Project:
Finish selecting topic and start research on it (1 week behind)
Robot:
Discuss robot design and how we finalize
Pick mission assignments and start working on them (1 week behind)
Misc:
Finish posting missions
Continue sensor characterization, get into Nate's spreadsheet
How to organize software: MyBlocks analysis (Alex), other ideas: Michael, Andrew, Paul
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Meeting Minutes, 9/11/2008
1. Alex presented his schedule. He will email it to Mr. Emge, it is in word format.
2. Vote for a topic for research project.
From last weeks brainstorming session, the 4 topics of choice were
-agriculture (how it changes with expected climate changes)
-water level and transportation (lake MI, canals, rivers, dredging, etc)
-Drought
-impact on any particular eco system
None of the ideas triggered much enthusiasm. Votes came in for water level and transportation.
3. Small group brainstorming
3 groups of 3.
Brainstorm ideas to for internet search topics/words.
Brainstorm ideas for who we can get to come speak/we can visit.
Goal was each group come up with 10-15 search topics, and a few ideas for people/field trips.
4. Small group breakout
4a. Paul, Danny, Trevor - Characterize light sensors. Progress made. Chart online?
4b. Michael, Nate - research topics, do the googling. They were not finding enough interesting info, but maybe have some different, cooler, ideas for project.
4c. Alex posted rules, missions next time
Alex and Mrs. Emge discussed software testing to understand
MyBlocks usage and implementation. Will try to do at home.
4d. Patrick, Andrew, Joey prepared and presented a mission tracker. (Pauls flash drive)
2. Vote for a topic for research project.
From last weeks brainstorming session, the 4 topics of choice were
-agriculture (how it changes with expected climate changes)
-water level and transportation (lake MI, canals, rivers, dredging, etc)
-Drought
-impact on any particular eco system
None of the ideas triggered much enthusiasm. Votes came in for water level and transportation.
3. Small group brainstorming
3 groups of 3.
Brainstorm ideas to for internet search topics/words.
Brainstorm ideas for who we can get to come speak/we can visit.
Goal was each group come up with 10-15 search topics, and a few ideas for people/field trips.
4. Small group breakout
4a. Paul, Danny, Trevor - Characterize light sensors. Progress made. Chart online?
4b. Michael, Nate - research topics, do the googling. They were not finding enough interesting info, but maybe have some different, cooler, ideas for project.
4c. Alex posted rules, missions next time
Alex and Mrs. Emge discussed software testing to understand
MyBlocks usage and implementation. Will try to do at home.
4d. Patrick, Andrew, Joey prepared and presented a mission tracker. (Pauls flash drive)
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Agenda, 9/11/2008
General:
- Alex - present the schedule he prepared for this past Sunday, when we ran out of time.
- Post the missions and rules, which Alex pointed out was to be performed this meeting per the schedule.
Project:
- Start meeting by completing last weeks schedule item "narrow down topic" and voting on the items identified in Sunday's brain storming.
- Per schedule, compile info.
Robot:
- Per schedule, assign missions.
- To that end:
- ---Joey, Patrick, Andrew to complete first pass mission tracker
- ---Group decides on who does what
- NOTE: design review of Andrew's robot delayed until Mr. Emge's return on Sunday, 9/14
Minutes, 9/7/2008
A very exciting meeting today. We had a 10 minute kickoff of the challenge, followed by 30 minutes of project brainstorming and finishing with 30 minutes of robot.
Project: Andrew came with a lot of graphs on our climate. Most of the boys had done some research and described the climate changes expected, and how it depended on the model. They came up with many problems these changes cause. Next week they vote on which of these problems to do their research project.
Robot: There were 3 proposals already thought through! They all had similar themes. Michael and Andrew also brought a robot prototype, but we didn't have time to review it. The experience of last season is really showing in the depth of thought, and breadth of consideration, including tactical, timing and difficulty of implementation.
Project: Andrew came with a lot of graphs on our climate. Most of the boys had done some research and described the climate changes expected, and how it depended on the model. They came up with many problems these changes cause. Next week they vote on which of these problems to do their research project.
Robot: There were 3 proposals already thought through! They all had similar themes. Michael and Andrew also brought a robot prototype, but we didn't have time to review it. The experience of last season is really showing in the depth of thought, and breadth of consideration, including tactical, timing and difficulty of implementation.
- Patrick presented a concept for combining 7 of the 18 missions in a single run.
