Category: Trey’s Status Reports

1. Buying, measuring, cutting, and assembling wood (10hr): This week, I spent a lot of time trying to make the box that will go around the gantry system. This involved going to Home Depot to buy the wood, measuring out the exact dimensions necessary for our box, looking for options to cut the wood, and then assembling it after the cut. Unfortunately, TechSpark’s wood shop was closed this week, which led me to 4 different places until I finally found someone to help us cut. The sides were put together and the bottom was attached. There is empty space on the right and left for our circuitry to be placed.  The top will be placed on later as we still plan to adjust elements of the gantry when needed.                                                                                                                                 2. Basic Magnet Testing (4hr): Due to the external delays for cutting the wood, we had to wait to fully test some of the electromagnet functionality. However, in the meantime, we did some basic tests by propping up a piece of wood above the electromagnet at the same height as the box lid. We placed a magnet on top of the wood and turned the magnet on, then moved the gantry using the step motors. We found that the magnet moved smoothly in each direction. I also used some chess pieces that Tarek 3D printed, placed them on top of the magnet, and tested again to determine that we could move these chess pieces around the wood with the electromagnet. That was exciting to see!

3. Gantry Odds and Ends (2hr): I spent some time adjusting parts of the gantry that were slightly off, including making sure the corners were square. I adjusted the 3D-printed corner brace to ensure the corners would stay in this correct angle. I also spent some time cleaning up the wiring and creating a circuit for the electromagnet. The new plan is to use an NMOS to help power the electromagnet since the Arduino does not have a 5V configurable output pin. All of these changes should help to complete the overall design of the gantry.

4. Mandatory Lab Sessions (4hr): During our class sessions this week, I had an opportunity to work closely with Tarek to talk about some of the details about the Arduino-gantry interface. We also had some great conversations about the gaze detection, along with some risk mitigation plans in these final weeks. Most importantly, we got to meet with Professor Kim and Alex, who pushed us to continue working hard toward the final demo and prioritize the gaze detection.

Progress

I feel that the gantry is almost entirely done, minus a few small details. My progress was definitely stunted by the difficulty finding a wood shop to help us cut the wood. However, I plan to go in tomorrow to place the top on the box and test out movement on a larger space using the 3D-printed chess pieces. This will give a great indication of the functionality of our piece movement. I feel that I am still on schedule, although this time of the semester feels more rushed.

Next Week Tasks & Goals

1. Test movement on a full board with all chess pieces included.
2. Show knight piece moving between two other pieces.
3. Get chessboard design engraved in top of box.
4. Finish circuitry for small components and make a clean wiring design for all electronics involved.

Gantry Verification

Here is an overview of the plan and completed tasks for the gantry verification:

1. Dimension iteration: One of the first elements of “testing” was an iteration of the height and thickness of the board that we would use as our chessboard. We ran various tests to see what material we could use and how far above the electromagnet it could go. We settled on a 5mm thick plywood piece that sits approximately 1/8″ above the electromagnet.
2. Basic testing: This week, we carried out some basic testing to ensure that the electromagnet could move a chess piece through a wooden slab as the stepper motors controlled the movement. This is crucial given that all chess movements will be controlled by the Arduino, step motors, pulley system, and electromagnet. We saw consistent, smooth movements, regardless of the direction.
3. Chess Movement Testing: With each type of piece, we will test all possible types of moves. Vertical, horizontal, and L-shaped moves will be tested to ensure that we can accurately move a piece for short or long distances. We are looking for consistent accuracy, with 70% of the chess piece base placed in the intended square.
4. Knight Movement Testing: One of the most difficult movements to mimic is early-game knight behavior, as it often jumps over a row of pawns. Our solution will instead move the pawn between the pieces in front of it, which could lead to magnetic interference on the adjacent pieces. To ensure that this interference is minimized, we will test various movements between two other pieces. This worst-case scenario will confirm that these moves are possible. We want to ensure that all pieces more than 0.75″ away are not picked up.
5. Full-Game Scenario Testing: After all of the “unit testing” is finished, it will allow us to test continuous moves that would be seen in a real chess game. We will set up all pieces in a normal start state, then test basic moves based on real chess games that we find online. Each move should grab the correct piece and move it to the intended position without disrupting nearby pieces.

PERSONAL Accomplishments

1. Setting up and Testing Gantry Pulley System (12 hr): Once the second timing belt arrived, I placed both belts onto the gantry to complete the assembly.                                                                                           As the image shows, the entire gantry is now assembled. I went through and continued to touch up the angles and tightness of the rails so that the middle bar rolled easily. This took some time to ensure that everything was ready for testing. Then, I worked with Tarek to help him set up his configuration to test his Arduino code with my gantry system. We saw great results in being able to control the gantry with great detail. The entire system moved smoothly and we were able to move it vertically, horizontally, and diagonally. An example video is found here: Gantry Movement Video
2. Created braces for our gantry (2hr): I also spent some time designing some braces to 3D print that would maintain right angles in our design. This would ensure that our rails do not shift and pinch the movement. 
3. Mandatory Lab Sessions (4hr): During our class sessions this week, we had an opportunity to continue to work together as a team. This helped to maintain our schedule and understand where our entire project stood. In particular, a meeting with Professor Kim helped to emphasize the importance of going above and beyond for our demo. We gained some motivation to not just do the bare minimum, but to aim for more functionality in our demo.

