Mobility Aid for the Visually Impaired

Final Report

Engineering Design II Nathaniel Fox, Alexander May, Justin Moidel

Table of Contents
Summary...2 Introduction.3 Existing Product....4 New Product Design9 Design team.10 Market/User Research..11 Value Opportunity Analysis of Current Technology New Users.13 Experienced Users...14 Value Opportunity Analysis of New Product.15 Concept Generation.17 Prototype Design...22 Detailed Design..24 Engineering Analysis..27 Manufacturing Techniques..30 Assembly....31 Life Cycle Assessment..32 Cost Report.34 Evaluation...35 Conclusion..37 Appendix A: Bibliography..39 Appendix B: Brainstorming Ideas.40 Appendix C: Drawings.43 Appendix D: Spec Sheets...50 Appendix E: Assembly....57 Appendix F: Itemized reimbursement information.61

Summary
By going through a detailed design process that included brainstorming, concept refinement, Pugh charts, and a user survey, we were able to come up with a product that we believe has large potential for an impact in our market. The long cane with sensors will enhance the visually impaireds knowledge of their surroundings while not bogging them down with unnecessary technologies or accessories. The failure mode of the cane will just be the cane as they use it now so there will be no drawback to switching to our product, except cost, which is usually subsidized by health care providers. This concept was then expanded into two prototypes. Each prototype expanded the concept to prove the viability of our solution and demonstrate the effectiveness of the technology. Combining all of the components into the cane, we were able to make a self-contained final product. This cane contains three infrared distance sensors, three servos, mechanisms for feedback, a microcontroller, and battery. Being about the same size and weighing only slightly more than current canes, our product provides a simple transition for the user to make yet adds much information to the user. The analysis of the final product shows that our solution effectively addressed the problem we were attempting to solve.

Introduction
Sight can fail for a variety of reasons ranging from age to disease, to injury. In these cases, once the individual has been stabilized, they will likely be concerned with the ability to navigate and continue with their lives and careers as much as is possible. Younger individuals suffering from blindness will probably have a higher ability to learn the proper usage of assistive devices such as canes, but may be less motivated or patient with the process. New adult users may suffer from the learning curve since the learning plasticity may be somewhat lost. New elderly users may have health conditions or financial situations which would further limit their ability to develop new navigational abilities or disincline them towards learning because of the risk of serious health complications. The proposed device should make learning a more intuitive process and enable newly-blinded pedestrians in less time and with greater function while providing an extra degree of security. This improved function will include obstacle-detection in regions not typically covered through use of canes, definition of a safety perimeter to effectively shield the users torso and head, and extension of the forward sensing range somewhat beyond typical cane length. By applying non-contact sensing to solve this problem, we also hope to improve the users ability to interact with other people both as potential navigational obstacles and socially. In addition we aim to make our product less physically taxing and overall a more comfortable experience for the user. Based off of the numbers we have found, only 10% of visually-impaired Americans use the long white cane [5] leaving us a very large market to infiltrate implying a demand for better technology. Simply put, the target user is any individual willing to actively pursue enhanced, independent mobility; whether this person is recentlyblinded or historically suffering from serious visual impairment.

Existing Product
Bill of Materials:
Part Handle Material rubber or plastic Functions Something to hold onto Adds comfort Vibration Sensing Shaft aluminum, fiberglass, wood, carbon fiber or plastic Extends reach Transmits vibrations Durable (user cant afford to for it to fail) Identifies person as blind Tip nylon, metal, or rigid low friction plastic Senses obstacle location and terrain definition Replaceable Causes vibrations Durable Compacting Mechanisms Hinge Telescope shaft material and elastic band shaft material Portability Portability

DFMA Analysis
Handle Cast in a mold either directly onto the shaft or alone and later glued onto the shaft. Strap Tied on through hole or glued on Shaft Rolled aluminum plate Pultrusion of fiberglass Extruded metal or plastic Turning wood into shaft form Cast plastic Cast plastic or rubber Extruded plastic or metal Cut from shaft Forming of a male and female end to shaft Fitted with elastic band attaching pieces of shaft

Tip

Joint

Functional Breakdown:

Product Dissection:
Handles:

Figure 3: Rubber handle

Figure 4: Hook

Figure 5: Hand Grip

Shafts:

Figure 6: Full White

Figure 7: Red End

Tips:

[2] Figure 8: A = Pencil Tip B = Bundoo Basher Tip (used in heavy bush environments) C = Ball Race Overfit Tip D = Rubber Support Cane Tip E = Pear Tip F = Rural Tip G = Jumbo Roller Tip

Compacting Mechanisms:

Figure 9: telescoping shaft

Figure 10: Hinged shaft

New Product Design

The prototype we currently have consists of an existing long cane with the arduino nano microprocessor and associated circuitry in a box affixed to the bottom of the handle. Infrared rangefinders were affixed in three locations along the cane based off of our analysis of obstacles which the blind have trouble sensing. One sensor is placed at the top of the cane to detect head level objects, one at the middle to detect mid level obstacles such as tables, chairs or other overhangs and the third is placed at the bottom of the cane to extend the reach of the cane. For our feedback mechanism we have designed three buttons positioned vertically in the handle in the location that the user will place their thumb. Each button receives information from its corresponding sensor, i.e. the bottom button receives information from the bottom sensor etc. The closer an obstacle gets to the sensor the more the button rises into the users thumb. The buttons are each made from a muscle wire servo attached to a cam system. The whole system of sensors, servos and processing equipment is powered by a 9V battery located behind the handle of the cane.

Design team
Justin Moidel task manager; main CAD modeler; chose and purchased tubes and sensors to meet our specifications; manufactured parts

Ned Fox programmer; did most of the electrical hookups such as soldering; made some CAD models; major purchaser, chose and purchased the microprocessor and muscle wire servos to meet our specifications; ran the user surveys; manufactured parts

Alex May main mechanism designer, designed the cam system and its packaging; assembly engineer, decided how everything was going to be packaged and put together; made some CAD models; manufactured parts

10

Market/User Research
User Survey
To get an idea of whether our concepts would be useful and which would be best, we met with three employees of the Blind and Vision Rehabilitation Services of Pittsburgh. These employees train people who have just lost vision or who need help interacting with things in a world design for the sighted. They are all also blind. Of the three we talked to, two have had no vision for their entire life, and one could make out vague shapes but did not see any detail. The two who are completely blind have been using Seeing Eye dogs for the whole life, and the other had used a cane until a couple months ago until she switched to using a dog. To start off, they told us the problems they have in day to day life and product opportunity gaps that existed. This included a touch screen reader and interface, automatic insulin syringe fillers, power outlet detection, finding restrooms, and various other things that are not within the scope of this class. Then they detailed their (or observed) problems with mobility. These included stepping off of curbs, which results in quite a few injuries, dealing with automobile traffic, and running into tables and chairs. Finally, I presented the initial concept list to them and asked them for their opinion of whether each product could be useful and whether they thought that people would need and want them. They all agreed that the electric wheelchair was not good since they wanted to keep their feet under them. Each idea that involved wearing a large amount of things, such as the full body suit and the glove, would not be successful because people would not want to wear that. They made it very clear that they are not freaks, like obtrusive aids such as those make them out to be. The product they took a real liking to was the long cane with sensors. Additionally, they gave us the idea to put that kind sensor integration on the handle of a Seeing Eye dog. This feedback reinforced our opinion that our solution should be integrated into products already in use. Additionally, it helped us narrow down which concepts were viable.

