You are on page 1of 29

Design Competition Final Report

Brandon Hoshaw and Quinn Mogil Team 14 ENGR 320 12/13/2013

Table of Contents
Challenge Description ............................................................................................................................... 3 Team Strategy ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Final Machine Concept ............................................................................................................................. 6 Design Change Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 8 Competition Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 12 Machine Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 13 Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Driving Speed under Certain Loads .................................................................................................... 15 Lifting Arm Speed under Certain Loads ............................................................................................. 15 Torque Required by Arm Motors........................................................................................................ 16 Center of Gravity ................................................................................................................................ 18 Required Counterweight ..................................................................................................................... 18 4 RPM Motor Characterization ........................................................................................................... 19 Appendices: Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A: Assembly Drawings ...................................................................................................... 25 Appendix B: Engineering Drawings ................................................................................................... 26 Appendix C: Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................. 27 Appendix D: Control Box Schematic ................................................................................................. 28 Appendix E: Pin-out Diagram for Tether............................................................................................ 29

Challenge Description
A short description, in your own words, of what the challenge you were trying to solve was

The challenge was a large scale failure of a nuclear reactor, as seen in Figure 1. Our team had to design a robot that could safely remove the nuclear fuel rods from the reactor to prevent further damage to the facility. The robot design specifications included being able to fit into a 12x12x12 cube without touching, which was the starting position for the competition. However, the robot was allowed to unfold into a larger dimension once the clock had started. The robot had to weigh less than 10.0 pounds. Each team was allowed to use a maximum of 6 of the supplied motors for their machine, with a maximum of two 4 RPM 12 VDC Right-Angle Gear Motors. Teams were allowed to use supplied materials, such as aluminum sheet and bars, plastic, fasteners, etc. A maximum of $20 for outside materials was allowed per team. The machine needed to be able to hook up to the supplied control boxes, which will be discussed later in more detail.

Figure 1: Reactor layout on the playing field.

To make the competition fair and run more smoothly, rules were set in place. Each round of the competition was 2.5 minutes, with each team trying to pick up as many cylinders and score as many points as possible. The competition was a single elimination competition, with a bracket based on results from the seeding round. The components of the robot needed to start in their lowest potential energy each round of the competition. Teams were not allowed to attack or interfere with another teams machine or persons, or cause damage to the playing field or pieces. Teams were also not allowed to block other teams from any part of the playing field. Breaking
3

any of these rules resulted in a 10 point penalty. Machines could not touch the reactor itself, otherwise a penalty was incurred. The playing field was 47 x 71 and carpeted. Each team started on opposite ends of the playing field. In order to score points, the fuel rods needed to be placed in either the water tank or secure storage tank for your respective team, as seen in Figure 2. Any rods still attached to the machine at the end of the 2.5 minutes did not count towards the total score. The water tank was 6 in diameter with the opening directly in the playing field. The secure storage tank also had a 6 diameter, but the opening was 6 above from the playing field. Rods stored in the water tank received no point multiplier whereas rods stored in the secure storage tank received double points.

Figure 2: Secure storage tank (left) and water tank (right).

The fuel rods were 1.315 in diameter and had a height of 6 plus 0.5 in height of the wire loops. The rods had double loops on top to allow handling, and ranged in weight from 3 to 48 oz. There were five different types of rods. Detailed descriptions of the rods can be seen in table below. The rods were either placed in cylinders within the reactor, partial cylinders in the reactor, or loose on the playing field. The cylinders all had an outer diameter of 1.900 but had varying inner diameters, with smaller inner diameters closer to the center of the reactor. The reactor was in a hex pattern with a maximum of 15 cylinders in any direction. This pattern illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Top view of reactor layout.

Figure 4: Side fuel of red fuel rod. The double loops can be seen.

Color

Estimated Weight (oz) 3 5 12 24 48

Points

Total Number

White Blue Yellow Red Silver

1 2 5 11 21

6 6 6 3 1

Table 1: Weight, point value, and quantity of each fuel rod on the playing field.

