Robot industry finals 

It’s not the biggest that wins, but the one that fights best. Out of eight runs, only two succeeded in this year’s competition for maze-running robots.

Four robots got to the starting point. There were two runs per robot, for a total of eight attempts. Two robots managed the tricky task on the first attempt, but none of them made it on the second. One successful run through the labyrinth was thus enough for victory.

“This was a difficult track,” says Tomas Svensson, course director for the electronic projects course.

The course is mandatory during the third year of instruction for engineers in Technical Physics and Electronics. The course is excessively popular, despite it being both difficult and demanding.

“We’ve learned a lot,” says Mikael Rosell; the others in his group nod in agreement. (Read more about the group’s work in “Robot builders”, see link below).

Their robot was by far the fastest – perhaps a little too fast. It managed the first half of the labyrinth splendidly: it grabbed hold of a roll of tape and brought it to the exact right place; and then it had to zip back the way it came. But on the last curve it went a little too quickly and the robot skidded ingloriously into the wall right on the home stretch. Twice in a row. So very irritating.

Even more irritating was when two of the competing robots completed the feat – once each, anyway.

But Rosell and the others are still very pleased.

“The course really met my expectations. It was fun, but time-consuming. I learned a lot of technical things, as well as what it’s like to work in a project group with documents, planning, and reporting time,” Rosell says.

In groups of six, the students built a complicated computer-controlled apparatus under industry-like conditions – with a client who, at the start, had a very fuzzy picture of what they really wanted in a product. They got to work from idea to finished product – with requirement specifications, a design plan, a timetable, construction, and not least, documentation and instructions for how the apparatus was to be controlled.

The students had seven different types of computer-controlled machinery to choose from, and the course ended with the same number of competitions.

As if that weren’t enough, the projects were also to be shown to the intended purchaser – in this case course coordinators Tomas Svensson and Lennart Bengtsson.

The five groups who chose to build a maze-running robot have somewhat different strategies for their presentations; some went into detail on the technology, while others gave a more general view. One group chose three representatives to take care of the sales pitch while others put up the entire team so each presented their own part. One group put a little extra effort into a professional-looking graphic presentation, and one group finished with an exhibition film.

Britta Önnegren from the Language Workshops helped Tomas and Lennart give feedback on the presentations, giving a good bit of sage advice:

• Check out the venue in advance, preferably with an on-site dress rehearsal
• Bring the actual robot with you; point it out and show it when possible
• Use your hand to point things out and show things during the presentation, but hold it there for a few seconds for emphasis
• Make eye contact with your audience; hold your gaze for 3 seconds, don’t let it wander
• You know the subject, you know what you’ve done; use your voice, make dramatic pauses, and keep your concentration on the client
• Don’t tie yourself to the manuscript; it’s better to write the main points on a piece of paper to look at
• Don’t lock up your body; stand steady without crossing your arms or legs
• Avoid using ‘I’; say “We have” or “We will” – the team’s work should be accentuated here.

Last but not least:

“Try practising your presentations. University is where you should make your mistakes, not out in working life. You learn most from your mistakes,” she argues.

Which, naturally, also applies to robot construction itself.

“This year’s students have been very ambitious, and we’ve just gotten in the last post-studies; this means that all the course participants passed,” Svensson tells us.

The course evaluations he’s gotten so far have also been very positive; nor were all the tracks as difficult as the one for the maze-running robots.

“Having a track everyone knows they’ll easily manage beforehand isn’t as fun. We adjusted the tracks a little after the groups’ results earlier in the course.”

Relieved after managing the semester-long project course in electronics construction, from left: Linus Mellberg, Johannes Polbring, Catarina Tidbeck, Mika Lindahl, Pär Lundgren and Mikael Rosell.

Related links

LIU News Robot builders
LiU Magazine, Issue 1, 2012: Courses the students look forward to.
Department of Electrical Engineering