Remote Control Duck Decoys - Senior Design

Transcription

Remote Control Duck Decoys
1
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING
design document for
submitted to:
Randolph F. Follett, Ph.D., P.E.
ECE 4512: Senior Design I
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
413 Hardy Road, Box 9571
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
April 27, 2015
prepared by:
J. Dees, D. Maulden, T. Owen, J. Smith and J. White
Faculty Advisor: Professor Robert Moorhead
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Mississippi State University
413 Hardy Road, Box 9571
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
Tel: 662-416-0721
email: {jtd171, drm286, tao28, jes520, jww340}@ece.msstate.edu
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DC – Direct Current
GUI – Graphical User Interface
I2C – Inter-Integrated Circuit
IDE – Integrated Development Environment
IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
LED – Light Emitting Diode
Li-Po – Lithium Polymer
LR-WPAN – Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks
mA - Milliamperes
mAh – Milliampere Hours
NiCd – Nickel Cadmium
NiMH – Nickel Metal Hydride
PAN – Personal Area Network
PCB – Printed Circuit Board
PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
RCD2 – Remote Control Duck Decoy(s)
RPM – Rotations per Minute
RX - Receiver
SWD – Spinning Wing Decoy
TX - Transmission
USB – Universal Serial Bus
V - Volts
VDC – Voltage (Direct Current)
W - Watts
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are several different versions of electronic or controlled duck decoys. The problem with these
decoys is there is no current electronic decoy that has more than one feature built in. Remote Control
Duck Decoy (RCD2) is equipped with multiple features to simulate a live duck: full motion wireless
control, flapping wings simulator, pulse/wake capabilities, and swarm control. RCD2 will remove the
hassle and expense of owning several decoy types to obtain multiple functions.
Figure 1: RCD2
To ensure device reliability, some technical constraints were set in place. The size of the decoy must be
able to house the electrical and mechanical components, and it must be life-sized to be appealing to
incoming waterfowl. The hunter must be able to wirelessly control the decoys with the main remote
control up to 75 yards. The battery life of each decoy and the microcontroller must last a minimum of six
hours. To ensure that the decoys will be functional for the length of a typical duck hunt. In order to
protect all electrical and mechanical components housed inside, the duck decoy body must be water and
weather proof. The most unique function of RCD2 is the swarm control capabilities. RCD2 must allow
the hunter to control a single duck or up to six ducks in the flock at the same time.
In order to achieve our size constraint, we chose large-sized, hollow decoys that would be able to house
all internal components. The backs of the decoys are cut off to create an access hatch. An Arduino Uno
and Xbee transceiver is used in each decoy to achieve wireless control. When the user interacts with the
controller, that information is sent to the Arduino to decide what is to be sent to the Xbee. Once the Xbee
receives that packet, it sends it wirelessly to the other transceiver, which will relay that information to the
Arduino Uno housed inside the decoy. The range of the Xbee wireless transceivers is 100 yards, which
exceeds our constraint of 75 yards. There are two separate power sources inside each decoy. The reason
to have multiple power supplies is that our Arduino ideally runs at 5V. Our main power supply reads up
to 8.4V when fully charged. We found that adding another power supply at 5 volts would be ideal for our
Arduino while also adding time to each decoys run time. The decoys are made waterproof by caulking
around all external components. The access hatch is lined with rubber and uses nuts and bolts to tighten
down and create a watertight seal. The final aspect of RCD2 is swarm control. The user can select which
duck(s) to control via selection switches located on the handheld controller. The commands given will be
duplicated over the selected ducks, creating a realistic flock that is swimming, flapping, or creating a
wake. While multiple ducks can be selected they can only perform one function at a given time. This
means that you could not flap one’s wing and wake the water at the same time.
While many other duck decoys exist, there are none on the market that offer an all-in-one product like
RCD2. Our product aspires to seize most of the electronic decoy market since there is not a product that
is capable of producing multiple functions like RCD2. RCD2 will provide hunters with a reliable, costeffective product that will provide a multi-functional decoy
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
PROBLEM .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS/CONSTRAINTS................................................................................ 7
2.1. Technical Design Constraints ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Practical Design Constraints .......................................................................................................... 8
3.
4.
APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.
Hardware ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.
Software ..................................................................................................................................... 19
EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................. 24
4.1.
Test Certification – Propulsion and Control Subsystem ...................................................... 24
4.2.
Test Certification – Wake Subsystem ..................................................................................... 26
4.3.
Test Certification – Wing Subsystem ..................................................................................... 27
4.4.
Test Certification – Processor and Communication Subsystems ......................................... 29
4.5.
