Asked by …
1. Individual brainstorm 3 or more ideas
a.
These must be labeled sketches
b.
Sketches must be on their own page(s)
2. Talk about all the brainstorming ideas that your group has come up with. This should take 10 minutes or more.
If you need to combine ideas do that NOW. The new idea needs to be sketched and included in the brainstorming as the 5th idea.
3. Pugh Chart creation (everyone needs to create it on its own page)
You need to pick at least 4 ideas for your pugh chart
Label the four ideas you are going to compare with #1, #2, #3, and #4 (so on).
Create a pugh chart with the criteria that supports your problem statement
Talk through your pugh chart to rate each build
e.
4.
Write your OWN conclusion to your pugh chart
Final design sketch a.
Everyone has to create their own labeled detailed sketch
b. When everyone is done come show Mrs. Walder by creating ONE document with all three sketches.
Prosthetic hand
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
Below I’ve prepared everything you need for this assignment on a prosthetic hand. I’ve followed your task order: 3+ individual brainstorm sketches (each on its own “page”), a combined 5th idea (new sketch), a Pugh chart comparing four ideas with criteria tied to a reasonable problem statement, a walk-through of the chart, a written conclusion, and a detailed final-design sketch you can use as your own. Use the sketches as templates for your hand-drawn pages or to copy into your document.
Problem statement assumed (so criteria are sensible):
Design an affordable, comfortable, durable prosthetic hand that restores useful grasps for everyday tasks, is relatively lightweight, easy to control by the user, and simple to maintain/repair.
-------------------------
Page 1 — Sketch #1: Body-powered Mechanical Hook
Label at top: “Sketch #1 — Body-powered Mechanical Hook (Datum option)”
Quick drawing instructions (make a clear side/front view):
- Outline a forearm cuff/socket that straps to residual limb.
- Cable routed from shoulder or harness down to a wrist hinge.
- Simple two-prong hook or three-finger gripper at wrist, attached via mechanical linkage.
- Show wrist hinge, cable anchor, and adjustment turnbuckle.
Short description (bulleted):
- Control: Body-powered (shoulder/elbow motion pulls cable).
- Pros: Low cost, very durable, low maintenance, light.
- Cons: Limited dexterity (pinch/grasp only), harness may be uncomfortable, not very cosmetic.
Materials & notes:
- Steel/aluminum hook components, nylon-coated steel cable, padded socket.
- Good for heavy duty / low tech environments.
-------------------------
Page 2 — Sketch #2: 3D-Printed Myoelectric Multi-finger Hand
Label: “Sketch #2 — 3D-Printed Myoelectric Hand”
Drawing instructions:
- Show socket with EMG sensor pads located on residual limb area.
- Forearm housing containing Li-ion battery and microcontroller (side view).
- Hand with five fingers, linked by tendon cables to small DC motors in palm/back of wrist.
- Indicate wiring from EMG sensors to controller, and motor positions.
Short description:
- Control: Myoelectric (surface EMG sensors interpret muscle signals).
- Pros: Multiple grip patterns (tripod, lateral, power), more natural look, decent function for ADLs.
- Cons: Higher cost, heavier than body-powered, battery dependence, more maintenance/repair complexity.
Materials & notes:
- PLA/ABS or carbon-fiber-reinforced 3D print for structural parts, silicone fingertips, micro-servos or brushless motors with gearboxes.
-------------------------
Page 3 — Sketch #3: Soft Robotic Glove (Pneumatic/Elastic Assist)
Label: “Sketch #3 — Soft Robotic Glove”
Drawing instructions:
- Draw a forearm cuff with a small air pump or mechanical actuator module.
- Show a glove made from soft silicone or fabric channels along each finger (inflatable).
- Indicate pressure lines/tubing from pump to finger chambers, and valve pack.
Short description:
- Control: Simple switches or myoelectric trigger opens/closes glove; glove actuates by inflating finger chambers to curl fingers.
