18_Active vs. Passive & Dry Run Prep Meeting (event date: 24 SEP 15)

We met Wednesday evening before our “dry run” presentation to finalize our slides, but we also discussed the benefit of using an active system for our device despite the possibility of it being overcomplicated.

Having an active system would make controlling each finger movements simultaneously and consequently locking each finger simultaneously much easier since the movement would be controlled electrically.  Clenching movement for example could be “locked’ by not allowing any extension of the device’s cables. 

We came up with a new set of general devisions for an active device’s subsections of design (Fig. A).

Figure A: Active device design subcomponents (left)

Chris volunteered to take on any muscle signal (EMG) processing, as that is an area of interest for him.  We discussed the possibility of including EMG processing in the design, but acknowledged that filtering out noise from muscle movements is very difficult as well as would be differentiating between wanted muscle movements and unwanted muscle tone-induced movements that may be taking place in the forearm (finger muscles on underside of forearm is where EMG electrodes would likely be placed).

Devin and Patrick would primarily be leading the design of device components that attach to the hand and interface with motors/actuators that would provide a pulling motion.

I would lead design in the electrical power and interface system, as well as microprocessor programming/interfacing.

We emphasized that each subsystem of the project was not merely assigned to one person as the sole responsible designer.  We decided that having a team member instead lead a particular subsystem design could allow for better team dynamics and collaboration.  For example, with the electrical power supply, I may lead the subsystem design and be responsible for most of the system’s workload, but could work together with Chris on it as Chris EE knowledge as well.  And vice versa for any other subsystem.