Test Certification – Total System ............................................................................................ 33
5.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK .............................................................................................. 35
6.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................. 36
7.
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 37
8.
APPENDIX: PRODUCT SPECIFICATION ................................................................................. 38
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
1.
PROBLEM
1.1
Historical Introduction
5
Grits Gresham once said “[t]o the avid waterfowler, no moment of truth can match the instant when a
flock first responds to his call and decoys, the time when this wild, free bird of unsurpassed grace begins
a descent from the sky down to gun range. It is a stirring spectacle…” [1]. Evidence of waterfowl hunting
for food, down, and feathers dates back to prehistoric cave drawings in Europe and appeared in ancient
Egyptian drawings from 1900 BC [2]. With the invention of the black powder shotguns, duck hunters
began using different tactics to harvest the coveted waterfowl. Methods of waterfowl hunting such as
baiting, hunting at night, and using live or hand-carved decoys for attracting waterfowl were popular by
hunters who profited from the products of the ducks. Due to a falling duck population and habitat
degradation, laws were passed, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to protect the waterfowl species.
The Joint State-Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations banned using a live duck restrained by a
weight to prevent it from flying or swimming out of the area, and this led to the use of homemade decoys
[3]. These decoys were originally made from a combination of various grasses and woods. Later, in the
1960’s, development of a plastic, molded decoy allowed for mass production. Hunters began purchasing
more decoys, creating a more realistic environment suitable for luring ducks. This eventually led to the
development of the first electronic decoy.
The first electronic duck decoy was introduced in the 1998-99 waterfowl hunting season. It simulated a
stationary duck flapping by simply spinning the artificial wing extensions. Electronic decoys can be
broken into three categories: Spinning Wing Decoys (SWDs) that spin or flap their wings, decoys that
vibrate in the water, and decoys that are directionally controlled by a remote control. In a site-specific
study of differential vulnerability by Caswell & Caswell stated “[i]n all cases, use of SWDs dramatically
increased the harvest of ducks when compared to periods when SWDs were not used [4]”. Our team has
proposed to design and develop the first flock of wirelessly controlled decoys that combine the features of
the previous stated designs into one system.
1.2
Market and Competitive Product Analysis
There is currently an average of 1.5 million duck hunters in the United States [5]. The targeted market for
Remote Control Duck Decoy (RCD2) targets duck hunters worldwide who want more capability and life
out of their duck decoys. There are currently different versions of electronic or controlled duck decoys
such as The Wonderduck Motion Decoy, The Open Zone ZigZag Swimmer Decoy, and the Swim’n
Duck. The Wonderduck Motion Decoy is designed to spin its wings while sitting still in water, and
retails for $99.99. The Open Zone Swimmer Decoy maneuvers autonomously at random in water through
an electronic circuit controlling two motors. This decoy offers no form of control and is sold for $79.95
[6]. The Swim’n Duck is very similar to the Open Zone Swimmer Decoy, but this decoy is remote
controlled with a short range of thirty yards, and retails for $99.99. Brands such as Mojo, Flambeau, and
Lucky Duck control the market of electronic decoys.
The problem with these decoys is there is no one decoy equipped with wireless control, electronic wings,
and pulse/wake capabilities. RCD2 would combine all of these features into one duck and will also have
a larger remote control range. Another advantage is RCD2 will have the capabilities to control up to six
ducks simultaneously through the wireless controller. This would be a huge advantage for duck hunters
as they could get every feature of duck decoys in one, instead of having to buy multiple types of decoys.
To make our product competitive with the market our cost of parts must be kept very low. Our product
could draw investors from any company in the decoy industry who does not have their own electronic
model. The companies who have their own electronic decoy could become potential investors in order to
stay on top of the market with our technology.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
1.3
6
Concise Problem Statement
For duck hunting, finding the most realistic decoy is essential in a successful hunt. RCD2 is a
combination of the best decoy technologies fused into a simple design. The prototype will be a common
decoy with a hollow body center and a waterproof enclosure for the key electronic components. A direct
current (DC) motor will be inside the enclosure to rotate the drive shaft and propeller providing
propulsion. For steering control, a servo motor will allow the rudder to change directions, giving the user
complete control of the decoy. A servo attached to the exterior wings will be used to recreate a fluid,
flapping motion of a duck’s wings. The wings are to be made from plastic that will contour to the ducks
outer shell. This makes the wings lighter; therefore, our motor will run more efficiently and save battery
life. The third function of RCD2 is its ability to create a wake from a stationary position. A weight will
be shifted inside RCD2’s body displacing water and adding another lifelike characteristic. These three
functions are completely controlled by the user equipped with the RCD2 controller.
