A CONTROLLED PROCESS FOR THE CONVOLUTION OF POLYESTER

TWINES

A Senior Project submitted to

the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering

by
Ross Levine and Mitchell McMillan
03/2020

1
 ABSTRACT

A Controlled Process for the Convolution of Polyester Twines

Ross Levine and Mitchell McMillan

The yoyo has evolved significantly in the last thirty years, and with that evolution has come an
entire industry and community based around yoyoing. Although the yoyo has evolved, yoyo
strings have not developed much at all which means that yoyoers tend to either buy mediocre
strings in bulk, or they buy high quality custom strings at very high prices. In researching this
paper, we carried out a survey around which we built the case that there is a need for a machine
capable of making custom yoyo strings cheaply, consistently, quickly, and in as little space as
possible. This machine will give yoyoers the option of making their own string which would be
the cheapest and most customizable option available.

Our designs for this problem include ideas found from different designs that are currently on the
market to produce rope such as the mendong rope machine, and other various yoyo string
machine designs found mainly on YouTube. From these designs we determined what the
drawbacks of each design were and set our sights on decreasing the processing time of producing
these strings from home. Aside from decreasing the processing time, we want our machines to be
easily accessible to any yoyoer, so we will be using as many standardized parts as possible.
These strings must be comparable, or better than those on the market currently, the quality of a
string is partly reliant on the control a string maker has over how many times the string is
twisted. In order to allow the user, the most control possible, the machine will be powered by an
Arduino driving a DC motor with an encoder. This set up is the crux of our technology and will
allow the user to determine exactly how many twists per inch will be twisted into their string.

After determining the costs of each of our 3 designs and the potential improvements to the
market it could bring, we determined that our design solution 3 should continue development as
it has the smallest breakeven point, at 4.2 years, and decreased the time it takes to convolute the
string upon itself by having a folding mechanism within it.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special thank you to the faculty at Cal Poly who helped make this possible, Eric Paton for
sponsoring our project; Dr. Awwad, Dr. Freed, and Dr. Waldorf for their valuable feedback and
constant support; those who participated in our survey; and everyone else who’s made this
project possible.

3
 Table of Contents
List of Tables...............................................................................................................................................5
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................5
Introduction and Background......................................................................................................................6
Problem Identification.................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................9
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................9
1. Yoyo History...................................................................................................................................9
2. Modern yoyo design......................................................................................................................10
3. Yoyo string manufacturing............................................................................................................11
New product design cycle......................................................................................................................11
Engineering Design Process......................................................................................................................13
I. Electronics Design..............................................................................................................................13
II. Physical Design.................................................................................................................................17
III. Electronics Box................................................................................................................................20
IV. Other Manufactured Parts................................................................................................................23
Testing and Analysis.................................................................................................................................24
Economic Analysis and Broad Impact.......................................................................................................26
I. Economic Analysis of String Machine...............................................................................................26
II. Supply Chain.....................................................................................................................................29
Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................32
Future Directions.......................................................................................................................................33
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................35
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................37
A. Google Survey Results...................................................................................................................37
B. Project Management Analysis.......................................................................................................38
C. Client Communication Analysis....................................................................................................39
D. Teamwork Evaluation....................................................................................................................39
E. Bill of Materials.............................................................................................................................40
F. Other..............................................................................................................................................41

4
List of Tables
Table 1: Manufacturer string type...............................................................................................................7
Table 2: Time studies for each production style........................................................................................13
Table 3: Average price per yoyo string calculation...................................................................................27
Table 4: Material cost per yoyo string.......................................................................................................28
Table 5: Associated costs for each solution...............................................................................................28
Table 6: Breakeven Analysis.....................................................................................................................28
Table 7: Decision matrix...........................................................................................................................33
Table 8: Client communication..................................................................................................................39
Table 9: Bill of Materials for Macaroni Design.........................................................................................40

List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of a modern yoyo..........................................................................................................6
Figure 2: String manufacturer preference (boutique brands highlighted)....................................................8
Figure 3: The design process.....................................................................................................................12
Figure 4: Percent of people interested in making string.............................................................................14
Figure 5: Peripheral electronics used for our design..................................................................................15
Figure 6: Motor Datasheet Snippet............................................................................................................15
Figure 7: Power Supply.............................................................................................................................16
Figure 8: Arduino Schematics...................................................................................................................16
Figure 9: Arduino Motor Shield................................................................................................................17
Figure 10: Design solution 1......................................................................................................................18
Figure 11: Design solution 2......................................................................................................................18
Figure 12: Design solution 3......................................................................................................................19
Figure 13: Design solution 4......................................................................................................................20
Figure 14: Electronics mount.....................................................................................................................21
Figure 15: Electronics mount with components.........................................................................................21
Figure 16: Exploded view of components box...........................................................................................22
Figure 17: 5-degree angle added to design to decrease ergonomic strain of use........................................22
Figure 18: Bracket peg 3D design.............................................................................................................23
Figure 19: Clamp.......................................................................................................................................23
Figure 20: Clamp exploded view...............................................................................................................24
Figure 21: Individual code from different peripherals...............................................................................25
Figure 22: Machine state diagram..............................................................................................................26
Figure 23: Survey results for string replacement.......................................................................................27
Figure 24: Breakeven analysis graph.........................................................................................................29
Figure 25: Zoomed view of breakeven analysis.........................................................................................29
Figure 26: Survey Results..........................................................................................................................38
Figure 27: Project Gantt chart....................................................................................................................38
Figure 28: Proof of concept rapid prototype for Solution 3.......................................................................41

5
6
Introduction and Background

In recent years, yoyoing has become a much more sophisticated hobby. Wooden yoyos have
been replaced by CNC machined yoyos crafted from aircraft grade materials such as aluminum
and titanium, an example of which can be seen in figure 1. The response mechanism of the yoyo
(i.e. the system that spins with the yoyo and creates friction with the string in order to get the
yoyo to come back up after a throw) has evolved from a crude textured surface into a replaceable
silicone washer widely known as a “pad”. The axle of a yoyo has also evolved from a wooden
stick connecting the two yoyo halves into custom ball bearings that reduce friction during
spinning significantly. In Figure 1: Example of a modern yoyo half of a modern yoyo is shown
with a silicon response (YoYoExpert.com, 2016a).

Figure 1: Example of a modern yoyo

Figure 2: Photo of the current yoyo

https://shop.yoyoexpert.com/collections/new-releases/products/bear-trap-yoyo-by-clyw?
variant=30250963140682
These advances have led to yoyos that can spin for up to three minutes before coming back to the
hand and in that time a yoyoer is able to do all kinds of tricks that would have been impossible
with older yoyos. These advances have also led to a large community of yoyoers who have
developed a taste for high quality yoyos and yoyo accessories. Among these demanded
accessories are high quality, relatively costly, custom yoyo strings.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to buying strings. The first school of thought is
to buy whatever string is the cheapest, the second is that custom strings are worth the money for
their variety and benefits to particular styles of play. There are many new brands that create
custom strings, but despite the market’s recent growth, no action has been taken to standardize
this industry. When consumers buy a string, they are given a very qualitative description of what
they are buying such as “fat” string (i.e. string that is thicker than normal), or “loose” string (i.e.
string that is not as tightly twisted). These labels are, however, meaningless to a yoyoer because
there is no standard thickness or twisting tightness to compare them to.
This project hopes to explore the ways that the yoyo string industry can be standardized. We
hope to do this through the creation of a machine that can be made by anyone with standardized
parts which will use open source software to enable users to create their strings in a well-
controlled and standardized process.