- Pros: Lightweight, comfortable, good for gently conforming grip (fragile objects), more comfortable for sensitive skin.
- Cons: Limited force, pneumatic system requires pump/battery, less precise individual finger control, durability concerns (puncture risk).
Materials & notes:
- Silicone finger actuators, small diaphragm pump, soft liners for socket.
-------------------------
Page 4 — Sketch #4: Cosmetic Passive Hand with Quick-Change Mechanical Insert
Label: “Sketch #4 — Passive Cosmetic Hand with Interchangeable Gripper Insert”
Drawing instructions:
- Draw a natural-looking hand shell over a modular internal frame.
- Show quick-release plate on palm underside where different inserts clip (cosmetic shell removed to show insert).
- Insert examples: molded lightweight foam for appearance; small mechanical gripper insert for light tasks.
Short description:
- Control: Passive (no active control). The optional insert can be a simple mechanical clamp engaged manually.
- Pros: Very lightweight, very cosmetic, low-cost, low maintenance.
- Cons: No active grasping unless you change insert; limited function for ADLs.
-------------------------
Page 5 — Sketch #5: Combined / New Idea — Modular Hybrid: 3D-printed Myoelectric + Soft Fingertips + Cable Backup
Label: “Sketch #5 — Combined Hybrid (new group idea)”
Drawing instructions:
- Show a socket with two EMG sensors + quick disconnect mechanical cable anchor.
- Forearm housing with battery, microcontroller, and small pump (or compressed air cell) omitted in favor of cable backup.
- Hand: 3D-printed skeleton with tendon-driven fingers, soft silicone fingertip pads, thumb on an opposable hinge.
- Include a small manual cable actuator/override (body-powered fallback) that can mechanically curl fingers if electronics fail.
- Annotate: modular palm plate for swapping motors or replacement fingers.
Short description:
- Control: Primary myoelectric for dexterous control; fallback manual cable system for emergencies.
- Pros: Balances functionality, durability, and maintenance (modularity). Soft pads increase grip on fragile items. Cable backup increases reliability.
- Cons: More complex than simple designs; moderate cost.
-------------------------
Group brainstorming summary (talk-through / 10+ min content)
Use these prompts to spend 10+ minutes with your group:
- Start by having each person present their 3 sketches (if the group members each did their own 3). For our single-person template, present sketches #1–#3 and the combined #5.
- Discuss key priorities from problem statement: cost, weight, durability, number and type of grips needed, control ease, appearance.
- Compare where each design meets priorities: e.g., #1 best for cost/durability, #3 best for comfort/weight, #2 best for dexterity.
- Trade-offs: myoelectric (#2) gives dexterity but increases cost/weight. Soft glove (#3) is comfy but weaker. Body-powered (#1) is reliable but not dexterous. Cosmetic (#4) gives appearance but low function.
- If combining ideas: justify why hybrid (#5) improves balance — it keeps myoelectric dexterity but adds soft contact pads and a manual cable backup for reliability.
- Confirm combined idea and make Sketch #5 as the final new idea for the group.
(Spend a full 10 minutes: 2–3 minutes presenting each sketch, 3–4 minutes discussing tradeoffs, 2–3 minutes agreeing on combined concept and making notes/sketch.)
-------------------------
Page 6 — Pugh Chart (everyone must create their OWN page)
Instruction: You must create this page yourself as well. Below is a Pugh chart you can reproduce. Our datum (baseline) is Sketch #1, the Body-powered Mechanical Hook (because it is often low-cost and a common baseline).
Label at top: “Pugh Chart — Datum = #1 Body-powered Hook”
Columns: Criteria | Datum (1) | #1 Hook (Datum) | #2 3D-Printed Myo | #3 Soft Glove | #4 Cosmetic/Insert | #5 Hybrid (optional for notes)
(We will compare #2, #3, #4, and #5 against datum #1; you need at least four ideas — here we use #1–#4 as required. You can also include #5 in your discussion as the combined idea.)
