1st half of document - sabest

Medina Valley Robotics TTrraannssffuussiioonn CCoonnffuussiioonn Texas BEST 2003

i

Welcome

Hola! We are the 2003 Medina Valley Robotics Team. Throughout the years, we

have made a name for ourselves in the San Antonio area, advancing to state six straight years.

Our team has an amazing amount of chemistry. In the past year, we have grown and molded into

a family.

Through strenuous work, and use of the engineering process we have created an

excellent robot. In the past six weeks we have bled, sweated, and cried over a chance to go to

state, and when we do, it’s on! We are tired of being the best in San Antonio. This year, we

want to be known throughout the state! So watch out because we are ready and willing to do

whatever it takes to receive that title. Will we? “Only time will tell.”


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 THE ENGINEERING PROCESS 1

1.1 Brainstorming at SwRI 2

1.2 Development of Initial Designs 4

1.3 Observations Made 8

1.4 Offensive and Defensive Strategy 12

1.5 Final Design Details 14

1.5.1 Chassis 16

1.5.2 Wheels 18

1.5.3 Scoring Mechanism 19

2 GAME OR REALITY? 24

Appendix A – CAD Drawings A-1 to A-5

Appendix B – Shock Cord Testing B-1 to B-4

Appendix C – Student Profiles C-1 to C-5

Appendix D – Mentor Profiles D-1 to D-2


1

1 THE ENGINEERING PROCESS

The Engineering Process defines the

general steps that the team (MV+ Positive) goes by

to build robots and control other activities of the

group. A diagram of the engineering process is

given and consists of a series of steps that interact

with each other with a goal to build a robot that

meets the game objective. The first step is to

come up with a concept. A concept is an abstract

or generic idea generalized from particular

instances. In this game the team was able to go to

Kick Off to get the concept of the game, to move

Cells from one area of the field to another without popping them. As soon as we understood the

concept, we began to formulate designs in our minds. A design is an arrangement of parts, the

return and expendable kits, to produce a robot that meets the game objectives. Once we had

some designs in our minds, we put them on paper, discussed their pros and cons, and started to

test them by quickly making cardboard mockups. This year was the first that the team used a 3D

CAD design program to evaluate design in terms of how the various parts fit together. After the

testing of the designs the team would evaluate each one. When we evaluate, we find problems

and try to figure out ways to get around them. We then redesign according to the evaluations

that we made from the first test. Here is where we go back to testing, evaluating, and designing.

This process is complete when we can no longer find any more problems with our design.


2

1.1 Brainstorming at SwRI

The SA BEST kickoff meeting was again held at St. Mary’s University. There we were

exposed to the game and made some initial observations about the game field and robot design.

There were no major obstacles on the field so chassis and wheel design would be fairly simple.

The big problem was capturing numerous moving Cells, which although lightweight were large

and fragile. As soon as we left the St. Mary’s University, we headed straight for Southwest

Research Institute (SwRI™). During the bus ride some preliminary thoughts emerged (vacuum

and electrostatic capture mechanisms) which would allow the robot to capture multiple Cells at

one time.

Upon arrival at SwRI,

initially our team met as one

group to discuss the field

obstacles and how to get

around them. We also

discussed how to possibly use

them to our advantage. We

experimented with how the default airflow from the fan affected the Cells and how blocking or

redirecting airflow changed the Cells’ motion. This was the first of the many tests that were

performed as part of the design and fabrication process. We also looked at how difficult it was

to keep a Cell on a flat plate that was moving. The lightweight Cell and the force produced by

air on the side of the Cell caused it to be blown off the flat plate with the slightest motion. After


3

discussing all of the obstacles we had noticed; we broke up into two groups to brainstorm ideas

for robot designs.

Each of the groups independently explored a variety of options. As it turned out the

major emphasis of each group was on how to capture multiple Cells and then score them in the

high point area of the Cell Saver. There were also discussions of the importance of being able to

handle the diseased Cells: by placing them outside the playing area, in another team’s scoring

area, or removing it from our scoring area. All members were allowed to voice their ideas and

opinions with no judgment made. Details of the ideas were not explored at this time, just how

they might work. The ideas were document on large drawing sheets with supporting notes.

After the two group brainstorming sessions, we joined again into one group to discuss

what ideas we had come up with. Each of the groups gave a short presentation of their ideas,

where the drawings were used. The pros and cons of each idea were identified for later review.

The variety of ideas that were developed was evident that the team could come up with a design

that would work. Details of the development of these ideas are given in subsequent sections.

In the past we’ve often used to SwRI as our early brainstorming center because of its

close proximity to St Mary’s University and its facilities. This year was no different; we used

the precious time given to us and were able to get a lot of questions answered, minds filled, and

ideas thought-up. This was also an important event for us for it served as a huge portion of the

valuable brainstorming time required for concept development in the engineering process.


4

1.2 Development of Initial Designs

During the time between Kickoff and Competition Day, the team normally met three

times a week: Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on Saturday. The times of the meetings were

set to accommodate student, teacher, and mentor schedules. The student leadership established

meeting times, developed agendas, ran the meetings, and assigned action items for subsequent

meetings. The early meetings were minor brainstorming sessions where we were able to conjure

up some basic ideas and early designs. The following are early ideas for The Clot that we came

up with.