The decoys will be directed by a remote control equipped with a microcontroller and wireless signal
transmitter that communicates with all of the decoys. The user will select multiple ducks using switches
on the remote control. The microprocessor will communicate a signal sending the commands to every
duck selected. This will allow the hunter to move his or her ducks to a specific area or recreate a flock’s
motion. However, if a single decoy needs to be moved for any reason, individual control is allowed by
the microprocessor by selecting only one duck. Along with movement, multiple ducks can be selected to
flap their wings or create wake in synchronization. The switching will allow for any combination of
decoys to be accessed at any time. The functions of this product will create one of the most realistic
decoys on the market.
1.4
Implications of Success
Overall, RCD2 will be marketable to the duck hunter seeking a more reliable, lifelike, all-in-one decoy.
Only three states in the United States ban the use of electronic decoys. Even with the ban in these few
states, the market for our product will be substantial. Large corporations, such as Mossy Oak, Bass Pro
Shop, Cabela’s, and any sporting goods outfitters, will be able to offer RCD2, assuming we market the
final design independently. Our product aspires to seize most of the electronic decoy market since there
is not a product like RCD2 available today. The electronic duck decoy market has not changed much in
the last ten years. Current developers have not attempted to market a product with multiple features. This
opens the door for a product, such as RCD2, to swarm the market.
Along with being user friendly, RCD2 will remove the hassle of owning several decoy types to just
owning one brand. The hunter will spend less time setting up his decoys and more time on the hunt for
the prized waterfowl. If our product is successful, it will have a positive impact on the duck decoy market
by providing improved technology, reduced cost for the average duck hunter, and implementing the
complete duck hunting experience.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
2.
7
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS/CONSTRAINTS
The Remote Control Duck Decoy is an advanced, six duck decoy system. The hunter has access to
multiple functions such as flapping, swimming, wake creation, and swarm control. This allows the hunter
to recreate a desirable duck habitat to lure in live waterfowl. Along with the realistic characteristics of
RCD2, the hunter can align his/her decoy spread from the comfort of the duck blind. The waterproof,
robust design allows RCD2 to be used in the difficult weather associated with duck hunting. To develop
this efficient system, many technical design and practical constraints must be satisfied. These constraints
are outlined in the following sections.
2.1.
Technical Design Constraints
For RCD2 to be efficient and effective in the harsh waterfowl hunting environment, the following
technical design constraints listed in Table 2.1 must be followed.
Table 2.1. Technical Design Constraints
Name
Description
Size
The Decoy must house the electrical and mechanical components, and it must be lifesized to be appealing to incoming waterfowl.
Range
RCD2 must be controllable up to 75 yards from the main remote control.
Battery Life
The battery for each decoy and the remote controller must be sustainable for a
minimum of six hours.
Watertight
Enclosure
The decoy body must be waterproof to protect the electrical components housed inside.
Swarm Control
RCD2 must grant the user the ability to control a single duck or up to six multiple
ducks at the same time.
2.1.1
Size
RCD2 has several electrical components housed within the hollow duck decoy body. Our power supply,
microcontroller, motor driver, and motors must fit within the plastic shell of the duck decoy. The
components must be arranged by weight in this area. In doing so, the weight must be evenly distributed;
so that, the duck has no balance issues and is not in danger of sinking.
2.1.2
Range
The decoys must have an effective range of 50-75 yards from the wireless controller with a clear line of
sight. This range allows a hunter to properly set up the decoys to form an appealing waterfowl
environment. The controller’s master microcontroller we choose must be able to communicate with the
slave microcontrollers within the duck decoy. Common forms of wireless communication include radio
frequency (RF), Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. One of these will be selected depending on their effective range
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
8
and usability.
2.1.3
Battery Life
The decoys must operate multiple motors to control the rudder, propeller, wings, and wake creator while
also processing information from the wireless controller. For viability, our decoy is required to operate
for six hours. Our decoys must use one supply or two separate supplies to control both the
microcontroller and the motors. Along with the decoys, the wireless controller for the system must also
last six hours. One microcontroller is used inside the hand-held controller to send information wirelessly
to the decoys. To power the controller a separate power supply will be needed.
2.1.4
Watertight Enclosure
The decoys are required to operate on top of water and handle any weather conditions to which they are
exposed. The components inside the decoy must stay dry in order to function properly. This means that
each decoy must employ a watertight enclosure to ensure the contents stay dry. If the electronics are
exposed, water could cause a short circuit possibly destroying the product. Any leaking could also
decrease the buoyancy and sink the entire decoy.