Pugh table (use + = better than datum, 0 = same, - = worse). I recommend you draw a table; below is filled example:
Criteria (why it matters) | Datum #1 (Hook) | #2 Myoelectric | #3 Soft Glove | #4 Cosmetic | Notes / #5 Hybrid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (low cost is better) | 0 (baseline) | - | - | 0 | Slightly worse than #1 (modular parts)
Weight (lighter better) | 0 | - | + | + | ~0 to +
Durability / Maintenance | 0 | - | - | + | + (modular serviceability)
Functional dexterity (grip types) | 0 | + | - | - | ++ (myo + thumb)
Control intuitiveness | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + (myo w/ manual backup)
Aesthetics/appearance | 0 | + | 0 | + | +
Adaptability / modularity | 0 | + | 0 | + | ++
Battery dependency (less is better)| 0 | - | - | + | 0 (backup reduces risk)
Overall score (+ counts, - subtracts) | Datum = 0 | (+4, -4 =0) | (+1, -4 = -3) | (+3, -0 = +3) | (+6, -2 = +4 approximate)
Notes on how values were chosen:
- #2 Myoelectric: + for function, control, aesthetics, modularity; - for cost, weight, durability (electronics).
- #3 Soft Glove: + for weight and comfort, - for function and durability (punctures, force).
- #4 Cosmetic: + for weight, durability, appearance, low battery issues; - for function.
- #5 Hybrid: expected to get highest functional score and moderate negatives on cost/weight but wins for adaptability and reliability.
Talk-through (how to present this aloud, ~2–3 minutes):
- Explain datum choice: body-powered hook is simple, reliable, and cheap — a good baseline.
- Go row-by-row, articulating why each design is +/0/- relative to the hook.
- Emphasize trade-offs: myoelectric gives more grips and natural control but sacrifices cost/weight/durability; cosmetic wins on looks and simplicity but not on function; soft glove is comfortable but lacks gripping force.
- Sum positives and negatives for each design and state which meets the problem statement best (balance of function, comfort, durability, cost).
-------------------------
Page 7 — Your OWN Conclusion to the Pugh Chart
Write this in your own words (use this as a model; personalize it when you hand in).
Example conclusion:
Based on the Pugh chart, the pure body-powered hook (#1) remains the best for low-cost and durability tasks, but it fails on restoring dexterous grips required for everyday activities. The 3D-printed myoelectric hand (#2) scored highest for functional dexterity and user control but lost points for cost, weight and maintenance. The cosmetic option (#4) scored well for appearance and simplicity but provides poor function. The soft glove (#3) provides comfort and light weight but insufficient force for many ADLs.
The hybrid combined design (#5) best balances the needs from the problem statement: it retains the functional advantages of a myoelectric tendon-driven hand while adding soft fingertip pads for better contact and a manual cable backup for reliability if electronics fail. Although #5 increases complexity and cost somewhat, its modularity and redundancy improve real-world usability and maintenance. Therefore, the hybrid (#5) is the recommended final concept to develop further.
(Short actionable recommendation: proceed to detailed design of the hybrid, limit actuators to 3–4 independent finger groups to save weight/cost, design quick-swap modular fingers, and include a manual cable override.)
-------------------------
Page 8 — Final Detailed Design Sketch (everyone must create their own labeled detailed sketch)
Label: “Final Design — Modular Hybrid Myoelectric Prosthetic Hand (YourName)”
Drawing instructions — include front, side, and exploded-view small diagram:
- Socket / cuff:
- Labeled: epithelial liner, adjustable straps, EMG sensor pads (2–4), quick-release socket adapter.
- Dimensions note: socket length ~ 12–18 cm depending on residual limb; allow 1–2 cm clearance for liner.
- Forearm housing:
- Labeled: Li-ion battery pack (specify e.g., 7.4V, 1500–2000 mAh), microcontroller/EMG amplifier board, motor controllers, charging port, vent holes.
