins & jumper wires $38.33 1 $38.33 Sparkfun

Soldering materials $30.45 1 $30.45 Radioshack

Fuses & headers $15.00 1 $15.00 Digikey

Kinect $75.00 1 $75.00 Microsoft

Pololu $39.95 1 $39.95 Pololu

Fan $12.00 1 $12.00 Digikey

Laptop $500.00 1 $500.00 Lenovo

Total $893.33

Grand Total $1,473.76

33 | P a g e

Appendix C – Timelines

For previous timelines see previous report.

Timeline updated 1-8-14

Month

Assignment (Date to be Completed)

Salem

Al-

Aqeel

John

Allison

Trevor

Pier

Jay

Vickers

Lucas

Wadman

Daniel

White

Timeline

Met (Y/N)

Date

Completed

June -

Research

Phase

Research on Body X Y

Microprocessor Selection X X Y

Kinect Data Output Stream X Y

July -

Research

Phase

3-D Movement Decision X X X X Y

Choose Size and Number of Motors X N

Design Hand X X X X N

Aug -

Research

Phase

Prelim Tests X X X X N

How to Interface w/ Motors X X X X Y

Circuit Design X X X X Y

Sept -

Construction

Phase

Timeline 9/11 Email Sudeep TODAY X X X X X X Y

Background Writing Assignment 9/10 X X Y

Project Plan Presentation 9/24 X X Y

Project Website 9/18 Email Dr.

Pasricha 9/11 X X X X X X

Y

Revised Project Plan 9/23 X Y

Notebook Collection 9/23 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 9/15 X Y

Look Into Methods for Hand Tracking X Y

Find Sponsorship 10/1 X N

Materials Selected for Body 9/20 X Y

Overall Size - Sketches Completed

9/20 X

Y

Basic Skeleton Body Constructed 9/20 X Y

Choose Motor Types for Arm And

Order 10/5 X X

N

- Arm Movement Layout with Motors 10/5

X Y

- Circuitry Layout with Motors

Completed 10/5 X

Y

Sensor Reselection (Webcams, Leap, Kinect, Open NI Sensor) 10/1

X

Y

Microcontroller Reselection 9/15 X Y

34 | P a g e

Oct -

Construction

Phase

Testing and Measurement Plan 10/25

Email Sudeep 10/18 X

Y-N

Notebook Collection 10/14 Mech 10/3 X X X X X X Y

First Round of Concepts Complete Mech 10/10

X X Y

Design Your Future Day 10/16 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 10/15 X Y

Project Presentation 10/25 X Y

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y

Motors and Controller Interfacing

10/30 Completed Nov 2nd

X

N

Choose Motor Types for Arm and

Order 10/13 X

Y

Funding Letter Sent to Companies

10/11 finished 10/16

X

N

Preliminary Design Base for Robot

10/30 X

Y

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y

Sensor and Computer Testing 10/30 X Y

Start to Implement on Body 10/30 X Y

Nov - Debug

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X X X X X X Y 12-11

First Round of Feasibility analysis started 11/14

X X Y 11-14

Notebook Check 11/14 Mech E 11/5 X X X X X X Y 11-14

Written Report 12/3 X N 12-6

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Plans for next Semester 12/3 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/3 X X X X X X N 12-13

Update Website 11/15 X Y 11-15

Research Batteries for Battery

Powered 11/23 X

Y 11-10

Find another power supply to test

circuit 12/22 X

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y 11-3

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y 11-3

Testing from Sensor to

Microcontroller 11/10 X

N 11-15

Code for Base 11/30 X Y 11-10

Dec -

Administration

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X Y 12-11

Critical Design Review Mech E 12/10

- presentation X X

NA

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Written Report 12/3 Mech 12/5 X Y 12-6

Design Notebooks 12/10 X X X X X X

Plans for next Semester 12/13 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/13 X X X X X X Y 12-13

35 | P a g e

Special Cases Coding 12/21 X N

Rules for Use 12/21 X

Update Website 12/15 X Y 12-15

Set Up Time with Anschutz to Test

12/21 X

N

Circuit Testing - 2 solutions for

Voltage Regulation on Pis 12/22

X

Y 12-8

Circuit Testing - Fusing 12/31 X Y 12-20

Circuit Testing - Wall Switching to

Battery and Vice Versa 12/22

X

Y 11-13

Circuit Testing - Testing solutions for

voltage regulation 12/31

X

N

Coding - No Crashing Code 12/7 X Y 12-7

Coding - Bouncing motors is not

noticeable on arms 12/7

X

Y 12-7

Coding - Debug of code for Pipeline 12/31

X X N 1-11

Mechanical - Concept for Gearing of

DC Motor 12/31

X

Mechanical - Concept Design of

Hands Complete 12/31

X

Y 12-7

Mechanical - Testing Torque of new

750mA motors 12/31 X

Y 12-20

Mechanical - CAD final concept

drawing 12/11 X

N

Mechanical - Skin for testing 12/31 X

First Semester

Deliverables

Robot with moving arms taking input

from sensor and outputs to motors X

Y 1-11

- Prototypical Skeleton Design with Motors

X Y

- Microcontroller Selection X Y 10-8

- Sensor Selection X Y 6-15

- 70% Code Completed - Arm

Mimicry, Speech Recognition, User Selection

X

Y 11-23

- Meeting Clinical Criteria - Arm

Mirroring - no DC motors - no hands

X

Y 1-11

- Slow Mimicry of Children (1 sec Delay)