2.1.5
Swarm Control
One of RCD2’s defining features is the ability to control multiple decoys at a given time. The user must
have the ability to select which duck he/she wants to control. To allow this, there must be a switching
system allowing the user and controller to communicate with the desired decoy or decoys. The
commands given must be duplicated over the selected ducks, creating a realistic flock either swimming,
flapping, or creating a wake.
2.2.
Practical Design Constraints
Along with the technical constraints, the following practical design constraints listed in Table 2.2 must be
followed. These practical constraints outline the constraints that make RCD2 a practical device. We have
selected five constraints that must be closely followed: cost, reliability, assembly, environmentally
friendly, and safety.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
9
Table 2.2. Practical Design Constraints
Type
Name
Description
Economic
Cost
The total costs of parts per duck shall not exceed $300
Sustainability
Reliability
The decoys must be sufficiently robust to account for harsh
conditions. The batteries must have at least a six hour life and
be rechargeable.
Manufacturability
Assembly
All removed plastic and holes for propeller must be sealed to
not allow water inside the decoy. RCD2 must float in water.
Environmental
Environmentally
Friendly
Batteries must be sealed and secured to keep chemicals from
leaking into the environment.
Health and Safety
Safety
Users should not be exposed to electric shock or explosion
due to power supply.
2.2.1
Economic
In order to create a reasonably priced and competitive product, our components and materials should not
exceed $300. The Lucky Duck Rapid Flyer is currently priced at $159.99, but it can only flap its wings
remotely. Mojo, another competing brand, makes both a shaking decoy and a swimming decoy retailing
at $99.79 and $80 respectively [1]. Mojo also has developed a three duck motion system similar to our
swarm control; however, these decoys are in a fixed position and merely rotate in a circle through an
underwater apparatus. This system is listed for $175 without including the decoys. With the
combination of the four decoys listed, the price is well over $500. For our product to be competitive in
this market, the total price of parts must be kept within the constraint.
2.2.2
Sustainability
RCD2’s sustainability is one of the most important features of the design. Duck hunters and their
equipment have to endure below-freezing temperatures, mud, rain, snow, and marshy terrain over the
duration of their hunt [2]. Our decoy will have to overcome each of nature’s tests. With a battery life of
six hours, including running and idle times, RCD2 must last for the duration of a single day hunt before
needing a recharge. To deal with the typical duck hunting weather, the inside of the decoy must be
reinforced with some type of insulation. The wireless controller requires its own power supply to last as
long as the decoys. Along with battery life the controller must be designed to be water-resistant making
RCD2 a durable system ready to handle the difficult environment.
2.2.3
Manufacturability
RCD2 will need an opening to place all its components. This opening must allow the user easy access to
power supply for replacement or recharge. This main cover must have a watertight seal, so the
manufacturer and user can attach without compromising RCD2’s waterproof shell. The propeller, wings,
and wake system must be driven by components within the decoy; therefore any other openings must be
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
10
water resistant. With all the components housed, the duck will be much heavier. If the weight of this is
larger than the buoyancy of the duck, countermeasures must be in place to allow the duck to float in
water.
2.2.4
Environmental
Batteries contain various chemicals such as alkaline, lead, lithium, cadmium, mercury, and nickel metal
hydride. These harmful substances can permeate into surface water. Cadmium, for instance, is easily
absorbed by plant roots. This is very detrimental to wildlife if ingested [3]. Our prototype must prevent
the leakage of these chemicals to protect the environment.
2.2.5
Health and Safety
Safety is the most important constraint for any project. When electronics and water combine, users could
experience electrical shock. Even though RCD2 must be waterproof, the users can open the decoy and
expose themselves to electrical components. These parts must be arranged to minimize user exposure, or
covers must be used with appropriate labels. Power supplies use dangerous chemicals as listed in section
2.2.4. These chemicals can be harmful to the user. Some power supplies available are explosive if
charged incorrectly. Our prototype must either avoid these types of supplies or have limitations on
charging to mitigate this risk
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
3.
11
APPROACH
The Remote Control Duck Decoy is a multi-functional product that combines four major duck decoy
products into one, easy-to-use product for duck hunters. RCD2 is controlled by an Arduino
microcontroller that will manage the operations given by the user and relay that information to the decoys
that will act out these instructions. Once the user selects a function, this process will be sent wirelessly
from the controller to the decoys, then processed, and sent to the motors. The user will be able to attract
more waterfowl with the ability to move the decoys, flap their wings, and create a wake in the water.
3.1.
Hardware Subsystems
The hardware of RCD2 is partitioned into five subsystems. This section will describe the specific
components that were selected for the RCD2 and the role that they play in the device as a whole. A
justification of which components were purchased for RCD2 will be made, along with a system overview,
as shown in Figure 3.1.1.
