The Great (Mini) Robot Race

Posted on September 6, 2016 by Steve Temple

Robotics – The Synthesis Project

The final project of the two year academy program requires that the students design, fabricate, program and test an autonomous robot. We have been doing this project since the inception of the program, but this year we have made some significant improvements on the project. In this post I will explain the project, and highlight those improvements.

This project is an extremely challenging task that requires successfully completing several “sub-projects”. We tell the students at the beginning of the school year, that this project is more difficult than any of the other projects – by a long shot!

“If you haven’t done everything, then you haven’t done a thing.” – Red Whittaker

We completely changed our robot competition parameters this year. In previous years we had the students design sumo wrestling battle bots. Although this was a fun project, we started to notice that some robots performed really well without really having to “think”. These robots generally lumbered around the ring, sometimes without even actually “seeing” their opponents. Through pure luck they just managed to push their lighter opponents out of the ring. We decided that we needed to change the project in order to force teams to be smarter and we also wanted to get away from a robot competition that seemed to focus on aggressive battle.

Ironically, I suppose, our robot project changes were inspired by the classic Nova film that documented the DARPA challenge known as the Great Robot Race. In this race, the autonomous vehicles raced through the Mohave dessert on a course that was revealed to the competitors only hours before the beginning of the race.

Bob set about building an impressive “maze” for the robots to navigate. The robots had to make their way through a series of 90 degree turns defined by a series of connecting corridors with vertical walls about 20 cm tall. The robots were then given two attempts to make it through the course as fast as they could.

The Brains and Braun

When we first started this project about twelve years ago, we first used a Java based board that we liked, but it was really expensive and we didn’t really need much of the hardware and software features that it offered. About eight years ago, the Arduino board was taking the Maker community by storm and we decided to hop on the Arduino bandwagon, and we have been very happy ever since. The simplicity, online community, the plethora of code examples and tutorials as well as the price have been key points in why we have decided to keep using the Arduino. This year we decided to incorporate DC motors from Sparkfun and Adafruit’s motor shield. The combination allowed the students more flexibility regarding drive train design, and also allowed for some interesting discussions around the advantages and disadvantages of servos vs dc motors. Our only complaint with the shield would be that it would be nice to have the headers pre soldered!

Designing The Circuitry

One of the major additions to the project was to require that students design and fabricate the circuitry for their robots. We did this by introducing two new skills to the project. Students had to learn how to use a printed circuit board (PCB) design software known as Fritzing, and then they had to learn how to fabricate their PCB boards using a CNC mill.

There are a number of amazing PCB design tools out there – and many are free! They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Here is what we found out as we did our research to find the right tool.

Autodesk’s Circuits is great because its web based, super easy to use and has an amazing feature where you can actually simulate the circuit. You can add a virtual voltmeter of ammeter to your virtual circuit and then with a push of a button, you can get virtual readings on the meters. I found this tool to be amazing for teaching circuitry and I allowed the students to use it as a “key” for their worksheets. It also has the ability to simulate an Arduino too! You can add an Arduino to your project, connect up LED’s, servos, etc. and actually see them light up or rotate as you change the code. It is a bit limited in that it doesn’t support most added libraries, but it is still amazing. We eventually decided not to use it for PCB design because it is unfortunately a bit clunky and doesn’t allow for much customization of the board.

Eagle is of course one of the most advanced and feature rich PCB design tools out there. It is also very complicated. IT of course offers the largest toolset, complete control of the design process and the free version is as close to a professional tool as one could hope for. The problem is that all these features come at a price – complexity. If we had an entire year to spend on this project, I might have decided to go with this tool, but we needed something that the students could learn quickly and weren’t going to get frustrated with…

Fritzing is a free, open source “beta” software that is very similar in look and feel to Autodesk’s Circuits – in fact I think Autodesk’s product must have been inspired by Fritzing? Although Fritzing lacks the amazing simulation tools that Autodesk Circuits has, it does offer a much better PCB design environment. The options that are available for editing the component foot prints, the PCB attributes, etc. make it really nice to work without making the tool too complex. This is the tool we decided to teach and use in class, and the students liked it.