“The Waffle” - This robot design would enter the

Arteries, block the airflow (which would make the

Cells fall onto the waffle), and then back out and

deposit the Cells in the Cell Saver. The waffle

itself would be a flat, woven, duct tape (smooth

side up) platform. This waffle would be at slight

incline and the Cells would roll off into a

container. Some advantages of the waffle are its

simplicity and passive capturing design (no motors!) but, unfortunately, it suffered from

significant airflow issues. Cells could not be captured consistently. Later we would return to

this same basic idea for the design of our current chute for blocking the airflow.


5

“The Vacuum” - The vacuum robot idea would

enter the Arteries and using a simple fan

constructed from kit materials would then suck

one Cell into a tube. It would then exit the Artery,

go to the Cell Saver, reverse the fan’s direction,

and blow the single Cell into the upper scoring

area of the Cell Saver. An advantage of the

vacuum is that it would be extremely reliable and only use one small motor. A major

disadvantage was that it would be improbable to construct a strong enough vacuum from the kit

materials alone. Experimentation with a kit battery, one of the small motors, and a fan form a

computer power supply seemed to prove this, as the ducted fan in our experiment was very weak

and was not able to hold the Cell very well. We also explored the idea of using the Artery fan as

a power source but could not block sufficient airflow and redirect it to where we wanted it. At

demo-day and SA Best we discovered that we weren’t the only

team that had put thought into a vacuum idea. Not only that, but

two teams actually utilized the vacuum idea. One was the team

from St. Mary’s Hall. They are advancing with us to state and

we greatly respect them for their being able to utilize a vacuum

idea and make it successful.

“The Bag” - This robot design would enter the Arteries, block

the airflow (which would make the Cells fall into the bag), back


6

out and place the Cells in the Cell Saver by pulling a string. This string would pull the bottom of

the bag up and drop all the Cells out of the bag. Advantages for this design were its large

carrying capacity and relative reliability. It would use only one small motor. Disadvantages of

the bag are the large space needed and the many unfolding parts to allow for a large capturing

area. Working with this idea gave us greater insight on the issue of capacity when we discovered

the small amount of Cells the bag would hold (one or two).

“The Syringe” - The syringe idea was indeed a syringe. This design functioned similar to the

vacuum. By pulling a plunger back, suction would be created and Cells forced to enter the tube.

The same plunger would be pushed forward to dump the Cells into the Cell Saver. Advantages

for the syringe are similar to the vacuum. It would be reliable and hold more than the vacuum

and, once again, only use one small motor. Leading disadvantages are the construction of a

plunger and an airtight tube. We later utilized this idea’s plunger concept in the designing and

construction of the final conveyor belt, as we used a single plunger or pusher to push Cells out of

The Clot’s chute into the Cell Saver.


7

Of the four ideas, the bag and vacuum designs really stuck with us and we began

seriously exploring both designs at the next several meetings. We took major steps to refine our

designs using our bag and vacuum ideas. Many different members drew up various designs and

all were taken into group consideration. Most were dismissed over time as we compared the

advantages and disadvantages of each the designs. Eventually, we dismissed the vacuum

approach through a club vote. We came to this decision after performing many tests with the

result being that we could never produce the suction required to grab a Cell and hold on to it

indefinitely.

After deciding which of the two most popular ideas to expand we were able to put all of

our focus into the bag design. After making cardboard mockups of some bag designs that we

had, we discovered that our bag would unfortunately hold an unacceptable amount of Cells (only

one or two). We quickly reevaluated and redesigned the bag to be a long fold up, stationary,

chute that closely resembled the “waffle idea” that was discussed previously. It was found that

this design could consistently hold up to three Cells. Using a man-powered cardboard conveyor

belt we were able to deposit the Cells into our Cell Saver. To capture the Cells we decided that

the bulk of the chute would block the airflow inside of the Artery, thus allowing the Cells to fall

gently into our chute. Additional tests proved we were correct in this assumption. We were so

pleased with the performance of so simple a cardboard design that we quickly decided that this

was an incredible design and that we should begin constructing our actual robot using this

design. We easily came up with a name for our soon-to-be robot. Knowing that when

constructed, we would have a huge robot blocking the traffic on the field and the airflow of the

Arteries using our bulky chute, the robot was aptly named The Clot.


8

1.3 Observations Made

Throughout the design process, we have noticed many things. One of which is the way

that Cells respond to the airflow in the Artery. We noticed that if we spread the shock cords on

the handle and opposite side of the fan, none of the Cells would be blown from the Artery.

Conversely if we spread the shock cords on the side adjacent to the handle a majority of the Cells

would be blown form the Artery. We observed this at Kick-off, but it was concluded to be a

result of the people standing around the Artery. But

after experimentation that included rotating the fan in

the Artery and the grill 90° on the fan and replacing it

in this position, we found that it was the fan grill that

directed the airflow to the sides. This slight change in

airflow resulted in the Cells falling out of the sides.