Figure 3.1.1 – Hardware Subsystems
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
3.1.1
12
Propulsion & Control Subsystem
The Remote Control Duck Decoy provides an easier setup of a spread of decoys by allowing the user to
remotely move each decoy to a desired location. Two subsystems are required to accomplish this
movement. These subsystems are the propulsion system and the control subsystem. With this set of
subsystems, RCD2 will have the capability to move anywhere within our constrained range.
When selecting the DC motor to propel RCD2 different motors were considered. The first was the DC
toy motor by Adafruit. This 130 size motor was very reasonably priced and fit our space constraint;
however, this motor could not produce the amount of torque needed to propel our duck efficiently. The
next motor we researched was the Turnigy XK2040-4500KV Brushless Inrunner. This motor is
commonly used in hobby remote control boats. It is designed to have low torque but high rotations per
minute (RPMs) to propel the boat at a higher speed. This motor would work for RCD2 in some
situations, but a higher torque motor was needed to push RCD2 through algae commonly found in ponds.
Our final motor researched was the Johnson 545 DC motor.
The propulsion system uses four key components to allow RCD2 to move forward and backward: a DC
motor, coupling, watertight shaft, and propeller. The propulsion motor is a DC 545 type motor designed
and manufactured by Johnson Motor Company. This motor was designed to operate in model tug boats at
low RPM but at high torque. Our selected DC motor also offered a compatible coupling, shaft, and
propeller. The coupling is responsible for transmitting the rotational mechanical force from the motor to
the propeller. The two brass coupling ends attach to the ⅛ inch shaft of the propeller and the motor. In
between the two is a plastic Dogbone, which allows flexibility in the position of the motor in relation to
the propeller. Once connected, the motor is now rotating the shaft. This stainless steel shaft is encased
within a brass tube with Oilite bearings pressed into each end. These bearings keep all unwanted water
out of the decoy. When this shaft spins, our propeller water is displaced in one direction while our decoy
travels in the other.
Figure 3.1.1 – RCD2 Rear Interior
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
13
Forward and reverse are the two key directions controlled by the propulsion motor, but for RCD2 to go
left and right, a steering control system is needed. Three different methods of control were proposed for
RCD2. The first idea was to use two rudders on either side of the propeller. The two rudders would
make steering much easier, but, due to a larger mechanical build and adding more holes jeopardizing the
water resistant design of the duck, this idea was omitted. Our next idea involved using only two
propulsion motors and no propeller, like the Swim’n Duck uses. However, to control this effectively,
each motor must have variable speed control. This would add another level of complexity to our code
and drain the motor batteries significantly faster. We selected the final design, which uses our single
propulsion motor and one rudder directly behind the propeller. Our rudder is turned by a TowerPro
MG995 servo motor within the decoy for precise control.
Figure 3.1.2 – RCD2 Rear Exterior
3.1.2
Wake Subsystem
Since motion is a crucial feature in attracting waterfowl, many hunters have used vibrating devices to
cause a ripple in the water to imitate signs of life. Originally, when incorporating this technique into our
design, we planned to construct our own pulsation design. This called for a hole in the bottom of the
decoy with an umbrella shaped piece inside the water. This piece was meant to connect to an actuator, or
servo motor, to move the umbrella back and forth. This motion would pull the duck down into the water
and create the desired wake. This design had several flaws. First, adding a hole in the bottom of the
decoy greatly increases the chance for leaks. Second, this would be a much larger motion that could
possibly flip and sink the decoy. Lastly, the time to research necessary parts and implement the design
was too great given the narrow time frame for our project. This problem was easily solved with the
discovery of an existing product.
The H20 Quiver Magnet made our once daunting task simple, cheap, and reliable. Instead of creating a
large motion for larger ripples in the water. The quiver magnet uses quick vibrations similar to a cell
phone or video game controller. This shorter, quicker motion puts RCD2 at less risk of flipping over.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
14
This device uses two AA batteries to power a small DC motor. This motor has an arm on its shaft with a
disk weight attached to it. As the weight rotates, the centripetal force of the offset weight is asymmetric,
resulting in a net centrifugal force displacing the motor. The rapid displacement of the motor causes the
vibrations [9]. This energy is then transferred to the water creating ripples. All of this is contained within
a waterproof cylinder with a detachable lid. Since we did not want to use another power supply for the
quiver magnet, a few modifications were made. First, the motor was removed and the existing leads were
detached. Previous wiring for the batteries and push button switch were removed. Next, a small opening
was drilled into the base of the quiver magnet where the new long leads could run from the device to the
motor driver within the decoy body. The quiver magnet will be attached at the base of the decoy, where it
will provide more balance. Figure 3.1.3 shows a detailed view of RCD2’s wake subsystem
Figure 3.1.3 – Wake Subsystem Interior & Exterior
The tradeoffs for selecting the H20 Quiver Magnet over our own design our shown in Table 3.1.1. The
Quiver Magnet is a patented product, so there will be some legal issues to handle in RCD2’s future. The
Quiver Magnet’s design though is more than sufficient for the functionality of the RCD2 prototype.