Fabricating The Circuitry

Back in the fall we decided to invest in a small CNC mill produced by a local company out of San Francisco named Other Machine Co. This machine, called the OtherMill has been an amazing addition to the lab. With this machine, we have been able to teach the students how to fabricate their own PCB’s. The OtherMill is not just for PCB fabrication, in fact we have used it to mill small aluminum parts as well.

This micro CNC desktop mill is super easy to setup, really easy to use and plays really nicely with Fusion 360 – our 3D CAD and CAM software. I was incredibly surprised and pleased by how easy it is to learn the operating software – known as OtherPlan. The company has a great support website full of great tutorials, and we were able to teach all the students how to use the machine in just a few days.

The PCB files generated by Fritzing (we exported them as Gerber files) worked flawlessly with the OtherMill, and within a very short period of time, all the students had designed and fabricated single sided PCB boards for their robots.

The Final Results

As with any major changes to a project, there are lessons to be learned. We realized that the task was rather complicated and many of the students did not make it as far through the course as they had hoped. It was clear however that this competition proved more interesting from the perspective of getting students to see the importance of software design. Not only did we see very different software strategies, but the variance in hardware design was surprising. They really had to think about how the hardware and software had to work together, and they had to think about optimization. This was a clear advantage of this competition over the previous year’s competitions. Students spent far more time trying to figure out how they were going to shave time off their attempts, and how they were going to adjust software and hardware to better navigate the course. From our perspective, the changes to the project proved to be fantastic, and we are looking forward to improving on the project design for this year. Some of the things that we are going to do this year is introduce some different sensors for the students (like “feelers”) and also give them a price list and budget so that they have more hardware choices.

Our Custom Designed Bridge Tester

Posted on April 11, 2016 by Steve Temple

Our Goal – Make A Better Bridge Crusher!

This year Bob and I decided to upgrade our bridge project. We wanted to create an improved device for measuring the load on the model bridges created by the students. Specifically, we wanted to design a way for the students to collect meaningful performance data.

The problem with our old method (filling a bucket with sand until the bridge catastrophically failed) was that it didn’t allow for the students to collect evidence about where and why the bridge failed. In many cases, the bridge actually experienced a significant failure, but because the bridge collapsed around the loading plate, the loading plate actually acted as a support for the bridge.

We had seen other “bridge testers” from vendors (http://www.pitsco.com/Structures_Testing_Instrument, http://kelvin.com/kelvin-bridge-material-tester-w-cpad/, http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/vsmt/) but we had the idea that perhaps we could create one that might be better, or at least it might be fun to try. In this post, we are going to share with you what we created and why we think it actually turned out really well, but we also point out some room for improvement.

The Frame

The frame of the entire device is really based on the Vernier Structures and Materials Tester. We thought this frame was probably the best, and we wanted to make our tester from extruded aluminum tubing as well. We went about designing the bridge tester in our favorite CAD program, Fusion360 by Autodesk. We sent our CAD file to the company 8020 and they precut all our t-slotted aluminum frame members to size. This was awesome because it made assembly super easy and it saved us on shipping too! Our experience with this company was amazing – they were super helpful and even gave us some really helpful advice. If you are thinking about making anything requiring t-slotted aluminum, definitely order from them.

The Load Sensors

We wanted a a bridge tester that actually gave us data that allowed us to figure out how and why the student bridges failed. That meant that we needed more data and we needed data that could be connected to the design and fabrication of the bridge. We noticed that all the vendors’ designs had only one load sensor, and some also had a way to detect overall deflection. We suspected that we could get better data if we had four independent load sensors – one for each abutment where the bridges were supported. The four sensors would (theoretically) give the students a way to analyze how the load was being distributed, and thus tell us something about the torsional behavior of the bridge.