X Y 1-11

- Power Circuit for Arms Completely

Built X

N

- Speech Recognition Functionality (moved to second semester)

X

N

Jan -

Construction

Phase

Update Website 1/15 X

Test with Child Week of Jan 15th X

N End of

Jan

Revise Timeline 1/20 X

36 | P a g e

Circuit Testing - Solution for

discharging one end of the circuit and

keeping a constant voltage wall and battery 1/10

X

Y 1-10

Circuit Testing - Testing solution for discharging one end of the circuit and

keeping a constant voltage - wall and

battery 1/15

X

N

Circuit Testing - Power Circuit

Completely Constructed 1/31

X

Coding - Code takes in input for arms and outputs to motors 1/15

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Getting code to work over

network at school 1/19

X

N

Coding - Speed up Coding to sub 1

sec delay from Kinect to motors 1/31

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Look into solutions for

bouncing motors and have a solution 1/19

X

Coding - 1st Write-up of hand

tracking algorithm 1/31 * X

Mechanical - Specific Idea for Stand

Solution 1/15 X

Mechanical - Have in hand solution for stand 1/31

X

Mechanical - Construct Gearing for

DC Motors 1/31

X

Build 2nd prototype of arms 1/15 -

new motors X

Y 1-15

Mechanical Debug Mechanical Issues

with Arm 1/31 X

Feb - Debug

Phase

Mechanical - Construct Hands with

Motors 1/31* X

Set Up Another Testing Time 1/31 X

Update Website 2/15 X

Design Notebooks X X X X X X

Circuit Testing - Debug Small Issues

2/7 X

Complete Test of MIMER without

hands 2/15 X

Test with Child/Anschutz week of Feb 24

X

Coding - Move Executable to Pi's 2/28 X

Coding - Write Speech Recognition Code 2/15

X

Coding - Debug Hand Tracking

Algorithm 2/28 X

Mechanical - Debug Issues with

Hands 2/28 X

Mechanical - Final Ideas for Skin 2/15 X

Mechanical - Add DC motors to cart

2/15 X

Mechanical - Add hands to MIMER 2/28

X

37 | P a g e

Mar - Small

Construction

Phase

Mechanical - Dress MIMER 2/28 X

PCB layout 2/28 X

Update Website 3/15 X

Design Notebooks 3/

Coding - All Coding Running on Pis

3/31 X X

Coding - Speech Recognition

Complete 3/15

X

Coding - Complete Hand Tracking

3/15 X

Mechanical - Debug and Issues with Mechanical System

X X

Circuit - Debug Any Issues with

Electrical System X X

Apr - Last

Debug Phase

Meet All Final Deliverables 3/31 X

Written Report X

Recommendation for Project

Continuation X X

Edays X

Peer and Self Evaluation X X X X X X

Oral Presentation X

Second

Semester

Deliverables

Any Last Debug X X X X X X

Final Complete Project X X X X X X

Arms Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Hands Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Aesthetically Pleasing X X X X X X

Exceeds all of Anschutz's

Expectations X X X X X X

Timeline updated 1-23-14

Month

Assignment (Date to be Completed)

Salem Al-

Aqeel

John Alliso

n

Trevo

r Pier

Jay Vicker

s

Lucas Wadma

n

Daniel

White

Timeline

Met (Y/N) Date

Complete

d

June - Research

Phase

Research on Body X Y

Microprocessor Selection X X Y

Kinect Data Output Stream X Y

July - Research

Phase

3-D Movement Decision X X X X Y

Choose Size and Number of Motors X N

Design Hand X X X X N

Aug -

Research Phase

Prelim Tests X X X X N

How to Interface w/ Motors X X X X Y

Circuit Design X X X X Y

Sept - Timeline 9/11 Email Sudeep TODAY X X X X X X Y

38 | P a g e

Construction

Phase Background Writing Assignment 9/10 X X Y

Project Plan Presentation 9/24 X X Y

Project Website 9/18 Email Dr. Pasricha 9/11 X X X X X X Y

Revised Project Plan 9/23 X Y

Notebook Collection 9/23 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 9/15 X Y

Look Into Methods for Hand Tracking X Y

Find Sponsorship 10/1 X N

Materials Selected for Body 9/20 X Y

Overall Size - Sketches Completed 9/20 X Y

Basic Skeleton Body Constructed 9/20 X Y

Choose Motor Types for Arm And Order 10/5 X X N

- Arm Movement Layout with Motors 10/5 X Y

- Circuitry Layout with Motors Completed 10/5 X Y

Sensor Reselection (Webcams, Leap, Kinect,

Open NI Sensor) 10/1

X

Y

Microcontroller Reselection 9/15 X Y

Oct -

Construction Phase

Testing and Measurement Plan 10/25 Email

Sudeep 10/18 X

Y-N

Notebook Collection 10/14 Mech 10/3 X X X X X X Y

First Round of Concepts Complete Mech 10/10 X X Y

Design Your Future Day 10/16 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 10/15 X Y

