Trey Wagner’s Status Report for 3/8/25

PERSONAL Accomplishments
  1. Design Report (13hr): The design report was a large undertaking for this week, taking up most of our time in mandatory sessions and outside of class. Most of this time was spent writing a full description of the gantry system, discussing some design trade-offs evaluated for this subsystem, outlining test strategies, and writing various other sections. This took more time than expected due to the more professional language required for the report, as well as the need to develop some diagrams and tables to show our design. One of these diagrams will be shown in the next section.
  2. Pulley System Design (2hr): As I evaluated the plan for the gantry system, I settled on a design for the pulley setup. 

The design uses two step motors and two timing belts, which move the electromagnet along the X and Y axes. The pulley system design, while more complicated, avoids having a motor on the central beam. This increases the working range of the gantry system while also reducing the size of the horizontal bar.

3. Gathering Necessary Screws, Nuts, and Washers (3hr): In order to assemble the gantry system, a specific arrangement of screws, nuts, washers, and brackets were needed. I went through the process of gathering all of these components to ensure that all elements were ready to assemble. This will fully enable the building of the gantry system design.

Progress

As was expected, the design report took a lot of time. As such, I was unable to finish the assembly of the gantry system before spring break. I will work throughout this week to ensure that the gantry system gets assembled and testing can begin. This will put me back on schedule for the rest of the semester.

Next Week Tasks & Goals
  1. Assemble entire gantry system outside of the box.
  2. Test basic movements (from point A to point B) for consistent accuracy
  3. Start (and hopefully finish) the design for our chessboard

Team Status Report for 2/22/25

General update

This week, the team spent most of our time assembling, bringing up software and devices, and doing initial proof of concept tests. Liam has been working with the Jetson and the stereo camera. He is evaluating the output of the camera and determining how to interface with the Jetson and our included models. Trey tested out the electromagnet functionality and began working on the gantry system assembly. Some CAD designs seem necessary, so Trey will also be designing and printing these components to support the ordered components. He also worked with Tarek to get the step motors spinning. Tarek is working in more detail on the Arduino program that will give precise control to our pulley system in the gantry.

Potential risks and risk management

No new risks have been identified this week. The same two (3D Gaze Estimation and the Electromagnet) will be prevalent until further testing is done. A proof of concept for gaze detection will ease worries about that subsystem. Liam is working studiously on that.

Overall design changes

No large design changes this week. Preliminary testing identified that an external DC power supply may be needed for the motor drivers. However, the overall design has not changed in any way. Further testing will be used to verify entire subsystems and the interface between them.

Schedule

Our schedule remains unchanged and we are on track.

Trey Wagner’s Status Report for 2/22/25

PERSONAL Accomplishments
  1. Electromagnet Testing (4hr): Since the electromagnets were delivered this week, I wanted to do some testing to ensure they would work for our system. We received two electromagnets — one with 2.5kg holding force and the other with 5kg holding force. Both were attached to a 5V input supply. We gathered some ferrous pieces of metal (more on that later) and some potential board materials to test. I determined that the 2.5kg electromagnet would not be strong enough for our design. The 5kg electromagnet was able to move pieces of metal smoothly through 1/8″ thick plywood and acrylic. Increasing the thickness to 1/4″ limited the functionality of the magnet. For the 1/8″ thick materials, the plywood appeared to be a better choice for smooth motion. We found that the magnet would not easily attract nearby metal if already holding onto a large piece of metal. I also found some random results, such as the electromagnet working better at 5.5V than 5V. Overall, this proved that the electromagnet could work through a chessboard surface. Now, testing will focus on moving actual pieces with other pieces nearby. A video of this test can be found below:

Video of Electromagnet

2. Finding the Right Metal (1hr): As mentioned above, electromagnet testing also brought about considerations of the size and shape of the metal needed for our pieces. Liam and I spent an hour retrieving various metal nuts, washers, and screws from TechSpark to determine the best fit. Testing showed that a heavier piece moved more smoothly, although the piece could be too heavy. Some washers/nuts didn’t move easily due to the large hollow middle. We will need to find a solid piece of ferrous metal with some weight to place inside each chess piece. The weight could also be provided by the chess piece itself.

3. Interfacing Stepper Motors with Arduino (3hr): I worked with Tarek to get the step motors moving using the Arduino Mega. First, I had to learn about the wiring of the step motors and the interface of the motor drivers. After that, I helped to wire the two together and connect them back to the Arduino. We played around with various input voltages (within the specs of the drivers) and configurations to determine step size. Ultimately we got the motors to spin with the desired rotation. Tarek will post more details on his status report.

4. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4hr): During our lab sessions, I watched Tarek present our design review presentation. Once again, we received good questions about handling edge case rules in chess. We also received feedback from Professor Kim, who advised that our pedal to lock in moves may go against the accessibility that our product advertises. We plan to carry this feedback into our design to handle chess logic properly and determine a better move lock mechanism (voice or facial recognition). I also got the chance to witness other groups present their design presentations and give valuable peer reviews. It is encouraging and stimulating to see the design choices of other groups.