Sparkfun load sensor

I set out to learn a bit about load sensors and I came across a fantastic tutorial at Sparkfun (https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/getting-started-with-load-cells). We ordered four load sensors (see picture above) from Sparkfun. Our design (shown below) has the four load sensors fitted with 3D printed “shoes” as the bridge abutments.

The four load cells.

Two load cells with abutments.

The sensors are mounted on custom fabricated aluminum plates that can be moved laterally to accommodate slightly different bridge widths. The load sensors had to be connected to load amplifiers that were then connected to an Arduino (more on that below). The load sensors were mounted to the frame of the bridge tester on custom laser cut plates:

Load cell amplifiers for two load cells.

The load amplifiers have to be used with the load sensors in order to amplify the signal so that the Arduino can read the data correctly.

The Loading Mechanism

Bob designed and fabricated the loading mechanism that was based on many of the designs we had seen online. It consists of a block that is free to move vertically up or down a threaded rod which is then connected to a spoked wheel.

Loading wheel.

When the wheel is turned, the block moves up or down the threaded rod. This bar is connected to a loading plate via a metal cable that hooks into the loading plate and the block:

Load plate from below – revealing loading wire attachment.

Loading wire attached to threaded block.

The loading plate is placed on the loading plane of the bridge (the “roadway”), and then the bridge is loaded by spinning the wheel, which lowers the block, which pulls the bridge downwards:

Loading plate on bridge.

Collecting The Data: The Software

The software responsible for collecting the data is made up of two programs – one that runs on the Arduino micro-controller that is connected to the load sensors, and the other is a Processing sketch that runs on a computer/laptop connected to the Arduino via USB. The code is pretty simple, and it was mostly written using code from other sources and then modified for our specific purposes.

The Arduino code just collects the data from the four load sensors and then sends the data serially as a comma delimited package. The Processing code reads the serial port and then essentially dumps the data into a csv file. It does have some flourishes like a graphical display of the individual sensor loads as well as a display of the total load and whether or not the bridge has met the minimum load requirement set in the project descriptor.

You can view and download all the code here on GitHub.

The Performance Report

When the data is displayed in a graphing program, it looks like this:

Sample bridge data

You can see that the four sensors do not read equal values, and that the bridge begins distributing the load unevenly. The blue and orange lines show that these two load sensors were equally loading and were taking on a larger load than the green and red values from the other two load sensors. Later inspection of the bridge showed that this bridge failed at the load sensors that were recording a higher load value. Also, these sensors were located diagonally from one another, and once again showed that the bridge was being twisted.

You can also see that around 80 seconds (the 800 data sample) that the bridge experienced a sudden decrease in load – this was the point of failure. The data clearly shows a point at which the bridge failed and thus gives us a clear metric for performance.

The student teams were each given the results and were asked to answer these questions:

What was the maximum load that your bridge sustained before failure?
Calculate the load to weight ratio of your bridge.
What were the individual maximum force values on each load sensor before failure?
Identify on your bridge where the bridge failed. Take a picture of this point of failure and note its location.
Based on the load data for the four sensors, describe why your bridge may have failed.
What could you have done to increase the performance of your bridge?

The data really allowed for some rich analysis and the students were able to make some really informed critiques of their design and fabrication quality. We have been very happy with the results!

Future Improvements

For version 2.0 we hope to add these improvements:

Add the ability to measure deflection. We think that this might be done by measuring the angular displacement of the loading wheel, but we aren’t sure just yet.
Some way for the software to detect a failure – perhaps a way to detect a significant decrease in the load data. It would have to allow for some downward movement of the load data because there is some settling and deforming that can occur that might not be catastrophic.
It would be nice to clean up the code – especially the Processing code. I’d like to add some fancy GUI elements too so that it is a bit more attractive.