7
Problem Identification

The current state of the yoyo string industry can be viewed through a few different lenses. First
of all, you must understand the distinction between what we will refer to as “boutique” and
“mass produced” strings. Boutique manufacturers are those that make a custom product in small
batches and charge a premium for their strings. Mass produced manufacturers make an average
product consistently and because of the automation in their system, they charge considerably less
per string.
An analysis of the yoyo string manufacturers and their prices was performed on those companies
which gathered through our survey. Based on the prices of these we labeled every company as
either a Mass Producer or a Boutique Producer. We found that defining a mass producer as a
supplier that could maintain a price per string of less than the average price per string minus half
the standard deviation of the price per string fit the data well. These labels agree with author
Ross Levine’s intuition as a knowledgeable yoyoer. Table 1: Manufacturer string type lays out
the labels we found for the manufacturers that were used by our survey participants (Airetic
Strings, n.d.; Brown, 2019; Markmont, n.d.; MonkeyFingeR Design, 2019; REWIND, n.d.; sochi
company, n.d.; Toybania, n.d.; VZKiss, 2019; Yo-Yo Company Inc., n.d.; YoYoBESTBUY,
n.d.; YoYoExpert.com, 2016c, 2016b; YoYoSam, 2019).
Table 1: Manufacturer string type

Manuf Price Pack Price

acturer Size per
string Type
Monke $ 15.00 50 $ 0.30
yFinge Boutiqu
r e
Someth $ 19.99 100 $ 0.20 Mass
ing Produce
r
YoyoE $ 12.00 100 $ 0.12 Mass
xpert Produce
r
Yo-Yo $ 50.00 100 $ 0.50
String Boutiqu
Lab e
Kitty $ 23.99 100 $ 0.24 Mass
Produce
r
YoyoF $ 5.95 25 $ 0.24 Mass
actory Produce
r
Sochi $ 15.00 50 $ 0.30 Boutiqu
e
Airetic $ 7.50 6 $ 1.25 Boutique
Zipline $ 5.75 5 $ 1.15 Boutiqu
8
 e
84 $ 3.50 10 $ 0.35 Boutiqu
Strings e
Markm $ 1.20 1 $ 1.20
ont
Formul Boutiqu
as e
Anony $ 18.99 100 $ 0.19 Mass
mous Produce
r
One $ 12.00 100 $ 0.12 Mass
Drop Produce
r
Buddh $ 14.97 100 $ 0.15 Mass
a Produce
r
Top Yo $ 8.99 100 $ 0.09 Mass Producer

Table 2: Manufacturer string type

We performed a survey of 68 yoyoers, all of the participants were found through a yoyo-related
post on Instagram. The results of this survey can be found in Appendix A: Google Survey
Results. The buying habits of those surveyed are summarized in Figure 3: String
manufacturer preference (boutique brands highlighted). The highlighted companies are
classified as boutique suppliers. Based on these results (under the assumption that those who put
no company name were using a boutique brand) we found that 46% of yoyoers were using
boutique strings. We also found that only 3% of yoyoers were making their own strings.

9
 Figure 3: String manufacturer preference (boutique brands highlighted)

This brings us to our first conclusion. The value of a boutique brand is that it fills a hole in the
market. The mass producers make a consistent product, but based on our findings, it seems that a
significant number of yoyoers enjoy the more specific and custom string options that they can
currently only get from boutique manufacturers.
One of the questions asked in our survey was: “If you have never made your own string, what
has prevented you from doing so?”. This question received 49 responses, found in Appendix A:
Google Survey Results, but the following a few of descriptive responses left:
1. “Never got around to making a jig. I would like something that can fold up to a smaller
size for storing when it's not being used.”
2. “A method of reliably making it. A lack of understanding the nuances of the materials
(differences between types of polyester and nylon) and construction (like how to achieve
proper tension, the play of more versus less, etc.). I would love access to a standardized
machine to get my feet wet on string making for my own needs.”
3. “Never thought it was worth it since I could easily buy 100 strings all around the same
quality for much less effort.”
4. “It is labor intensive and I have a fair number of yoyos and would need to make a lot of
string if I were to change strings on all of my throws.”
5. “Time consuming when bulk works fine.”
6. “Don't really know how to - I'd love some kind of instructional video to show how to
make a rig and getting started making string.”
7. “I'm fine buying others ppls and would rather just buy than spend time making strings I
probably won't like”
10
 8. “Space for the setup”
9. “I have no idea where to start making strings and not enough resource to do it therefore
I'm limited what I can but may consider doing it one day👍🏻 .”
10. “Don’t know how and all the other strings would be better”

Some of the general themes of these responses are a lack of time, lack of space, and the idea that
any string made at home would be inferior to store-bought string. This feedback in conjunction
with the conclusion that yoyoers have an interest in custom, boutique yoyo strings builds a
compelling argument that there is a need for a machine that can make custom yoyo strings
quickly, with predictable quality, and the ability to take up as little space as possible when not in
use.