The air always seemed to push Cells out from the

sides of the Artery, the direction being the same position that the narrow gaps in the fan grill

were pointing. We discovered this early and based on this fact, most of our designs used this

effect of the airflow to our advantage in order to minimize effort from the capture device.

Another observation we have made is the effects outside objects have on the Artery fan.

By placing an object along one of the sides, airflow from the fan is changed very little. By

placing an object around more sides, airflow gradually lessens. We could not find a way to

provide a large enough opening in one of the blockages to power a vacuum system. By placing

an object either under or above the fan, airflow is greatly decreased and the Cells conveniently

fall down. This observation led to our tongue design on our initial prototypes. We initially


9

constructed this tongue to be positioned underneath the fan, making the Cells fall into the

capturing chute above. The tongue was later incorporated into the capturing structure above the

fan.

Yet another observation dealing with the fan’s airflow helped influence early ideas about

a capture chute. We noticed that a flat chute at a 45° angle (give or take a bit) would in effect

blow the Cells to the opposite side of the Artery. By rounding the leading edge of the chute and

reducing the lengthwise angle, air would be blown in somewhat of a swirl pattern around the

Artery, pushing Cells toward our awaiting capturing unit. This cut down the time it took to

capture the Cells by nearly a third.

Through testing by brave students, we determined the strength of the Cells. We found

that the Cells will indeed pop, but they stand up to a fierce beating and squashing, for example,

one could smash a Cell with one’s hands and the hands would touch before the Cell would burst.

On the other hand it did not take much force for a sharp object to pop the Cells. To try and

prevent The Clot from popping Cells we took measures to smooth and protect its edges and

appendages. For instance, our wheels and all the electronics are inside of our chassis, this

provides protection and prevents contact with Cells. We also sanded the edges and applied duct

tape where necessary. These precautionary measures help ensure that all Cells will be safe while

around The Clot.

A unique element of this game was the use of shock cords stretched between pieces of

PVC pipe. A part of the testing done we wanted to establish how much force it took to push

them aside and make sure The Clot could do it. We set up an experiment in which we measured


10

the displacement that resulted from pulling the shock cords to the side with a known force. A

fish scale was used to apply the load to the cords. A tape measure was used to measure the

displacement relative to the starting position, which was marked with a straight edge. The

accuracy of the fish scale and the tape measure were sufficient to provide acceptable results. The

data was then transferred to and MS Excel spreadsheet and plotted along with a linear curve fit

of the data.

Artery Shock Cord Testing Point 1, Center Line of Shock Cord

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load (grams)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

ches

)

Cord 1, Point 1, y = 0.01x

Cord 2, Point 1, y=0.0089x


We made measurements at the midpoint of several of the Artery shock cords and found

only minor variations between the cords. We also made measurements at points above and

below the centerline of the shock cord. The amount of deflection for a given force was less at


11

these points relative to the centerline. The following table summarizes the results and details of

can be found in Appendix B.

Item Cord Location Deflection (inches) due to a Load (grams)

1 Def = 0.0100 x Load

2 Def = 0.0089 x Load

3

Centerline

Def = 0.0082 x Load

1 Def = 0.0066 x Load

2 Def = 0.0070 x Load

3

10 inches above Centerline

Def = 0.0066 x Load

1 Def = 0.0070 x Load

2 Def = 0.0074 x Load

Artery

3

10 inches below Centerline

Def = 0.0071 x Load

Capillary 1 Centerline Def = 0.0085 x Load

Cell Saver 1 Centerline Def = 0.0065 x Load

After we reached a final design, we started on making several cardboard and CAD

models. Through these models, we found

the proper dimensions and angles for the

chute and chassis. This provided us with a

means of testing without wasting our

materials.

We first built a capture model and

made the appropriate measurements. From

here, we designed a chassis to hold the


12

capture mechanism at the proper angle to reach the Cell Saver’s top level and go under the Cells

in the Artery to capture them. We then made wheels that would allow maximum speed and a

short turning radius, but at the same time, not raising the model too high. Back with the

cardboard designers, we would imitate the robot by rolling the prototype on the floor and testing

if it would have enough force to push the shock cords aside, and if did how many Cells could it

hold. We found that it could hold between 3 and 5 Cells at a time.

While one group was busy making the cardboard model, we had our CAD designers

(Matt and Rolland) working on computer versions. One would work on the chassis and

electronic placement while the other worked on the capture device and what the exact

dimensions would have to be. After that was done, they merged their work together to form the

final design of The Clot in computer form. These CAD designs allowed us to produce

dimensioned drawings for cutting the parts.

1.4 Offensive and Defensive Strategy

To compete in a BEST competition you must be at the top of your game. You have to be

ahead of your opponents in every situation in order to beat them at their own game. Sometimes,

you have to attack their weaknesses, and other times, you must bull rush their strengths. You

have to be prepared for everything, every now and then using your weaknesses to your

advantage. Either way, the main thing you have to do is stay focused.

Our offensive strategy for this year is mostly based on The Clot’s sheer size on the field.

