Team Update for 10/19/2024

General Update

This week, Josh, Alex, and Jubi produced a design report detailing the use-cases, requirements, trade-off-analyses,  implementation details and more.

…More details TBD by 10/19

Design Report

Risks and risk mitigation

One potential risk is identified in the sensor amplifier circuit. Our goal is to amplify the sensor output to enhance our systems force-reading precision by providing a larger voltage range for the sensor output. Failure to obtain fine-grain readings may result in innacurate readings, which may fire alarms unecessarily or fail to fire alarms upon force-threshold excession. To mitigate this, we are working to determine the best amplifier circuit model (gain, phase, etc.) to obtain sufficient sensor output ranges with respect to our power constraints.

overall design changes

Instead of the STM32F4E Nucleo Board, we will be utilizing the ESP-WROOM-32 board as our controller because of its size advantages, built-in peripherals (more ADCs, Bluetooth), and ease-of-use via Arduino ESP32 libraries, as compared to bare-metal development on the STM.

schedule

The schedule remains the same as we are on track.

GANTT Chart

Joshua Ramos’ Status Report for 10/5/24

Personal Accomplishments
  1. Design Review Presentation (5hr): Spent time creating the use-case, technical requirements, system specification (HW), and unit testing slides.
  2. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): During our lab meetings, we received and provided great feedback from our peers, allowing us to identify questionable aspects of our project and see the kinds of methods and technologies other groups are using.
  3. Cross-team meetings (0.5hr): Me and Alex met with Vansh from team A3 to discuss our product design apporach in regard to which technologies we’re using  since our products are very similar. During our meetings, we discussed which controllers we’re using, sensors, communicatons protocols, and web development environments and tools. The exchange was very fruitful, and provided both teams with valuable exposure to technologies they hadn’t considered prior to this interaction.
  4. Further sensor testing (4hr): Spent time testing the sensors using precise weight measurements using a gram-scale. Through this I was able to determine the precision and sensitivity of the sensor, and can conclude its viability for the project. I will use the recorder value to set thresholds on the device such that an alarm can be fired when the threshold is broken.
Progress
  1. My progress is on schedule,  my next step is to callibrate the other incoming sensors and test multiple sensors on a hand at once.
Next Week tasks & goals
  1. Test multiple A301-100 sensors on a hand and measure via ADC.
  2. Look into other options for the controller board we are using. Looking for something more simple to use.

Joshua Ramos’ Status Report for 9/28/24

Personal Accomplishments

1. Ordered and acquired components (1hr): I ordered an MCP6004-I/P op-amp to construct the recommended circuit as described in the FlexiForce A301-100 datasheet. I also scoured the ECE lab rooms to acquire other components (with TA permission of course) such as 100k potentiometers, resistors, wires, capacitors, oscilloscopes, digital multi-meters, and power supplies.2. Sensor setup & ADC setup & sensor calibration (further testing required) (7hr): After constructing the recomended circuit in the A301-100 datasheet, to obtain  -Vref and Vsupply,  where Vref == Vsupply, I used two power supplies, one supplying 0.5V and -0.5V. Then, I hooked on a multi-meter to the Vout of the op-amp and pressed on the sensor with varying force to observe the output change. I did observe a change, however, Vout reached 0.5V with insignificant force. Realizing that I needed to modify the circuit to allow for a larger voltage range and tune the gain accordingly, I requested Alex’s help, for which he computed and provided me with the proper component values necessary to achieve this. After testing, the sensor functioned as predicted, and we we’re able to obtain readings  ranging from 0 – 2V, where grams of force correlated with mV of change and extreme force encroached on 2V.

Then, I booted up an STM32 Nucleo board, configured its ADC to use a 12-bit resolution, and measured the Vout pin of the MCP6004 to verify the sensor reading using a multi-meter. Lastly, I performed bend tests on the sensor while reading, for which there were no obvious differences via inspection in measurement. Further testing is required where we will place the sensor on scale and measure weights on it to calibrate. We will perform the same test on a bent sensor to identify changes in sensitivity. Side-note: during this testing, I identified that we will require a Negative LDO (Negative Linear Regulator) to produce -Vref in our final design (as we won’t use power supplies). I will investigate eligible components.

3. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): During our lab meetings, we recieved great feedback. We were able to discuss design corners in our project and identify areas of ambiguity. One very useful point made by our advisor was the tuning of our gain for our sensor readings. We applied this feedback in our sensor testing this week, it was very helpful! We also had time to meet with our team to perform schedule reviews and work on the design presentation.

Progress
  1. My progress is on schedule,  my next step is to continue calibrating the sensor and testing it using a scale and weights, along with more bend testing.
Next Week tasks & goals
  1. Test the A301-100 sensor with weights and tune the ADC and/or voltage range/gain if necessary. Also test the haptic driver, which will be used to alarm users.

Team Status Report for 9/28/24

General update
  1. This week we were able to test the A301-100 sensor and identify that it will be a viable component for our product, further testing is required.  We also have performed research into the biomechanics of our device in regards to sensor placement. We also performed a design review and worked on a presentation desribing our review.
POtential risks and risk management
  1. We plan to use the 316040001 vibration motor as the haptic for our system. In the case where this motor is too aggressive or too subtle, we may need to redesign the alarm of our system. In this case, we will utilize another method of alarm via noise, or search for more suitable motors. Other factors that will influence this potential redesign are motor current and supply voltage, as our system will limited on resources. We will perform a trade-off analysis of our options accordingly to determine the choice.
Overall design changes
  1. Based on the results of our sensor testing this week, no design changes will be necessary. Next week, the haptic sensors will come in and we will determine if they will be suitable for our device.
Initial Schedule
  1. No updates have been made to our schedule, we remain on schedule as of this status report.