Figure 4: String manufacturer preference

Literature Review

Introduction
Modern yoyo string has emerged as a result of three interrelated pillars of
literature: yoyo history, yoyo design, and the yo-yo string manufacturing process.
1. Yoyo History
1.1. Ancient yoyoing
The true origins of the yoyo are widely disputed. There is proof that the diablo,
a toy similar to the yoyo came about around 1000 B.C.E. The first documented
yoyo was a Greek vase which was painted in 500 B.C.E. depicting a boy
playing with the toy. Many Greek yoyos made of clay and metal have been
discovered, though it is unclear if they were all used as toys or if they had some
other use such as spooling thread (Oliver, n.d.).
1.2. Yoyoing moves to America
In 1929 an American entrepreneur named Donald Duncan saw a performer
and yoyo maker named Pedro Flores. Duncan saw potential in the product, as
well as the interest the toy was able to generate in passersby and he bought
Pedro’s company along with the patent to the word “yoyo” (“History of the Yo-
yo,” n.d.). Duncan used this patent, and his incredible marketing prowess to
spread the yoyo throughout the united states. Despite years of increased
competition by arguably superior brands, Duncan continues to be the best
recognized of all the yoyo brands.
1.3. Modern yoyo takes form
In the 1970s-1990s dentist-turned-yoyo-maker Tom Kuhn created a series of
yoyos that would change yoyoing forever. his first innovative design, the No-
Jive 3-in-1 was the first yoyo to have a replaceable metal axel which screwed
into the yoyo halves (“Tom Kuhn No Jive 3-in-1,” n.d.). His next innovation was
the Silver Bullet which was the first design to feature an all metal body (“Tom
Kuhn Silver Bullet,” n.d.), an upgrade from the wooden and plastic yoyos of the
past. Metal would eventually prove the superior yoyo material over plastics,
11
 woods, or ceramics due to its increased density, increased number of options
for precision fabrication, and surface finishing options. The final innovation
that Tom Kuhn pioneered was the idea of a ball-bearing axel which he included
in his legendary Silver Bullet 2 yoyo (“Tom Kuhn Silver Bullet 2,” n.d.). This
style of axel allows the yoyo to spin for amounts of time that would be
unthinkable with a traditional, stationary axel. These innovations have stuck
around and are now standard features of the modern yo-yo.
2. Modern yoyo design
2.1. Yoyo design
The modern yoyo consists of five components: axel, response, bearing, body,
and string. All of these components play an integral role in the function of the
modern yo-yo, and if any are missing the yoyo will not perform.
The axel of the yoyo is the smallest component. Typically, a simple set screw,
the axel is threaded into the tapped holes of the yoyo body and provides the
force to hold both sides of the yoyo together while still allowing the yoyo to be
taken apart and put back together after its initial assembly.
The response is typically a silicone washer with an adhesive backside that sticks
to the face of a groove which is machined into the body of the yoyo, often
known as the “pad well”. The response provides a smooth surface with a higher
coefficient of friction than the body material which contacts the string during a
“bind” (i.e. the trick that brings the yoyo back up from “sleeping” on a modern
yoyo).
The bearing is a ball bearing whose internal diameter surrounds the axel. The
bearing is held in located by a machined boss on the body and held in place by
the force that the axle provides.
The body is the most customizable part of the yoyo. Typically machined from
metal or injection molded from plastic (in which case extra machined metal
hardware is often used to locate the bearing properly and provide a hole to
thread the axel through) the body is the part of the yoyo that most people think
of as the yoyo. The body is the largest part of the yoyo in terms of size and it
provides most of the yoyos weight, shape, and determines how well the yoyo
will feel when played with. The body of the yoyo contains all the features that
allow the rest of the yoyo to be assembled and located properly such as a
threaded hole to thread the axel through, a groove to contain the response, and
a boss to locate the bearing.

The final part of the yoyo is the string. The string is what makes contact with
the response during a bind in order to create a force of friction great enough to
cause the yoyo to convert its rotational inertia into a force that will bring the
yoyo back to your hand. The string’s center is unwound in order to slip over
the bearing and the other end of the string is tied into a slip knot which is
tightened around the user’s finger to provide a solid connection between user
and yoyo.
The string is deceptively complicated. rather than a rope which is braided and
can be cut at either end, the string really only has one “end”. In order to fully

12
 understand why this is, you must first understand the process of making a yoyo
string which will be covered in Engineering Design Process.
2.2. Materials
The materials that are typically used in the manufacturing of yoyo strings are
polyester, nylon, and cotton. These materials are typically bought in the same
kind of spools which are common in the textile industry.
2.3. Process
The process of creating a yoyo string consists of two basic value-added steps:
twisting and convolution.
Twisting is the process of taking many individual pieces of thread and rotating
one end relative to the other. This process shortens the string considerably and
thus creates a tension in the string which must be accounted for by force
applied on the ends.
Convolution is the process of folding the string in half and letting it twist on
itself starting from the center of the fold. This process leaves a loop on one end
of the finished string (side a) and the actual ends of the original threads all on
the other end of the finished string (side b). The loop on side b is where the
yoyo will be attached and side a is the side that will be tied into a slip knot and
attached to the finger.

3. Yoyo string manufacturing

This literature review revealed three main string manufacturing processes,
each of which with increasing level of sophistication: hook and drill, home
winding machine, and full automation.
In the hook and drill method, the manufacturer will wrap the string between
two anchored hooks. Then the manufacturer will take a drill with a hook in its
chuck and hook one of the ends of the large loop of string. The manufacturer
then twists the string using the power of the drill. The next step is to place a
fishing swivel in the center of the string, fold the string in half, and let the
string convolute while holding the fishing swivel steady. This process can be
viewed in this video on YouTube (Pop, 2017).

The second process is capable of twisting many strings at one time. This
process uses multiple stationary spools from which the strings are pulled
toward an array of motors which are mounted on a sliding platform. The
motors then twist the batch of strings before a folding arm is brought down
over the strings, the strings are folded individually, and then convoluted
individually as well. This process can be viewed in this video on YouTube
(Ninjabrad, 2012).

The final process creates strings one at a time, but in a closed loop, automated
system. This process is incredibly fast, well controlled, and requires the most
initial investment of all these methods by far. This process can be viewed in this
video on YouTube (Ioiofenix, 2015).

13
New product design cycle
Since this project is going to result in a new product, the authors turned to literature and found a
process designed for bringing new products to market. The “New Product Design Process”
begins with a brainstorming or “idea generation phase” in which the needs of the customer and
the business are considered and ways to fulfill those needs by any means are considered
(Kashyap, n.d.). The results of the brainstorming session are then screened by creating a list of
weighted criteria and then finding an aggregate score for each of the ideas in the brainstorming
session. The ideas with the best aggerate scores from the screening stage are then checked for
economic feasibility in the “feasibility study” stage. Also, within the feasibility study stage is
market analysis which includes demand forecasting and a decision on pricing. is a visual
representation of the design cycle

Figure 5: The design process

After the feasibility study, the most feasible design is chosen and moved into the preliminary
design phase. In the preliminary design phase, the chosen design is prototyped and iterated, the
production details are refined and optimized, and most of the kinks from the earlier stages are
ironed out. In this phase all preliminary CAD and engineering design work is completed. In the
next phase, the newly created production system and accompanying supply chain is tested as a
pilot run of the product is created and analyzed. This “pilot run and final test” phase acts as the
final chance to iron out any errors in the newly created product, production process, supply
14
chain, and marketing strategy. If, in this phase it is found that the product is not accepted by its
intended market then the decision must be made to adapt to the newly discovered market needs,
try to pivot to a new market, or give up on the endeavor entirely.
The final phase, new product launch, is where the new production system is ramped up from no
production to full scale production. The reason for this ramping up is so that the organization can
build confidence in both its ability to maintain a constant supply and also to ensure that the true
demand matches the organization’s expectations.
The project outlined in this report loosely follows the new product design cycle. It was found,
however that the screening of ideas, feasibility study and preliminary design phases were
impractical to perform as discrete steps. Because the designs were mostly based on pre-existing
solutions, it was more important to analyze the economic feasibility of the designs and in order
to do that the designs had to be created in CAD. This created a situation where the true
preliminary design phase seemed to include the screening ideas and feasibility study phases as
part of the design iterations.