Team Strategy
An explanation of your teams strategy for the competition Our teams strategy was to go for the red and yellow rods. Within the time limit, we were able to score 42 points on average. We would first go for the red rod on our side of the reactor. Once this was placed in our secure storage tank we would place as many yellow rods in the secure storage tank in the remaining time.
5

Final Machine Concept


An explanation of your final concept for your machine Our machine has an arm controlled by two motors to allow us to pick up the payload. The arm was constructed with two separate bars, allowing fuel rods to pass between the arm bars, illustrated in Figure 6. A hook was placed on the end of the arm, and the hook was allowed to rotate freely as the arm was raised and lowered. A small notch was placed in the hook to prevent fuel rods from slipping off the hook during transport. A sheet metal base attached the arm and its support links to the wheels. Counterweight, 3.5625 pounds, was added to prevent the machine from tipping when it removed fuel rods from the reactor, as seen in Figure 5. A second hook was attached to the front of the machine to allow loose rods to be moved out of the way, shown in Figure 7. This was not very efficient, but the hook also acted as an extra stabilizing element in the event of tipping, preventing the machine from falling completely forward if the load on the front became too great. In addition to the two motor-powered wheels on the front, a slider was made out of aluminum bar stock and attached to the back of the machine, Figure 8. This kept the machine level and allowed for easier turning. A bar made from aluminum sheet was also added to the front to keep the wheels perpendicular to the playing field, allowing for easier driving shown in Figure 7. Red wire was used to secure the arm motors to the support frames. (+ to final)

Figure 6: Top view of the final machine concept. Figure 5: Back view of final machine concept.

Figure 7: Front view of final machine concept.

Figure 8: Secondary back view of final machine concept.

Design Change Discussion

Figure 9: Solidworks model of final machine concept, with arm extended.

A discussion of how your design changed over the duration of the course. What caused these changes? Be specific!

The design for our robot changed dramatically throughout the fabrication process. Our original arm design used the Peaucellier linkage, shown in Figure 10, which has only one degree of freedom. This allowed our arm to move only in the vertical direction, making it easier to pick up fuel rods closer to the center of the reactor. This design ultimately failed because we were unable to get the arm long enough without it touching the reactor. We were also having difficulty fitting the arm in the starting position, especially when a base was added. As we prepared for the PDR we realized the design's failures and decided to scrap the arm for a simpler arm.

Figure 10: Solidworks model of Peaucellier linkage.

Figure 11: Construction of Peaucellier linkage.

Figure 12: Side view of Peaucellier linkage.

Figure 13: Opposite side view of Peaucellier linkage

Our next arm design consisted of an arm with two separate links separated by blocks of material. In the center was a crank link attached to a 4 RPM motor. The other end of the arm had a bolt through the links, more separating blocks, and a freely rotating hook. This design allowed the arm to swing backwards to drop off the fuel rod and not use as much time driving to the storage tank. This design failed when testing showed one 4 RPM motor was unable to lift the yellow fuel rods. Our final arm design took the open arm concept from the previous design. The arm consisted of two separate bars, each one attached to a separate arm motor, seen in Figures 5 and 6. Two 4 RPM motors were needed to create enough torque to lift the yellow and red fuel rods, discussed in detail in our Analysis section. These two links were attached together by a 2" bolt with the hook in the middle of the two bars. Nuts and washers on the bolt kept the links the correct distance apart to allow a fuel rod to pass between them. In actuality, because of the hook configuration, more time was needed to remove fuel rods once the arm moved past the vertical mark. The corners of the arm bars needed to be trimmed to allow the machine to fit into the starting configuration. Our original base was an open design made entirely from linkages, shown in Figure 14, allowing for a narrower machine and more arm positions. This design allowed us to fit between the cylinders and get closer to the reactor. We added bars across the bottom of the motor supports to keep them perpendicular to the playing field. The wheels were attached to links on opposite sides, and a castor wheel was attached in the center with more links. However, this design was difficult to execute as it involved a lot of machining and it was difficult to match up the bolt holes to assemble the machine. Another difficulty was attaching the wheels to the base so they were perpendicular to the playing field, especially once we attached the castor wheel.

10

Figure 14: Solidworks model of open base design.