11

SET Factors
Social: to be safe, to do daily tasks, to have a normal social life, to be independent, to be comfortable Economical: to save money, to reduce doctors visits, to be able to make a living Technology: to make use of current technology, to have sufficient sensory feedback from their environment Refinement of Product Opportunity based on SET Factors: The social impact that we would like to have is to improve quality of life for the blind and visually-impaired. They need to be able to do certain simple tasks that we all take for granted because we are able to see. The visually impaired want to be effectively integrated into society and we hope that our product will take more steps towards doing so. Our product will be aimed at accommodating to all the desires of the blind and visually-impaired. Economically we will add competition to the market by creating a cheap solution that has a long working life. Doing this will make the cane a onetime purchase so that once a user has one they should have no need for another for a long time. Our product may also replace Seeing Eye Dogs which would cut out the cost of feeding and maintaining a dog for a lifetime. The National Center for Policy Research did a study of Blind Adults in America and found that only nineteen percent were employed [9]. Since our product will help the blind and visually impaired interact socially they will be more likely candidates for jobs that they may not have been qualified for in the past which could drastically increase their income and reduce their dependence on government aid. The technology for our product will be an improvement from the existing long white canes. We plan on using and combining existing technologies in a useful manner. A product opportunity gap that we have seen is that the commonly used white canes do not make use of any electronics or distance sensors. We believe that we can effectively improve the product by using such technology.

12

Value Opportunity Analysis of Current Technology

New Users: Adventure Emotion Independence Security Confidence Comfort Ergonomics Safety Ease of use Aesthetics Visual Tactile Social Environmental Reliable Enable Craftsmanship Durability Let others know that the user is blind Good grip, smooth body Allows the blind to function in society Human powered, doesnt need much repair Sore wrists Product adds to safety, doesnt protect head level

Impact

Core Tech

Quality

13

Experienced Users: Adventure Emotion: Independence Security Confidence Comfort Ergonomics: Safety Ease of use Aesthetics: Visual Tactile Social Environmental Reliable Enable Craftsmanship Durability Let others know that the user is blind Good grip, smooth body Allows the blind to function in society Human powered, doesnt need much repair Sore wrists Product adds to safety, doesnt protect head level

Impact:

Core Tech:

Quality

14

New Product Concept:

Using the research based off of papers and surveys that we have completed, we have designed a prototype in order to achieve many of the goals we had set out for ourselves in order to make the white cane into a more intuitive, user friendly and safe system. Our system allows the user to detect objects in areas in which the user had no information on with the old version of the white cane. This information is received by a set of infrared sensors which will relay the information to a tactile feedback system that uses servos in order to stimulate the nerves of the thumb. We have decided on 8-60 infrared sensors based off of their sensitivity and resolution, and spaced them in order to optimize the spatial detection area and distance the system can sense. We believe that by adding these components that we have capitalized on the opportunities that were presented to us in the VOA diagrams. In particular with increased feedback and knowledge of ones surroundings comes an increased emotional gain in terms of confidence, security, independence and a sense of adventure. By doing this we have effectively increased the value of this product in order to increase the quality of life for the blind community.

15

New Product: Adventure Emotion: Independence Security Confidence Comfort Ergonomics: Safety Ease of use Aesthetics: Impact: Core Tech: Quality Visual Tactile Social Environmental Reliable Enable Craftsmanship Durability Sore wrists Now more protection surrounding body More intuative system Let others know that the user is blind Good grip, smooth body Allows the blind to function better in society Battery powered, may need repairs If all else fails can be used as the old system

16

Concept Generation
Outcomes of brainstorming See appendix B Final Concept Descriptions
Our final concepts include the modified long, white cane with sensors; a robotic, seeing-eye dog; a glove with sensors; clothing with implanted sensors; and a power chair with mounted sensors. Modified Long, White Cane This concept is the one we finally selected. The cane is functionally similar to the standard long, white cane but includes rangfinding sensors that will detect the presence of obstacles without contact. The output of these sensors will be analyzed by a small, onboard microcontroller which will then produce physical feedback for the user via small servos implanted in the cane handle. Robotic, Seeing-Eye Dog The seeing-eye dog has been a faithful companion to the visuallyimpaired for a very long time. A major obstacle to using a seeing-eye dog is the required upkeep of a pet. We wished to produce a robotic device that would assist in the avoidance of pedestrians and obstacles by either steering the user around them or applying brakes. Glove with Sensors This device was planned to be used in conjunction with a long cane. Essentially, the device would be worn on the hand opposite the cane and used to provide noncontact data when the hand was opened. Rangefinding sensors mounted on the fingertips would transmit information via tactile feedback to their respective fingers and thus allow the user to feel the room when the cane was insufficient. This concept was also highly-rated and may be implemented after the modified long, white cane is produced the technologies are very similar. Sensor Suit The user would receive feedback as with the sensor glove, with sensors directly above the actuated regions of the body. By implementing this technology on many regions of the body, the user would be protected by an envelope of rangefinders. The clothing might have been as simple as a number of sensors strapped on top of the normal clothing of the user or as complex as implanted in special articles of clothing. Power Chair with Sensors Users would simply sit in a power chair and operate it using the same controls as a normal power chair user. The key modification we would add would be a large compliment of sensors and a powerful processor. These sensors would not be as limited as with the above concepts, being less constrained by weight and size. Additional components considered included autonomous or guided navigation using GPS and online services to serve as non-visual maps that would convey the user or suggest headings to the user. When interviews were conducted subsequent to the brainstorming session, we would discover that blind pedestrians preferred to walk and experience the terrain and interact more completely with other pedestrians.