Project Presentation 10/25 X Y

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y

Motors and Controller Interfacing 10/30 Completed Nov 2nd

X

N

Choose Motor Types for Arm and Order 10/13 X Y

Funding Letter Sent to Companies 10/11 finished

10/16 X

N

Preliminary Design Base for Robot 10/30 X Y

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y

Sensor and Computer Testing 10/30 X Y

Start to Implement on Body 10/30 X Y

Nov - Debug Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X X X X X X Y 12-11

First Round of Feasibility analysis started 11/14 X X Y 11-14

Notebook Check 11/14 Mech E 11/5 X X X X X X Y 11-14

Written Report 12/3 X N 12-6

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Plans for next Semester 12/3 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/3 X X X X X X N 12-13

Update Website 11/15 X Y 11-15

39 | P a g e

Research Batteries for Battery Powered 11/23 X Y 11-10

Find another power supply to test circuit 12/22 X

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y 11-3

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y 11-3

Testing from Sensor to Microcontroller 11/10 X N 11-15

Code for Base 11/30 X Y 11-10

Dec -

Administration Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X Y 12-11

Critical Design Review Mech E 12/10 - presentation

X X NA

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Written Report 12/3 Mech 12/5 X Y 12-6

Design Notebooks 12/10 X X X X X X

Plans for next Semester 12/13 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/13 X X X X X X Y 12-13

Special Cases Coding 12/21 X N

Rules for Use 12/21 X

Update Website 12/15 X Y 12-15

Set Up Time with Anschutz to Test 12/21 X N

Circuit Testing - 2 solutions for Voltage

Regulation on Pis 12/22

X

Y 12-8

Circuit Testing - Fusing 12/31 X Y 12-20

Circuit Testing - Wall Switching to Battery and

Vice Versa 12/22

X

Y 11-13

Circuit Testing - Testing solutions for voltage regulation 12/31

X

N

Coding - No Crashing Code 12/7 X Y 12-7

Coding - Bouncing motors is not noticeable on

arms 12/7 X

Y 12-7

Coding - Debug of code for Pipeline 12/31 X X N 1-11

Mechanical - Concept for Gearing of DC Motor 12/31

X

Mechanical - Concept Design of Hands

Complete 12/31 X

Y 12-7

Mechanical - Testing Torque of new 750mA

motors 12/31 X

Y 12-20

Mechanical - CAD final concept drawing 12/11 X N

Mechanical - Skin for testing 12/31 X

First Semester

Deliverables

Robot with moving arms taking input from

sensor and outputs to motors

X

Y 1-11

- Prototypical Skeleton Design with Motors X Y

- Microcontroller Selection X Y 10-8

- Sensor Selection X Y 6-15

- 70% Code Completed - Arm Mimicry, Speech

Recognition, User Selection

X

Y 11-23

40 | P a g e

- Meeting Clinical Criteria - Arm Mirroring - no DC motors - no hands

X

Y 1-11

- Slow Mimicry of Children (1 sec Delay) X Y 1-11

- Power Circuit for Arms Completely Built X N

- Speech Recognition Functionality (moved to

second semester)

X

N

Jan -

Construction Phase

Update Website 1/15 X

Test with Child Week of Jan 15th X

N End of Jan

Revise Timeline 1/20 X

Circuit Testing - Solution for discharging one end of the circuit and keeping a constant voltage

wall and battery 1/10

X

Y 1-10

Circuit Testing - Testing solution for discharging

one end of the circuit and keeping a constant voltage - wall and battery 1/15

X

N

Circuit Testing - Power Circuit Completely

Constructed 1/31 X

Coding - Code takes in input for arms and outputs to motors 1/15

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Getting code to work over network at

school 1/19 X

N

Coding - Speed up Coding to sub 1 sec delay

from Kinect to motors 1/31

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Look into solutions for bouncing motors and have a solution 1/19