Our final base design kept the vertical links and supports, but these were instead attached to an aluminum sheet metal base, illustrated in Figure 9. The wheels were attached to this base as well. The castor previously used was the wrong height for this new sheet metal base, so it was scrapped. This posed a problem because the castor wheel had acted as our counterweight. We decided to use some aluminum bar stock, with the edges rounded, bolted to the base of our machine as a slider to allow our machine to turn. The sheet metal base also allowed us to add counterweight to the back of our machine, and 3.5625 pounds were added. This was enough to allow the machine to lift the red fuel rods from the reactor. In order to help keep the wheels
11

perpendicular to the playing field, some aluminum sheet metal was cut down and bent to fit between the wheels and bolted. The rubber was glued to the wheels to prevent them from slipping or becoming loose. A hook was also added to the front of the machine base to allow loose pieces blocking the reactor to be pulled away. Moving pieces was very time consuming, but the hook served a more useful purpose stabilizing the machine. If the robot began to tip as a result of the payload's weight, the machine could only tip a small amount before the hook caught it. The hook on the arm also went through many designs. The original hook had an extra piece on the end to prevent the fuel rods from slipping off, shown in Figure 15. However, this made removing the fuel rods impossible. Our second hook design removed this extra end piece, but the fuel rods frequently slipped off the hook, similar to Figure 16. Our final hook design kept the removed end piece but also incorporated a small notch to aid both picking up fuel rods and keeping them on the hook, shown in Figure 16. The notch did not hinder fuel rod removal from the hook.

Figure 15: Solidworks model of the Competition Assessment


An assessment of your performance in the competition.

original hook.

Figure 16: Solidworks model of the final hook.s

12

Our machine scored 42 points in the seeding round, putting it in the #6 spot. We were able to place one red fuel rod and two yellow fuel rods into the secure storage tank in the allotted 2.5 minutes. During our first round in the competition, we were against the #11 seed. We were able to pick up a red fuel rod and two yellow fuel rods scoring 42 points again. In the second round, we were against the #3 seed. We were able to pick up the red in the center of the playing field and the red on our side of the playing field, scoring 44 points. We moved on to round 3, or the semifinals, where we were against the #2 seed. This machine had a very similar design to ours, a basic arm with a hook that could rotate. However, it was able to score more points than us as it could move much faster. We tried to get the red in the center of the playing field, but the other team reached the reactor first. We then had to spend a lot of time moving back to our side of the playing field to get a red fuel rod, and were only able to pick up one red fuel rod and one yellow fuel rod during the round, losing to the other team.

Machine Assessment
An honest assessment of your machines strengths and weaknesses. What would you change if you had to do this over again?

Our final concept was a surprising contender in the competition. A strength of our machine was its capability to consistently pick up, lift, and deposit red fuel rods into the scoring tanks. It was even capable of picking up multiple red rods within the time limit. Another strength of our machine was it could fit in the starting box with room to spare. Our machine was also quite underweight, weighing in at 9.25 lbs. Our final strength was that the fuel rods did not fall off of the hook in transit to the storage tanks. Though our machine had many strengths, its weaknesses were apparent. Our machine could not pick up the silver fuel rod. It was also very slow, and a lighter body would have increased the machine's speed. The hook also had many problems. It was too large, and as a result would get stuck in the fuel rod's loops. This made the cycle for grabbing fuel rods longer, since more maneuvering was required to free the fuel rod from the hook. Our castor was also problematic since it was not ground evenly. It kept getting stuck on the carpet, making it difficult to drive the machine straight. The base of our machine was about 1/4" too wide to drive straight up to the middle of the reactor to get the red fuel rod from the middle of the reactor. In order to get to this red fuel rod, we would have to first pull away one of the white fuel rods from the reactor. However, this was time consuming and not the best strategy for our machine. Our arm

