Logbook

Introduction into the European Project Semester, courses, teams and proposal of projects. Discussion within the group and with coaches/professors, introduction into the workplaces and final choice of project.

First research was done on biological inspirations and technological state of the art to prepare a future concept.

The tasks necessary to achieve progress in the project were defined, allocated and scheduled. Further research was done on the biological inspiration and state of the art. Ideas for an effective marketing concept were collected.

The market concept was chosen and the product development initiated.

While the product was under development it was worked on the chapters on Marketing, Ethics & Deontology and Sustainability for the Report.

To finish the list of materials the emphasis was put on developing the product. Also the Interim Report was finished and handed in.

The product development was roughly finished and the interim presentation prepared and held.

Easter Vacation

Work on final report

1. Presentation
2. Modus operandi
3. Project proposals
4. Electronic Logbook

First EPS meeting, including introduction of the EPS supervisors, teams, further proceeding and detailed presentation of the electable projects.

1. OBJECTIVE
   • Target market, final costumer?
   • Is there a specific shape, dimension and movement of the fish required?
   • Which functions is the remote control expected to have?
   • Maximum production costs?
2. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
   • What are the existing components that we are able/supposed to use?
   • Can you help us to get information on technical (mechanical/electrical/material) features of existing robotic fish? Copyrights?
   • Are we expected to build the entire final prototype?
3. BUDGET
   • Is the entire budget for buying components for the prototype?
   • Does the early deadline for list of materials mean that we have to be done with the product development by then? Can we buy more components later on?
4. GENERAL
   • Can we plan meetings out of schedule to discuss important questions?

1. Manuel Silva was declared advisor for this project.
2. The target customer is to be determined as part of the marketing concept.
3. Functions, shape and means of controlling are to be determined by the team (recommendation by coaches: big enough to fit in necessary components and create enough buoyancy).
4. Discussion on usage of existing components was postponed.
5. A meeting with advisor was set up to be provided with further information on state of the art.
6. There will be no problems concerning copyrights as long as the team creates an original design, team has to be aware of existing patents.
7. A prototype is to be built.
8. To use the budget the components can only be bought via ISEP (deadline is obligatory).

1. PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS
   • Biological inspiration
   • Technological state of the art
2. QUESTIONS ON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
   • What is the more important task: create a working marketing concept or implement a robot that can fulfill “basic fish movements”?
   • How specified should the list of materials be?
   • What kind of machines does ISEP have to cut materials etc. or do we have to buy semi-finished products?

1. The research results were presented.
2. The high degree of maneuverability and effective stationkeeping due to streamline shape of fish and combination of oscillating and undulating movements were stated the most important biological inspirations.
3. The engineering design should strive for simplicity to produce feasibility and low power consumption. The usage of a Arduino platform may help reach that goal.
4. An effective marketing concept has to be developed for the product. Not all of the future product features need to be implemented in the first prototype. Single features (such as up/down movement) can be selected to be tested in the prototype.
5. Concrete products of (local) companies have to be specified for the list of materials.
6. ISEP facilities include machines to cut metal (esp. aluminium) and plastic materials. There is also a 3D-Printer. Technical drawings are required to have any materials processed. Costs are expected to be lower this way than for buying semi-finished products.

1. Presentation of Marketing Concept
   • Main Idea
   • Possible target market ideas
2. Questions on defining the target market
   • Is an entire market analysis necessary?
   • Should we put more weight on the technical complexity necessary to create a product that meets the target´s needs?
3. Presentation and discussion of Technical Solution
   • Possible mechanical architecture of fish
   • Possible functions of prototype
4. Presentation and discussion of action plan for the upcoming week (displayed in the following)
   1. Choose target market
   2. Define mechanical architecture of fish (maximum functions ↔ minimum complexity)
   3. Choose type of mechanical and electrical components
   4. Developing a shell/hull (criteria: space for components, outweighed buoyancy, waterproof, little drag resistance)
   5. Choose material for shell/hull

1. Positive feedback was received on the the principal marketing idea. The target market is for us to choose based on market research. The more, the better.
2. To minimize complexity a two-staged project structure is proposed:
   1. Implementation of basic behavior into prototype (little amount of properly working functionalities).
   2. Generation of more complex behavior by altering controlling algorithms. (if possible within time available)
3. Possible mechanical architectures of the robot were discussed regarding performance and feasibility. More research has to be done to select the best of the three remaining options. Manuel Silva and Fernando Ferreira can be consulted for further advice on specific problems.
4. The prototype should have the functionality to move straight, left/right and up/down. The team has to decide on the remote controllability. Fins of different shapes and sizes can be connected to the motors to experiment on the physical effects. It was also discussed if masses may be integrated in the hull at different locations to change the overall weight and center of gravity. The decision will be made during the technical development process.
5. The proposed action plan met approval. The following advices were given to support the technical development:
   • A top-down method should be used to identify all necessary components and produce a more and more detailed specification for them.
   • Suitable mechanisms and off-the-shelf-products can reduce the system´s complexity.
   • Actuators: Servomotors may be used for pectoral fins (if existing). The tail fin producing thrust should be actuated by a motor with uninterrupted spin (not servo) to minimize power consumption and material abrasion (hint: how are swipers for windshields of cars actuated?). (comparison criterion: power in-/output, price, weight, dimensions)
   • Controller: microprocessors by Arduino, TI or Launchpad may be suitable. Raspberry Pi is to complex. (comparison criterion: power consumption, price, weight, dimensions)
   • Battery (comparison criterion: power autonomy, price, weight, dimensions)
6. General propositions:
   • The subchapter “Requirements” of chapter “Introduction” of the report should be defined by the team. Functional tests for every proposed feature of the prototype should be introduced in the following chapter.
   • Requirement of 12hrs power autonomy may be modified if not realizable.
   • The first week of April may also be used to define the list of material. (deadline not mandatory)