Table 3.1.1 – Wake Subsystem Comparison
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
3.1.3
15
Wing Subsystem
To add another dimension of motion, RCD2 will have the ability to flap its wings. With this being the
most complex mechanical operation of our design, there were many difficulties to overcome in the
implementation. Our wings are made out of plastic board and are painted in the pattern matching the
appropriate decoy. These wings will be mounted to a 3-D printed arm. This arm will be attached to a
bracket mounted on the exterior of the decoy where it can pivot. The other side of the arm, opposite the
wings, will extend towards the base of the decoy where it will be attached to the motion arm. The motion
arm goes into the duck decoy body where it will securely attach to a servo motor creating the mechanical
motion. We decided on the servo against a small DC motor and a stepper motor. The DC motor had too
low of a torque to create the wing motion. The stepper motor had the necessary torque and position
control; however, stepper motors would have been more expensive. The cheaper stepper motors do not
have the fluid motion like the more expensive ones. These cheaper models would not recreate the fluid
flapping motion of a live duck. The servo motor works perfectly due to its very high torque and ability to
be positioned accurately. The servo will pull the motion arm up and down, pulling and pushing the wings
up and down. Table 3.1.1 shows a comparison of all three motors below.
Table 3.1.1 – Wing Motor Comparison
Figure 3.1.4 – RCD2 Wing Subsystem
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
3.1.4
16
Primary Power Supply Subsystem
The subsystems mentioned above are powered by RCD2’s primary power supply. This power supply is
responsible for all mechanical movement of RCD2. These systems draw small amounts of current, but
must last six hours to meet our constraint. Our highest load when testing the above components was just
under 500mA. We took this high number and plugged it into equation 3.1.1 to determine the capacity of
the battery we needed.
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 ∗ 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 6 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ∗ 500𝑚𝐴
=
= 4285.7𝑚𝐴ℎ
0.7
0.7
Equation 3.1.1
In this formula the 0.7 factor is an allowance to make sure we had enough capacity to meet the constraint.
This calculation shows that we need a battery with a minimum 4300mAh capacity. To ensure our
sustainability we decided on a 5000mAh battery. There are four different types of batteries we compared
to find a suitable power supply for RCD2. These are compared in Table 3.1.2.
Table 3.1.2 – Battery Comparison
After weighing each pro and con, we selected the nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery as our primary
power supply. The nickel cadmium (NiCd) battery did not have adequate capacity to run a minimum of
six hours, and it was made from toxic chemicals which would defy our environmental constraint also. The
Lithium Polymer (Li-Po) battery met both our size and capacity constraints. The Li-Po battery, however,
generates much more heat and charging can be dangerous if not done correctly. This led to our decision
to use the 7.4V Rage 5000mAh NiMH battery. This battery, when charged, delivers 8.4V and has enough
capacity to sustain our largest current load for at least six hours.
3.1.5
Processor Subsystem
To account for the different processes involved with RCD2, a microcontroller is needed to perform all the
tasks. Originally, we planned to use the Arduino Yun. The Yun had a Linux processor built in that
established its own Wi-Fi network. This Wi-Fi network did not provide sufficient range, and we had
difficulty sending commands from peer to peer. So after working with the Yun for several weeks, we
decided to find a cheaper, simpler alternative. We stayed with the Arduino brand and purchased the Uno
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
17
microcontroller. This is Arduino’s simplest platform and is compatible with the Xbee communication
module to be discussed in section 3.1.6. Our decision to use the Arduino Uno and Xbee is explained in
Table 3.1.2.
Table 3.1.2 – Microcontroller Comparison
This microcontroller will be the operator for both the decoys and the controller. Inside the decoys, the
Arduino will be paired with an Adafruit Motor Shield as an extension of the microcontroller. This shield
is the motor driver for all our mechanical features. It is equipped with four H bridges that provide up to
1.2 Amperes to both the propulsion and wake system motors. The shield has two male pin sets to attach
our wing and rudder servo motors. Originally the servos were powered by the secondary power supply,
but this supply did not generate enough power to run the servo motors. To fix this issue the trace on
motor shield printed circuit board (PCB) connecting the servo to the 5V pin on the Arduino. Next,
jumpers from the primary power supply input on the motor shield were soldered directly to the servo
power pins. This resolved our power issue allowing our servos to operate correctly.