Progress

This week, I once again felt that I made some big progress by proving that the gantry design works and can facilitate movement. I feel that I am back on track and will now change my focus to prove the feasibility of chess piece movement on a full board.

Next Week Tasks & Goals

1. Continue working on the design for our chessboard and pieces
2. Test the movement of chess pieces on a few pieces
3. Test movement with a full board

PERSONAL Accomplishments

1. Assembling Gantry System (15+ hr): The entirety of my time this week was set aside to assemble the gantry system.                                                                                    As the image shows, the bones of the gantry system are all assembled. This involved a lot of measurements, layout, precise angles, and assembly with screws, nuts, and sockets. The middle bar can move freely left and right due to the wheels on the 3D-printed assembly holding it up. The trolley system in the middle was also 3D printed and carries the electromagnet for our design. It can move freely up and down, allowing motion in both the X- and Y-directions. Lots of small adjustments had to be made throughout the assembly to ensure the bars were not pinched or angled in a way that limited movement. Due to some issues with the timing belt, we have to wait for another to be delivered before finishing the entire pulley system. Once that arrives (hopefully Monday), we can finish the entire system and begin testing with Tarek’s Arduino code. This was an exciting piece of progress! It was very fulfilling to see the design begin to come to life, and I am excited to watch it perform during our initial testing.

2. Mandatory Lab Sessions (4hr): During our class sessions this week, we had an opportunity to explore the ethical implications of our capstone project. This was a very helpful exercise to map out our stakeholders, determine risks, and manage the tensions that could form over time. I believe this was extremely valuable insight, especially during the red teaming exercise which identified some of the key user values that we may be ignoring.

Progress

This week, I felt that I made significant progress and met a major goal for our design. However, we just missed the goal of having a demo of the basic movements for the gantry system. As such, I still feel slightly behind. I plan to work more on Sunday and Monday to polish the design and test the movement with Tarek. This will put us back on track and allow us to present a basic demo to Professor Kim in our Wednesday meeting.

Next Week Tasks & Goals

1. Test basic movements (from point A to point B) for consistent accuracy
2. Determine circuit/logic for roller switches that calibrate the gantry system
3. Continue working on the design for our chessboard and pieces

PERSONAL Accomplishments

1. Ethics Assignment (4hr): The large assignment that occupied some time this week was the ethics assignment, which included professional articles and written reflections. First, I learned that technical systems/designs can carry political weight, which caused me to rethink how Check, Mate, Vision may be fitting users into a box rather than allowing freedom to express themselves through chess. The article about red teaming helped to evaluate whether our model will have any significant vulnerabilities that need to be reconsidered. Lastly, the stakeholder video helped to map out who has the most interest and influence in our design process. All of these resources came together to form an in-depth response discussing the readings for general technology, then focusing on Check, Mate, Vision to determine the ethical trade-offs for public health, safety, and welfare.

2. Designing and Printing 3D Parts (3hr): All components from external vendors have been purchased and received. However, I realized the need for some small, specific pieces in the gantry system. As such, I decided to 3D print parts to match our needs. Listed below are images of two such pieces.

The first part will sit on top of the center bar (which also holds the electromagnet). The main purpose comes from the two extrusions seen on top of the piece. This will allow one pulley (and belt) to sit higher than the other so that we can have both in close proximity without interference. The second part will hold the electromagnet. The belts will also attach to the holes in the left and right side to pull the electromagnet sideways along the X-axis.

3. Gantry System Initial Assembly (3hr): As I planned out the assembly of the gantry, my priority was to ensure that our “workable area” (or the space that our electromagnet could reach) was large enough for our needs. Once I determined that workable area size, I was able to determine the necessary lengths for our V-slot rails. I visited TechSpark to get the aluminum rails cut down to the right length. Then, I began laying out and assembling some of the initial pieces for the gantry system. This helped the entire team visualize the physical space needed for our design. I will continue to work on the assembly throughout this week to complete it by the weekend.

4. Mandatory Lab Sessions (4hr): During our class sessions this week, we had valuable time to meet together and with the course staff. One particular note from our meeting with Prof. Kim was to set a deadline to have an initial demo by next Saturday. This will help to push along the progress of our project, and it will put us ahead of the initial demo deadline listed on the course page. I was also able to plan out certain design specifications with Liam and Tarek, including the details of how Liam’s gaze detection will work for the demo.

Progress

For various reasons, I was unable to complete the gantry system assembly by this week. However, after our conversation with Prof. Kim, I feel that having the assembly done by this week will still keep me on schedule. In order to make that happen, I plan to set aside time on Tuesday and Thursday to assemble the parts of the gantry. I am currently waiting for my parts to finish 3D printing, which delays certain aspects of the assembly. I expect to receive these parts early in the week. Thus, I am still in a good position to finish by the weekend.

Next Week Tasks & Goals

1. Assemble entire gantry system outside of the box (must finish by Saturday!)
2. Test basic movements (from point A to point B) for consistent accuracy
3. Continue working on the design for our chessboard and pieces.

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

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.

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.

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.