- Andrew and Michael brought a color-coded mission sequence proposal, which they presented
- Joey presented an alternate mission sequence
We discussed the approach for distributing the mission work. Last year each mission was solved independently. This year they decided that they'd rather first determine the mission order and then assign teams to each robot run. The team agreed to have Joey, Patrick and Andrew do the first pass mission order for review with the group. This team agreed that they would be objective in their decisions.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Agenda, 9/7/2008
CHALLENGE ANNOUNCED!
See the link to the right.
Everyone on the team to digest as much of the project and robot rules as they can before our short meeting.
Project, from schedule: brainstorm to narrow down topic and pick who does what.
Mrs. Naughton gives the following guidance:
read up on Midwest Climate Change at the following link:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewmidwest.htm
other helpful links:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUP43/$File/il_impct.pdf
http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Illinois%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glregionill_cli.html
Robot, from schedule: list of missions.
Joey and Andrew have already done a first pass. If time after project, review their work and any other brought to the meeting.
General: post the rules and missions in the lab, review Alex's schedule
See the link to the right.
Everyone on the team to digest as much of the project and robot rules as they can before our short meeting.
Project, from schedule: brainstorm to narrow down topic and pick who does what.
Mrs. Naughton gives the following guidance:
read up on Midwest Climate Change at the following link:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewmidwest.htm
other helpful links:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUP43/$File/il_impct.pdf
http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Illinois%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glregionill_cli.html
Robot, from schedule: list of missions.
Joey and Andrew have already done a first pass. If time after project, review their work and any other brought to the meeting.
General: post the rules and missions in the lab, review Alex's schedule
Meeting Minutes, 9/4/2008
We followed the agenda pretty closely, so I'll only capture the highlights. The team did a great job going through the handouts from Mrs. Naughton and had a very good discussion.
Q: Is there enough room in the project schedule for field trips or visits from experts?
A: Yes - there is enough slack.
Q:(for both schedule teams) Does the schedule assume that 1/2 time is spent on project and robot?
A: Yes
Noted that if they change the robot schedule, then the design must be locked down by 9/14. Need to add this note to the schedule. They also clarified that the schedule assumes the same approach as last year: solve all the missions, then combine/cut.
Andrew suggested each person do a mini-project that they can have fun with and present to the group. The team agreed to table that idea and consider it when they find out the actual challenge to see if they think it will work.
A schedule gap was identified and Alex volunteered to schedule the miscellaneous jobs that don't fit under project and robot headings: technical presentation, putting together other presentation material, etc.
Michael and Andrew brought in a prototype robot design that they propose for this season. We had a short design review but agreed to hold off deciding whether or not to change the design until they understand the challenge. They would also need to test the perceived advantages of the new robot to verify that it delivers. Below are the results, but I'd like to congratulate Michael and Andrew on their initiative and the group in general for their thoughtful consideration of the impact of both changing and keeping the old design.
Pros:
Q: Is there enough room in the project schedule for field trips or visits from experts?
A: Yes - there is enough slack.
Q:(for both schedule teams) Does the schedule assume that 1/2 time is spent on project and robot?
A: Yes
Noted that if they change the robot schedule, then the design must be locked down by 9/14. Need to add this note to the schedule. They also clarified that the schedule assumes the same approach as last year: solve all the missions, then combine/cut.
Andrew suggested each person do a mini-project that they can have fun with and present to the group. The team agreed to table that idea and consider it when they find out the actual challenge to see if they think it will work.
A schedule gap was identified and Alex volunteered to schedule the miscellaneous jobs that don't fit under project and robot headings: technical presentation, putting together other presentation material, etc.
Michael and Andrew brought in a prototype robot design that they propose for this season. We had a short design review but agreed to hold off deciding whether or not to change the design until they understand the challenge. They would also need to test the perceived advantages of the new robot to verify that it delivers. Below are the results, but I'd like to congratulate Michael and Andrew on their initiative and the group in general for their thoughtful consideration of the impact of both changing and keeping the old design.
Pros:
- shorter - more maneuverable and can have larger implements in base
- easier to charge
- flatter wheels for more traction and less bounce
- rear sliders are the same width as marks in base to make it easier to align.
- light sensor is now behind the front wheels (affects line follower algorithm)
- implements and/or attachments need to be re-designed
- arm motor was too tight to attach the arm (already fixed)
- it might be too slow with the smaller wheels
- re-designing and testing will take schedule time
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Meeting Agenda, 9/4/2008
General:
- Come prepared with what they are interesed in doing for the team. For example, research, software, robot design, etc.
Project:
- Nate and Michael present their schedule.
- All - be prepared with handout answers from last meeting
- Danny and Trevor present their schedule.
- Characterize sensors.
- Continue work on software organization effort
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)