3.1.6
Communication Subsystem
Three communication mediums were considered for the design of RCD2: Wi-Fi, ZigBee Mesh, and IEEE
802.15.4. A quick comparison of these medium is shown in Table 3.1.3. The three means of
communication were purchased and tested. First, we attempted to use the Arduino Yun and its on-board
Wi-Fi to setup a local network which commands would be carried out. Our obvious issue was the range
in which the network was effective. The other issues came as we attempted to make the controller
Arduino the server and the decoy Arduinos clients. We could not send commands from peer to peer.
Digi’s Series 2 Xbee transceivers were our next approach. We purchased four Series 2 Xbee transceivers
and began configuring them to communicate with each other. These Xbees operated on ZigBee Mesh
Protocol which is a high-level communication protocol to create personal area networks. We successfully
sent commands from the controller Arduino to one decoy Arduino; however, when sending commands to
multiple decoys errors occurred. After consulting the experts at Digi, we discovered that using ZigBee
Mesh meant that all Xbees were sending and receiving packets from each other. With the decoys in close
proximity to one another these packets were colliding and becoming lost. This caused our decoys to
become unresponsive. The last communication hardware we purchased was the Series 1 Xbee
transceiver. It uses the IEEE 802.15.4 communication protocol. This is a standard which specifies the
physical layer and media access control for low-rate wireless personal area networks (LR-WPANs) [10].
By changing each Xbees’ MY address and configuring them to the same personal area network (PAN),
the controller Xbee would broadcast the command string to all three decoy Xbees without losing any
packets. Each processor interprets the command string and decides what it should or should not do.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
18
Table 3.1.3 – Communication Medium Comparison
The only issue with either Xbees against the Arduino Yun was space consumption. The Arduino Yun
was the same size as the Arduino Uno, but its Wi-Fi was built into the board. The Xbee required
connection to the transmission (TX) and receiver (RX) pins of the Arduino Uno. With no space available
in the decoy to the side of the microcontroller, we found another option. We purchased the Sainsmart
Xbee Shield which stacks on top of the Adafruit Motor Driver Shield and the Arduino Uno. This shield
allowed us to house all our processor components vertically inside the decoy body.
3.1.7
Secondary Power Supply Subsystem
To power the processor for both the controller and decoy, two options were considered. The first was to
power the processor and communication subsystems from the primary power supply. Using the 8.4V
battery would have been sufficient for the Arduino Uno’s five to twelve volt input range. The Xbee is
powered from the Arduinos regulated 3.3V pin, so the primary batter would not affect it. The benefits of
using the single power supply are less used space inside decoy, less overall weight of decoy, and lower
costs. All these benefits did not outweigh the cons to this method.
Arduino and Adafruit both strongly suggest to power the microcontroller with a separate power supply
than the one used on the motor shield. This is due to the fact that noise from the motors can feedback
through the circuit causing voltage changes on the Arduino. This voltage drops cause the Arduino to reset
and disrupts communication. The solution was to use two separate power supplies. The Anker External
Battery Power Bank is a portable phone charger with USB connection. This cheap module does not take
up much room inside the decoy and can be easily removed and recharged by the user. It delivers 5V and
a max current of 1A. This power supply has 3200mAh capacity and weighs 2.8oz. This power supply
will be responsible for communication, processing commands, lighting LED’s on controller only. After
adding the currents from all the datasheets this power supply will not be responsible for a load over
200mA. Using the same formula as Equation 3.1, the estimated hours of the secondary power supply is
11.2 hours.
3.1.8
Controller Subsystem
The controller is the interface between the hunter and RCD2. The two options considered when deciding
on the controller were purchasing a controller and reprogram it, or design our own controller from
scratch. The upside to buying a controller was it would take less time to reprogram than to build our own.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
19
The downside is that the controllers that could control more than three devices were greatly out of our
price range. This led to the decision to build our own. We used the Arduino Uno, Sainsmart Xbee
Shield, and S1 Xbee transceiver as the brain and communicator of our controller. Nine pushbuttons
where then divided into three categories: direction control, decoy selection, decoy action. These
pushbuttons wired directly to the inputs on the Arduino. Three output LED’s were connected with 330
ohm current-limiting resistors. These LEDs show which duck the user has activated. All this is powered
by the secondary power supply mentioned in Section 3.1.7. The controller is shown in Figure 3.1.5.
Figure 3.1.5 – Controller Layout
3.2
Software
The Remote Control Duck Decoy interface/control system consists of many parts that work as the brains
of the operation. The user will have a handheld, wireless controller that will be used to operate the ducks.