CLIMB Gantt chart

Additional Week-specific Items

Part A (Alexander)

Our product is designed with one goal in mind: to ensure the personal safety of climbers. This applies to both the mental and physical well being of the user. Since our product aims to help climbers prevent and rehabilitate from pulley injuries, there are several clear health, safety and welfare considerations that we made. Pulley injuries can be (and often are) incredibly painful, especially when they are severe Grade III or Grade IV ruptures, which are injuries in which the pulley itself is fully disconnected from the tendon. Recovery from these injuries requires surgery and months of rehabilitation and is a significant detriment to the victim’s overall health and wellbeing. Since our product is an injury prevention device, it will be beneficial to the safety of climbers who use it. An additional use case for which it can be used is in the rehabilitation of climbers who have suffered a pulley injury. As they ease back into climbing with partial physical ability, our device aims to be able to set lower thresholds so that the climber can avoid reinjuring themselves, thus ensuring their physical safety and wellbeing as they recover. 

There are also several psychological considerations we made in the course of designing our product. By having a device which will alarm users when they are approaching dangerous force distributions on their fingers, users who are anxious about climbing can have assurance that they will be physically safe. This could be especially important to both new climbers who are anxious about the seemingly dangerous activity of bouldering as well as experienced climbers who have previously experienced pulley injuries and are thus aware and afraid of reinjury and the pain and rehabilitation that goes along with it. Finally, being scared or stressed on the wall can increase the danger associated with climbing, since smart decision making is key in this type of activity, so our device can help users be worried about one less thing while climbing and thus increase the psychological and physical safety of the climber. Overall, our product aims to keep users at peak physical and psychological condition and keep members of the climbing community healthy and safe.

Part B (Joshua)

During rehabilitation or injury-based-suspension, climbers rarely visit the climbing gym, nor do they go on outdoor climbing excursions as often. Unfortunately, this not only results in a pause of one’s favorite hobby and/or career (professional sport climbing ie. Olympic), it also steals away a social outlet. Typically, it is easier for one to meet others over shared interests, this is what makes a social outlet beneficial for making new connections. And when a climber loses this social outlet, they’re either forced to find another, or wait until they can use it again. CLIMB aims to mitigate this scenario. No climber should have to suspend themselves from the climbing gym or their outdoor excursions with friends. By preventing the most common injury in climbers (pulley injuries), our product aims to create a world where climbers don’t have to worry about an accident taking away their main social outlet.

Besides this scenario, our product does not have any other social influence. Our product’s main use-case is for pulley-injury prevention and rehabilitation in rock climbers. The only social implication of a pulley-injury is the indefinite suspension from a favored social outlet. This product does not meet the needs of other social factors because it specifically aims to improve an individual’s safety and welfare, regardless of social standing.

Part C (Jubahed)

There are many ways that this product can make economic impacts via its production, distribution and/or consumption. One main scenario that comes to mind is the financial incentives on the side of a fitness business, more specifically a gym that offers climbing services or a club/society for climbers. Through the widespread use of our product, these businesses can more easily attract new customers, as well as retain existing ones. Firstly, because our device is aimed toward injury mitigation, the potential fear of getting hurt through climbing will lessen, therefore making interested people more likely to make the jump toward purchasing a membership. Secondly, many climbers may consider quitting or significantly reducing their frequency to climb if injured. However, with increased ease of rehabilitation through our product, I can see this injury window being smaller, therefore encouraging climbers to retain their relevant memberships to these gyms.

Other economic benefits through our product are related to the broader society, outside of the fitness / personal wellness industry. Firstly, by simplifying and increasing access to reliable rehabilitation for injured individuals, we could potentially lessen the financial load with respect to healthcare services. So, an injured person can save money by needing less professional rehabilitation. Also, because this product could shorten the rehabilitation process, an injured individual could end up needing less time off from their day-to-day work, potentially increasing their economic productivity and prosperity.

Joshua Ramos’ Status Report for 9/21/24

Personal Accomplishments
  1. Sensor research and ordering (5hr): I looked into viable solutions to our sensors problem: how can we efficiently and effectively measure force being exerted at multiple pulley joints on a finger? I found the FlexiForce A301-100 Sensor that can measure up to 100 lbs of force. I researched videos to identify if this sensor would be sustainable for our use-case, since it will be bent in many different angles. I also called the FlexiForce help-line to speak with a representative, for which I asked if the sensors would be a reliable solution for our product. I also scoured the campus ECE labs for operational amplifiers and other electrical components that we will need for our system. Lastly, I ordered the sensor and the recommended electrical components necessary to test and calibrate it.
  2. Proposal Presentation (4hr): I spent time researching existing solutions to our problem, modelling the requirements, formulating the challenges, and diagraming the implementation/testing plans. I also spent time practicing the presentation to prepare for delivering it this past Monday.
  3. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): During our lab meetings, we recieved great feedback. We were able to discuss our product’s intended purpose, describe its functionality and mechanics, and review our implementation approach. It was very rewarding.
Progress
  1. My progress is on schedule, except for initial testings which is a little behind due to ordering delays.
Next Week tasks & goals
  1. Build testing environment (stm32 + breadboard) for the A301-100 sensor, and verify its reliability and functionality for our product.