Although The Clot begins the match folded into the two-foot cube, once unfolded it reaches 21

inches up and is three feet long. The 21 inches is high enough to get into the upper scoring level


13

of the Cell Saver. The length is to allow us to push the tongue of the chute into both the Artery

and the Cell Saver. In past years we have had smaller robots than most other teams on the field

and were thus, often pushed aside. This year is different for The Clot uses its size on the field to

its advantage to give us more right-of-way.

Our scoring strategy is rather versatile. In a perfect scenario, we would drive The Clot’s

chute into the Artery, catch three or four red and white Cells with one having a probable chance

of being a diseased Cell, deposit all of the white and white Cells into the Cell Saver and drop the

diseased Cell outside the ring, and then return to an Artery and do this again. At the SA Best

competition we observed that (especially during the semi-finals and finals matches) that towards

the end of the match, the amount of Cells in the Arteries would be scarce and many scoring

opportunities would be lost, as one or two Cells are far more difficult to capture. Luckily for us,

we had unintentionally constructed The Clot to not only be efficient in capturing the red, white,

and diseased Cells, but also the blue Cells. This is done by hitting the side of the Capillary with

our chute, causing the top two blue Cells in the Capillary to fall into our chute. This is just a

back-up strategy, that we will utilize it if we have to.

Our defensive strategy this year also takes advantage of The Clot’s size. While we

possess no actual means to remove a diseased Cell from our scoring area, we can effectively

block an attacking robot from depositing one into our scoring area. The robot is also big enough

and has sufficient speed and agility to prevent other robots from taking Cells from our scoring

area.


14

1.5 Final Design Details

We came up with our final design by combining

many of the good aspects of each design and idea and

incorporating them all into one robot, like the conveyer belt,

chute design, and base. Once we had organized all the

ideas and had a design drawn out we constructed a

cardboard mock-up. We then put the cardboard mock-up

through tests to determine whether the design would work

or not. The basic design did not change although some

advances were made to details of the robot. There maybe

some minor modification made to The Clot as a result of practice and testing performed between


15

the SA BEST competition and the Texas BEST competition. Our CAD program has paid off

unmentionable amounts as it has helped us put together our design and collect our data, so much

of the pencil and paper mess and drawing board pains were eliminated this year. Eventually, we

created a good enough design and collected enough data to start measuring and cutting out parts

to mold into a robot. The robot consisted of a protective chassis, angled at about 30 degrees, a

chute mounted on top to capture Cells a conveyor system to push Cells into the upper scoring

areas of the Cell Saver. Using the engineering process, teamwork, and good planning we were

able to construct a completely functional robot, successful in completing its goal, winning

games.


16

1.5.1 Chassis

A chassis is the

supporting frame of The Clot.

Its purpose is to provide a base

for the capturing device to set

upon, to provide an attachment

point for the wheels, and a

protected space for the

electronics. So basically, the

chassis is the base of the robot

and is capable of doing many things.

The Clot’s chassis is constructed entirely of wood, screws, and glue. For several years

now our team has used wood in chassis construction because it is light, easy to work with, and

strong. To attach the sides of the chassis together a combination of wood glue and screws was

used to achieve maximum durability.

The reason we designed the chassis the way we did was to be able to accommodate

multiple Cells in order to have a mass capture. We found that in the past years, the robots that

won were the ones that did mass capture and therefore mass scoring. And we found that the

BEST way to go about mass capture was a chute (refer to Section 1.5.3 for more information on

the chute) serving as a space to hold many Cells on our chassis.


17

The chute needs to be at a 29° angle from the ground in order to be able to capture Cells

easily, be able to score in the upper area of the Cell Saver, and to be long enough for sufficient

amounts of space for lots of Cells. We constructed the chassis at this angle so we may simply

mount the chute directly to the chassis. In order to score in the upper area of the Cell Saver, we

need the robot arm to be at least 18 inches off the ground. We found that by making the chassis

part of the capturing device, we can reach a sufficient height of 21 ½ inches at the scoring end of

the chute. Not only did this put the end of the chute into the upper scoring area but also put it

right at the mid height of the Artery shock cords where they can be spread easiest.

Every robot needs a place for the electronics to be placed, and the chassis is the best place

to put them. With the design of the chassis as a wedge shape, we found that if we put the

electronics in the hollow place formed by the wedge, then we were able to place the electronics

with ample amounts of space in between so that we can easily take it apart and rewire if need be.

We then decided to include a flap at the front of the chassis in order to allow easy access to the

electronics. Another advantage of putting the electronics on the underside of The Clot is that

there will be no chance of the Cells touching a sharp edge of any piece of electronics. The only

exception to this is the small motor used to drive the plunger. This area is protected by a PVC

pipe support structure.

We placed a flap on the front side of the chassis for two reasons, for easy access to the

electronics and the stability if The Clot starts to flip over. If The Clot starts to tip over, the flap

will flip out and prevent the robot from tipping too far and reaching a point where we could not

recover its balance.