Engineering Design Process

I. Electronics Design

For our solution we need to design a machine that will standardize the string making process for
home users. In our problem statement we mention that this machine should cost no more than
$300, should output consistent results with the string, and also be able to be made from standard
tools found in a typical garage. These design criteria make it so that processes such as machining
or turning should be minimized, or better yet avoided altogether. For our solution designs we had
to keep all of these factors in mind to make our product approachable and feasible for individual
yoyo string producers.
During our research for what types of machines being used on the market currently we found that
we can categorize each machine into one of three categories, low fidelity, medium fidelity, and
high fidelity. The high-fidelity solutions are machines that are fully automated, they extrude,
convolute and trim a completed string within 11 seconds at a high production scale facility as
seen in Table 3: Time studies for each production style.
Table 3: Time studies for each production style

Machine Low Fidelity (s) Medium Fidelity (s) High Fidelity (s)
Loading 64.26 8.01 1.68
Twisting 80 3.64 3.37
Folding 15.09 3.4 0
Convoluting 14.03 5.73 0
Tying 4.09 3.58 2.13
Snipping 3.28 3.58 0
Reset 15.86 7.5 3.18
Total time 197.61 36.45 11.35
Table 4: Time studies for each production style

15
People who only purchase these strings and who have not considered making their own fall
outside our target market, as we are trying to attract people who have had an interest, or have
made their own strings in the past. After surveying almost 70 consistent yoyoers we found that
66% of concurrent yoyoers meet our target audience for this project. Figure 6: Percent of people
interested in making string is an excerpt of data found from the survey we conducted.

Figure 6: Percent of people interested in making string

Figure 7: Percent of people interested in string making

The other two machine categories are low and medium fidelity, these are the machines that
people are currently using at home to produce their own strings. The lowest fidelity design in use
by a large portion of the community is an extremely simple solution, though inconsistent and
little throughput. This consists of the user taking a drill motor and placing a hook in the spindle,
walking approximately 12 feet backwards and twisting until they feel they have twisted the string
enough. Afterwards, they grab approximately the middle of the string and fold it over itself so
that it will convolute. Watching people conduct this type of production method produced poorly
made strings that were non standardized and unreliable. When conducting a time study of this
process in Table 3: Time studies for each production style, we found that the time to load, twist,
fold, convolute, tie, and trim came out to be 197 seconds per string. Not only is this method of
production inconsistent, but it also has the least throughput as any other method.
The medium fidelity machine design currently on the market is most alike the design we are
creating. This is the most effective design methodology for individual users as it provides the
most control over their strings, but also creates consistent results that can be repeated and can
also produce many strings at a time. Currently, there are few of these designs being used due to
the lack of design criteria found online. To our knowledge, everyone that is producing their own
string this way has created the design for their own machine from scratch, making the barrier for
entry into this type of production extremely high due to the R&D costs that are needed to
produce a working model. This creates a large gap in the market and a high demand for
blueprints that will allow someone to skip the associated R&D costs and risks to produce a
machine like this.
For each of our designs we need a driver that will turn the string. In other solutions this would be
equivalent to the drill motor or servo that spins the original 6 strings together prior to
convolution. In our designs we want the user to have control over the amount of wraps/inch will
be in their final string product. This way we can control the precision and consistency of the
outcome of the yoyo strings we are producing. To do this we are going to be using an Arduino
microcontroller to drive a motor that will stop at a number of spins per inch depending on a user

16
input keypad and user interface screen (Hughes, 2016; Rizzoni, n.d.; Robojax, 2018; Wilcher,
2012). Some of these electronic components can be found in Figure 8: Peripheral electronics
used for our design.

Figure 8: Peripheral electronics used for our design

The keypad and the screen both run off the Arduino’s 5V power supply, therefore it does not
require an external power supply to take inputs from and power the keypad and screen. On the
other hand, the motor in order to run at max efficiency requires an external 12V power supply.
To determine the correct power supply for this motor we referenced the motor datasheet found in
Figure 9: Motor Datasheet Snippet. Knowing that we have the RK-370CA-18260 we find it
has an operating range of 6-18V with a speed of 8500 repetitions/min under no load. The
maximum efficiency current is .36, with a stall current of 2.35. This means we need to get a
power supply that will supply within this range of power.

Figure 9: Motor Datasheet Snippet

Looking around for the most cost-efficient power supply in this range of operation, we found a
power supply that provided 12V, 2000mA from a 100V-240V, 50/60Hz 0.5A outlet. This is the
standard voltage that the United States provides from its electrical outlets, so this power supply
was a perfect fit for our use. Figure 10: Power Supply is a photo of the power supply and
input/output voltage that it supplies. In the future if users were to add more capacity to the string
winding machine, they could easily run up to 5 different RK-370CA-18260 motors without
having to worry about stalling or overwhelming any motor.
17
 Figure 10: Power Supply

This power supply works perfectly to supply our DC motor with enough voltage and current to
run at its maximum efficiency, but when referencing the Arduino schematics in Figure 11:
Arduino Schematics we found that the Arduino runs off a maximum of 5V, and therefore would
be destroyed if we plugged the 12V 2000mA power supply into it.

Figure 11: Arduino Schematics

18
The solution to this is an Arduino motor shield. The motor shield protects the Arduino from the
12V power supply, stepping the power down to supply the Arduino with 5V, while still allowing
the DC motor to run off the full 12V. This device allows the Arduino to act as a relay to be able
to turn on and off the DC motor running on the 5V, while also still being able to support the
keypad and screen’s 5V requirements. This device also allows the Arduino to take input from the
encoder, enabling it to count the rotations that the motor has gone through, in order to turn on
and off the machine at the required intervals. Figure 12: Arduino Motor Shield is a photo of
the motor shield that gets placed on top of the Arduino microcontroller itself.

A
Figure 12: Arduino Motor Shield

There are 2 highlighted portions, A and B, portion A is where the 12V power supply connects to
the board, supplying it with the power and current it requires to run the DC motor. Portion B is
where the motor or motors plug in. This is different than the way we typically plug in peripherals
as instead of using just the pins and squeeze fitting the wires into place, the motor has fitting
with screws to ensure that the wires don’t lose contact.

II. Physical Design

Using methods that we learned from YouTube videos and mendong rope production methods we
created designs that would optimize the efficiency of yoyo string winding (Edy, Widiyanti, Riza,
& Sari, 2018). Our first design was created in Solidworks which uses the standard body that
current users are producing string with, but with some major upgrades. This design incorporates
a gear box that will be driven by the motor so that we can decrease the amount of motors needed
and increase throughput. Though unfinished, this design has one motor driving 3 spinning hooks,
tripling the output of that single motor. As the strings wrap on each other the length of the string
will decrease, to account for this, our first design has drawer sliders held back by a spring to
control the tension while also allowing for movement to accommodate this loss of length of
string. After spinning the string together, the convolution stage can begin. To do this in design 1,
the bar in the middle will be lowered and the string folded on top of it. This will allow the user to

19
lift each string an allow them to convolute on themselves. The Solidworks design is shown in
Figure 13: Design solution 1.