17

Pugh chart / Selection of top concepts

Using Pugh charts (taking the user survey results into account), we further refined our list of concepts into a unified plan of action for the remainder of the semester. Below is the first iteration of Pugh Charts:
Description Criteria Cost Safety Manufacturability Ease of Use Training Time Effectiveness of Sensors Effectiveness of Feedback Environmental Friendliness Portability Reliability Totals: Weight 12 15 6 12 10 8 10 3 9 15 100 Long Cane Datum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sensor Cane Concept 1 -1 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 25 Robotic Dog Concept 2 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 10 Sensor Glove Concept 3 -1 1 -1 0 1 1 1 -1 1 0 31 Sensor Suit Concept 4 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 0 -1 -11 Power Chair Concept 5 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 10

18

Using this variety of criteria and a system of arbitrary weights, we evaluated each of the concepts. We rated each device in every category a value between -1 and +1. This gave us a distribution of concepts that was somewhat helpful but did not differentiate significantly enough to allow us to choose a final concept to pursue. At Professor Karas advice, we decided to revise our list of criteria and their respective weights. The criteria were more specifically defined and feasibility concerns of the group were added. We were initially uncertain whether our team resources, personal skills, and estimated time to complete the project should be accounted for.
Description Criteria Consumer Cost Safety for User (upper body) Safety for User (lower body) Safety for Others Personal Security Manufacturability Ease of Use Training Time Effective Sensing Region Sensor Resolution Amount of Feedback Effectiveness of Feedback Environmental Friendliness Portability Reliability of System Failsafe Modes Team Cost Team Experience/Skills Team Time Totals: Weight 6 8 8 4 5 3 7 6 6 3 3 6 1 7 5 7 5 5 5 100 Long Cane Datum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sensor Cane Concept 1 -2 3 5 3 3 -1 3 3 3 2 2 3 -1 0 3 0 -2 -1 -1 157 Robotic Dog Concept 2 -2 1 5 2 2 -2 3 3 2 2 1 1 -1 -1 1 -3 -2 -2 -2 60 Sensor Glove Concept 3 -3 4 2 3 3 -2 2 5 3 2 2 3 -2 0 2 0 -2 -1 -1 131 Sensor Suit Concept 4 -5 5 5 1 3 -4 2 5 5 1 5 2 -4 1 1 -5 -4 -1 -3 94 Power Chair Concept 5 -5 3 5 -2 3 -5 3 5 5 5 0 0 -5 -3 4 -5 -5 -3 -5 16

This chart very clearly shows that the sensor cane and sensor glove are superior concepts that require development, being significantly higher-rated than the others. The robotic seeing-eye dog was discarded simply because it did not provide quite the same level of safety and required more of the teams resources than the other concepts. The sensor suit was also rated low in some safety categories and generally scored lower than our winning concepts. The power chair was rated poorly in very many categories for its costs; to the consumer, future manufacturers, and to the team, as well as not being liked by our user survey.

19

Sketches of top concepts

20

21

Prototype Design
Prototype one
The purpose of our first prototype was to answer the question of whether our product could be functionally salient. We created two prototypes, with one prototype we proved that infrared sensors were sufficient for detecting objects and our circuit allowed for sensory feedback showed by servo output and computer display. Our other prototype proved that sensory feedback will be detectable when implemented onto the cane. One prototype was a circuit board with an infrared sensor attached which was connected to a computer that displayed the distance readings that the sensor took in, this prototype also caused a servo to rotate based off of distance readings. The other prototype was a long white cane with three nails driven into it in the position where the users thumb would be placed. These were used to demonstrate the tactile feedback that the user would get from the buttons we planned to later install.

Prototype two
Various questions had been addressed regarding the design of our product for the second prototype. A particular challenge that we have had from the start is the ability to embed everything into current long white cane technology. In our first prototype we wanted to make sure that all of the parts were functioning so we didnt worry about embedding too much, but for our second prototype we used temporary fasteners such as Velcro, zip ties, and twist ties to fasten our parts into place. This allowed our parts to be mobile and for us to try out various configurations for all of our electrical components. Having the ability to move our sensors around helped us to find optimal positions for sensors along the cane so that they may detect objects in the areas we have defined to be critical. Positioning at this point was not set as we still needed to test more sensors that had better range, higher accuracy and more noise control. The question of sensor range and accuracy came into play even before the first prototype when we purchased our first IR sensor. The first sensor we decided to go with had a range of 4-30. We felt that this range would be good enough for the sensor that we would place near the bottom of the can and also the sensor in the middle of the cane as these would used for detecting objects before they would come in contact with the cane so that they may be avoided, such as foot level obstacles and overhanging tables. We decided to buy a sensor with a range of 8-60 for the sensor closest to the handle. The placement and range of this sensor were calculated so as to protect the user from head level obstacles. Another question that we had was; would we be able to find an actuator small enough to be embedded into our system, yet strong enough to provide tactile feedback. We found that SMA servos meet both of our specifications, for our first prototype we used one of these to demonstrate its range of motion and strength. For our second prototype we added 2 more servos to the system, giving us three points of tactile feedback and added a cam mechanism to convert the servos rotational motion to linear motion. The final challenge that we saw was to ensure that the weight of the final product would not be noticeably greater than that of current cane technology. At the time our servos, sensors and microprocessor were on the range of .01lbs, so the only thing really adding weight is the .17lb battery which is placed near the handle to minimize moment while the cane is swinging. Our second prototype was in a pretty good functional state. Our microcontroller and code both worked well with the sensors and servos that we have purchased. After designing the prototype we decided to continue testing different types and orientations of sensors so that we could 22

optimize the users sensing capability. The tactile feedback system had been prototyped using already-owned materials and needed to be miniaturized for the final prototype. The final prototype required that we have all of these systems integrated with the handle. Finally, we learned that the final prototype required that the microcontroller and batteries be fitted into the handle/shaft. Placement of these items also affected the ergonomics of the device. Few parts remained to be ordered for the production of the final iteration of this design. We required additional SMA servos, additional variants of the IR rangefinders, and basic materials for the fabrication of the physical cane and tactile feedback mechanism. There was also some experimentation with ultrasonic rangefinders as an alternative sensor package that occurred. The materials for the physical cane included aluminum tubing for the cane body and potentially fiberglass or carbon fiber to shape a handle out of. The tactile feedback system was decided to be machined from either a thin aluminum plate or laser cut from plastic sheet. The final manufacturing needs of the product were several: shaft with holes for the mounting of sensors, a new handle sufficient to enclose all of the associated hardware, and a tactile feedback system robust enough for everyday use and easy detection. The engineering analysis to be run on this product was to be somewhat unconventional. Since our system is not a load-bearing device or an advanced mechanical system we conducted a battery of user tests. These tests will helped us to determine the functional range of the sensors (coupled with feedback and human reaction time) as well as their ideal placement and orientation on the cane shaft. Surveys of average table heights and similar common obstacles were to be conducted to assist in the determination of the sensor positions. The tactile feedback system may also be altered here to suit the ergonomic desires of the users to either improve sensory resolution or comfort. The cane still required some significant assembly. Namely, the aluminum shaft required us to machine ports in its side to accommodate the sensors. We made sure that there was adequate clearance for the wires running to the microcontroller. The handle we found would require a great deal of care in fabrication, being molded to enclose the controller, battery, and tactile feedback system. This had to interface with the cane shaft we decided we needed to devise a locking mechanism at this point to ensure that the sensors would be oriented in appropriate directions relative to the tactile feedback system and ergonomically-shaped handle. These represented the largest of our final engineering challenges as we determined after manufacturing the second prototype.