18

1.5.2 Wheels

How does a robot move without wheels? On land, unless you’ve discovered how to make

it fly or hover, it can’t. A wheel is more than just a part of the robot. Wheels can be the

difference between victory and defeat. The robot’s weight and configuration, the diameter of the

wheels, and the traction of the wheels should all be taken into consideration when creating them.

If your wheel is created as one with the robot, then you have a perfect wheel for that design.

Due to the weight of the chassis

and capture chute we found the center of

gravity to be around the front of our

chassis. The placement of the wheel in

this general area allows for the robot to

stand erect, not toppling over easy. The

location of the wheel where the center of

gravity is also allows for transmission of

the greatest amount of force to the playing

field, resulting in the best traction. If they

are even the slightest bit off, then we could run into some serious trouble when game day arrives.

Next, we analyze the mounting of the motors. There is one large motor mounted on each

wheel, allowing each wheel to turn and function at full power. As far as the placement of the

motors go, we mounted them on the inside of the robot, as far forward as possible. Slots were cut

in the chassis to allow the rotation of the wheels. The motor mounts were fabricated from the

lightweight aluminum sheet. They were cut to size and then beat into shape. Holes were cut in


19

the ends to accommodate the motor shaft. The face of the motor was bolted to the support using

bolts that had been cut to the proper length. Additional stability to the wheel supports were

provided by wire ties placed between the two vertical ends of the support. The motor speed

controller and the on/off switch were attached to the motor mounts so that everything for each

motor was in a single unit. The motor mounts were bolted to the wood chassis in the proper

locations.

Due to the type of field we’d be facing, traction wasn’t as big of a concern this year. We

still felt that we need some sort of grip for the two types of surfaces, so we used the simplest

method we could think of and added rubber traction. Rubber will increase traction, thus

increasing speed and control. Some may not have found the rubber traction necessary but when

you think about it, it saved us a lot of trouble later on in the game. Exact measurements of our

wheels are: 9 ¾ inch diameter and 30 inch circumference; they are mounted on 60 RPM motors

and move at a speed of 30 inches per second.

Win or lose, it will be a great run, or roll, that’s what we say. The wheels will be our

guide, and without them, The Clot would quite obviously not function.

1.5.3 Scoring Mechanism

The scoring mechanism is made up of three major parts: the chasse, the chute, and the

conveyor belt. Each of these was designed to help the other in achieving the task of capturing

and then scoring Cells. Only after heavy brainstorming, did each of these parts finally reach

their dimensions and achieve the task of helping their counterparts.

The chute:


20

The chute’s purpose was to do the actual capturing of the Cells from the Capillary. The

initial design for the chute evolved from a box similar to early cardboard mockups to a V-shaped

box that forces Cells into contact with the conveyor unit. It then evolved again back into a more

simple box of PVC supports with string and cardboard sides. To begin testing, we started

inserting different size boxes into the Capillary. The purpose of this experiment was to find out

how wide, long, and high our chute needed to be to block airflow and successfully capture Cells.

Our experiments showed that the part of the chute inside the Capillary needed to be at least 17

inches long, 18 inches wide, and ten inches tall.


21

With these preliminary measurements, we were ready to begin designing the chute on Pro

Desktop. While designing we ran into our first problem. Our goal was to get at least four Cells

with every trip, and with each Cell taking up a maximum space of 10 inches we found that our

chute needed to more than 40 inches long. By using a folding design we came up with a way of

getting a chute smaller then 24 inches to eventually end up more than 40 inches long. The chute

would simply unfold at the beginning of the match using a series of springs. Once the design on

Pro Desktop was finished, we considered another modification in an attempt to improve our

design. At first, the chute was simply a hollow box in which Cells could travel to any different

spot inside it. To concentrate the Cells in one general area we could construct the sides of the

box at a slant, thus forcing the Cells to stay in the middle of the chute. Later our conveyor belt

design changed and simplified, leaving this modification unneeded and without any apparent use,

and would moreover get in our way and would make our collecting of the Cells more difficult.

We thought that this modification would make the conveyor belt’s job easier by putting the Cells

in a line where it would then easily push them out. For simplicity the chute eventually became a

simple construction of PVC, string, and cardboard. We used these materials because there is an

abundance of PVC, string, and cardboard in the kit, making our chute easily replaceable and easy

to repair if damaged. In the final design of the chute, its end (which we use to enter the arteries

and capillaries) was rounded and made into a flat edge instead of a pointed one, this helped

prevent the destruction of Cells and to help the final design of the conveyor belt work to its full

potential. Using all these observations, we made the necessary modifications to the Pro Desktop

model and the chute was ready to be constructed.


22

The conveyor belt:

The conveyor belt was originally going to be a fan that would simply blow the Cells out.

Although simple, this idea had one major flaw, the diseased Cell, if caught, would be blown out

with all the other Cells into our Cell Saver. To solve this problem the idea of a conveyor belt

was introduced. Of course, before we replaced one idea with another, we put the new idea

through an experiment. We used a strip of cardboard and attached flaps of cardboard to it to act

as the belt. We placed the belt on the floor of the chute and placed some Cells on top of it. To

simulate the conveyor belt’s movement we pulled on one end of the belt and the result was a

successful expulsion of all Cells inside the chute. So the conveyor belt would not only be able to

push the Cells out, but it could do so one at a time thus ridding us of the diseased Cell problem.