13

also did not have a far enough reach to pick up fuel rods without almost touching the reactor. Another issue was we needed to lift the arm to the vertical position under the load of the red fuel rod in order to drive to the storage tanks. If we could start over and create a new design for this competition, we would begin with a simpler arm concept, similar to our final design. We would have spent more time deciding what was necessary for our design and not overcomplicate it. We wasted a lot of time trying to create linear motion, especially when it would not have increased our competitive advantage drastically. We also would have begun with a simple sheet metal base. We spent a lot of time trying to get our open base design to function properly but attaching all of the links together properly was difficult. We would not have used so many links to create a base for our arm. Having less connections would have made construction easier, and been much less machineintensive. This would have allowed us to spend more time changing more critical design elements to create a higher-caliber machine. We should have done more calculations earlier on, such as required torque to lift certain loads and required counterweight. Knowing these would have allowed us to design around these constraints early on as opposed to a couple weeks before the competition. We would not have used a castor wheel at all, especially because there are many solutions that are much simpler to implement. We should have made better crank holes in our arm bars to allow for an easier assembly. Measuring more accurately the first time to prevent extra drilling would have saved time as well. Making a complete Solidworks assembly before beginning construction would have been helpful. If we were to redesign all over again, we would make a lighter, faster machine that could reach the center of the reactor quickly. We also would make multiple wire hooks like many teams did. This would have allowed for less maneuvering in grabbing fuel rods and easier placement in storage tanks.

Analysis
Motor/wheel selection analysis predicting how fast you expect your vehicle to go Analysis of any springs, bearings, gears, linkages employed in your machine Speed/torque/force analysis of any other moving components on your machine (for example, flippers, grippers, and arms) Must have 5 significant calculations of vehicle characteristics (ex: lift speed, lift capacity) compare to voltage output

14

Driving Speed under Certain Loads Table 2 shows the driving speed of our machine under certain loads. An interesting observation was our machine moved faster with an applied load on the arm. We concluded the added weight to the front of the machine balanced the counterweight on the back of the machine. The unbalanced weights on the back made our castor drag, causing the machine to be slower. Once a fuel rod had been lifted, the machine no longer leaned on its back. Load (lbf) No load (0 lbf) Red Rod (1.5 lbf) Yellow Rod (0.75 lbf) Time to move 1 ft (sec) 3.5 sec 3 sec 3.2 sec Speed (ft/sec) 0.286 ft/sec 0.333 ft/sec 0.3125 ft/sec

Table 2: Speed of the machine under certain applied loads. Lifting Arm Speed under Certain Loads Table 3 shows the speed of the machine as it lifts different loads. The weight began at ground height, with the end of the arm 6 inches from the playing surface, shown in Figure 17. The weight was then lifted to the vertical position, 19 inches from the playing field, as seen in Figure 18. The times below correspond to the timespan the arm took to rotate from the starting position to the vertical position. Figure 18: Ending arm height for lifting a load.

15

Figure 17: Starting arm height for lifting a load. Load (lbf) No load (0 lbf) Red Rod (1.5 lbf) Yellow Rod (0.75 lbf)

Time to lift (sec) 4.4 sec 5.5 sec 8.2 sec

Table 3: The time required to lift certain loads from the ground, with the hook at 6 in above the ground, to the vertical position with the hook 19 in from the ground. Torque Required by Arm Motors The following calculation shows the required torque to lift the red fuel rod, the highest weight our machine could lift, shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Angle rotated by the arm during lifting of the load.

16

( ) ( ) ( )

The red fuel rod weighed 1.5 lbf. When the arm lifted this weight, it also lifted the hook, bolt, nuts, and washers attached to the end of the arm, which weighed 0.125 lbf. ( ( )( )( ) ) ( )( )

One 4 RPM motor is capable of creating this much torque: ( ( ( ( ( )( ) ( ) )( ) )( )( ) )( ) )

The torque required to lift one red fuel rod is greater than the torque created by one 4 RPM motor on the arm. Two 4 RPM motors are necessary to achieve to required torque of 17.47 lbfin.

17

Center of Gravity Figure 20: Drawing for center of gravity calculation.

)(

)(

)(

The center of gravity, xbar, is 1.85 in to the left of P. Required Counterweight The required counterweight uses the previous calculation for the center of gravity. Assuming xbar is 1.75 inches to the left of P, we must find the required counterweight to prevent the machine from tipping. ( ( )( ( )( ) ( ( ( )( )( )( )( ) ) ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ) ( )( ) ( )( )

18

)(

)(

)(

)(

At least 3.34 lbf of counterweight was needed to prevent the machine from tipping. We added 3.5625 lbf to our machine, which was greater than the required counterweight. 4 RPM Motor Characterization Tables 4 and 5 on the following page contain the raw data obtained from the characterization of the 4 RPM motor. Two of these motors were used for our machine's arm. Formulas used: ( )( ); ( )( ; ); ( )( ;

19

4 RPM Motor Raw Data Arm length Force Io(amps) Vo(volts) (in) (lb) Imax (Amps) Torque(lb*in) 0.01 0.8 10.75 1.625 0.22 17.46875 Torque (lb*in) 17.47 16.60 15.77 14.95 14.12 13.30 12.47 11.65 10.82 10.00 9.17 8.35 7.52 6.70 5.87 5.05 4.22 3.40 2.57 1.75 0.00 Table 4: Initial and end conditions for the 4 RPM motor.