If you would like to build your own advanced bridge tester for your classroom, we can send you all our CAD files, software files and even answer questions. Its not easy to build, but its fun, and we spent about $350 dollars on this project as opposed to the $1000 to $1300 that the vendors are selling theirs for.

Simulate, Test, Analyze: A Framework For Rigor

Posted on February 5, 2016 by Steve Temple

“Have Fun Storming The Castle!”

At the end of this fall semester, the second year students in the Academy rolled and carried their medieval mechanisms of mayhem to the SRHS track and we spent the afternoon watching the devices hurl lacrosse balls across the athletic field.This project was the final performance assessment of the semester and required that students design a gravitationally powered projectile launcher. This is an age old engineering/applied physics project.

Like many engineering projects done in high school, the physics principles governing the dynamics of the project are quite complicated, and ultimately the actual “application” of the science principles is often cursory. Students don’t have the background or mathematical abilities to to do the complex calculations needed to make an optimization adjustment to their mechanical device.This leads to the disconnection between the science content and engineering practice. Students don’t have the ability to make an informed decision about design choices. This is because it is difficult, very difficult.

Over the past few years I have been very interested in addressing this problem. This post discusses a framework that I have been working on to incorporate science into engineering projects. I think this framework allows high school students to engage in difficult scientific analysis without overwhelming them.

A Framework For Rigor

I won’t claim that this is a perfect solution, but so far I think we have experienced some success in creating a tighter relationship between science and engineering. Last December I helped conduct a workshop at the NCCPA Professional Development Conference in Petaluma, CA. The name of the workshop was “NGSS, Prediction Reports and Your Science Class” and the point of this workshop was to give the attendees a framework for incorporating the Engineering standards into the science curriculum. My co-presenter (Vipul Gupta) and I focused on the creation of prediction reports using computer simulations as a way to address two very important standards in the NGSS framework:

Using Simulations with Informed Input

Computer simulations are very popular in the educational space. They give teachers and students a virtual space where students can interact with virtual lab equipment or virtual objects that behave similarly to physical objects in the real world. With that said, they can fail to address students misconceptions because they do not always succeed in linking a conceptual model to the physical behavior. I also believe that the best simulations are ones that output data that can be analyzed with other scientific/mathematical tools. I also think that a good simulation requires that students provide meaningful input that gives them opportunities for analyzing the relationship between the input and the output.

Simulations used in engineering projects can be extremely helpful in addressing one of the main problems in engineering education. Students often design and build mechanical devices without understanding the physical principles that govern the design. The design process becomes an exercise in trial and error, or simply is reduced to copying a design from the internet.

To do a predictive analysis of a rocket’s flight, or a bridge’s structural performance is extremely difficult and often requires advanced mathematics and physics. Simulations can give the students the ability to analyze their designs and understand how changing the design inputs affects the output. Once again, it is important to find a simulation that requires students to understand the inputs and outputs.

Virtual Trebuchet

For example, in our project, students were introduced to an online Trebuchet simulation tool. This simulation tool is great because it requires that the student learn how to measure and calculate certain inputs. The students must have a working knowledge of rotational inertia, center of mass, and other concepts before they use the simulation. This was ideal for our project because it gave students a relevance and motivation . They had learn about these concepts in order to actually use the simulation. The students could then change certain inputs and see how that would change the efficiency of the design, or the range of the projectile. The point is that they needed physics knowledge in order to use the tool. They might not have the ability to know how the simulation eventually calculated the output, but they knew that the simulation required an understanding of the inputs.

Example Report

The Prediction Report

The next step is to ask the students to prepare a prediction report. This report is designed to get students to demonstrate their understanding of the inputs, display evidence of the required calculations or measurements needed to create the inputs and then analyze the simulation outputs. In the report for this project, I asked students to show a set of calculations and measurements for determining the center of mass of their throwing arm and the rotational inertia (moment of inertia). Students also had to provide similar information for the counterweight. The students then had to run the simulation and document the outputs from the simulation.