- Mounting: printed shell with rubber gasket, quick access panel.
- Wrist module:
- Labeled: quick-release wrist rotational joint, clutch for manual override, torque spec note (e.g., 2–4 Nm depending on motor).
- Hand / fingers:
- Labeled: 3D-printed phalanges, tendon routing channels, tendon anchor points at motors in palm, silicone fingertip pads with textured surface.
- Thumb: opposable hinge, one dedicated actuator for opposition (provides pinch and power grip).
- Actuation: recommend 3 brushless/servo motors or 3 micro DC gearmotors — index+middle together, ring+little possible passive or linked, plus thumb separately (total 2–3 actuators).
- Manual backup:
- Labeled: cable anchor and small manual pulley accessible on cuff; clearly mark how to engage (pull knob to lock motors and operate cable).
- Electronics & controls:
- Labeled: EMG electrodes to amplifier, microcontroller (e.g., Arduino-compatible board or dedicated prosthetic controller), motor drivers, H-bridges as needed.
- Safety: include motor stall detection and clutch to prevent pinch injury, overcurrent/thermal protection, fail-safe open/close.
- Materials & fasteners:
- Labeled: 3D printed PETG or nylon for structural parts, stainless steel tendon cables, silicone tips, aluminum wrist joint, Velcro and neoprene for straps.
- Dimensions & weight targets:
- Target overall mass: 300–600 g (excluding socket) depending on battery size.
- Battery life target: 6–12 hours light use, smaller battery option for lighter weight.
- Assembly notes:
- Quick-swap palm plate and finger modules for easy maintenance.
- Use standardized screw sizes (M2–M3) for finger joints, sealed bearings at wrist.
What to hand in / submit to Mrs. Walder
- Create a single document (PDF or Word) with:
- Page 1: Sketch #1 (labeled)
- Page 2: Sketch #2 (labeled)
- Page 3: Sketch #3 (labeled)
- Page 4: Sketch #4 (labeled)
- Page 5: Sketch #5 (combined) — if required by your group
- Page 6: Pugh chart page (your own)
- Page 7: Your conclusion (your own)
- Page 8: Your final detailed design sketch (labeled)
- Ensure each sketch is on its own page with a clear title and brief bullet description below the drawing.
- If your teacher specifically requires “everyone” to create their own sketches, make sure each group member creates their own Page 8; combine all members’ Page 8s into one document.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a printable PDF layout of the pages above (simple black-and-white sketches and tables) that you can print or submit.
- Or convert the Pugh chart to a different datum or different criteria based on a teacher-provided problem statement.
Which would you like next?
Problem statement assumed (so criteria are sensible):
Design an affordable, comfortable, durable prosthetic hand that restores useful grasps for everyday tasks, is relatively lightweight, easy to control by the user, and simple to maintain/repair.
-------------------------
Page 1 — Sketch #1: Body-powered Mechanical Hook
Label at top: “Sketch #1 — Body-powered Mechanical Hook (Datum option)”
Quick drawing instructions (make a clear side/front view):
- Outline a forearm cuff/socket that straps to residual limb.
- Cable routed from shoulder or harness down to a wrist hinge.
- Simple two-prong hook or three-finger gripper at wrist, attached via mechanical linkage.
- Show wrist hinge, cable anchor, and adjustment turnbuckle.
Short description (bulleted):
- Control: Body-powered (shoulder/elbow motion pulls cable).
- Pros: Low cost, very durable, low maintenance, light.
- Cons: Limited dexterity (pinch/grasp only), harness may be uncomfortable, not very cosmetic.
Materials & notes:
- Steel/aluminum hook components, nylon-coated steel cable, padded socket.
- Good for heavy duty / low tech environments.
-------------------------
Page 2 — Sketch #2: 3D-Printed Myoelectric Multi-finger Hand
Label: “Sketch #2 — 3D-Printed Myoelectric Hand”
Drawing instructions:
- Show socket with EMG sensor pads located on residual limb area.