23

Detailed Design
Design parts
Custom Made Parts: 1. Cane Shaft The original product was a standard long, white cane and the stock handle was removed. The shaft was simply modified by drilling to accommodate the rangefinders and the rangefinder bracket used on the lowest sensor. 2. Sensor Bracket This bracket is unique to the lowest sensor. This bracket is responsible for holding that rangefinder in a direction parallel to the ground, extending the users reach. This bracket is shaped to fit the rangefinders bolt pattern and machine screws to hold it to the cane. 3. Adapter Interface between the cane shaft and the internal surface of the custom cane handle. This iteration of design simply required that these units maintain contact and be rigid while also serving as a means of aligning the front edge of the cane shaft with the handle. To this end, a piece of wood was added to the surface of the adapter to also mesh with the cane handle, this was shaped to match the curvature of the surface. Alignment is important because the sensors and tactile feedback system must stay in-line with one another so that the user can be sure of their fidelity to design without visual confirmation. Future iterations will necessitate improved materials to allow better transmission of vibrations as a standard white cane would require. This adapter also needs to allow the wires from the range sensors placed in the shaft to pass through. 4. Wooden Insert This piece was crucial to the tactile feedback system, primarily responsible for holding the SMA wire servos in place as well as providing the guides for the cam and cam followers. This piece interfaces with a slot in the aluminum of the handle, similar to the adapter, to the same end of maintaining alignment. This was shaped to ergonomically match the curvature of the cane handle surface. Future iterations of this design may include cast plastic inserts to improve reproducibility and possibly robustness as well. 5. Cams and Cam Followers The tactile feedback system is a set of buttons that raise or lower depending on the proximity of objects to the sensors. This was achieved by laser cutting 1/8 acrylic sheeting into offset-center circular cams and matching followers. The cams were custom-mounted to modified servo horns using friction-fits. 6. Handle The handle contains the tactile feedback system, microcontroller, and the largest density of wires. The largest modification was adding a 3/8-wide slot to align the tactile feedback system with the rest of the canes components. The handle is attached to the battery casing as well, to power the microcontroller. This handle is finished with a soft and resilient material to improve ergonomics and increase the level of comfort. Future iterations will likely involve different, lighter materials that can be easily cast or extruded and machined. 7. Battery Casing This is a simple part, designed to hold a single 9-volt battery for powering the microcontroller Purchased Parts: 1. Aluminum White Cane This standard long, white cane is a very cost-effective navigational tool currently used by the visually-impaired. This was temporarily used as the basis for our early prototypes, being fitted with a strip of Velcro along its length for a high degree of adjustability with regard to sensor location (and to some lesser extent, orientation). For the final prototype, the shaft was again used as the structural base for the sensors. 24

2. Arduino Nano This microcontroller is a very simple-to-use and cost-effective small-formfactor microcontroller popular with amateur robotics enthusiasts. It and its sister products are very well documented. The Arduino Nano we used could also be programmed using the simple programming environment, a laptop, and a mini-B USB-interfacing cable. The Arduino Nano was an ideal choice for this ease of use combined with a size that conveniently fit inside of what we assumed to be a practical handle size. By taking in sensor data, the Arduino can assess the surroundings of the user and by using the tactile feedback produce meaningful output. 3. Sharp IR Sensors The rangefinders used are designed to use infrared light to determine the distance to an object. These sensors were placed along the shaft to provide useful input to the microcontroller. By changing the position and orientation of the sensors, the product development group was able to optimize for a number of goals such as extending sensory perception, protecting against common obstacles, and general protection. 4. SMA wire servos These servos were chosen because of their extremely low form factor. The small size was important because the tactile feedback system needed to be integrated into the handle of the cane. While they may not represent the most robust option, future iterations will similarly require that the servos be small enough to fit inside of the future canes handle and be comfortable (weight and shape).

See Appendix C for the custom made parts drawings Materials that were used for custom parts 1, 5/8 and diameter aluminum tubing 1/8 basswood sheet 1/8 white acrylic sheet 1/16 aluminum sheet See Appendix D for the purchased parts spec sheets
Justification of choices based on design demand, cost, performance 1. Arduino Nano The board is capable of 14 digital input/outputs, six of which provide PWM output, and eight analog input pins. Its small form factor, only 0.73x1.70x0.2, meant that we would be able to embed it easily within the cane. Additionally, it is powered by a 9-volt battery which will allow the user to exchange batteries easily when the battery dies. The boards simple interface/programming made this a simple choice for the design team. The system is quite costeffective and performs more than adequately for our purposes. 2. Aluminum cane Originally, this component was purchased to serve as a product for comparison eventually, this served as a source of shaft stock, conveniently decorated in the iconic fashion. This material is very inexpensive, being repurposed from a relatively inexpensive testing phase purchase. The component should be adequate for our purposes, being originally from a product fulfilling a similar function. 3. Rangefinders The product required a range-finding system to detect the presence of obstacles, infrared was eventually chosen because of its wide availability, relatively small form factor, and researcher familiarity with the technology. These sensors are possibly somewhat expensive depending on the range you want, but are very effective. The sensors were tested to be even more precise than expected based on the specifications sheet, using this added range will greatly improve this devices abilities. 4. Servos The servos purchased were chosen based on their extremely small form factor integrating three into the tactile feedback mechanism housed inside of the cane handle was a 25

major concern of the design. Each servo was fairly expensive, but functional to some extent even with their novel implementation. The performance of the servos might be considered poor, but they integrated fairly well with the other systems, notably the handle mounting system and the tactile feedback system.

Electrical systems
Description of the control system The system is comprised of three fundamental subsystems falling into the categories of sense, plan, and act. The sensing component is handled by three infrared rangefinders, positioned at critical locations and orientations along the shaft of the cane. The planning of the system is managed by the Arduino Nano control board, processing the information from the sensors and producing analog output. This analog output is the action component of the system, consisting of three servos corresponding to the sensors and adjusting the elevations of their respective output pins accordingly. Selected electrical components and construction The electrical components that were used consisted of the Arduino Nano, pre packaged microprocessor with all components necessary to operate on board. The sensors and servos which were attached to the board had their own onboard processing and converting as well. See spec sheets in Appendix D for more details

26

Engineering Analysis
There are a few notable problems that required some analysis; the effective range of the sensors, the viewing angle of the sensors, and the optimal locations and orientations of those sensors. The goals of the analyses would be to define the answers to those problems, noting the practical limitations of the technology and the researchers ability to implement the technology in the final prototype.