Figure 13: Design solution 1

Figure 14: Design solution 1

Our next solution was also created in Solidworks, and employs an extremely similar design. The
body of the machine is the exact same, but the differences come in the way that the gearbox
slides forward. Instead of drawer slides, this design has Delrin “feet” to assist in its movement
forward. The added friction allows us to get rid of the tensioning spring, which further simplifies
this design. Where this design falls short of our problem statement though, is the that each of
these Delrin feet need to be machined at a 45-degree angle to grab the track it slides in. Further
design iterations could improve this so that no machining is required. This design incorporates
the same gearbox to allow our one motor to drive several strings at once. The Solidworks design
is shown in Figure 15: Design solution 2.

Figure 15: Design solution 2

Figure 16: Design solution 2

20
Our third design is completely original, and has never been tested before in this market. During
our data analysis of the times it took to do different operations with the medium fidelity design
found in Table 3: Time studies for each production style, we found that the convoluting of string
that took 5.73 seconds could be drastically reduced if instead of having to remove each string to
move it to the other side of the machine, the machine itself would fold over and complete this
process for you. This design does not incorporate the use of a gearbox, and instead uses one
motor per string that it is turning. At full length it is 10’ long without the separate motor mounted
on two drawer slides. During the turning process, this machine will be fully extended and the
motor mounts slide forward as the length of the string decreases as described in our first design.
After being fully turned, the machine collapses on itself in an “Accordion” style which grabs the
middle of each string, folding each string in half. From here the user just needs to lift the string
and allow it to convolute on itself. The Solidworks design is shown in Figure 17: Design solution
3.

Figure 17: Design solution 3

The fourth design was conceived of as a refined version of the third solution. After designing the
third solution and considering the problem statement, a realization came that the design didn’t
need to make two strings at once. This realization created the possibility of a simplified design
shown in Figure 18: Design solution 4. The standout feature of the third design was its space
saving and process simplifying arms, so those were kept. The new design, however removed the
rather rudimentary system of hinges made of nuts and bolts, replacing them with standard hinges.
The design was named “Macaroni” because of its mechanical similarities to an elbow coupled
with the fact that macaroni is made with elbow pasta.

This design is much simpler compared to the Accordion design and the refinements were made
based on the principles of Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA). The most important
of the DFMA principles is to reduce the total number of parts, the reason is that with fewer parts,
there is less to assemble which makes the assembly process simpler (Groover, 2007). The
Macaroni design implements this principle by using a far simpler design that requires fewer total
parts. This design also reduced the number of parts by placing the electronics on the arm itself
rather than on a stationary, separate platform. Other DFMA principles are laid out in the
following sections which detail the Macaroni design.
21
 Figure 18: Design solution 4

III. Electronics Box

A standardized part through each of these designs is the electronics box that will house all the
electronics in one central location. We needed to design a box that would house an LCD screen,
keypad, Arduino microcontroller, motor shield, DC motor with encoder, and a power jack in a
way that not only kept everything together, but made an easy to use and interact with
configuration for the user. The DC motor needed to be facing the spools of string while the
screen and keypad needed to be easily accessible to the operator. Aside from that, the Arduino
and motor shield needed to be protected from any accidental bumps or pressure points to avoid
damage, and the power jack needed to be easily accessible, but protected by walls. With all these
constraints in mind, the design shown in Figure 19: Electronics mount is the design we came
up with to hold all the components efficiently

22
 Figure 19: Electronics mount

Figure 20: Electronics mount with components is a rendering of the component mount with the
electronic components inserted in the box.

Figure 20: Electronics mount with components

Figure 21: Exploded view of components box is a rendering of those components in an

exploded-type view to help understand how each of these components fit inside the electronics
casing, and how they may be installed.

23
 Figure 21: Exploded view of components box

We wanted to user to have an easier experience entering and viewing the information on the
keypad and screen. To do this we tilted the controls at a 5-degree angle towards the user to
decrease the ergonomic strain on their hand when entering info onto the keypad and increase the
viewing angles of the LCD screen. Figure 22: 5-degree angle added to design to decrease
ergonomic strain of use shows a side view of the electronics box and its associated angle that is
cut through the standoffs.

Figure 22: 5-degree angle added to design to decrease ergonomic strain of use

24
IV. Other Manufactured Parts

Alongside with the electronics box, a few of the other components we will be required to
manufacture are two bracket pegs that will catch the string during the convolution stage of the
process. When the machine is folding in on itself the bracket pegs will ensure that the string does
not fold itself in areas without the string being properly tension prior to this step. Figure 23:
Bracket peg 3D design is a 3d model of the design created as the functional peg that will allow
the operator to properly tension the string before the convolution stage occurs.

These parts were designed to use standard wood screws in order to make manufacturing and
assembly easier. The part is currently designed for 3D printing but could be modified for
injection molding by adding a small draft angle to the design, eliminating sharp corners (such as
where the peg meets the base), and by leaving very loose tolerances.

Figure 23: Bracket peg 3D design

Our last manufactured part for this design is the clamp that will keep the strings from moving
during the turning process in order to ensure that all tension spun into the string is kept isolated
to the thread we are currently twisting. Figure 24: Clamp is a 3D model of that part

Figure 24: Clamp

This clamp implements the DFMA principle of reducing part orientation difficulties in that all
features which need to be gripped are large, easily handled, and incorporate comfortable fillets to
maximize easy of handling. The part was also designed to be symmetric so that the inserted
25
block can be inserted in either direction and the pin can be inserted from either side making this
design ambidextrous. The clearances of this part are rather large to further ease the assembly and
use of this part.

Figure 25: Clamp exploded view is an exploded view of the sting clamp that shows how it will
be used to clamp the strings within it.

Figure 25: Clamp exploded view

Figure 26: Design solution 3

Testing and Analysis

Behind the scenes of the LCD screen, keypad, and DC Motor there is the code behind it that
allows each of the components to work together and do as intended. Using the Arduino IDE and
knowledge gained from several different Arduino design and coding books we were able to first
individually code each peripheral, and then bring them all together to make a working string
winding machine (Kushner, 2011; Margolis, 2011; McRoberts, 2011; Mischke & Shigley, 1996;
Mott & Tang, 2004). Motor code with rotary encoders had more specific literature from it and
was learned through a combination of books and internet resources (Bruno, 2019; PJRC, 1384;
Youngblood, 1394).
Most of the learning curve when it came to coding came from the individual components. We
found that our prior knowledge of turning lights on and off with the press of buttons, though
giving us a good background knowledge, did not help when getting the LCD screen or keypad to
work. Individually we made code that would allow each component to work separately. Figure
26
27: Individual code from different peripherals is a snippet from each one of the devices we
individually coded before we brought all the components together. After being able to code each
one of these components individually we were able to re-use some of the code we wrote when
bringing each of these components together.

Figure 27: Individual code from different peripherals

To navigate through the different menus that the LCD can display, we use a machine state
diagram. This diagram is helpful for us to understand the different user interfaces we need to
build and the different states that our machine can be in at any point in time (Juvinall, 2007;
Slocum, 1992). Figure 28: Machine state diagram is the machine state diagram we created.