- Forearm housing containing Li-ion battery and microcontroller (side view).
- Hand with five fingers, linked by tendon cables to small DC motors in palm/back of wrist.
- Indicate wiring from EMG sensors to controller, and motor positions.
Short description:
- Control: Myoelectric (surface EMG sensors interpret muscle signals).
- Pros: Multiple grip patterns (tripod, lateral, power), more natural look, decent function for ADLs.
- Cons: Higher cost, heavier than body-powered, battery dependence, more maintenance/repair complexity.
Materials & notes:
- PLA/ABS or carbon-fiber-reinforced 3D print for structural parts, silicone fingertips, micro-servos or brushless motors with gearboxes.
-------------------------
Page 3 — Sketch #3: Soft Robotic Glove (Pneumatic/Elastic Assist)
Label: “Sketch #3 — Soft Robotic Glove”
Drawing instructions:
- Draw a forearm cuff with a small air pump or mechanical actuator module.
- Show a glove made from soft silicone or fabric channels along each finger (inflatable).
- Indicate pressure lines/tubing from pump to finger chambers, and valve pack.
Short description:
- Control: Simple switches or myoelectric trigger opens/closes glove; glove actuates by inflating finger chambers to curl fingers.
- Pros: Lightweight, comfortable, good for gently conforming grip (fragile objects), more comfortable for sensitive skin.
- Cons: Limited force, pneumatic system requires pump/battery, less precise individual finger control, durability concerns (puncture risk).
Materials & notes:
- Silicone finger actuators, small diaphragm pump, soft liners for socket.
-------------------------
Page 4 — Sketch #4: Cosmetic Passive Hand with Quick-Change Mechanical Insert
Label: “Sketch #4 — Passive Cosmetic Hand with Interchangeable Gripper Insert”
Drawing instructions:
- Draw a natural-looking hand shell over a modular internal frame.
- Show quick-release plate on palm underside where different inserts clip (cosmetic shell removed to show insert).
- Insert examples: molded lightweight foam for appearance; small mechanical gripper insert for light tasks.
Short description:
- Control: Passive (no active control). The optional insert can be a simple mechanical clamp engaged manually.
- Pros: Very lightweight, very cosmetic, low-cost, low maintenance.
- Cons: No active grasping unless you change insert; limited function for ADLs.
-------------------------
Page 5 — Sketch #5: Combined / New Idea — Modular Hybrid: 3D-printed Myoelectric + Soft Fingertips + Cable Backup
Label: “Sketch #5 — Combined Hybrid (new group idea)”
Drawing instructions:
- Show a socket with two EMG sensors + quick disconnect mechanical cable anchor.
- Forearm housing with battery, microcontroller, and small pump (or compressed air cell) omitted in favor of cable backup.
- Hand: 3D-printed skeleton with tendon-driven fingers, soft silicone fingertip pads, thumb on an opposable hinge.
- Include a small manual cable actuator/override (body-powered fallback) that can mechanically curl fingers if electronics fail.
- Annotate: modular palm plate for swapping motors or replacement fingers.
Short description:
- Control: Primary myoelectric for dexterous control; fallback manual cable system for emergencies.
- Pros: Balances functionality, durability, and maintenance (modularity). Soft pads increase grip on fragile items. Cable backup increases reliability.
- Cons: More complex than simple designs; moderate cost.
-------------------------
Group brainstorming summary (talk-through / 10+ min content)
Use these prompts to spend 10+ minutes with your group:
- Start by having each person present their 3 sketches (if the group members each did their own 3). For our single-person template, present sketches #1–#3 and the combined #5.
- Discuss key priorities from problem statement: cost, weight, durability, number and type of grips needed, control ease, appearance.
- Compare where each design meets priorities: e.g., #1 best for cost/durability, #3 best for comfort/weight, #2 best for dexterity.