An early idea for the conveyor belt was a construction that would be made of two 12 inch long,


23

half- inch PVC tubes that would be set 32 inches apart (the length from edge to edge of the

chute) from each other. The tubes would be connected by two belts of bicycle inner tube

wrapped around each tube, which acts as the actual belt part of the conveyor belt. To help push

the Cells out we planned on using five 5x 5 x 4 inch flaps at 12-inch intervals that will help the

conveyor belt grab Cells. To move the belt, one of the tubes would be connected to a small

motor, which activates the whole system. As you can see this design is rather technical and

would be difficult to repair in a timely manner if it were damaged. We quickly started to think

up a simpler, and more easily repairable conveyor belt. We soon decided that there was no need

for multiple flaps to push Cells into the Cell Saver. Our new design involved one pusher or

plunger to be stationed at the back of the chute. Once filled with Cells we would drive to the

Cell Saver and push the Cells out with the pusher or plunger, being run by a string running along

the bottom of the chute and being powered by a small motor that would feed string in on one

spool, and feed string out on the other. This idea proved simple, easily repairable, and efficient

in completing the task of the Cells expulsion from our chute.

The chute and conveyor belt:

The conveyor belt combined with the chute is what our team has determined to be a good

and effective way of capturing and scoring Cells. The chute enters the Artery or Capillary, stops

any airflow that needs to be blocked, gently catches the falling Cells, and provides a safe area to

store our Cells that we are transporting to the Cell Saver. The conveyor belt then pushes Cells

into the Cell Saver one at a time and saves us from putting a diseased Cell into our own Cell

Saver. Once mounted on the chassis, the chute and conveyor belt work together to effectively

complete the task assigned to us in this year’s BEST game.


24

2 GAME OR REALITY?

In our modern day society, heart transplants and blood work have become nothing more

than a common practice. We try our absolute best though to improve on our technology in hopes

that we will improve on the success rate of such procedures, avoiding the mishaps that lead to

terrifying conclusions. So what does the robotics game theme have to do with any of this? Good

question!

In the 1600’s, an English physician by the name of William Harvey started to experiment

on the heart and circulatory system of many different animals. Through his experiments, he

developed the first complete theory for the circulation of blood, which led to his book,

“Exercitatio Anatomice de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibu.” His research, observations,

and data (all recorded in the book) opened a window for modern day scientists and physicians in

the area of blood work.

This window resulted into an idea. The idea was the thought of a human heart transplant.

After extensive experimentation and endless hours in laboratories, doctors were ready to execute

a human heart transplant. It was a success! The idea had become an institution, and millions of

lives in years to come would be saved from the accomplishment of the procedure.

What does the game have to do with all of this? Hmmm. Let’s start, shall we? We have

mock-ups of arteries, capillaries, and Cells. Just to make things even trickier, we have thrown a

deadly disease into the mix, too. The object of this game involves transferring the Cells from the

Artery into the Cell Saver. In modern day science, we would compare this transfer to a human

heart transplant and/or a blood transfusion.


25

In a human heart transplant, the first step of execution would involve making and incision

in the chest at the best point of penetration. You can make a great comparison between this and

our robot. As the doctors and scientists would in a real life situation, we ran many test and

experiments on the shock-cords of the arteries to determine where the best point of penetration

would be. We came to a conclusion over the exact area, and then we began to make our incision.

Next, after cutting away the excess tissue and removing the heart, the doctors would then

begin to transplant a new heart in the body. After our incision, we collect the blood Cells from

the Artery to place in the Cell Saver.

Last, a good doctor would probably stitch up the loose ends, and check for any possible

viruses carried from the transplant. After we release all of our Cells into the Cell Saver, we then

defend our “newly functioning body” by running interference against any possible disease.

Thus, the conclusion of the doctors and our transplant are successful (most of the time).

If ever, a doctor makes a mistake, he must go back and correct it as quickly and precisely

as humanly possible. If he doesn’t, then his patient’s life is in serious jeopardy. As for us, the

same thing occurs. If we are just a few inches off our incision, if a fellow’s doctor by accident

creates an obstacle, if we allow one diseased Cell by our defenses, then our patient is in jeopardy

of losing his/her life. Therefore, we must strive to be error free. If a mishap does occur in any

event, then we must work quickly and precisely to cover up lost ground and save our patient.

This is how modern day science is related to this year’s game. So as we march out on to

the field at Texas BEST, we must act as though we are doctors attempting to save the lives of

patients because in a matter of life or death, you only get one shot. Make it count!

Medina Valley Robotics TTrraannssffuussiioonn CCoonnffuussiioonn SA BEST 2003

A-1

Appendix A - CAD Drawings

Early CAD drawing of bag design. Prototype of design utilizing tongue and conveyor belt.

Prototype of design utilizing scoop and Early prototype of current robot design. additional arm to remove green balloons. Used for electronics and wheel placement.