Figure 28: Machine state diagram

27
State 1 is where a user will start, where they will either adjust the setting of their device, or run
from the previous settings and just run the program and wind the string. If the user choses to
change the settings then they will press “B”, where they will be brought to state 3. This is where
they can change the overall length of the string, or the amount of twists per inch (TPI). After
changing their setting to their preferred, they are then redirected to machine state 1 where they
can start the machine with those settings in place.

Economic Analysis and Broad Impact

I. Economic Analysis of String Machine

Prior to the beginning of our solution design, we conducted a survey within the yoyoing
community to determine how impactful a project like this would be. We received 68 responses
within the 2 weeks that it was open which gave us a wide range of data that could summarize the
type of persona that would be interested in a machine like this. The survey results showed that
about 66% of the community would be the target audience for this project, being consistent users
of these types of yoyos and having an interest in wanting to produce their own string. The survey
results also showed that 66% of yoyoers had purchased string from “boutique” manufacturers.
These “boutique” manufacturers specialize in making string that is extremely customizable to the
user, whether it be a specific color combination, a specific string tension, or even just to support
a small company, people are interested in highly customizable string. From this survey, we also
found that the majority (55%) of yoyoers are replacing the strings they purchase every 1 to 7
days as shown in Figure 29: Survey results for string replacement. In other words, a yoyo
string lasts the average yoyo user 4 days before needing to be replaced.

Figure 29: Survey results for string replacement

Using data from a popular yoyo string retailer, yoyoexpert.com, we found that on average yoyo
string costs $0.71 per string. Data we found to support this claim is found in Table 5: Average
price per yoyo string calculationTable 6: Average price per yoyo string calculation.
Table 5: Average price per yoyo string calculation

Manufacturer Price Pack Size Price per string

MonkeyFinger $ 23.00 50 $ 0.46
Something $ 57.00 100 $ 0.57
28
 YoyoExpert $ 45.00 100 $ 0.45
Yo-Yo String Lab $ 50.00 100 $ 0.50
Kitty $ 89.00 100 $ 0.89
YoyoFactory $ 19.00 25 $ 0.76
Sochi $ 28.50 50 $ 0.57
Airetic $ 7.50 6 $ 1.25
Zipline $ 5.75 5 $ 1.15
84 Strings $ 5.60 10 $ 0.56
Markmont $ 1.20 1 $ 1.20
Formulas
Anonymous $ 45.00 100 $ 0.45
One Drop $ 65.00 100 $ 0.65
Buddha $ 71.00 100 $ 0.71
Top Yo $ 52.00 100 $ 0.52
Average $ 0.71
Table 6: Average price per yoyo string calculation

Using the data from Table 5: Average price per yoyo string calculation and our knowledge
that the average yoyoer replaces their string every 4 days from Figure 29: Survey results for
string replacement, we find that the average yoyoer spends an average of $65.03 every year on
strings alone.
We can find the cost of the material of this string by looking at the price of individual strands of
string prior to it being woven into the final product. On average, the cost of a spool of thread
costs $2.49 that includes 3000 yards of raw string. Converting these values into a cost per yoyo
string is shown in Table 7: Material cost per yoyo stringTable 8: Material cost per yoyo string.
For this amount of string, the material cost for one yoyo string is $0.02, while the average
manufacturer is selling it for $0.71. Again, using our knowledge that the average yoyoer replaces
their string every 4 days, this leads to a materials cost of $3.03 per year as shown in Table 7:
Material cost per yoyo stringTable 8: Material cost per yoyo string. This is a $62.00 savings
per year compared to purchasing the string from manufacturers.
Table 7: Material cost per yoyo string

Length Start Threa Price

Price/ (Yards Lengt d Per Strings Price/
Spool ) Price/ Inch h Count String / Year Year
$ 2.49 3000 $ 0.00002 144 10 $ 0.02 91.25 $3.03
Table 8: Material cost per yoyo string

Each of our 3 machines have the associated cost shown in Table 9: Associated costs for each
solutionTable 10: Associated costs for each solution.
Table 9: Associated costs for each solution

Slider 1 Slider 2 Accordion Macaroni

Body $ 106.11 $ 92.16 $ 159.51 $ 96.56

29
 Electronics $ 181.22 $ 181.22 $ 150.96 $ 113.70
Total $ 313.18 $ 206.04 $ 358.41 $ 229.18
Table 10: Associated costs for each solution

Using breakeven analysis in Table 11: Breakeven AnalysisTable 12: Breakeven analysis, we
can find that the macaroni design has the lowest breakeven point of 3.70 years. Also shown is a
graph of when the price of purchasing string from manufacturers surpasses that of the cost of the
machine in Figure 30: Breakeven analysis graph, and Figure 32: Zoomed view of breakeven
analysis
Table 11: Breakeven Analysis

Design Cost Cost/year Breakeven

Slider $ 313.18 $ 3.03 5.05
Slider 2 $ 206.04 $ 3.03 4.81
Accordion $ 358.41 $ 3.03 5.78
Macaroni $ 229.18 $ 3.03 3.70
Purchase $0 $ 65.03 -
Table 12: Breakeven analysis

Figure 30: Breakeven analysis graph

30
 Figure 31:
Breakeven analysis graph

Figure 32: Zoomed view of breakeven analysis

II. Supply Chain

Another factor to consider was what the supply chain of this product should be. After a
brainstorming and screening session it was decided that the product would be sold as a kit that
could be assembled by the customer by following online directions. With that in mind, the
process of brainstorming supply chain options began. Figure 33: Supply Chain Options are the
3 different types of supply chains we looked into.

31
 Figure 33: Supply Chain Options

Option A would see ilinx (the company that the authors of this report represent) acting as an
OEM, supplying finished goods to a distributor which would advertise and ship to customers.
Option B would see ilinx acting as both an OEM and a distributor, taking in raw materials,
kitting them, and sending those kits to the final customer. Option C would simply see ilinx as a
supplier who would, among other suppliers, ship raw materials straight to the customer who
would then assemble the parts.
One crucial difference between these different options are that in the first two options, ilinx will
need to pay for a facility to work in and hold inventory while in option C the only major
overhead is paying staff. The other major difference is that in options B and C, only ilinx takes a
profit off the product while in option A both ilinx and the distributor/s take a profit which drives
up the total cost of the product to the customer.
An analysis of these options was performed under conservative assumptions and the results are
summarized in Table 13: 3 year returns for each supply chain (Levine, Pape, & Goodman,
2020).

32
Table 13: 3 year returns for each supply chain

Model Cost to 3 Year Returns

Cost to us
s Customer (Profit or Loss)

A $214,736.8 $562.50
6 -$417,108.72

B $214,736.8 $375
6 -$417,108.72

C $65,415.00 $375 $5,969.00

The calculations used to create this summary were made with approximated numbers, but those
numbers were consistent through each model. The three year returns could be made larger by
increasing the profit margin within each model but the purpose of this analysis was to find which
model was best relative to the other models, and clearly that model is C. Model C has a
significantly more positive 3 year outcome and has the lower of the two possible costs to the
customer.