- Trade-offs: myoelectric (#2) gives dexterity but increases cost/weight. Soft glove (#3) is comfy but weaker. Body-powered (#1) is reliable but not dexterous. Cosmetic (#4) gives appearance but low function.
- If combining ideas: justify why hybrid (#5) improves balance — it keeps myoelectric dexterity but adds soft contact pads and a manual cable backup for reliability.
- Confirm combined idea and make Sketch #5 as the final new idea for the group.
(Spend a full 10 minutes: 2–3 minutes presenting each sketch, 3–4 minutes discussing tradeoffs, 2–3 minutes agreeing on combined concept and making notes/sketch.)
-------------------------
Page 6 — Pugh Chart (everyone must create their OWN page)
Instruction: You must create this page yourself as well. Below is a Pugh chart you can reproduce. Our datum (baseline) is Sketch #1, the Body-powered Mechanical Hook (because it is often low-cost and a common baseline).
Label at top: “Pugh Chart — Datum = #1 Body-powered Hook”
Columns: Criteria | Datum (1) | #1 Hook (Datum) | #2 3D-Printed Myo | #3 Soft Glove | #4 Cosmetic/Insert | #5 Hybrid (optional for notes)
(We will compare #2, #3, #4, and #5 against datum #1; you need at least four ideas — here we use #1–#4 as required. You can also include #5 in your discussion as the combined idea.)
Pugh table (use + = better than datum, 0 = same, - = worse). I recommend you draw a table; below is filled example:
Criteria (why it matters) | Datum #1 (Hook) | #2 Myoelectric | #3 Soft Glove | #4 Cosmetic | Notes / #5 Hybrid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (low cost is better) | 0 (baseline) | - | - | 0 | Slightly worse than #1 (modular parts)
Weight (lighter better) | 0 | - | + | + | ~0 to +
Durability / Maintenance | 0 | - | - | + | + (modular serviceability)
Functional dexterity (grip types) | 0 | + | - | - | ++ (myo + thumb)
Control intuitiveness | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + (myo w/ manual backup)
Aesthetics/appearance | 0 | + | 0 | + | +
Adaptability / modularity | 0 | + | 0 | + | ++
Battery dependency (less is better)| 0 | - | - | + | 0 (backup reduces risk)
Overall score (+ counts, - subtracts) | Datum = 0 | (+4, -4 =0) | (+1, -4 = -3) | (+3, -0 = +3) | (+6, -2 = +4 approximate)
Notes on how values were chosen:
- #2 Myoelectric: + for function, control, aesthetics, modularity; - for cost, weight, durability (electronics).
- #3 Soft Glove: + for weight and comfort, - for function and durability (punctures, force).
- #4 Cosmetic: + for weight, durability, appearance, low battery issues; - for function.
- #5 Hybrid: expected to get highest functional score and moderate negatives on cost/weight but wins for adaptability and reliability.
Talk-through (how to present this aloud, ~2–3 minutes):
- Explain datum choice: body-powered hook is simple, reliable, and cheap — a good baseline.
- Go row-by-row, articulating why each design is +/0/- relative to the hook.
- Emphasize trade-offs: myoelectric gives more grips and natural control but sacrifices cost/weight/durability; cosmetic wins on looks and simplicity but not on function; soft glove is comfortable but lacks gripping force.
- Sum positives and negatives for each design and state which meets the problem statement best (balance of function, comfort, durability, cost).
-------------------------
Page 7 — Your OWN Conclusion to the Pugh Chart
Write this in your own words (use this as a model; personalize it when you hand in).
Example conclusion:
Based on the Pugh chart, the pure body-powered hook (#1) remains the best for low-cost and durability tasks, but it fails on restoring dexterous grips required for everyday activities. The 3D-printed myoelectric hand (#2) scored highest for functional dexterity and user control but lost points for cost, weight and maintenance. The cosmetic option (#4) scored well for appearance and simplicity but provides poor function. The soft glove (#3) provides comfort and light weight but insufficient force for many ADLs.