A-2

T-fitting for PVC pipe Wire-frame version

Early bag design. Wireframe version

Early chassis drawing Wireframe version


A-3

Early chute design Wireframe version

Advanced chute design Wireframe version

Failed design Wi

reframeversion


A-4

Conveyer belt design Wireframe version

eel design Wireframe version

Advanced Chassis design Wireframe version

Wh

Early tongue idea Wireframe version


A-5

The Clot Wireframe version

FINAL DESIGN


Appendix B – Shock Cord Testing

B-1

Study of Shock Cord Force vs DisplacementArtery DataOverall Length = 41.5 InchesPoint 1 - CenterPoint 2 - Up 10 inches from centerPoint 3 - Down 10 inches from center

Side A Side A Side ACord 1 Cord 1 Cord 1Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Load (grams) Cord 1, Point 1, y = 0.01x Cord 1, Point 2, y=0.0066x Cord 1, Point 3, y=0.007x100 1 0.5 0.75200 1.75 1.25 1300 3.25 2 2.25400 4 2.75 3500 5 3.25 3.25

Side A Side A Side ACord 2 Cord 2 Cord 2Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Load (grams) Cord 2, Point 1, y=0.0089x Cord 2, Point 2, y=0.0066x Cord 2, Point 3, y=0.007x100 0.5 0.5 0.5200 1.5 1.5 1.5300 2.5 2.25 2.25400 3.25 2.75 3500 4.25 3.5 3.5

Side B Side B Side BCord 3 Cord 3 Cord 3Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Load (grams) Cord 3, Point 1, y=0.0082x Cord 3, Point 2, y=0.0066x Cord 3, Point 3, y=0.0074x100 0.75 0.5 0.75200 2 1.5 1.5300 2.5 2 2400 3.5 2.75 3500 4.5 3.5 3.5

Capillary DataOverall Length = 33.5 InchesPoint 1 - CenterPoint 2 - Up 10 inches from centerPoint 3 - Down 10 inches from center

Cord 1Point 1

Load (grams) Cord 1, Point 1, y=0.0085x100 1200 1.75300 3400 3.25500 4

Cell SaverOverall Length = 28.5 InchesPoint 1 - CenterPoint 2 - Up 10 inches from centerPoint 3 - Down 10 inches from center

Cord 1Point 1

Load (grams) Cord 1, Point 1, y=0.0085x100 1200 1.5300 1.75400 2.5500 3.25

.25

.25


Artery Shock Cord Testing Point 1, Center Line of Shock Cord

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load (grams)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

ches

)

Cord 1, Point 1, y = 0.01x



Artery Shock Cord Testing Point 2, 10 Inches Above Center Line

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load (grams)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

ches

)




B-2


Artery Shock Cord Testing Point 3, 10 Inches Below Center Line

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load (grams)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

ches

)




Capillary Shock Cord TestingPoint 1, Center Point of Shock Cord

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load (grams)

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

ches

)


B-3


Cell Saver Shock Cord TestingPoint 1, Center Point of Shock Cord

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

load

disp

lace

men

t

Cord 1, Point 1,y=0.0085x

B-4


Appendix C – Student Profiles

My name is Nathan Campbell. I am a junior at

Medina Valley High School and joined B.E.S.T. my

freshman year. I have been with the program for the past

two years and still enjoy it very much. When I first heard

about B.E.S.T, I became very interested because it was

right up my alley. I have always enjoyed building

different types of things, and I liked to deal with strategy.

I plan to stay in it until I graduate.

Hi, I am a junior at Medina Valley High School.

This is my second year in BEST. I enjoyed this program

last year due to the way it stretches your mind. It also

taught me new and interesting things about electronics

and engineering that I never knew before. This year, I

feel we have a better robot, a better look, and team that

has a family feel about it. I hope to return to state this

year and perform better than last year. We have proven that we can go there in the past, but that’s

just not enough for us. We want to strive for perfection this year, and bring home a state title. As

far as my true love goes, I would really enjoy becoming a musician one day. I go home

everyday, and practice guitar, praying that one day this hard work and dedication will pay off,

allowing me to perform in front of millions of people. That dream is a long ways off, and not a

C-1


truly reliable career, but I am willing to work till I drop if that is what it takes to accomplish it. A

dream is everything. Without one, this team wouldn’t have a shot at state.

Hullo, I’m Matthew Chestnut, the

Webmaster for Medina Valley Robotics. I’m a

senior in High School and this is my 3rd year in the

BEST program and this is honestly my most

enjoyable club. From the excitement of kick-off to

the rush of robot construction to the thrill of

competition, there’s no other contest like it. Toss in

how close you grow together as a group and I could

tell you no other experience that comes close to comparing to BEST. For this reason I have

stayed involved this year and will miss it next year after I graduate.

Howdy! My name is Brittney Conn, the artist extraordinaire

for Medina Valley BEST. I’m 16 years old and a junior at Medina

Valley High School and this is my first year in the BEST program.