27

The analyses required of this project are different than those of the typical mechanical engineering project. For the first two tests, the sensors were mounted such that they faced horizontally outwards. For the final test, the sensors were modeled and then practically evaluated by being mounted to Velcro placed on the side of an existing cane. Range. The sensor was connected to the microcontroller and the microcontroller to a laptop running a graphing program. This graphing program was used to visually output the data in real time, allowing for a dynamic testing setup. The researchers then placed a surface in the line of sight of the sensor, moving it away until the graphical data output did not display a signal that was easily distinguished from the system noise. This was considered the maximum range. Viewing Angle. To determine viewing angle, the researchers used a similar setup but instead began with a surface at the maximum recommended by the manufacturer (note: this is less than the maximum range as determined in the previous test). This surface was moved away from the center of the line-of-sight of the sensor until the data output did not display a signal that was easily distinguishable from system noise. This helped to define a maximum viewing angle. Optimal sensor placement and orientation. This represents the most dynamic sensor goal of the project. These results are highly subjective due to the nature of this problem. By modeling the maximum recommended range and practical viewing angle of the sensors, the researchers determined the useful locations of the sensors. To achieve the goal of extending the users reach was achieved by placing a sensor near the tip of the cane, oriented forwards (approximately parallel to the ground) to maximize reach while maintaining a high enough location and angle to prevent normal angles of the cane from causing that sensor to detect the floor. The second sensor was placed and oriented to detect tables and chairs, being common obstacles that blind or visually-impaired persons commonly run into uncomfortably. This sensor was placed below what was surveyed to be a lower average height of a tabletop and oriented upwards (perpendicular to the cane, for practical considerations) such that it would detect any tabletops higher than the sensor and forwards of the cane body as well. The final sensor was placed at the portion of the cane shaft nearest the handle. This was determined to be a safe decision to the end of protecting the users upper body and head areas. This sensors range easily encompasses those areas of the users body and provides an adequate distance for the user to react to object detection. These decisions were functionally tested by mounting sensors to an existing cane using Velcro. Little adjustment was required to achieve what the researchers considered to be reliable and meaningful results.

28

Conclusions The practical maximum range seems to be approximately 8 feet, depending on environmental factors. The large part of the testing was conducted indoors using soft lighting. There will likely be a noticeable difference in this maximum and possibly in accuracy in environments with significantly higher infrared levels in ambient light such as outdoors on a bright day. The practical maximum viewing angle appears to be approximately 2 degrees from centerline. This defines a fairly narrow beam which may be considered detrimental or helpful to the product. While this does limit the forward and backward sensing range of the second and third sensors when mounted on the cane, this effect should be minimized due to the movements of the user and the side-to-side sweeping of the cane. A narrow beam width also provides the user with a clearer idea of the locations of objects; with training, the user may become rather adept at the practice of this navigation style. The locations and orientations of the sensors were placed based off of studies of midrange and head level objects. Midrange objects were found to be within the range of one to three feet in the vertical direction. Head level objects took into account the range of user heights and were calculated to be within the range of four to eight feet in the vertical direction. Both of these ranges were coverable by our sensors and thus we placed them on the cane accordingly.

29

Manufacturing techniques
Simple machine tools were used to cut stock to length, shape components, and to drill holes for mounting. Rotary cutting and abrasive tools were also used to shape components and finely adjust them to improve press-fits and ergonomics. Laser cutting was used to rapidly produce the cams and cam followers out of acrylic. These parts were designed to produce approximately 1/8 deflection when the cam is rotated 180 degrees. The parts were modeled in Rhinoceros 4.0 and then sent to print on the laser cutter. The laser cutting produces parts with a very high degree of precision with a very narrow kerf. Unconventional manufacturing methods A new adapter was required in a very short timeframe. The adapter needed to be a very precise fit and the available materials were limited. A tight fit between the shaft and handle was produced without a lathe due to this short timeframe and lack of materials. This adapter was fashioned out of a small section of tubing that fit the shaft tubing fairly tightly. This was glued to the shaft and then built up in diameter to tightly fit the inside of the handle tubing. The handle was shaped roughly using a hack saw. While a milling machine would have been preferable in some ways, the researchers felt more comfortable using this tool for its simplicity and accessibility. The edges and corners of the handles keyway were carefully shaped and refined using files. The wooden insert holding the servos and the additional wooden component of the adapter were cut by hand and then shaped to match the curvature of the handle aluminum using sandpaper. These and the handle were finished using a fine grit.

The challenges presented included time constraints, material availability, and availability of machine tools.

30

Assembly
See Appendix E for the CAD models of assembly
Description of assembly techniques The majority of assembly techniques used in this project consist of creating friction fits and using machine screws and nuts. The friction fits were quickly assembled using a variety of tools and materials. For the primary fitting of the cane shaft to the adapter and (more noticeably) the adapter to the cane handle, a tape was applied to the material, wrapping in successively larger bands until when tested the components were somewhat difficult to separate. The interface between the shaft and adapter was reinforced and made permanent with the use of a quicksetting adhesive. Other friction fits were fabricated through similar iterative testing process. The aluminum surfaces of the handle were notably filed to fit the wooden components as exactly as possible. Machine screws were used to join many components of this product as well. Drilled holes in matching surfaces were fairly easy to bind together using the appropriate 4-40 hardware. Key challenges and how you have overcame them Some complications arising from assembly included hole alignment and the fitting of wiring. The holes for the components generally meshed very well with the exception of the battery casing. This is likely the direct result of machining error. This component was furthermore difficult to attach given that the corresponding nuts needed to be placed deep withing the cane handle. This was surprisingly easily overcome through the use of some tapes to temporarily attach the nuts to the socket end of a box wrench. The placement and routing of wires within the cane shaft was a very significant issue with this product. Primarily, inadequate space was budgeted for in the cane handle and the wires themselves were a significantly heavier gauge than required. Routing these between the cane shaft and handle was an important, unforeseen challenge combated by removing a portion of the material at the top end of the adapter. This allowed the wires adequate space to be passed through that connection and subsequently past the side of the wooden servo mounting insert. Future iterations of the product will owe this challenge particular attention.

31

Life Cycle Assessment Raw Material Extraction and Processing

Inputs Energy Wear on machinery Chemical Processes Output Air Emissions Solid Waste

Basswood Acrylic Aluminum Silicon Rubber

Tin Lead Plastic

Manufacturing of Raw Materials

Inputs Energy Previously extracted raw materials Transportation Outputs 1, 5/8 and diameter aluminum tubing 1/8 basswood sheet 1/8 white acrylic sheet 1/16 aluminum sheet

Outsourced Manufacturing
Inputs Energy Previously extracted raw materials Transportation Machining and chemical treatment processes Outputs Printed Circuit Board with soldered components Servo Infrared Sensor 32

In House Manufacturing
Inputs Energy Previously extracted raw materials Machining and Assembly Outsourced Manufactured Components Outputs Final Product

Packaging and Distribution

Inputs Energy Transportation Packaging Materials Outputs Final Product Shipment

Product Use
Inputs Energy Repairs Outputs Used Battery System Feedback

End of life
Inputs Transportation Disassembly Outputs Materials Still working components Solid waste

33

Cost report
Parts Cost: Arduino Nano Long White Cane Livewire Servo (3) Solder Breadboard Raw Aluminum Sheeting (1ftx1ft) Aluminum Tube (1in OD), 8 in Aluminum Tube (0.7in OD), 8 in Wire Infrared Sensors (3) $50.00 $8.00 $32.00 ($96.00) $5.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $5.00 $15.00 ($45.00)

The approximate engineering time was 80 hours. This includes the design process and engineering analysis. It took approximately 15 hours to create all of the parts and 2 hours to put it all together. Total, this is 97 hours, and at $20/hour this equates to $1940. However, most of this is a one-time expenditure and if this were manufactured for a large production run the time to manufacture the components could be shortened by using large-scale manufacturing techniques. Itemized reimbursement information is contained in Appendix F.