The Test: Data is Needed

The next step is to test the device. To make this step more rigorous and to be able to relate the scientific analytical process to the engineering process, it is crucial for the students to collect data that can be used to analyze the performance of their device/product and then reflect on how they would improve their design.

For this project, we decided to use high-speed video and Vernier’s LoggerPro video analysis software to plot the position of the projectile as it was launched from the device.

The Analysis

The analysis is actually broken into two parts. The first part requires a collection of calculations while the second part uses those calculations to make some qualitative assessments.

For example, in the above project, students had to use the collected position data from the video analysis tool to calculate the kinetic energy of the projectile and then the efficiency of the device. They had to be proficient at the analytical tool, which in itself requires physics content knowledge, providing once again an opportunity to apply scientific models in the analysis portion of this engineering project.

I have included the instructions for the analysis report here: Projectile Launcher Analysis Report.

Finally, students are given the opportunity to use the information gathered in the analysis report to reflect on their design, and more importantly use the information to inform how they would improve on a future design. I have included below the set of questions that I asked my students:

Compare the efficiency calculation of the simulation to the efficiency rating that you calculated for your actual performance. Please describe why you think these values are not the same.
Consider the design of your trigger. What design and fabrication decisions would you change in order to improve your trigger, AND explain WHY you would make those changes.
Consider the design of your sling. What design and fabrication decisions would you change in order to improve your sling, AND explain WHY you would make those changes.
Consider the design of your release mechanism (called the nose). What design and fabrication decisions would you change in order to improve this mechanism, AND explain WHY you would make those changes.
Consider the design of your arm. What design and fabrication decisions would you change in order to improve your arm, AND explain WHY you would make those changes.
Consider the design of all other components and the overall design. What design and fabrication decisions would you change in order to improve your device (other than the trigger, sling and arm), AND explain WHY you would make those changes.

Conclusion

The overall design of this framework can be boiled down to this:

Engage students in a computer simulation that simplifies the process of modeling and analyzing a complex physical/chemical/biological process, but be sure that the simulation requires some conceptual and computational thinking.
When testing the performance of the design (bridge, rocket, etc.) make sure that the students are required to collect data that can be analyzed and that once again demands that they apply their theoretical models.
Design an assessment that uses the analysis and gives the students an opportunity to make informed judgements of their designs for the purpose of redesign.

Building The Central Force Model

Posted on August 30, 2015 by Steve Temple

From Lines To Angles, and Particles To Rigid Bodies

We dove straight into circular motion with the 2nd year students this past week. The primary focus of last year was linear dynamics and although we did study objects that moved along curved paths (projectiles), we were still looking at two-dimensional motion as being composed of two component motions along straight lines.

In the second year program, a good part of the first semester is dedicated to looking at objects that rotate around a central axis. There are two major shifts that will be introduced. The first is the introduction of an entirely new coordinate system – polar coordinates. The students spent most of last year learning about two dimensional vectors in Euclidean space, but this year, we will see that for objects traveling in various curved paths, a polar coordinate space can actually be much easier work with. The other shift will introduce students to collections of particles composed into continuous rigid bodies. This requires some significant changes in how the students view an object’s orientation in space and how an object’s mass is distributed. No longer can we assume that the object’s mass is located at a single point in space. In both cases, we are adding to the complexity of our conception of the universe by adding new representations of both space and the objects that inhabit that space.

Observing Circular Motion

In the modeling pedagogy, a new concept or collection of concepts is introduced using a paradigm lab. These labs are meant to introduce students to a new phenomenon and to be the launching off point of the actual building of a conceptual model.

Using the video analysis and vector visualization tools of LoggerPro, I had the students track the motion of a Styrofoam “puck” that was placed on our air hockey table (yes, we actually have an air hockey table that was donated to the school!) but was also attached to a thin thread to a fixed point on the table. The students used the video to track the motion of the puck as it essentially traveled in a circular path.