I’m in a wide variety of clubs from Art Society to Drama, but I

think that Medina Valley Robotics has been the most rewarding

experience so far. It made me realize what responsibility is all

about. If all works out then I plan to be in BEST next year.

Brittney Conn - Artist

C-2


Hello, my name is Tim DeLeon, and I am the

president of M.V. Robotics this year. I am a junior at Medina

Valley High School. I first joined BEST late my freshman

year. I worked this year to strengthen the teamwork side of

Robotics, and I must say, I think I have done a decent job of

this. My strong points are in leadership of the group, and

design of the robot. I hope to go to college, (against all odds

that have been placed before me) and major in computer stuff

and a minor in English. What computer stuff I plan to do is

still unknown.

Hi, my name is John Davies. I am a sophomore

and this is my first year in Robotics. I’ve joined because

of the fact that I like to build things and I’m interested in

electronics. I am in Digital Graphics and want to be a

Digital graphics designer/advertiser. My strengths are in

Computer Animation and pretty much everything else. I

speak English and Partial Spanish. I have a positive

attitude and I enjoy working with robots.

C-3


My name is William Knight and this is

my fourth and last year to be in BEST. I am a

senior at Medina Valley and will graduate at the

end of this year. I joined MV robotics my

freshman year because I had seen the team

practice when I was in 8th grade and I thought it

looked interesting. I’ve been hooked ever since.

After this year I plan to go to Texas A&M and

major in computer science, then pursue a career

in the military.

Good day, my name is as follows,

Edwin Matthews. Allright, enough of that.

I’m a 16-year-old junior at Medina Valley. I

joined the MV Robotics club last year and

am now vice-president. I hope to maybe do

some writing, archeology, and maybe a little

teaching high school history teacher, after

graduating from high school and college. I

greatly enjoy the BEST program. I love the designing of the robot and notebook. My skills in

the construction of the robot are a little weak, but I love being involved in the construction of the

notebook. I learn so much from this program and of course, have a lot of fun through it.

C-4


Hi. My name is Rolland Rodriguez. I’ve been in

BEST since my freshman year and this is my third year

now. After high school I hope to become a mechanical

engineer and BEST was the perfect practice for what I

hope to be my future career. Yep, BEST has given me

valuable experience in the engineering experience and

showed me the amount of thinking that goes behind an

actual design. Oh yeah, this stuff is pretty fun too.

C-5

Medina Valley Robotics TTrraannssffuussiioonn CCoonnffuussiioonn Texas BEST 2003 Appendix D – Mentor Profiles

David Bollinger. Biographies usually

want life-changing events that lead to what you

are doing now. I’m 48 years old and I spent 17

years working in the business programming

industry knowing that the most significant thing

I’d ever get to do was write the software for

PULSE. I wished I were doing “cooler” stuff. Then the industry changed beneath my feet and I

decided I was not going to be an over-paid clerk after having been a senior programmer. I

decided a real programming degree might make me happy. They didn’t have them when I first

went to school. Along the way, I found that programming wasn’t fun anymore. By chance, I

signed on as a calculus tutor at the university for the extra money and discovered I was pretty

good at it. A few semesters later, I had a teaching certificate for high school math. Teaching is

cool. Watching young minds struggle is satisfying. I get to see them discover the play in

reasoning, the joy in discovering. I’m too out-of-date to go back to programming and too old to

go back to school to change careers. Engineering has always been one of those cool things I’d

never get to do. Except, now, in helping with BEST, I get to watch talented engineers do what I

do, teach, and I get to learn as well. I’m doing BEST because I didn’t get to do it when I started

out. It’s the “cool” stuff I missed while I was busy making money.

Susie Bollinger. I have been an educator for 26 years and have enjoyed every second,

mostly. I have taught special education for most of my career and I taught regular education for

three years. The last few years, I taught high school and I have come to really enjoy working

D-1

Medina Valley Robotics TTrraannssffuussiioonn CCoonnffuussiioonn Texas BEST 2003 with this grade level. How did I get involved with

BEST? Well, that is an interesting story to tell!

My husband and I are a very close couple and we

do a lot of things together. He somehow got me

hooked on working with an awesome group of

teenagers. I really enjoy watching how these

students come up with their ideas and seeing those ideas come alive. I have been with the club

for three years and have loved every minute of it, even when I was tired from a long day at work.

When I see these students get excited when something goes right or when they help each other

over a tough hump, it gives me such energy. Someday, I plan on retiring, but I will always be a

part of this club because it is so neat to see these young minds at work.

Daniel Pomerening. I am one of the mentors for the Medina Valley Robotics Club. In

my spare time, I am a Principal Engineer at Southwest Research Institute specializing in

Structural Dynamics. I have been involved in BEST as a mentor from the first game that sent

Taft High School to compete in PVC Insanity. I have

worked with Taft, Marshall, and Medina Valley High

Schools over the years. What I enjoy most about the

program is watching the students develop an idea from the

concept to physical hardware. What I find hardest is trying

to let the students do the work, rather than doing it myself. I

hope to continue in my career at SwRI and BEST and enjoy

what I am doing.

D-2

1st half of document - sabest

Documents