5. Gathered Data for Design Report (2hr): As the design report is upcoming, I wanted to get ahead on some of the elements needed for my subsystem. As such, I began gathering data about my components into one shared document. I also started to create visuals to represent the design decisions that I made, and why I believe that my decisions were best for our project. We will continue working on the design review throughout the next week.

Progress

My progress is still slightly behind schedule to finish an MVP design by spring break. I believe that I can have some assembly completed by this week, but the design report could be a huge undertaking. Depending on how much work that requires, it may take away from my available time for assembly and testing this week. I will have plenty of time directly after spring break, which should allow me to get back on track.

Next Week Tasks & Goals
  1. Design 3D-printed trolley component to hold electromagnet in our gantry system.
  2. Assembly entire gantry system outside of the box.
  3. Finish design report.

Team Status Report for 2/15/25

General update
  1.  Jetson configured
    1. Packages installed and configured it to be connected through SSH
  2. Preparing for design presentation
  3. Parts ordered for the various subsystems which should begin to come throughout the next week. This will be particularly helpful for the Arduino and gantry system, as we can begin to assemble and test the interface between the two.
  4. New Gantt Chart
Potential risks and risk management
  1.  The same risk mentioned last week about the accuracy of the gaze model. If it fails horrendously we will switch to a screen or hopefully find a better model.
  2. There is a chance that the electromagnet is an ineffective solution. It could be too strong and attract nearby pieces during movement, or it could be too weak that it cannot move a piece through the board. In order to manage this risk, we will test this functionality as early as possible to allow pivots to other pickup mechanisms. The next option would be reverting back to an above-ground gantry that uses a mechanical grabber.
Overall design changes
  1. The gantry system design changed from an above-board system to a below-board. This decision benefits us in several ways, including eliminating the assembly and cost of a z-axis step motor and creating a more clean and accessible board (without the large rails on the sides). The below-board system will still meet all design requirements.
  2. No other design changes at this time. We expect many of our components to arrive throughout next week, which will allow us to determine if the design/parts are suitable.
Initial Schedule
  1. After a conversation with Professor Kim, we have decided to accelerate the schedule of our baseline design. Achieving a minimum viable product (MVP) earlier will allow us to find flaws in our subsystems while still offering enough time for testing and integration. As such, our schedule has changed to reflect the new deadlines that we would like to follow.

Additional Week-specific Items

Part A: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare (written by Trey):

Check, Mate, Vision enhances public health and welfare by making chess accessible to individuals with limited upper body mobility, promoting cognitive well-being and emotional resilience. Studies show that chess improves memory and problem-solving skills, yet its physical requirements can be restrictive. Our system removes these barriers, ensuring all players can access its mental health benefits. Beyond cognitive stimulation, Check, Mate, Vision creates meaningful recreational opportunities, reducing social isolation and fostering engagement. By providing an inclusive and interactive experience, it helps improve mood, alleviate stress, and combat feelings of loneliness.

Our product prioritizes user safety by employing a controlled gantry system that ensures precise and predictable movement of the chess pieces, eliminating any hazards associated with manual handling. The gaze-tracking model further reduces physical strain by accurately tracking eye position at all times. Check, Mate, Vision also enhances overall welfare by fostering independence and inclusion, allowing users to engage in strategic play on their own terms. This promotes self-sufficiency, personal growth, and confidence, extending to daily activities and empowering users to take greater control of their lives.

Part B: Social Factors (written by Tarek)

Check, Mate, Vision is, at its core, a system to enable more people to play chess. This game is enjoyed by millions of people around the world, connecting fans of the game and allowing them to find a new way to socialize with one another and share the human experience. As such, it is important to us that Check, Mate, Vision preserves this aspect of social interaction.

In our ideation stage, we thought about having players play against a machine; however, it was important to us to preserve the human aspects of the game. Playing with another human in front of you, seeing their face, talking to them, and connecting over an appreciation of the game, is a powerful and important element of chess.

We also thought about having users talk to the machine in order to select moves; however, we didn’t want to limit the system’s accessibility to English speakers or those familiar with chess coordinates. Our design ultimately removes as many barriers as possible for as many people as possible to enjoy chess with others, fostering human connection and enabling people to connect with others.

Part C: Economic Factors (written by Liam)

Check, Mate, Vision is focused on providing an affordable chess-playing solution for individuals with limited upper body mobility. Traditional assistive technologies in this field are often bulky and expensive, primarily due to specialized hardware and complex manufacturing processes. By utilizing common components like a camera, computer, and gantry system, we significantly reduce production costs. These readily available parts are less expensive to source and assemble, which lowers the overall price of the system for consumers.