Although the lab is a bit tricky to set up, the ability to not only track the position of the object in two dimensions, but also the ability to attach velocity and acceleration vectors to the object is really helpful in engaging students in a great conversation around why the acceleration vector points to the inside of the circle. It also allows us to discover a whole new set of mathematical functions for describing motion. After tracking the position of the puck, we are ready for a class white board discussion.

The Graph Matching Mistake Game

I ask the students to draw the motion map of the puck’s motion in two dimensions including the velocity and acceleration vectors. I then ask them to include the graphs created by LoggerPro. LoggerPro produces a really interesting position vs. time graph in both the x and y dimensions. At this point the class knows the drill, and they use the mathematical function matching tool in LoggerPro to match the graph. I ask the students to include on their whiteboards the function that they think best fits the plotted data. This is where it gets really interesting.

Notice in the above photo that the students used a polynomial function. I then ask the students to use Desmos to plot their graphs. Then I ask them to zoom out on the graph.

This is where they discover how this function can’t explain the position vs time data for an object that continually repeats the same path. Some of the students in the class recognize that the data is better explained using a sine function. Because not all the students have been introduced to this function, it presents an opportunity for some students to teach the other students about how these functions work.

I allow the students to explore the sine function in Desmos, asking them to change the coefficients of the function in order to discover how these coefficients affect the graph.

The next step is to investigate more thoroughly the relationship between the acceleration and the velocity, as well as introduce the benefits of using polar coordinates to describe how an object’s position changes when you are dealing with an object that is traveling in a circular path. Desmos has the ability to change the graph type from the x,y coordinate plate to a polar representation. We discuss the difficulty of representing an object’s circular path using x(t) and y(t) functions as opposed to r(t) and theta(t) because r(t) is just a constant.

Next up, trying to answer the question: “If it’s accelerating inward, then why isn’t it speeding up towards the inside of the circle?!” Once again, the difficult concept of inertia…

3D Printing and STEM Education

Posted on June 20, 2015 by Steve Temple

As the Maker Movement spreads into the halls of nearly every school across the country, and with it the technologies that tend to be synonymous with that movement, I thought it might be useful for me to write a reflection about how we have used 3D printing in our program and some of the things that others might want to consider when thinking about investing in 3D printing for their school.

What is 3D Printing?

A 3D printer is any device that uses additive fabrication to essentially create some three dimensional object by building that object layer by layer. Currently the most popular way to do this in the educational sphere (because it is the least expensive) is to build the models by extruding melted plastic – similar to having a very precise hot glue gun. This has been the technology that we have used for the past five or six years in the Academy. Recently there has been an explosion in new inexpensive models coming to market that use light to harden photosensitive liquid polymers. These technologies (known as stereolithography and digital light processing – DLP) use a focused light source or laser to harden the liquid layer by layer. The finished model in most cases is made of some kind of plastic – ABS, PLA, etc. Although the technology is moving forward with other materials, any kind of printer that would be used in a classroom environment is going to make plastic models.

Whatever the process of the 3D printer, these technologies are different from subtractive manufacturing which starts with a “chunk of stuff” and then carves the material away, leaving the 3D model. These always require some kind of cutting instrument like a hardened metal drill bit, or even possibly a laser or high pressure water jet. These methods are still preferred for the actual manufacturing of things like airplane parts, high precision medical instruments and all sorts of other machinery because these methods are highly precise and can be used to create parts from almost any material – metal, stone, plastic, etc. There are two issues with subtractive manufacturing though. The machinery is generally very expensive and learning how to use it properly is quite challenging.