X

Coding - 1st Write-up of hand tracking algorithm

1/31 * X

Mechanical - Specific Idea for Stand Solution

1/15 X

Mechanical - Have in hand solution for stand 1/31

X

Mechanical - Construct Gearing for DC Motors

1/31 X

Build 2nd prototype of arms 1/15 - new motors X Y 1-15

Mechanical Debug Mechanical Issues with Arm 1/31

X

Mechanical - Construct Hands with Motors

1/31* X

Set Up Another Testing Time 1/31 X

Feb - Debug

Phase

Update Website 2/15 X

Design Notebooks X X X X X X

Circuit Testing - Debug Small Issues 2/7 X

Complete Test of MIMER without hands 2/15 X

Test with Child/Anschutz week of Feb 24 X

Coding - Move Executable to Pi's 2/28 X

Coding - Write Speech Recognition Code 2/15 X

Coding - Debug Hand Tracking Algorithm 2/28 X

41 | P a g e

Mechanical - Debug Issues with Hands 2/28 X

Mechanical - Final Ideas for Skin 2/15 X

Mechanical - Add DC motors to cart 2/15 X

Mechanical - Add hands to MIMER 2/28 X

Mechanical - Dress MIMER 2/28 X

PCB layout 2/28 X

Mar - Small

Construction Phase

Update Website 3/15 X

Design Notebooks 3/

Coding - All Coding Running on Pis 3/31 X X

Coding - Speech Recognition Complete 3/15 X

Coding - Complete Hand Tracking 3/15 X

Mechanical - Debug and Issues with Mechanical

System X X

Circuit - Debug Any Issues with Electrical

System X X

Meet All Final Deliverables 3/31 X

Apr - Last

Debug Phase

Written Report X

Recommendation for Project Continuation X X

Edays X

Peer and Self Evaluation X X X X X X

Oral Presentation X

Any Last Debug X X X X X X

Second Semester

Deliverables

Final Complete Project X X X X X X

Arms Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Hands Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Aesthetically Pleasing X X X X X X

Exceeds all of Anschutz's Expectations X X X X X X

Timeline updated 2-9-14

Month

Assignment (Date to be Completed)

Salem

Al-Aqeel

John

Allison

Trevor

Pier

Jay

Vickers

Lucas

Wadman

Daniel

White

Timeline

Met (Y/N)

Date Completed

June - Research

Phase

Research on Body X Y

Microprocessor Selection X X Y

Kinect Data Output Stream X Y

July -

Research Phase

3-D Movement Decision X X X X Y

Choose Size and Number of Motors X N

Design Hand X X X X N

Aug -

Research Phase

Prelim Tests X X X X N

How to Interface w/ Motors X X X X Y

Circuit Design X X X X Y

Sept - Timeline 9/11 Email Sudeep TODAY X X X X X X Y

42 | P a g e

Construction

Phase Background Writing Assignment 9/10 X X Y

Project Plan Presentation 9/24 X X Y

Project Website 9/18 Email Dr. Pasricha 9/11 X X X X X X Y

Revised Project Plan 9/23 X Y

Notebook Collection 9/23 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 9/15 X Y

Look Into Methods for Hand Tracking X Y

Find Sponsorship 10/1 X N

Materials Selected for Body 9/20 X Y

Overall Size - Sketches Completed 9/20 X Y

Basic Skeleton Body Constructed 9/20 X Y

Choose Motor Types for Arm And Order 10/5 X X N

- Arm Movement Layout with Motors 10/5 X Y

- Circuitry Layout with Motors Completed 10/5 X Y

Sensor Reselection (Webcams, Leap, Kinect, Open NI Sensor) 10/1

X

Y

Microcontroller Reselection 9/15 X Y

Oct -

Construction Phase

Testing and Measurement Plan 10/25 Email

Sudeep 10/18 X

Y-N

Notebook Collection 10/14 Mech 10/3 X X X X X X Y

First Round of Concepts Complete Mech 10/10 X X Y

Design Your Future Day 10/16 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 10/15 X Y

Project Presentation 10/25 X Y

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y

Motors and Controller Interfacing 10/30

Completed Nov 2nd

X

N

Choose Motor Types for Arm and Order 10/13 X Y

Funding Letter Sent to Companies 10/11 finished 10/16

X N

Preliminary Design Base for Robot 10/30 X Y

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y

Sensor and Computer Testing 10/30 X Y

Start to Implement on Body 10/30 X Y

Nov - Debug

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X X X X X X Y 12-11

First Round of Feasibility analysis started 11/14 X X Y 11-14

Notebook Check 11/14 Mech E 11/5 X X X X X X Y 11-14

Written Report 12/3 X N 12-6

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Plans for next Semester 12/3 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/3 X X X X X X N 12-13

Update Website 11/15 X Y 11-15

43 | P a g e

Research Batteries for Battery Powered 11/23 X Y 11-10

Find another power supply to test circuit 12/22 X

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y 11-3

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y 11-3

Testing from Sensor to Microcontroller 11/10 X N 11-15

Code for Base 11/30 X Y 11-10

Dec -

Administration

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X Y 12-11

Critical Design Review Mech E 12/10 - presentation

X X NA

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Written Report 12/3 Mech 12/5 X Y 12-6

Design Notebooks 12/10 X X X X X X

Plans for next Semester 12/13 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/13 X X X X X X Y 12-13