Simplifying the production and distribution aspects also means we can scale up more efficiently, making the technology accessible to a wider market. Reduced manufacturing complexity leads to lower inventory and supply chain costs, which translates into savings for users. This cost-effective approach not only makes the game of chess more accessible to those with physical limitations but also opens up opportunities for educational institutions and rehabilitation centers to adopt the technology without incurring substantial expenses.

Trey Wagner’s Status Report for 2/15/25

PERSONAL Accomplishments
  1. Finalized Gantry Design (4hr): My main goal for this week was to finalize decisions for each detail of our gantry system so part ordering could occur. One large question mark during last week was the pickup/movement mechanism for the chess pieces. Through my research, I decided to pivot from an above-board system to a below-board system. This decision will allow the board to look cleaner since all machinery will be hidden away. It also eliminates the need for a z-axis step motor as no vertical extension/retraction is necessary. I have decided to use electromagnets to move the chess pieces, as they provide a seamless and precise method for piece manipulation, even with a physical board acting as a barrier. The final decision was board sizing (which will be discussed in detail below).
  2. Board Sizing Decision-Making (1hr): I worked with Tarek and Liam to determine the sizing of our chessboard. This decision included considerations for the error of Liam’s gaze detection model and the materials needed to produce the gantry system at each size. We settled on the dimensions seen below: This design also includes a piece graveyard, which handles the cases where the user’s piece is taken. The placement of the pieces is optimized to handle potential edge cases such as promotion (where a player can replace a pawn with a queen, rook, knight, or bishop).
  3. Part Research and Ordering (2hr): Based on the decisions discussed above, I researched the parts necessary to assemble our gantry system. This includes pieces such as linear rails, timing belts, motor drivers, etc. I attempted to order pieces that worked well for our design specifications but also offered the flexibility to pivot in certain ways (i.e. changing the board size or switching back to above-ground gantry). All necessary pieces were ordered and will be assembled upon delivery.
  4. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4hr): During our lab sessions, we got valuable feedback during meetings with the teaching staff. One useful piece of advice was to get to MVP as soon as possible. As such, I changed my priorities to create a somewhat functional gantry (move from A to B) before spring break. The lab meetings also allowed our team to discuss key integration points between our three major sections.
  5. Design Presentation Work (3hr): I spent time laying out the outline and plan for completing our design presentation. My responsibility was to create an implementation guide for our hardware system, including block diagrams and a proposed design. I also helped to focus on testing plans and the use case requirements for our project. Some of these details will be finished tomorrow before the deadline.
Progress

My progress is slightly behind schedule for our new accelerated design plan. I plan to put in extra time to get the gantry system assembled and carry out baseline testing as the pieces come in. However, I am very much dependent on the delivery times at this point.

Next Week Tasks & Goals
  1. Assemble pieces as they come in and begin calibrating and testing the system.
  2. Devise the circuitry needed to control the motors and electromagnet so I am prepared when they arrive.
  3. Decide material and thickness for our chess board to allow for proper electromagnet testing.

Trey Wagner’s Status Report for 2/8/25

PERSONAL Accomplishments
  1. Gantry system research and meetings (6hr): This week, I focused on finding viable solutions for our proposed gantry system. Many other previous capstone groups have implemented similar systems, so I took time to evaluate each group to see different approaches. One particular group (A1:AutoChargerX from F24) agreed to meet with me to discuss their gantry solution. From the research and meetings, I found the TwoTrees NEMA 17 stepper motor and corresponding motor drivers. These motors are cheap but have specifications that match our project needs. They have also been used successfully by two other capstone groups, which gives me confidence that they will work for our design. I am awaiting an update about an existing gantry solution to see if we can use its motors or if I should order our own. In the meantime, I have begun research on the pickup mechanism for our gantry.

2. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4hr): During our lab sessions this week, Liam presented our proposal presentation and we heard the ideas of other capstone students. We received great questions and feedback about our design following our presentation. It was encouraging to see that many of our peers understood the idea and use case easily. I plan to review the design for some aspects of our gantry system based on some feedback received from other students.

3. Proposal Presentation (3hr): I spent time writing out some testing plans for each subunit and the integrated design. This plan was shortened and placed into our proposal presentation. This was also a rewarding time working with Tarek and Liam to lay out our Gantt chart and define some MVP requirements that we desire by April.

Progress

My progress is currently on schedule, except for the potential ordering of our step motors. The guidance listed above will help to determine if an order will need to be placed. This could push back our initial testing slightly, but I do not expect it to delay our overall project.

Next Week Tasks & Goals
  1. Settle on a mechanism to pick up the chess pieces with our gantry system. This should come from my research and have some considerations of cost, functionality, and potential need for a z-axis step motor.
  2. Work with Tarek to decide on board dimensions and start designing our chess board and pieces to fabricate.