Clearly, the final jump test results were disappointing. This was due to several unforeseen circumstances. Firstly, the 7.4V batteries used to power the motor drained out over the weekend prior to testing day. Attempts to charge it on the day itself proved unfruitful, with an added problem of soldered points shearing off. Spare batteries were used and quickly re-soldered on, however, we found that in our multiple test jump attempts, the PVC gear had worn out, causing poor torque transmission. The motor also sheared off in the process of soldering and had to be re-adhered.
Finally, we observed unsymmetrical compression of the springs during the test due to the motor being glued back in a hurry. This coupled with the fact that the MATLAB model we assumed no longer applies due to unplanned weight additions contributed to this error. Furthermore the original foot design had to be changed due to manufacturing defects which caused a 74% elongation in the maximum dimension. The budget could have been met by bulk ordering components. Overall, a design which features redundant systems could have been used to prevent a “single point of failure”.
Finally, we observed unsymmetrical compression of the springs during the test due to the motor being glued back in a hurry. This coupled with the fact that the MATLAB model we assumed no longer applies due to unplanned weight additions contributed to this error. Furthermore the original foot design had to be changed due to manufacturing defects which caused a 74% elongation in the maximum dimension. The budget could have been met by bulk ordering components. Overall, a design which features redundant systems could have been used to prevent a “single point of failure”.