Model C may not be a standard business model, but this analysis proves that it could be a novel
and profitable approach to entering the market. Future steps will now be to optimize model C in
order to maximize profits and minimize the cost to the customer. Based on the known
information, it is suggested that model C be the chosen supply chain model.
Figure 34: Zoomed view of breakeven analysis

Conclusions and Recommendations

Table 14: Decision matrix is a decision matrix to determine the best solution to move forward
with in the future. The table headers are proposed throughput, cost effectiveness, ease to build,
proposed output quality, footprint/ease of storage, and ease of use. The weights of these
categories were determined by the problem statement of this project and the goals for the
outcome. The proposed throughput is not the goal of this project, a greater throughput would
allow users to use the machine less, but it is not as important as categories such as cost
effectiveness and output quality. The most important issues defined by our problem statement are
the cost of yoyoing, and the quality of strings that are produced from this machine, which each
have the associated weight of 8 and 6. Other categories are ones that are nice to have, but not
essential to the function of the machine, and therefore typically have lower weights than other
categories.

33
Table 14: Decision matrix

Proposed Cost Proposed Output Small footprint

Throughput Effectiveness Ease to Build Quality (ease of storage) Ease of Use Total
Weight 5 8 5 6 4 6
Medium-Low, Medium, Under Medium, Some Medium-Low, Low, 12 ft. long High, Once
High reset time $300 3D printed parts, Possible determined
Slider 1 and setup time few materials complication with prefered settings,
convolution just press start
3 4 5 4 1 10 160
Medium-Low, Medium, Under Low, required Medium-Low, Low, 12 ft. long High, Once
High reset time $300 machining for Possible determined
Slider 2 and setup time Delrin feet complication with prefered settings,
convolution just press start
3 5 1 4 1 10 148
Medium-High, Medium - Low, Medium-Low, Medium-High, High, Separate High, Once
Low convolution Over $350 Some 3D printed Separate motor motor and determined
Accordian time, fast reset parts, more mount could lack collapsable prefered settings,
time moving parts consistency design just press start
7 3 3 7 9 10 212
Medium-Low, Medium-High, High, minimal High, motor High, Separate High, Once
one string per run under $250 parts, DFM, DFA mount connected motor and determined
Macaroni to machine collapsable prefered settings,
design just press start
3 7 7 8 9 10 250

Each machine is then scored on a scale of 1-10 of how well it fits this category, with a small
explanation of why it received the score it did. This leads us to the conclusion that the macaroni
design is the design that should be prototyped as a proof of concept. We believe that due to its
completely original design and consideration for decreasing a critical portion of the convoluting
stage, this design would have the most impact on the market. Its low entry cost of $229.18 makes
it not only the cheapest option but the design with the most potential to improve production
quality of yoyo strings at home.

Future Directions
After implementation, our plan is to give the CAD files and Arduino code to the community
completely free of charge. We hope that from this we gather feedback from others who use our
product in order to make changes on our design to optimize it. After gathering feedback from
users of our machine we have considered making yoyo loom “kits” to aid in others’ creation of
their own yoyo loom. As stated in Problem Identification, we want to make this project as
accessible as possible in using parts that anyone could create in their own garage. Given this
constraint we are unable to use custom machined parts in order to ensure anyone the ability to
make this from home. There are some parts, however, that require to be 3D printed. Though 3D
printing continues to decrease in price, most people do not have 3D printers at home, or
consistent access to a 3D printer. Parts can be ordered online and shipped to your address, but to
the average user, choosing the material, fill, and other properties can be a confusing affair. Apart
from this barrier to build our machine, the Arduino and associated parts that help run the
machine can be quickly confusing and to some, may not be worth the trouble.

34
Because of these barriers to build our design, we have considered creating kits to help jumpstart
someone’s yoyo loom build. This kit could include all the 3D printed parts necessary, the
Arduino and peripherals, including detailed instructions as to how to build the circuit, and
include some form of customer support where customers would have the ability to contact us
with questions or debugging issues. This, obviously, would come at a price to the customer, but
could help them overcome the barrier to entry for building their own yoyo string winding
machine. With the feedback from users, and personal use, this design could evolve over the next
few years if we decide to continue forward with its developments post senior project, but at the
very least, the yoyo community can finally receive a viable and consistent machine for individual
use. Appendix B: Project Management Analysis is a breakdown of how we break down our
project with estimated times and dates to each work package. Appendix C: is a log of meetings
held with our sponsor, Eric Paton. Appendix D: Teamwork Evaluation is an evaluation of the
workload and responsibility each member of the project has taken on and completed thus far in
the project. Appendix E: Bill of Materials is the bill of materials created alongside the macaroni
design. Appendix F: Other is showing a rapid prototype of our design solution 3 that served as
a proof of concept for the design prior to designing in Solidworks.