1. Presentation of development status
2. Questions in order to do list of materials concerning…
   • mechanical archtitecture to steer left/right
   • mechanical structure of back fin
   • calculation of torque of back fin
   • remote control + receiver
   • microprocessor: arduino uno r3 or arduino pro mini?
   • batteries: lithium?
   • way of changing overall mass and its center: water or weight
   • waterproof shell
   • support structure for components
   • set up a meeting to see facilities where we will build prototype

1. concerns were expressed about our idea to only steer with the pectoral fins: it would inevitably lead to a rotational motion around the longitudinal axis and also work against the kinetic energy achieved by propelling the robot
2. one motor can be used for both pectoral fins if they are supposed to have the same movement always, the shape of the fish and the orientation of rotational axis have to be considered in an approach like that
3. concerns were expressed about the presented mechanical mechanism for the back fin because it would produce different angular velocities during one period and thus the fish runs the risk of swimming in circles only
4. the first idea for the mechanisms does not have these problems but requires a lot of space and is harder to make waterproof
5. Supervisor Fernando suggested another option to construct and actuate the back fin that met general approval
6. for the back fin a motor of relatively high torque and less speed is useful
7. to change the voltage a PWM is supposed to be a better solution than a potentiometer
8. the two micro processors differ mainly in size, the mini requires an additional programming cable, there are advantages and disadvantages to both options, a choice has to be made dependent on the size of the fish
9. also the choice of batteries is dependent on the size of the fish and the required weight to balance it (heavier and cheaper batteries may be used because the weight is needed anyways)
10. the choice how to implement the ballast (water container or weights) is dependent on how much additional mass we want to add, a water tank only offers a limited capacity to add weight
11. to make the hull waterproof our idea (put a “hat” on the main body separated by a rubber strap and tighten it with a belt around the entire body) was criticized because it requires high geometric accuracy; it was stated that sealing is easiest if there are simple geometries attached to each other because reaching accuracy is easier; it also has to be considered that we need to be able to access all components with this inspection opening

1. Presentation and discussion of the current design of the swimming robot and the list of materials
2. Question concerning remote controlling unit

1. the principal design of the fish (static and dynamic parts) met approval
2. it was advised to choose a larger pieces to connect the tail fins in order to secure enduring strength
3. the topics watertightness and electrical components were discussed and further meetings with the supervisors Manuel and Fernando scheduled
4. new possibilities to activate the body were introduced:
   • use of smart materials activated by applying voltage to them, the team can contact supervisor Cristina for further information
   • a belt can be put around the fish´s body (in a layer orthogonal to longitudinal axis) with several fins attached that rotate differently
5. the presentation may be handed in on wednesday, 09th april

1. Questions concerning procurement
   • When do materials arrive?
   • Is there a place at ISEP to store the materials?
2. Presentation of action plan for prototype implementation
   1. cut pipe
   2. (squeeze pipe)
   3. prepare drawings for 3D printing and machining
      • pipe caps
      • aluminum pieces for shaft opening
      • support for parts inside shell
   4. 3D printing
   5. machine plastics and aluminum
   6. build control unit
   7. cut fins
   8. attach fins to shafts
   9. assemble all parts
3. Questions the implementation
   • Which tools are we allowed to use ourselves? Where and when?
   • Does the 3D printer work properly?
   • Who will do the 3D printing/machining (contact details, how long does it take?)

1. it cannot be stated when materials will arrive
2. the EPS room will serve as work base and will be equipped with tools
3. questions concerning 3D printing can be discussed with Fernando (required file format, time consumption)
4. contact technicians at ISEP to schedule machining (shorthanded operation should be possible)
5. transparent caps can be provided by Manuel (drawing required)
6. it is suggested to use a mock-up of an empty hull for initial buoyancy tests before inserting electronics

1. What are the supervisors´ individual expectations towards the project and the team?
2. Which of the following “services” should we already finish during the EPS semester?
   (alternative: hint that the team intents to do it in the future)
   • User´s manual
   • Safety instructions
   • Terms of warranty
   • Costs of usage and maintenance
3. Where does a chapter on the final product fit best in the report?
4. How can we calculate the product costs?