If you would like to learn more about 3D printing in general, I suggest this great website:

http://3dprintingindustry.com/3d-printing-basics-free-beginners-guide/processes/

Our Printers

We currently have three operational 3D printers and one new DLP printer that we are currently assembling. The first 3D printer that we purchased was a Stratasys uPrint:

This printer has served us very well. It builds very precise models using really solid ABS plastic. Its precision comes at a cost though – it is quite slow. OK, its really slow! A nose cone for a rocket can take upwards of six hours to build! The other drawback of this printer is the cost and availability of build/support material. We just bought a complete restock of material and it cost us nearly $1700! Keep in mind that this should last us about six years to eight years.

The other two models that we have are the ubiquitous MakerBot Replicator 2’s. These are much simpler to operate (when they aren’t clogged) and they are much faster. They are also much less expensive. The uPrint cost us about $20,000 dollars including the rinse tank, while each MakerBot Replicator 2 cost us about $2200. Actually one of the MakerBots was part of a DonorsChoose/Autodesk program that cost us nothing (thank you donors and Autodesk!). The material for these machines is much cheaper – about $90 to $50 dollars per spool, as opposed to about $200+ per spool for the uPrint. The drawbacks of these machines is that they need constant maintenance, manual calibration, and the models that they build are not as accurate nor as precise.

We recently were very honored to be the recipients of a new 3D printer, donated by our high school’s parent organization – WeAreSR. Although we haven’t yet been able to use our new 3D printer from Kudo3D, we are excited by its potential. This DLP printer is said to have a much higher resolution, a much faster build speed, and a very large build volume. We will be posting an update once we get it running – which should be soon!

Rapid Prototyping = Rapid Learning

The really rewarding educational aspect of 3D printing, from a teacher’s perspective, is the acceleration of the learning cycle. Students can quickly identify weaknesses in their designs because they can have a part in their hands in literally hours, then make adjustments and have a new version fabricated, sometimes in a single class period. This would be nearly impossible ten years ago.

Now some might argue that it relieves students from the importance of having to think more carefully about their work, but I think this is outweighed by the advantage of allowing students to more quickly assess their spatial reasoning, and as long as we teachers force the students to also reflect on why their design failed or needed revision, then I think ultimately the students will learn more quickly.

This does not mean that we always allow the students to print whatever they want. We do act as “gatekeepers” to the printers so that we aren’t wasting student time, our time and resources. The models must pass a few minimal requirements, such as double checking dimensions, seeing if the model could be made more efficiently as multiple parts, etc.

3D Printing = 3D Spacial Problem Solving

The 3D printers have acted as a great arena for students to learn and develop their 3D spatial problem solving skills. To be clear, its actually the combination of 3D CAD software used to design the models and 3D printing to create the actualized models that helps students visualize, navigate and anticipate interesting three dimensional problems. Generally, the printers are used to create parts that are then used in more complex assemblies. The interface of these parts is where we see students encountering and having to solve complex spatial puzzles.

One of the things that I have witnessed is the advancing complexities of student designs as they become more familiar with the software and also develop their ability to mentally construct the spatial relationships between assembly components. At some point, I’d like to document this process and perhaps develop an assessment tool for measuring the development of these cognitive skills.

The Limitations (Not Star Trek Yet…)

The really amazing aspect of 3D printing is the ability to create real objects from imaginary ones with an almost perfect translation. I do think that it is important to realize that there are some limitations and also some things to consider before you run out and buy one of these things. Here are few things to consider:

All Those Plastic Things

One of my biggest complaints to the 3D printing industry is the lack of any clear and clean way to take 3D printed models that were unsuccessful and break them down back into raw materials for use in the printer. At the end of the school year, we have a fairly large bin of unwanted models that we collect for recycling. Some of the models are indeed recyclable while others are not depending on the material used. I think the manufacturers need to come up with a clear “cradle to cradle” solution for their printers that allow users to throw their models back into the machine to be re-extruded. It is theoretically possible and at least one company is offering a product called the Fillabot for addressing this issue.