Special Cases Coding 12/21 X N

Rules for Use 12/21 X

Update Website 12/15 X Y 12-15

Set Up Time with Anschutz to Test 12/21 X N

Circuit Testing - 2 solutions for Voltage

Regulation on Pis 12/22

X

Y 12-8

Circuit Testing - Fusing 12/31 X Y 12-20

Circuit Testing - Wall Switching to Battery and Vice Versa 12/22

X

Y 11-13

Circuit Testing - Testing solutions for voltage

regulation 12/31

X

N

Coding - No Crashing Code 12/7 X Y 12-7

Coding - Bouncing motors is not noticeable on

arms 12/7 X

Y 12-7

Coding - Debug of code for Pipeline 12/31 X X N 1-11

Mechanical - Concept for Gearing of DC Motor

12/31 X

Mechanical - Concept Design of Hands Complete 12/31

X Y 12-7

Mechanical - Testing Torque of new 750mA

motors 12/31 X

Y 12-20

Mechanical - CAD final concept drawing 12/11 X N

Mechanical - Skin for testing 12/31 X

First Semester

Deliverables

Robot with moving arms taking input from sensor

and outputs to motors

X

Y 1-11

- Prototypical Skeleton Design with Motors X Y

- Microcontroller Selection X Y 10-8

- Sensor Selection X Y 6-15

- 70% Code Completed - Arm Mimicry, Speech Recognition, User Selection

X

Y 11-23

44 | P a g e

- Meeting Clinical Criteria - Arm Mirroring - no DC motors - no hands

X

Y 1-11

- Slow Mimicry of Children (1 sec Delay) X Y 1-11

- Power Circuit for Arms Completely Built X N

- Speech Recognition Functionality (moved to

second semester)

X

N

Jan -

Construction Phase

Update Website 1/15 X

Test with Child Week of Jan 15th X

N End of

Jan

Revise Timeline 1/20 X

Circuit Testing - Solution for discharging one end of the circuit and keeping a constant voltage wall

and battery 1/10

X

Y 1-10

Circuit Testing - Testing solution for discharging

one end of the circuit and keeping a constant

voltage - wall and battery 1/15

X

N

Circuit Testing - Power Circuit Completely Constructed 1/31

X

Coding - Code takes in input for arms and outputs

to motors 1/15

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Getting code to work over network at school 1/19

X N

Coding - Speed up Coding to sub 1 sec delay from

Kinect to motors 1/31

X

Y 1-11

Coding - Look into solutions for bouncing motors

and have a solution 1/19

X

Coding - 1st Write-up of hand tracking algorithm

1/31 * X

Mechanical - Specific Idea for Stand Solution 1/15 X

Mechanical - Have in hand solution for stand 1/31 X

Mechanical - Construct Gearing for DC Motors

1/31 X

Build 2nd prototype of arms 1/15 - new motors X Y 1-15

Mechanical Debug Mechanical Issues with Arm 1/31

X

Mechanical - Construct Hands with Motors 1/31* X

Set Up Another Testing Time 1/31 X

Feb - Debug Phase

Update Website 2/15 X

Design Notebooks X X X X X X

Circuit Testing - Debug Small Issues 2/7 X

Complete Test of MIMER without hands 2/15 X

Test with Child/Anschutz week of Feb 24 X

Coding - Move Executable to Pi's 2/28 X

Coding - Write Speech Recognition Code 2/15 X

Coding - Debug Hand Tracking Algorithm 2/28 X

Mechanical - Debug Issues with Hands 2/28 X

45 | P a g e

Mechanical - Final Ideas for Skin 2/15 X

Mechanical - Add DC motors to cart 2/15 X

Mechanical - Add hands to MIMER 2/28 X

Mechanical - Dress MIMER 2/28 X

PCB layout 2/28 X

Mar - Small

Construction

Phase

Update Website 3/15 X

Design Notebooks 3/

Coding - All Coding Running on Pis 3/31 X X

Coding - Speech Recognition Complete 3/15 X

Coding - Complete Hand Tracking 3/15 X

Mechanical - Debug and Issues with Mechanical

System X X

Circuit - Debug Any Issues with Electrical System X X

Meet All Final Deliverables 3/31 X

Apr - Last

Debug Phase

Written Report X

Recommendation for Project Continuation X X

Edays X

Peer and Self Evaluation X X X X X X

Oral Presentation X

Any Last Debug X X X X X X

Second

Semester

Deliverables

Final Complete Project X X X X X X

Arms Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Hands Mirroring Child X X X X X X

Aesthetically Pleasing X X X X X X

Exceeds all of Anschutz's Expectations X X X X X X

Timeline updated 4-24-14

Month

Assignment (Date to be Completed)

Salem Al-

Aqeel

John

Allison

Trevor

Pier

Jay

Vickers

Lucas

Wadman

Daniel

White

Timeline

Met (Y/N)

Date Completed

June -

Research Phase

Research on Body X Y

Microprocessor Selection X X Y

Kinect Data Output Stream X Y

July -

Research

Phase

3-D Movement Decision X X X X Y

Choose Size and Number of Motors X N

Design Hand X X X X N

Aug -

Research

Phase

Prelim Tests X X X X N

How to Interface w/ Motors X X X X Y

Circuit Design X X X X Y

Sept -

Construction

Phase

Timeline 9/11 Email Sudeep TODAY X X X X X X Y

Background Writing Assignment 9/10 X X Y

Project Plan Presentation 9/24 X X Y

46 | P a g e

Project Website 9/18 Email Dr. Pasricha 9/11 X X X X X X Y

Revised Project Plan 9/23 X Y

Notebook Collection 9/23 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 9/15 X Y

