VII. Conclusions and Future Work (JV)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the movement of the arm and claw matched the predicted movement seen in the kinematic simulations, but were not as robust as I had desired. The claw and arm were sturdy, but that sturdiness affected how smooth the movement of the claw was. Additionally the actual design of the gears and claw gripper link could be improved for better performance. 

Future Work

After viewing the performance of the final project, I had a few details I would change in the future. In the demonstration of the final prototype, it is evident that the claw opened and closed in bursts of movements due to the spacing between the gears’ teeth and the torque of the micro-servo motor. To solve this problem, I would increase the number of teeth in the larger gear or increase the size of the gear teeth in the smaller gear. Another problem I noted was that the claw had trouble gripping round objects above a certain weight, so I would change the design of the gripper link to be specialized for a specific item rather than a general item or I would swap the MG90 micro-servo motor for a stronger servo-motor, so the claw had more strength. Lastly, I would increase the spacing between the claw plate and the claw gears to reduce the friction they experience in the current design.