The three alternative solutions will each have to accomplish the same set of tasks provided by the MATE ROV competition. The solutions use different power sources to open and close the mechanical claw. In addition, they utilize different claw designs to accomplish the tasks. As a result, there are pros and cons pertaining to the design of each solution.
Alternative solution one utilizes an electric motor to power the gears that will open and close the claw. The ratio of the gears on both sides of the big gear will be the same, so the claw will open and close at the same speed. A spindle gear will also be attached directly to the motor to slow it down to an appropriate speed. The claw will be designed with 2 segments: 1 pronged claw on the bottom and 1 rectangular-shaped claw on top. The pro of solution one is that the idler gears will work efficient and slow enough to maneuver the claw in a controlled manner. The cons of solution one are the gear cage and the claw design. The gear cage will obviously have to be taken into account when performing buoyancy calculations and trying to fit all components on the claw, however, it will consume a large percentage of the claw. The claw design will be able to complete all the tasks required, however, it will not be as effective as other solutions with resurrecting the PVC structure.
Solution two also utilizes an electric motor to power the idler gears on the mechanical claw. The ratio of the gears will be different on each side of the 1” big gear, so it will close at a faster rate then it will open. One 1/8” gear will be on one side and two 1/2” gears will be located on the other. The claw will be designed with two circular cups with rubberized ends that will come together to form a complete seal. One pro of solution two is that the fulcrum will be constructed distant enough from the half-circular cups so that it will be more efficient at performing the tasks that require picking up samples compared to the other solutions. Solution two will have the best control of the crustacean sample, bacteria sample, and entire claw. The con of solution two is that the claw design will weigh more than solution one.
Alternative solution one utilizes an electric motor to power the gears that will open and close the claw. The ratio of the gears on both sides of the big gear will be the same, so the claw will open and close at the same speed. A spindle gear will also be attached directly to the motor to slow it down to an appropriate speed. The claw will be designed with 2 segments: 1 pronged claw on the bottom and 1 rectangular-shaped claw on top. The pro of solution one is that the idler gears will work efficient and slow enough to maneuver the claw in a controlled manner. The cons of solution one are the gear cage and the claw design. The gear cage will obviously have to be taken into account when performing buoyancy calculations and trying to fit all components on the claw, however, it will consume a large percentage of the claw. The claw design will be able to complete all the tasks required, however, it will not be as effective as other solutions with resurrecting the PVC structure.
Solution two also utilizes an electric motor to power the idler gears on the mechanical claw. The ratio of the gears will be different on each side of the 1” big gear, so it will close at a faster rate then it will open. One 1/8” gear will be on one side and two 1/2” gears will be located on the other. The claw will be designed with two circular cups with rubberized ends that will come together to form a complete seal. One pro of solution two is that the fulcrum will be constructed distant enough from the half-circular cups so that it will be more efficient at performing the tasks that require picking up samples compared to the other solutions. Solution two will have the best control of the crustacean sample, bacteria sample, and entire claw. The con of solution two is that the claw design will weigh more than solution one.
Solution three uses a different power source, which is a servo motor. It works differently from the electric motor utilized in the previous 2 alternative solutions in that it has limited range of motion and as a result, is not as powerful. A servo motor will be attached to the pivot point of the claw with a metal wire. The claw design for this solution will be the same as solution two, but smaller in size. One pro of solution three is less functioning parts than the electric motor. More parts to achieve the same goal creates more power, but also more friction. The con of solution three is the limited range of motion and less power.
Alternative Solutions | Solution | Solution 2 | Solution 3 |
Ratings(1 to 10, 1 meaning poor, 10 meaning perfect) | |||
The design must be operated remotely from a shack | 10 -Easily accessible from a control shack | 10 -Easily accessible from a control shack | 10 -Easily accessible from a control shack |
The mechanical arm must open to a minimum size of 3 inches | 6 -Opens to over 3 inches | 9 -Pivot point will allow it to open well wide enough | 7 -Pivot point will allow it to open, servo limits the range of motion |
The arm must collect samples of a crustacean species | 9 -Pronged claw will be the best at picking up a crustacean | 7 -Half circular cups may have issues | 7 -Half circular cups may have issues |
The arm must collect samples of a bacteria mat | 7 -Claw design will collect bacteria samples. | 8 -Claw design will be the best at picking up picking up samples | 8 -Claw design will scoop up the samples |
The mechanical arm must sample a vent site | 7 -Pronged claws will most effectively take a sample | 6 -Half circular cups might be limited in taking a sample | 6 - Half circular cups might be limited in taking a sample |
The mechanical arm must resurrect a PVC structure | 5 -Claw shape may not be able to grab hold of the structure | 8 -Most effective at resurrecting Hugo | 7 -Claw design power source may not have enough power |
Total Score | 44 | 48 | 45 |