Look Into Methods for Hand Tracking X Y

Find Sponsorship 10/1 X N

Materials Selected for Body 9/20 X Y

Overall Size - Sketches Completed 9/20 X Y

Basic Skeleton Body Constructed 9/20 X Y

Choose Motor Types for Arm And Order 10/5 X X N

- Arm Movement Layout with Motors 10/5 X Y

- Circuitry Layout with Motors Completed 10/5 X Y

Sensor Reselection (Webcams, Leap, Kinect,

Open NI Sensor) 10/1 X

Y

Microcontroller Reselection 9/15 X Y

Oct - Construction

Phase

Testing and Measurement Plan 10/25 Email Sudeep 10/18

X Y-N

Notebook Collection 10/14 Mech 10/3 X X X X X X Y

First Round of Concepts Complete Mech 10/10 X X Y

Design Your Future Day 10/16 X X X X X X Y

Update Website 10/15 X Y

Project Presentation 10/25 X Y

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y

Motors and Controller Interfacing 10/30

Completed Nov 2nd X

N

Choose Motor Types for Arm and Order 10/13 X Y

Funding Letter Sent to Companies 10/11 finished

10/16 X

N

Preliminary Design Base for Robot 10/30 X Y

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y

Sensor and Computer Testing 10/30 X Y

Start to Implement on Body 10/30 X Y

Nov - Debug

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X X X X X X Y 12-11

First Round of Feasibility analysis started 11/14 X X Y 11-14

Notebook Check 11/14 Mech E 11/5 X X X X X X Y 11-14

Written Report 12/3 X N 12-6

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Plans for next Semester 12/3 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/3 X X X X X X N 12-13

Update Website 11/15 X Y 11-15

Research Batteries for Battery Powered 11/23 X Y 11-10

Find another power supply to test circuit 12/22 X N 2/5

Order Circuit Parts 11/3 X Y 11-3

Stuffing and shell for bear ideas 11/3 X Y 11-3

Testing from Sensor to Microcontroller 11/10 X N 11-15

Code for Base 11/30 X Y 11-10

47 | P a g e

Dec -

Administration

Phase

Oral Presentation 12/11 X Y 12-11

Critical Design Review Mech E 12/10 -

presentation X X

NA

Elevator Speech 12/3 X Y 12-3

Written Report 12/3 Mech 12/5 X Y 12-6

Design Notebooks 12/10 X X X X X X Y 12/10

Plans for next Semester 12/13 X Y 11-25

Peer and Self Evaluation 12/13 X X X X X X Y 12-13

Special Cases Coding 12/21 X N 4/11

Rules for Use 12/21 X Y 12/21

Update Website 12/15 X Y 12-15

Circuit Testing - 2 solutions for Voltage Regulation on Pis 12/22

X Y 12-8

Circuit Testing - Fusing 12/31 X Y 12-20

Circuit Testing - Wall Switching to Battery and

Vice Versa 12/22 X

Y 11-13

Circuit Testing - Testing solutions for voltage

regulation 12/31 X

N 2/28

Coding - No Crashing Code 12/7 X Y 12-7

Coding - Bouncing motors is not noticeable on

arms 12/7 X

Y 12-7

Coding - Debug of code for Pipeline 12/31 X X N 1-11

Mechanical - Concept Design of Hands Complete

12/31 X

Y 12-7

Mechanical - Testing Torque of new 750mA motors 12/31

X Y 12-20

Mechanical - CAD final concept drawing 12/11 X N 3/1

Mechanical - Skin for testing 12/31 X N 3/7

First Semester

Deliverables

Robot with moving arms taking input from sensor and outputs to motors

X Y 1-11

- Prototypical Skeleton Design with Motors X Y

- Microcontroller Selection X Y 10-8

- Sensor Selection X Y 6-15

- 70% Code Completed - Arm Mimicry, Speech

Recognition, User Selection X

Y 11-23

- Meeting Clinical Criteria - Arm Mirroring - no DC motors - no hands

X Y 1-11

- Slow Mimicry of Children (1 sec Delay) X Y 1-11

- Power Circuit for Arms Completely Built X N 3/31

Jan - Construction

Phase

Update Website 1/15 X N 1/25

Revise Timeline 1/20 X N 1-28

Circuit Testing - Solution for discharging one end

of the circuit and keeping a constant voltage wall

and battery 1/10

X

Y 1-10

Circuit Testing - Testing solution for discharging

one end of the circuit and keeping a constant voltage - wall and battery 1/15

X

N 3/31

Circuit Testing - Power Circuit Completely

Constructed 1/31 X

Y 1/31

48 | P a g e

Coding - Code takes in input for arms and outputs

to motors 1/15 X

Y 1-11

Coding - Getting code to work over network at

school 1/19 X

N 2/1

Coding - Speed up Coding to sub 1 sec delay from Kinect to motors 1/31

X Y 1-11

Coding - Look into solutions for bouncing motors and have a solution 1/19

X N 2/14

Mechanical - Specific Idea for Stand Solution 1/15 X N 2/5

Build 2nd prototype of arms 1/15 - new motors X Y 1-15

Mechanical Debug Mechanical Issues with Arm 1/31

X Y 1/31

Set Up Another Testing Time 1/31 X N 2/5

Feb - Debug

Phase

Update Website 2/15 X Y 2/15

Design Notebooks 2/24 X X X X X X Y 2/24

Circuit Testing - Debug Small Issues 2/7 X Y 2/7

Circuit Testing - Testing solution for discharging one end of the circuit and keeping a constant