RPM Current Electrical Power Efficiency Heating (W) 0.00 0.22 2.64 0.00 0.23 0.21 2.51 0.02 0.45 0.20 2.39 0.04 0.68 0.19 2.26 0.05 0.90 0.18 2.14 0.07 1.13 0.17 2.01 0.09 1.35 0.16 1.88 0.11 1.58 0.15 1.76 0.12 1.80 0.14 1.63 0.14 2.03 0.13 1.51 0.16 2.25 0.12 1.38 0.18 2.48 0.10 1.25 0.19 2.70 0.09 1.13 0.21 2.93 0.08 1.00 0.23 3.15 0.07 0.88 0.25 3.38 0.06 0.75 0.27 3.60 0.05 0.62 0.29 3.83 0.04 0.50 0.31 4.05 0.03 0.37 0.33 4.28 0.02 0.25 0.36 4.50 0.01 0.12 0.00

2.64 2.47 2.30 2.14 1.99 1.83 1.68 1.54 1.40 1.27 1.14 1.01 0.89 0.77 0.66 0.55 0.44 0.34 0.25 0.16 0.12

Mechanical Power Torque Speed (W) (N*m) (rad/s) 0.00 1.97 0.00 0.04 1.87 0.02 0.08 1.78 0.05 0.12 1.69 0.07 0.15 1.60 0.09 0.18 1.50 0.12 0.20 1.41 0.14 0.22 1.32 0.16 0.23 1.22 0.19 0.24 1.13 0.21 0.24 1.04 0.24 0.24 0.94 0.26 0.24 0.85 0.28 0.23 0.76 0.31 0.22 0.66 0.33 0.20 0.57 0.35 0.18 0.48 0.38 0.15 0.38 0.40 0.12 0.29 0.42 0.09 0.20 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.47

Table 5: Raw data obtained from the 4 RPM motor. 20

4 RPM Motor Data Graphs The following graphs show various characteristics of the 4 RPM motor and the relationship between these characteristics.

Torque v. RPM
20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Torque (lb*in)

RPM

Figure 21: The relationship between torque and rotational speed of the 4 RPM motor.

Current v. RPM
0.25 0.20

Current (A)

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

RPM

Figure 22: The relationship between current and rotational speed of the 4 RPM motor.

21

Efficiency v. RPM
0.40 0.35 0.30

Efficiency

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

RPM

Figure 23: The relationship between efficiency and rotational speed of the 4 RPM motor.

Mechanical Power v. RPM


0.30

Mechanical Power (W)

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

RPM

Figure 24: The relationship between mechanical power and rotational speed of the 4 RPM motor.

22

Heating v. RPM
3.00 2.50

Heating (W)

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

RPM

Figure 25: The relationship between heating and rotational speed of the 4 RPM motor.

23

Appendices: Table of Contents


Appendix A: Assembly Drawings# Appendix B: Engineering Drawings....# Appendix C: Bill of Materials......# Appendix D: Control Box Schematic.......# Appendix E: Pin-out Diagram for Tether.#

24

Appendix A: Assembly Drawings


An assembly drawing for the machine (Parts, such as motors, not built by you can be modeled simplistically.)

