ED SHEET‐‐03 - U-Div-Engg-Exploration-Odd-26-27/Repo-06 GitHub Wiki

Objectives Weights
Safety 9
Ease of use 7
Portability 5
Use of standard parts 8
Cost 6
Design Objectives Weights Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5
Safety 9 DATUM (+) (+)(+) (+) (+)
Ease of use 7 DATUM (+) (+)(+) (+) (-)
Portability 5 DATUM 0 0 0 0
Use of standard parts 8 DATUM (+) (+) 0 (+)
Cost 6 DATUM (-) (-) (-)(-) (-)
----------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Score (+) 24 40 16 17
Score (-) 6 6 12 13
Total 18 34 6 4
Design No. Objective Score Allocated Justification for the Score
1 Safety 0 Concept one uses all minimum viable product, hence chosen as datum
Ease of use 0 Concept one uses all minimum viable product, hence chosen as datum
Portability 0 Concept one uses all minimum viable product, hence chosen as datum
Use of standard parts 0 Concept one uses all minimum viable product, hence chosen as datum
Cost 0 Concept one uses all minimum viable product, hence chosen as datum
------------ ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Safety 9 (+) A physical microswitch bumper gives extra baseline protection which IR sensor can miss
Ease of use 7 (+) The ESP32 enables Wi-Fi, smartphone control
Portability 0 Circuit board and ultrasonic sensor swap do not make much difference
Use of standard parts 8 (+) The ESP8266 and NEMA stepper offer better support
Cost 6 (-) Stepper motor and battery is much more expensive
------------ ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Safety 18 (+) The time of flight and cliff sensor make it completely fail proof
Ease of use 14 (+) The ESP32 makes sure to enable WiFi and Bluetooth
Portability 5 (-) Heavy metal gear motor and LiFePO4 battery increase the weight
Use of standard parts 8 (+) Use of ESP32 is standard first year project
Cost 6 (-) The cost of ESP32 is comparatively high
------------ ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Safety 9 (+) Cameras recognize objects better than LiDAR but fail in dark rooms
Ease of use 7 (+) Vision SLAM enables logical path planning
Portability 0 Adding a camera module and Pi keeps the weight almost the same
Use of standard parts 0 Sourcing a planetary gear is neither harder nor easier than finding baseline hobby parts
Cost 6 (-) The camera module and Pi increase cost
------------ ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Safety (+) Ultrasonic sensor calculates exact distance to stop before hitting, a much greater value than Design 1 (IR sensor)
Ease of use (-) Unlike Design 1, this design can only move around the stick tape path
Portability 0 The weight is approximately the same; the added motor weight is balanced by the 3-prong sweeping brush
Use of standard parts (+) Arduino Mega, ultrasonic sensor and stepper motor have universal wiring diagram and extensive open source
Cost (-) The cost is increased due to Arduino Mega, stepper motor and diaphragm pump