34

Evaluation
Images of the fabricated parts:

Battery holder Images of completed cane:

Servo-holding assembly

35

Unfortunately the final product had wiring problems, so while all mechanical systems in the cane were present and functional; the signal from the sensors could not communicate to the servos in the handle. However, we were able to test functionality of the topmost servo to prove the protection of the users head. To do this, the user held the cane as they would normally and an object was held at head level as the user walked toward it. Looking at a computer display of the distance readings from the IR sensor, the user could accurately tell when the obstacle was getting close and was able to stop in time to avoid it. Additionally, the startup routine of the servos allowed us to demonstrate the full range of the buttons. When the users thumb was placed over the servo the movement of the button was clearly felt and expressed multiple positions well. As the final product was not fully functional we decided not to do a second user testing with blind users. We did survey some sighted people who could see the output of the sensors on the computer screen and they all were able to see and respond to obstacles well. While we did not survey any blind users, we believe that the experience would be a good one. The cane is only 0.5 lbs heavier (going from 0.8 lb to 1.3 lb) which does not add a significant amount of weight. Additionally, almost all of the added weight (the servo assembly, microcontroller, and battery) are concentrated at the handle which minimizes the extra torque felt by the users wrist. Ultimately, provided the wiring is functional, the cane provides three additional areas of protection to the user. This adequately protects their head, waist, and gives them advance warning of foot level obstacles. The feedback mechanism is both effective and unobtrusive, and the ergonomics of the cane is almost identical to existing canes, ensuring that the transition from current canes to this one will be easy and smooth.

36

Conclusion
The design process was very interesting to the research group, from concept generation to realization of design goals and final prototyping. The researchers had a fairly clear vision of the final design before component acquisition and prototyping was conducted. In some ways, this was very useful to the product design as it allowed the design to be avidly pursued. Purchasing components for the project was an interesting part of the process, comparing the specifications of various parts and determining the optimum is difficult but interesting. There were some issues with the robustness of the servos, particularly in their ability to produce a full 180 degree rotation and in that one of the servos was critically damaged. System integration was possibly one of the greatest challenges that this group faced with this product. The individual systems were proved very successful apart from one another, but wiring them together and packaging them in the form factors required of a cane product was very challenging. The routing of the wires and diagnosis of component or soldering failures required a great deal of improvisation and was a source of great frustration. Additionally, with the wiring challenges, the microcontroller was also not able to be fitted inside of the cane handle as originally planned. At some sacrifice of aesthetics, the Arduino was left extended from the back end of the handle. Additional time to construct additional housing or improve wiring would have been helpful. These problems were not resolved by the time of the design exposition. The final prototype is not fully operational. However, were the soldering connections all viable and all of the components fully-functional the researchers feel confident that the product would fulfill the goals that we set in our VOA. The SET factors are somewhat less satisfied. The social improvements caused by the product will hopefully be fully realized once the product becomes proliferated. The technological goals are also fairly well-satisfied in that the product takes full advantage of modern technology to improve users lives in a fairly simple implementation. The economic goal is only partially realized; the product will likely improve the function of users and possibly enable the visually-impaired new economic opportunities but it is not nearly as inexpensive to produce as originally planned. While the physical cost of the prototype system was high, this issue may be reduced once a production model is designed, technology improves further still, and the government subsidizes the end consumers purchase. The team is confident that most of the goals outlined in the Pugh Chart were fulfilled. Many are difficult to evaluate without functional user testing, such as the ease of use and the training time. The consumer cost for this product currently seems like it will be reasonably high for such a product. Theoretically, it should provide a high degree of safety with the proper training and appropriate usage and technique. The device will require some degree of advanced assembly and manufacture. The feedback provided is also difficult to evaluate given that the system was never fully functional in its entirety. The device does seem highly portable, having a similar form factor to the original cane but with increased weight and relatively little increase to weight or angular moment. The reliability of the system is somewhat questionable as well, as the current system is not functional. The failsafe mode of the cane is an effective long cane, but there was some commentary that the cane absorbed a significant amount of shock possibly as 37

a result of the materials used to create the cane shaft adapter. Furthermore, the estimates of the team seem generally accurate in that we managed to produce the prototype under budget and our skills and experience were suitable to the tasks we posed for ourselves. However, the team could likely have improved upon time management, leaving more time to debug and repair elements of the system may have been wise. The team may have changed some elements of the design process. The product design and production schedule would need to have been rethought to include more time for debugging and repair or replacement. The selection of components may also have been different if given additional consideration. The robustness of components seems to be a significant concern. The team might also have chosen different manufacturing processes to improve the efficiency and quality of some of the work. A milling machine might have been used on the aluminum handle and the sheet metal parts would have been greatly improved with better finishing techniques and sheet metal punch and bending tools. The final product was not functional as a result of wiring issues and a servo malfunction. Furthermore, the Arduino did not integrate very well with the handle or the overall cane aesthetic. Given more time and thought, these obstacles are easily surmountable, as they are simply matters of time and small quantities of physical resources. Using smaller or ribbon wire would definitely help with the integration. A more suitable method of mounting the shaft to the handle might also have been pursued with these additional resources. The packaging of the Arduino and battery are also important elements of this project that did not come to fruition in this iteration. This team would recommend to future design teams that a more rigorous build schedule be developed. Furthermore, the modifications to the tactile feedback and integration of systems would definitely be things to look in to. Different servos that offer greater robustness in an adequately small package would be desirable. A thinner gauge material for the handle may also be helpful for the mobility and the ergonomics of the product. Good luck.