35
Bibliography
Airetic Strings. (n.d.). Limited Release. Retrieved from https://www.aireticstrings.com/shop
Brown, M. (2019). Yoyo String Lab. Retrieved from http://www.yoyostringlab.com/store.php
Bruno, L. (2019). How Rotary Encoder Works and How To Use It with Arduino.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Edy, D. L., Widiyanti, Riza, F., & Sari, K. S. (2018). The effectiveness of mendong plaited rope
production: The design of automatic mendong rope twisting machine. MATEC Web of
Conferences, 204, 0–6. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201820405016
Groover, M. P. (2007). Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials processes, and
systems. John Wiley & Sons.
History of the Yo-yo. (n.d.). Retrieved from FANDOM website:
https://yoyo.fandom.com/wiki/History_of_the_Yo-yo
Hughes, J. M. (2016). Arduino : A Technical Reference. Retrieved from
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/arduino-a-technical/9781491934319/
Ioiofenix. (2015). Maquina de cordas de ioiô / Yoyo string machine. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaSjlcFNp4
Juvinall, R. C. (2007). Fundamentals of machine component design.
Kushner, D. (2011). The making of arduino. IEEE Spectrum, 26.
Levine, R., Pape, H., & Goodman, L. (2020). lüm.
Margolis, M. (2011). Arduino cookbook: recipes to begin, expand, and enhance your projects. “
O’Reilly Media, Inc.”
Markmont. (n.d.). Markmont. Retrieved from https://www.markmont.shop/shop?category=String
McRoberts, M. (2011). Beginning Arduino. Apress.
Mischke, C. R., & Shigley, J. E. (1996). Standard handbook of machine design. McGraw-Hill.
MonkeyFingeR Design. (2019). Vines 50 packs. Retrieved from
https://www.mfdyoyo.com/product/vines-50-packs/
Mott, R. L., & Tang, J. (2004). Machine elements in mechanical design (Vol. 4). Pearson
Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.
Ninjabrad. (2012). Quick yoyo string rig run. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VvK-C71KfZ4
Oliver, V. (n.d.). Museum of Yo-Yo History. Retrieved from Spintastics Skill Toys, Inc. website:
http://www.yoyomuseum.com/museum_view.php?action=profiles&subaction=yoyo
PJRC. (1384). Teensyduino. 300. Retrieved from https://www.pjrc.com/teensy/td_download.html
Pop, D. (2017). DIY yo-yo string. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=yD8o6SnxadA
REWIND. (n.d.). Anonymous YoYo String Regular Fat. Retrieved from
https://yoyostorerewind.com/en/strings-parts/strings/anonymous-yoyo-string-regular-fat-
x100.html
Rizzoni, G. (n.d.). Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering by Giorgio Rizzoni.
Robojax. (2018). How to use LCD1602 with I2C module for Arduino - Robojax. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9YC_GVHy5A
Slocum, A. H. (1992). Precision machine design. Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
sochi company. (n.d.). Halloween Special. Retrieved from
http://sochicompany.squarespace.com/products/halloween-color
36
Tom Kuhn No Jive 3-in-1. (n.d.). Retrieved from FANDOM website:
https://yoyo.fandom.com/wiki/Tom_Kuhn_No_Jive_3-in-1
Tom Kuhn Silver Bullet. (n.d.). Retrieved from FANDOM website:
https://yoyo.fandom.com/wiki/Tom_Kuhn_Silver_Bullet
Tom Kuhn Silver Bullet 2. (n.d.). Retrieved from FANDOM website:
https://yoyo.fandom.com/wiki/Tom_Kuhn_Silver_Bullet_2
Toybania. (n.d.). 84 String. Retrieved from https://toybania.com/product/84-string/
VZKiss. (2019). One Drop. Retrieved from https://onedropyoyos.com/store/
Wilcher, D. (2012). Learn Electronics with Arduino (R. Chiriac, Ed.). Retrieved from
https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/learn-electronics-
with/9781430242666/9781430242666_about_technical.xhtml
Yo-Yo Company Inc. (n.d.). sOMEThING Neon String. Retrieved from
https://yoyostorerewind.com/en/something-neon-string-type-2-x-100.html
Youngblood, T. (1394). Use an Arduino to Control a Motor. Retrieved from
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/projects/use-an-arduino-to-control-a-motor/
YoYoBESTBUY. (n.d.). BUDDHA XL YOYO STRING. Retrieved from
https://yoyobestbuy.com/yoyo-store/yoyo-accessories/buddha-xl-yoyo-string-100-pack/
YoYoExpert.com. (2016a). Bear Trap. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2RxVQlg
YoYoExpert.com. (2016b). Kitty String. Retrieved from
https://shop.yoyoexpert.com/products/kitty-string-100-count-normal?
_pos=9&_sid=3b9b69bd5&_ss=r&variant=18890120516
YoYoExpert.com. (2016c). YYF String. Retrieved from
https://shop.yoyoexpert.com/collections/yo-yo-string/products/yoyofactory-string?
variant=18872191684
YoYoSam. (2019). TOP YO String Yo-Yo String. Retrieved from
https://www.yoyosam.com/products/top-yo-string-yo-yo-string-100-pack-polyester-yoyo-
string

37
Appendix
A. Google Survey Results

38
 Figure 35: Survey Results

B. Project Management Analysis

Figure 36: Project Gantt chart

39
Figure 37: Project Gantt chart

Currently we have completed 4 designs in Solidworks and completed cost analysis of each of
these designs. We have determined what design we want to move forward with, and the
associated costs with this design. We designed the code for our Arduino in order to turn the
strings, and modeled our manufacturable items in Solidworks, ready for the next step of 3D
printing. After this we can assemble the machine itself, and after that we can combine the
machine and electronics to start testing the design itself.

C. Client Communication Analysis

Table 15: Client communication is a history of meeting with our sponsor, Eric Paton:

Table 15: Client communication

Date Type of Visit Highlights of meeting

10/16/2019 Sponsor meeting
10/23/2019 Sponsor meeting
10/30/2019 Sponsor meeting
11/6/2019 Sponsor meeting
11/13/2019 Sponsor meeting
11/14/2019 Design Analysis
11/20/2019 Sponsor meeting
12/4/2019 Review
2/13/2020 Sponsor meeting
3/5/2020 Design Analysis
3/11/2020 Review
Mitchell and Eric discussed possible
directions that project could go, determined
the final deliverable
Discussed different designs for yoyo loom,
reviewed mid quarter presentation
Took mocked up Solidworks drawings and
discussed in greater detail how each design
differs from one another. Talked about the
use of a gearbox
Analyzed current state ideas and the levels of
sophistication used currently
Prepped designs for following meeting
Researched each completed design and
discussed pros and cons to each design, set
deliverables for changes needed
Reviewed different types of economic
analysis, and determined best type of analysis
to use on project
Reviewed and performed a mock
presentation
Reviewed current state and new design,
talked about where to go next
Looked at final design and proposed BOM,
approved materials list
Reviewed and performed a mock
presentation

D. Teamwork Evaluation
40
 Due to Ross and Mitchell having been placed in a project over the summer during our
internships, we had prior experience working with each other coming into this project.
This made the transition to working on senior project together much simpler as we got to
skip the forming stage in team development. Ross has an extreme knowledge and insight
to the yoyoing community, so when it comes to the background of this project, Ross is
the perfect partner for this project. Ross and Mitchell also have very good complimentary
skillsets when it comes to working together in team projects such as this, Ross brings a
passion for the background and is able to understand the direction the project needs to be
going in at all times, while Mitchell is great a project management and hitting deadlines.
Usually we have 3-4 team meeting per week and split up workload based off each other’s
skillsets. Mitchell takes a larger role in the cost analysis, and Arduino design due to his
prior experience with this microcontroller, where Ross can be more involved in the
background and data collection due to his knowledge of the field. Tasks like the design of
the machine are split evenly, but there is a lot of collaboration during these types of tasks
to ensure both designs are as feasible as possible. When we work together our project
progress increases significantly, and we keep each other accountable to hit our deadlines
and goals.

E. Bill of Materials

Table 16: Bill of Materials for Macaroni Design

BOM
Item Qty. UM Status Part Kit or
no
2x4 3 Ea. Purchase Body No
Wood Dowels 1 Ea. Purchase Body No
Hook 1 Ea. Purchase Body No
Wood Screws 1" 32 Ea. Purchase Body No
Wood Screws 2" 12 Ea. Purchase Body No
Strap Hinge 2 Ea. Purchase Body No
Hook and eye Latch 1 Ea. Purchase Body No
Casters 2 Ea. Purchase Body No
Motor Screws 2 Ea. Purchase Body No
Motor Mount 1 Ea. Manufacture Body Kit
Locking String Pegs 4 Ea. Manufacture Body Kit
String Pegs 2 Ea. Manufacture Body Kit
String Clamp 1 Ea. Manufacture Body Kit
String Spools 6 Ea. Purchase Body No
Arduino Mega 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
DC Motor with 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
encoder
Arduino Motor 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
Shield

41
 Input Keypad 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
UI Screen 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
12V PS 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
Soldering Headers 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
Misc. Wiring 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit
Power Jack 1 Ea. Purchase Electronics Kit

F. Other

Figure 38: Proof of concept rapid prototype for Solution 3

Figure 39: Proof of concept rapid prototype for solution 3

42