Its Not That “Rapid”

Now, in relative terms when compared to milling, 3D printing is pretty fast, but it is actually slow in the context of the classroom. Even though its called rapid prototyping, it can seem really slow for some folks who are new to the world of manufacturing prototypes. You see, in the past, modelers would make a prototype out of clay, create a mold, cast the mold, make refinements, etc. Or one would calibrate and setup the CNC mill, have to change out bits, run test cuts, etc. In this context, 3D printing seems rapid. But its still not Star Trek.

The time can vary significantly based on the type of the printer, the complexity of the design, and the size of the model. This can be really frustrating for some teachers who want to be able to print an entire class’ models and have them ready for the next class period – that won’t happen. It can take hours to print just one model. You have to design your course in a way that allows the students to work on parallel tasks and then you need to have some way of keeping track of the printing queue.

It Won’t Make Everything

These machines are amazing, and we really love our array of 3D Printers, but experience has taught us that there are limitations to what they can make. Because all of these printers essentially work with liquified plastic, there are limits to the geometry of what you can build. As the models are built, they can “sag” or deform under their own weight. This can lead to small deformities, or catastrophic failures. Calibration can also be an issue with some of the less expensive or older printers. If the build plate is not properly leveled and calibrated, the entire build process can fail. Models with significant “overhang” can collapse, ruining the model.

Different printers deal with this slightly differently. Our MakerBots, for example, add “supports” to the model. These are little posts that act to hold up arching forms. The problem with this is that these posts then need to be removed from the model, and we have found this to be less than ideal. It adds extra time to the process because you have to do some post finishing work which can include filing and some sanding. Our uPrint actually adds a soluble support to the model that can be removed using a mild (but still toxic) solution. Again, this post processing adds a significant amount of time to the entire fabrication process.

Size is also a limitation. Don’t think for a minute that just because the build plate is 8 inches by 6 inches, that you can build a model with that footprint. You can’t. Once again, because you are dealing with liquified plastic that cools, it also shrinks. The larger the volume of the model, the greater the chance that the model will curl, buckle, and deform. Read the fine print from the manufacturer to get the real build size limit.

Easier, But Not Easy

The last point we want to make is that working with a 3D printing is certainly easier than running a 5 axis CNC mill, but they are not as easy to work with as an actual 2D printer. Adding that extra dimension has its challenges. Plan on spending quite a bit of time learning how to maintain your printer. Just like 2D printers, 3D printers “jam” all the time. The extruded plastic can get stuck in the nozzle and you can come back after several hours of printing and find that the very last cm of the model never printed because the nozzle is completely gummed up! Be aware that these can be infuriating moments that take significant amounts of time to fix. I have spoken to some teachers that got so frustrated that their printers ended up just sitting in a corner of the classroom, tragically unused.

Our Recommendations

Our recommendations are simple. Before you go out and buy one of these things, you have to be willing to put in quite a bit of time to maintain it and learn how to optimize your printer’s performance. There are tricks to optimizing each printer out there, and it will require that you watch some YouTube videos, dig through online support forums and be patient.

There are clear and obvious reasons to get one of these if you are running a STEM program, especially one focused on engineering or design. What might not be obvious is that these machines can also be incorporated into mathematics education, and definitely into a 3D art course or sculpture course.

There are so many models out there now, and they all claim to be the very best value. Each will obviously have advantages and disadvantages. Ease of use and less expensive generally means that your models will not be as precise or accurate. Inexpensive models can also be difficult to maintain. DLP printers are looking promising. They are coming down in price, they are faster and they are very precise. They can print models using different materials (like castable resin, or flexible resin). On the other hand, keep in mind that they are still more expensive, and they use a somewhat toxic resin that can be a non starter for some teachers.

Academy of Engineering and Technology at San Rafael High School

A project-based approach to science and technical education, where students actively learn through exploration and investigation.

Tag Archives: Academy of Physics and Technology