38

Appendix A Bibliography
[1] [2] [3]
Ambrose-Zaken, Grace. "Knowledge of and Preferences for Long Cane Components: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study." Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 99 (2005). "Blindness." 5 Feb. 2009. 7 Feb. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness>. Borenstein, Johann, and Iwan Ulrich. "The Guidecane - A Computerized Travel Aid for the Active Guidance of Blind People." Proc. of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Mexico, Albuquerque. IEEE. 7 Feb. 2009 <http://www.ieee.org>. Fourie, Robert J. "A qualitative self-study of Retinitis Pigmentosa." British Journal of Visual Impairment 25 (2007): 217-32. Sage Journals Online. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Frenkel, Raymond S. "Coded Pulse Transmission and Correlation for Robust Ultrasound Ranging From a Long-Cane Platform." Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2008. Hub, Andreas, Joachim Diepstraten, and Thomas Ertl. "Design and Development of an

[4]

[5]

[6] Indoor Navigation and Object Identification System for the Blind." ASSETS October 18-20

[7]

(2004): 147-52. Janssen, Marleen J., Sanne Nota, Paul A. Eling, and Wied A. Ruijssenaars. "The Advantage of Encoding Tactile Information for a Woman with Congenital Deaf-Blindness." Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 101 (2007): 653-57. Rogers, Mark D., and Robert W. Emerson. "Materials Testing in Long Cane Design: Sensitivity, Flexibility, and Transmission of Vibration." Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 99 (2005). Zuckerman, Diana M, 2004. Blind Adults in America: Their Lives and Challenges.

[8]

[9] Washington, DC: National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families.

39

Appendix B Brainstorming Ideas

Possible Solutions: Modify Long Cane Custom Headset -eyeglasses -headphones (no arm interference) -visor (glasses/headphones integrated) Custom Arm Band-Mounted System -similar to iPod/integrated iPod and holster iPod (use same shape) -similar size/shape -charging station Custom Belt-Mounted System -specialized buckle -cell phone holster-like device -rotating touch-based sensing -physical hula-hoop suspended from belt Robotic Seeing-Eye Dog -low maintenance, fully robotic system -OR simple locking wheel with proximity sensor Pre-Programmed Segway/Small Electric Vehicle/Power Chair -program routes -path-planning -obstacle avoidance Glasses with Mirrors/Cameras (for those with limited field-of-view) -ants-eye-view Glove-Mounted Sensing -tactile feedback on palm/inner fingers -back-to-back with sensors -feel a room or space Piezoelectric Rings -expand/contract based on proximity sensing -see Glove-Mounted Sensing above Two Canes -innovation in techniques -modular, nesting/attachable -make use of both hands Cow Catcher (similar to a walker) -push small obstacles and objects out of the way Input/Sensors: Ultrasonic Infrared EM Sensing (Biological/Electrical object avoidance) Sonar Bodysuit (output mounted directly under outward-facing sensors) Head Sensors -hot obstacle detection Horizontal Arrays 40

Vertical Arrays Targeted Locations Safety Envelope (around torso and/or head) Panning Sensors (mounted on servos) Output: Headphones Headphone (sacrifice only one ear of hearing) Tactile Feedback -handle vibration -handle solenoids -1:1 array of handle solenoids, matching sensor pattern -adhesive patch vibration -adhesive patch heating -adhesive patch electrical stimulation (e-stim) -tracking arm band (moves up arm based on proximity) -solenoids/other actuation mounted in insoles/shoes -bodysuit (output mounted directly under outward-facing sensors, force fieldlike effect) [embedded in clothes or in outerwear/vest] -locking wheel tip to resist motion and provide feedback On/Off Switch: Dead Man Switch -trigger -finger/thumb switch Standard Toggle/Sliding Switch Pen-Switch (persists on/off after click) -side of cane -end of cane Bio-switch (exposed electrical contacts) -under-palm/fingers on handle -tops of solenoids (see Output: Tactile) Cane Modifications: Handle -ergonomic redesign -arm brace (braces cane to forearm, reduce wrist strain), perpendicular handle interface like forearm crutch (removable cane, sensors in arm unit near fingers/knuckles with feedback on front or back of fingers) -locking rotating or universal joint to allow for different grip positions -repositioning tactile feedback contact area -utility tools (Swiss Army knife-like tools) Shaft -materials? -reshaping shaft (curved to improve obstacle detection?) -spring-loaded telescoping -multiple telescoping settings (keep use of sensors) -spring/dashpot-loaded shaft to damp dangerous shocks Tips -battery storage -rake-like tip (wider field of view) 41

-Neds (H)overboard tip (Is got an idea) -wheels *clicking wheel (ratchets at known intervals/distances) *tachometer (for exercise aid or navigation) *bigger/interchangeable wheel for easier exercising (walking/jogging/running) *locking wheel (output) -(retractable) roasting spit (defense, cooking aid, back-scratcher) -utility tips (interchangeable for recreation/different surfaces i.e. shuffle-board, golf, pool, gardening, utility claw / carpet, outdoor, tile) -spring/dashpot-loaded tip to damp dangerous shocks Other Features: Charging -Piezoelectrics -Self-Winding Watch Mechanism -Faraday Flashlight Mechanism -Solar Beeper/Alarm (easy cane-finding) -timed alarm -accelerometer/ball-in-cage sensor for impact detection (activate beeper after being dropped) -remote-controlled beeping Tactile Clock -exposed clock face -Braille

42

Appendix C Drawings (all units in Inches)

Cane Shaft and Handle

43

Sensor Bracket

44

Adapter

45

Wooden Insert

46

Cam

47

Cam Followers

48

Battery Casing

49

Appendix D Spec Sheets Arduino Nano

Overview
Arduino Nano is a surface mount breadboard embedded version with integrated USB. It is a smallest, complete, and breadboard friendly. The Nano was designed and is being produced by Gravitech. It has everything that Diecimila has (electrically) with more analog input pins and onboard +5V AREF jumper. Physically, it is missing power jack and power select jumper. Since the Nano is automatically sense and switch to the higher potential source of power, there is no need for the power select jumper. Nanos got the breadboard-ability of the Boarduino and the Mini+USB with smaller footprint than either, so users have more breadboard space. Its got a pin layout that works well with the Mini or the Basic Stamp (TX, RX, ATN, GND on one top, power and ground on the other). Its a four-layer board with power and ground planes to help provide ICs with sufficient charge during switching and reduce noise (EMC) on high speed switching I/O pins. Ground plane help reduce radiation (EMI). Power plane is low in inductance; therefore any transients that may develop on the power line will be at lower levels.
50

Schematic and Design

Arduino Nano Manual (pdf) Eagle files note: since the free version of Eagle does not handle more than 2 layers,and the Nano is currently 4-layer board, Gravitech publishes it here as unrouted, so users can at least open it and use it in the free version of Eagle

Specifications:
Microcontroller Atmel ATmega168 Operating Voltage (logic level) 5 V Input Voltage (recommended) 7-12 V Input Voltage (limits) 6-20 V Digital I/O Pins 14 (of which 6 provide PWM output) Analog Input Pins 8 DC Current per I/O Pin 40 mA Flash Memory 16 KB (of which 2KB used by bootloader) SRAM 1 KB EEPROM 512 bytes Clock Speed 16 MHz Dimensions 0.73 x 1.70

Features:
Automatic reset during program download Power OK blue LED on the bottom Green (TX), red (RX) and orange (L) LED +5V to AREF jumper Auto sensing/switching power input Small mini-B USB for programming and serial monitor ICSP header for direct program download Power OK blue LED on the bottom Standard 0.1 spacing DIP (breadboard friendly) Manual reset switch

Power:
The Arduino Nano can be powered via the mini-B USB connection, 6-20V unregulated external power supply (pin 30), or 5V regulated external power supply (pin 27). The power source is automatically selected to the highest voltage source.