The hybrid combined design (#5) best balances the needs from the problem statement: it retains the functional advantages of a myoelectric tendon-driven hand while adding soft fingertip pads for better contact and a manual cable backup for reliability if electronics fail. Although #5 increases complexity and cost somewhat, its modularity and redundancy improve real-world usability and maintenance. Therefore, the hybrid (#5) is the recommended final concept to develop further.
(Short actionable recommendation: proceed to detailed design of the hybrid, limit actuators to 3–4 independent finger groups to save weight/cost, design quick-swap modular fingers, and include a manual cable override.)
-------------------------
Page 8 — Final Detailed Design Sketch (everyone must create their own labeled detailed sketch)
Label: “Final Design — Modular Hybrid Myoelectric Prosthetic Hand (YourName)”
Drawing instructions — include front, side, and exploded-view small diagram:
- Socket / cuff:
- Labeled: epithelial liner, adjustable straps, EMG sensor pads (2–4), quick-release socket adapter.
- Dimensions note: socket length ~ 12–18 cm depending on residual limb; allow 1–2 cm clearance for liner.
- Forearm housing:
- Labeled: Li-ion battery pack (specify e.g., 7.4V, 1500–2000 mAh), microcontroller/EMG amplifier board, motor controllers, charging port, vent holes.
- Mounting: printed shell with rubber gasket, quick access panel.
- Wrist module:
- Labeled: quick-release wrist rotational joint, clutch for manual override, torque spec note (e.g., 2–4 Nm depending on motor).
- Hand / fingers:
- Labeled: 3D-printed phalanges, tendon routing channels, tendon anchor points at motors in palm, silicone fingertip pads with textured surface.
- Thumb: opposable hinge, one dedicated actuator for opposition (provides pinch and power grip).
- Actuation: recommend 3 brushless/servo motors or 3 micro DC gearmotors — index+middle together, ring+little possible passive or linked, plus thumb separately (total 2–3 actuators).
- Manual backup:
- Labeled: cable anchor and small manual pulley accessible on cuff; clearly mark how to engage (pull knob to lock motors and operate cable).
- Electronics & controls:
- Labeled: EMG electrodes to amplifier, microcontroller (e.g., Arduino-compatible board or dedicated prosthetic controller), motor drivers, H-bridges as needed.
- Safety: include motor stall detection and clutch to prevent pinch injury, overcurrent/thermal protection, fail-safe open/close.
- Materials & fasteners:
- Labeled: 3D printed PETG or nylon for structural parts, stainless steel tendon cables, silicone tips, aluminum wrist joint, Velcro and neoprene for straps.
- Dimensions & weight targets:
- Target overall mass: 300–600 g (excluding socket) depending on battery size.
- Battery life target: 6–12 hours light use, smaller battery option for lighter weight.
- Assembly notes:
- Quick-swap palm plate and finger modules for easy maintenance.
- Use standardized screw sizes (M2–M3) for finger joints, sealed bearings at wrist.
What to hand in / submit to Mrs. Walder
- Create a single document (PDF or Word) with:
- Page 1: Sketch #1 (labeled)
- Page 2: Sketch #2 (labeled)
- Page 3: Sketch #3 (labeled)
- Page 4: Sketch #4 (labeled)
- Page 5: Sketch #5 (combined) — if required by your group
- Page 6: Pugh chart page (your own)
- Page 7: Your conclusion (your own)
- Page 8: Your final detailed design sketch (labeled)
- Ensure each sketch is on its own page with a clear title and brief bullet description below the drawing.
- If your teacher specifically requires “everyone” to create their own sketches, make sure each group member creates their own Page 8; combine all members’ Page 8s into one document.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a printable PDF layout of the pages above (simple black-and-white sketches and tables) that you can print or submit.
- Or convert the Pugh chart to a different datum or different criteria based on a teacher-provided problem statement.
Which would you like next?
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.