voltage - wall and battery 1/15

X

N 2/28

Complete Test of MIMER without hands 2/15 X Y 2/2

Coding - Fixing Speed of Sending Information 2/23

X N 4/11

Coding - Motors Not Bouncing 2/28 X Y 2/23

Mechanical - Debug Issues with Hands 2/28 X Y 2/28

Mechanical - Construct Hands with Motors 2/28* X Y 2/28

Mechanical - Body Constructed and Complete 2/28

X Y 2/16

Mechanical - Final Ideas for Skin 2/28 X Y 2/28

Mechanical - Final Box 2/28 X N 3/23

Mechanical - Add hands to MIMER 2/28 X N 3/7

Mechanical - Dress MIMER 3/5 X N 3/23

PCB layout 2/28 X N 3/31

Mar - Small

Construction Phase

Update Website 3/15 X Y 3/15

Design Notebooks 3/31 Y 3/31

Meet with Dan Ferguson End of March X N 4/18

Mechanical - Debug Issues with Mechanical System

X X Y 3/29

Circuit - Debug Any Issues with Electrical System X X Y 3/29

Meet All Final Deliverables 3/31 X N 4/11

Apr - Last Debug Phase

Written Report X

Recommendation for Project Continuation X X

Edays X Y 4/25

Peer and Self Evaluation X X X X X X

Oral Presentation X

Any Last Debug X X X X X X Y 4/24

Second Semester

Deliverables

Final Complete Project X X X X X X Y 4/24

Arms Mirroring Child Sub 1 second X X X X X X Y 4/12

Aesthetically Pleasing X X X X X X Y 3/31

49 | P a g e

Exceeds all of Anschutz's Expectations X X X X X X Awaiting

Critique

50 | P a g e

Appendix D – Funding Documents

The MIMER project has had a significant self-funding component because of its large scale

and associated costs. We have pursued sponsorship from a number of different organizations,

and in November 2013 we successfully received sponsorship from Agilent Technologies after a

competitive sponsorship process. Attached in this Appendix are the funding request letters used

to solicit sponsorship for the project, and the message of thanks extended to Agilent after we

were selected for their sponsorship.

«Company_Name»

«Local_Address»

To Whom It May Concern,

Motion Interactive Medical Exercise Robot (MIMER) is an electrical engineering senior

design project at Colorado State University. The project is being performed in conjunction with

Anschutz Medical Center in Denver, CO.

What is this project?

The goal of the project is to design and build a robot to interact with developmentally

disabled children who receive treatment at Anschutz and help them achieve developmental

milestones, such as reaching for a ball or singing the itsy bitsy spider song. These milestones can

be more difficult to achieve for children with developmental disabilities, and the key for reaching

the milestones is repetition. Robots are great at many things, including repetition! MIMER will

integrate motion-sensing technologies with our team’s custom software algorithms to interact

with children, mirror their motions, and give motion prompts! And last but not least, MIMER

will have a friendly exterior like a Teddy Bear or other cuddly creature to encourage children to

interact with it. We are asking if «Company_Name» would be willing to help us make MIMER a

reality through financial sponsorship.

Our project is ambitious, but our multidisciplinary team of electrical, computer, and

mechanical engineering students is fully capable of accomplishing the goals. We are designing a

robot that will sense motion and be friendly and inviting to developmentally disabled children

from the ground up. We have plans to deliver a fully functional robot to Anschutz for testing

with their clients by the end of January. We have already invested significant amounts of time

and energy, and the last component we need to see MIMER through to its full potential is

funding.

So…what do you need?

At this point, our project is in need of funding resources so we can purchase the advanced

sensor technologies, robot components, and other components as we encounter project bumps.

We currently anticipate needing a total sponsorship of $2000 for our project, so any funding your

organization could provide would be appreciated greatly. A detailed budget breakdown is

available by request. Donations will be made through a secure web portal on the Electrical and

Computer Engineering web page.

51 | P a g e

How will this benefit «Company_Name»?

There are a number of ways in which sponsorship would benefit «Company_Name». This

project will have exposure not just throughout Colorado State University through our coursework

but also within the Fort Collins and Anschutz communities when we are eventually running trial

tests with the robot.

If «Company_Name» were to offer assistance for our project, we would be sure to

prominently include your branding on our team shirts, deliverables like our paper and

presentation, or even on the MIMER robot itself.

We from the MIMER team thank you at «Company_Name» for your time and consideration

of this funding request. If you have any questions, please contact our fundraising lead, Luke

Wadman ([email protected]), our faculty advisor, Dr. Sudeep Pasricha

([email protected]), or the head of ECE senior design, Olivera Notaros

([email protected]). You can find more information at our project web page

(http://www.engr.colostate.edu/ece-sr-design/AY13/MIMER/index.html).