The following pages are drawings for assemblies of the final machine. The Trouble Shooter (Final Assembly).........................................................................................24 Starting Position.............................................................................................................................25 Final Position.................................................................................................................................26 Arm Assembly...............................................................................................................................27 Base Assembly...............................................................................................................................28 Top Assembly................................................................................................................................29

25

Appendix B: Engineering Drawings


A full set of engineering drawings for the machine (drawings are not needed for parts not built by you)

The following pages are drawings for the final machine. Arm Bar.........................................................................................................................................31 Base................................................................................................................................................32 Counter Weight..............................................................................................................................33 Counter Weight Spacer..................................................................................................................34 Cross Bars......................................................................................................................................35 Hook...............................................................................................................................................36 Left Base Angle.............................................................................................................................37 Left Wheel Angle...........................................................................................................................38 Pivot...............................................................................................................................................39 Right Base Angle...........................................................................................................................40 Right Wheel Angle........................................................................................................................41 Wheel Spacer.................................................................................................................................42 Arm Support...................................................................................................................................43 Top Frame......................................................................................................................................44 Support Frame................................................................................................................................45

26

Appendix C: Bill of Materials


A final bill of materials (including sizes and length of stock)

Table 6: Bill of materials Item (w/ description) 22 RPM 12 VDC INLINE GEARMOTOR 4 RPM 12 VDC RIGHT-ANGLE GEARMOTOR 1/4 Nylock nut 1/4 Nut 1/4 Flat Washer #10-24 Nylock Nut #10-24 Nut #10 Flat Washer #10-24 x 1/4 Machine Screw #10-24 x 3/8 Machine Screw #10-24 x 3/4 Machine Screw 1/4-20 x 1/2" Machine Screw 1/4-20 x 3/4" Machine Screw 1/4-20 x 1" Machine Screw 1/4-20 x 1.5" Machine Screw 1/4-20 x 2" Machine Screw 20 Gage Wire 6" 30 Gage Wire 8" 30 Gage Wire 12" 1"Aluminum Bar Stock x1/8" 1" Aluminum Bar Stock x1/4" 0.75x0.75 Aluminum Angle Bar Stock x1/8" 1x1 Aluminum Angle Bar Stock x1/8" Aluminum Sheet Metal x1/16" Aluminum Sheet Metal x1/16" Aluminum Sheet Metal x1/16" 1" Aluminum Bar Stock x1/2 " 1.5" Steel Bar Stock x9/8" 1.5" Steel Bar Stock x1.25" Quantity 2 2 31 5 73 1 1 1 1 8 1 18 8 2 2 2 2 4 4 70 in 12 in 32 in 14 in 10 in x 0.75 in 7.5 in x 7.75 in 3 in x 0.75 in 0.75 in 5 in 2 in

27

Appendix D: Control Box Schematic


A user schematic of the control box for your machine (which buttons cause which actions) Basically, what switch/joystick motion causes the robot to do what

Below is a diagram of the control box we used to control our robot. The directions described in this section are based on the driver being behind the robot, with the front of the robot facing the reactor as it drives forward toward the reactor. For the arm, the raising and lowering motions describe the arm after it has moved past the vertical position from the starting position, with the starting position being the "most positive" configuration. Joystick A controlled the left wheel and joystick F controlled the right wheel. Moving both A and F forward drove the machine forward and moving both A and F backward reversed the machine. Moving A forward and F backward turned the machine to the right. Moving A backward and F forward turned the machine to the left. Joystick B controlled the left arm motor and joystick E controlled the right arm motor. Moving B right and E left, or both to the negative position, lowered the arm. Moving B left and E right, or both to the positive position, raised the arm. In other words, pushing both joysticks to the center of the control box lowered the arm, while pushing both joysticks away from the center of the control box raised the arm. The C and D toggles were not used for our machine.

28

Appendix E: Pin-out Diagram for Tether


A pin-out diagram for your machine tether Which pin corresponds to which switch

The diagram below shows the schematic for the pins that attached the robot to the power supply. As stated earlier, the A control was used for the left wheel, which corresponded to pins 1 and 3. Pin 1 was forward for A and pin 3 was backward for A. The B control was used for the left arm motor, which corresponded to pins 4 and 6. Pin 4 was forward and pin 6 was backward for B. The E control was used for the right arm motor, which corresponded to pins 10 and 12. Pin 10 was forward and pin 12 was backward for E. The F control was used for the right wheel, which corresponded to pins 13 and 15. Pin 13 was forward and pin 15 was backward for F. All of the pins used corresponded to a 12 volt power supply.

Figure 27: Diagram of the Pin Out for the umbilical cord.

29