51

The FTDI FT232RL chip on the Nano is only powered if the board is being powered over USB. As a result, when running on external (non-USB) power, the 3.3V output (which is supplied by the FTDI chip) is not available and the RX and TX LEDs will flicker if digital pins 0 or 1 are high.

Memory
The ATmega168 on the Nano has 16 KB of flash memory for storing code (of which 2 KB is used for the bootloader). It has 1 KB of SRAM and 512 bytes of EEPROM (which can be read and written with the EEPROM library).

Input and Output

Each of the 14 digital pins on the Nano can be used as an input or output, using pinMode(), digitalWrite(), and digitalRead() functions. They operate at 5 volts. Each pin can provide or receive a maximum of 40 mA and has an internal pull-up resistor (disconnected by default) of 20-50 kOhms. In addition, some pins have specialized functions: Serial: 0 (RX) and 1 (TX). Used to receive (RX) and transmit (TX) TTL serial data. These pins are connected to the corresponding pins of the FTDI USB-to-TTL Serial chip. External Interrupts: 2 and 3. These pins can be configured to trigger an interrupt on a low value, a rising or falling edge, or a change in value. See the attachInterrupt() function for details. PWM: 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11. Provide 8-bit PWM output with the analogWrite() function. SPI: 10 (SS), 11 (MOSI), 12 (MISO), 13 (SCK). These pins support SPI communication, which, although provided by the underlying hardware, is not currently included in the Arduino language. LED: 13. There is a built-in LED connected to digital pin 13. When the pin is HIGH value, the LED is on, when the pin is LOW, it's off. The Nano has 8 analog inputs, each of which provide 10 bits of resolution (i.e. 1024 different values). By default they measure from ground to 5 volts, though is it possible to change the upper end of their range using the analogReference() function. Additionally, some pins have specialized functionality: I2C: 4 (SDA) and 5 (SCL). Support I2C (TWI) communication using the Wire library (documentation on the Wiring website). There are a couple of other pins on the board: AREF. Reference voltage for the analog inputs. Used with analogReference(). Reset. Bring this line LOW to reset the microcontroller. Typically used to add a reset button to shields which block the one on the board. See also the mapping between Arduino pins and ATmega168 ports.

52

Programming
The Arduino Nano can be programmed with the Arduino software (download). For details, see the reference and tutorials. The ATmega168 on the Arduino Nano comes preburned with a bootloader that allows you to upload new code to it without the use of an external hardware programmer. It communicates using the original STK500 protocol (reference, C header files). You can also bypass the bootloader and program the ATmega168 through the ICSP (In-Circuit Serial Programming) header; see these instructions for details.

Automatic (Software) Reset

Rather then requiring a physical press of the reset button before an upload, the Arduino Nano is designed in a way that allows it to be reset by software running on a connected computer. One of the hardware flow control lines (DTR) of the FT232RL is connected to the reset line of the ATmega168 via a 100 nanofarad capacitor. When this line is asserted (taken low), the reset line drops long enough to reset the chip. The Arduino software uses this capability to allow you to upload code by simply pressing the upload button in the Arduino environment. This means that the bootloader can have a shorter timeout, as the lowering of DTR can be well-coordinated with the start of the upload. This setup has other implications. When the Nano is connected to either a computer running Mac OS X or Linux, it resets each time a connection is made to it from software (via USB). For the following half-second or so, the bootloader is running on the Nano. While it is programmed to ignore malformed data (i.e. anything besides an upload of new code), it will intercept the first few bytes of data sent to the board after a connection is opened. If a sketch running on the board receives one-time configuration or other data when it first starts, make sure that the software with which it communicates waits a second after opening the connection and before sending this data.

53

Sharp IR Sensors

Part Number: Price: Weight:

R144-GP2Y0A02YK $12.50 0.04 lbs

This sensor takes a continuous distance reading and returns a corresponding analog voltage with a range of 20cm (8") to 150cm (60"). The sensor package includes a JST 3pin connector, three pre-crimped wires, and a booklet with detailed information and examples.

More Details: Compare the Sharp IR Sensors. The GP2Y0A02YK0F has identical electronics to our GP2D12, but has special optics that give it a much longer detection range.

Absolute Maximum Ratings

Parameter Supply Voltage Output Terminal Voltage Operating Temperature Storage Temperature Symbol VCC VO Topr Tstg Rating -0.3 to +7 -0.3 to VCC+0.3 -10 to +60 -40 to +70 Unit V V C C Remarks

Operating Supply Voltage

Parameter Operating Supply Voltage Symbol VCC Rating 4.5 to 5.5 Unit V Remark

Electro-Optical Characteristics
54

Parameter Measuring distance range Output Terminal Voltage Output voltage difference Average supply current

Symbol delta L *2 *3 VO delta VO Icc L = 150 cm *2

Conditions

Min. Typ. Max. Unit 20 150 cm V V mA

0.25 0.4 0.55 1.8 2.05 2.3 33 50

Output change at L change (150 cm -> 20 cm) *2 -

L: Distance to reflected object * 2 Using reflected object: White paper (Made by Kodak Co. Ltd. gray cards R-27, white face, reflective ratio: 90%) * 3 Distance measuring range of the optical sensor system. Servos

55

SMA Wire Servos

Livewire Sub-Micro Servo LW1 (0.8 of a gram without wires)

0.8 gram without wires Servo Technical Data Dimensions: 38 x 9 x 3 mm Deflection: 60 total (30 left and 30 right) Torque: 15 gCm Nominal voltage: 3 to 5 Volts DC Weight: 0.8 g without wires Current Consumption: 30mA, 0.15W (@5V, 20C) Max. Current Draw: 80mA (@5V moving to end points) Operating Temperature: 0- 40 C Max. Model Weight: 52 g Wire Codes: Red = + | Black = - | White = Signal Control Signal: Positive PWM signal of 1.5 ms #SERVO-LW1 $34.99 each

56

Appendix E Assembly

57

58

59

60

Appendix F Itemized reimbursement information

Item Desolderer and solder Livewire servos (3) Solenoid (2) Bowden cable Aluminum tubing Infrared sensors (3) Aluminum (rigid) cane Fiberglass (folding) cane Micro servos (3) Arduino Dremel Total: 450.00 Price 20.88 32.00 (96.00) 23.31 (46.62) 7.90 51.40 14.99 (44.97) 25.90 13.00 11.60 (34.80) 42.49 66.04 Notes Needed to fit arduino inside cane. Was a potential actuator idea. Was a potential feedback idea. Three tubes, two 1OD and one 0.75 OD For existing product dissection For existing product dissection Was a potential actuator idea Microcontroller Necessary for manufacturing

61