Sincerely,

Electrical and Computer Engineering

MIMERS

Mechanical Engineering MIMERS

Salem Al-Aqeel, Daniel White, Jay Vickers,

Luke Wadman

John Allison, Trevor Pier

52 | P a g e

Appendix E – Thank You Letter – Agilent

To Whom It May Concern,

We would like to extend our thanks to your team of Dan Ferguson, Mike Craig, and Mike

Hawes, and the rest of the Agilent organization for selecting our Motion Interactive Medical

Exercise Robot (MIMER) senior design project as 1st place in the 2013 Agilent Senior Design

sponsorship competition!

This sponsorship allows us the opportunity to see our project through to completion, without

unnecessary hiccups or financial obligations to our individual team members. This is the kind of

flexibility our small team needs, and it will allow us to fully realize the potential of our project

by the end of next April.

With this generous sponsorship from Agilent, we are committed to including Agilent logos

and thanks on all our project materials, including reports, presentations, and our website. In

addition, we will be working with a member of the sponsorship committee to organize a site visit

to Agilent in the spring time frame, when MIMER will be demonstration-ready. We will also be

relaying Agilent’s generous status to our collaborators at Anschutz Medical Center.

We are enormously excited that Agilent is committed to MIMER, the next generation

apparatus for measuring effective treatment of developmental disabilities in a clinical

environment. With Agilent’s sponsorship, we are that much closer to helping Anschutz’s team of

expert clinicians usher in a new era of diagnosing, treating, and rehabilitating children with

developmental disabilities.

We again extend our humble thanks, and look forward to working with you in the future as

MIMER comes closer to a reality.

Sincerely,

Electrical and Computer Engineering MIMERS

Mechanical Engineering MIMERS

Salem Al-Aqeel, Daniel White, Jay Vickers, Luke

Wadman

John Allison, Trevor Pier

53 | P a g e

Appendix F – Previous Circuit Layouts

This appendix includes the initial circuit diagrams from the project, where different

alternatives were being tested.

The diagram below is a completed circuit that includes the switching and power

distribution circuits all on one schematic. This was a design we did not end up using, but could

be used as a design option for future projects.

Figure 19: Previous Circuit Layout

The below layout diagram is an example of the “stacked” circuit layout approach that

proved to be invalid for our purposes given the need for the signal-line inputs of the motors to

operate at a common ground. With this design, the ground for the top motor would “float” at the

input for the bottom motor, allowing for correct voltages across the motor, but incorrect input for

the signal driving the motor movement. E.g. the top motor’s ground would be at 6V (a 6V drop

relative to the 12V power line) and the bottom motor’s ground at 0V, so signal inputs would

have different characteristics for the two motors. For correct motor operation across the entire

system, the signal lines must all operate at a common ground.

Figure 20: Circuit Layout 1

54 | P a g e

The below layout diagram is a potential candidate to move forward with new designs. It

is the first design imagined, and relies on a single voltage regulator to carry the 12 V power line

down to 5V. This layout features all the motors in parallel.

Figure 21: Circuit Layout 2

55 | P a g e

Appendix G – Mechanical Results

Figure 21 shows measurements taken to verify that current draw increases linearly with

torque for a servo motor. Voltage was also varied to determine if a higher torque could be

achieved. The range of factory recommended voltage is small and did not have a significant

effect on the torque achieved by the motor.

Figure 22: Current vs. Torque at Different Voltages on HS-422 Servo

The motor specifications found in Figure 22 helped to determine if there was a

relationship between the weight of the motors and torque. A motor high in torque but light

weight was important for the arms and fingers of the robot. The design of some motors could

provide substantial torque at a lower current draw than other motors which was also a desirable

trait.

Figure 23: Motor Specifications

56 | P a g e

Figure 24, Figure 25, and Table 10 show the torque calculations involved in determining

that the arm needed to be shortened and made lighter. Figure 25 demonstrates how much longer

and heavier the arm would be with wrists and hands added if the same design path were

continued.

Figure 24: Torque Calculations without Hand

Figure 25: Potential Length of Arm with Hand Attached

57 | P a g e

Table 10: Torque Calculations with a Potential Hand Attached

58 | P a g e

Acknowledgements

Like all great projects, the feats we accomplished throughout this academic year would not have

been possible without the contributions and commitments from individuals and organizations outside of

our team.

We would like to thank Agilent Technologies, the primary sponsor of the MIMER project, for

their financial and organizational support. With Agilent's help, we are helping test & measure effective

medical uses for social robotics.

Special thanks to Michael Melonis from the Anschutz Medical Campus University of

Colorado Denver for his insight, collaboration, and support throughout. The MIMER team would also

like to thank RobotShop.com for their sponsorship support of this project.

Finally, the MIMER team would also like to thank Dr. Sudeep Pasricha for his direction,

patience, technical knowledge, and support as one of our co-advisors. We would also like to thank Dr.

Anthony Maciejewski for his technical knowledge and assistance as our other co-advisor. We also would

like to thank Dr. Anura Jayasumana for his input and diverse ideas. And lastly we would like to thank

Olivera Notaros for her support, insights, and organizational efforts.

Thank you again to all those who supported the project.