Inside the controller, there will be an Arduino Uno and Xbee Wireless Transceiver. When the user
interacts with the controller that information is sent to the Arduino to decide what is to be sent to the
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
20
Xbee. Once Xbee receives that packet, it sends it wirelessly to the other transceiver, which will relay that
information to the Arduino Uno housed inside the decoy. Figure 3.2.1 is a system overview of the
implementation of the software.
Figure 3.2.1 – System Overview of RCD2 Software
3.2.1
Interface
The user interface is a wireless controller that consists of a decoy selection and a range of operations,
such as: forward, backward, left, right, wing flap, and wake creation. When the user makes a decision on
the decoy and operation, that combination is given a defined number sequence that is processed to act out
that specific task.
3.2.2
Decoy & Operation Selection
The numbering technique we decided upon for the decoy selection was a binary-inspired addition
sequence. When the user selects a decoy, that decoy has a reference number that is added to a variable.
However, when the operator selects the same decoy, again it subtracts that number from the variable, thus
updating the value of the variable. Figure 3.2.2 is a representation of the decoy selection numbering
system used to determine the decoy the user desires to communicate with.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
21
Figure 3.2.2 – Duck Selection Algorithm
With this technique, any combination of decoys can be made with a unique number. For example, if the
user wants to communicate with decoys 2 and 3, the program adds the two unique numbers, (2 and 4), for
those decoys that creates a unique number to that combination, (6).
The process used for the operations performed by the duck is much simpler than that of the decoy
selection. When the decoy receives the packet of information, that command also has a number unique to
one of the six possible operations. The Arduino inside the decoy is there to process that number, and,
depending on what value it is given, it turns on the respective motors.
3.3
Usage Cases
The “sunny day” usage case of RCD2 is illustrated in Figure 3.3.1. This represents the simplest operation
of our product. It demonstrates the user (Hunter) giving RCD2 commands. Then after communication
and processing, RCD2 preforms the commands.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
22
Figure 3.3.1 – Sunny Day Usage Case
The “rainy day” usage case represents situations that would not happen often, but are still feasible in the
operation of the RCD2. Illustrated in Figure 3.3.2 is a case when the decoy is stuck on something in the
water and needs to be moved to work properly.
Figure 3.3.2 – Rainy Day Usage Case #1
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
23
Figure 3.3.3 shows a case when the duck battery is low. The hunter confirms this by plugging it into the
battery charger. The solution is to replace that battery and put the original battery on the charger for the
next hunt.
Figure 3.3.3 – Rainy Day Usage Case #2
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
4.
24
EVALUATION
In order to validate that the Remote Control Duck Decoy met all of the technical and practical constraints,
several tests were performed to evaluate the product. Subsystem tests were performed first to assure that
the different components would operate properly, and then the entire system was tested to prove all
subsystems worked together correctly. This document will describe and state the results of these tests
used to accomplish the design requirements for RCD2.
Some subsystems are not clearly defined in the technical constraints; nonetheless, the operations of these
subsystems are vital to satisfying the constraint requirements. Therefore, the following test certifications
will review each subsystem test and prove their need for fulfilling the technical constraints listed in Table
4.1.
Table 4.1 – Technical Design Constraints
Name
Description
Size
The Decoy must house the electrical and mechanical components, and it must be lifesized to be appealing to incoming waterfowl.
Range
RCD2 must be controllable up to 75 yards from the main remote control.
Battery Life
The battery for each decoy and the remote controller must be sustainable for a
minimum of six hours.
Watertight
Enclosure
The decoy body must be waterproof to protect the electrical components housed inside.
Swarm Control
RCD2 must grant the user the ability to control a single duck or up to six multiple
ducks at the same time.
4.1
Test Certification – Propulsion and Control Subsystem
The propulsion and control subsystem required many experiments to test the functionality and power
usage. The following tests were run: propulsion DC motor power test, control servo power test, and
push-pull rod strength test.
4.1.1
Propulsion DC Motor Power Test
For this test we connected the propulsion motor to the motor shield and wired the multimeter in series
with our Rage 8.4V 5000mAh NiMH battery. With this test circuit, the motor was commanded to operate
from the controller. The test showed that our coupled DC motor drew 292mA at 8.34V or 2.44 Watts. The
wiring diagram for this test is shown in Figure 4.1.1.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
25
Figure 4.1.1 – Propulsion Motor Power Consumption Test Schematic
4.1.2
Control Servo Power Test
The original servo power test pointed out a flaw in our power system. Our servo motor would randomly
move when not commanded to, and there was not enough power to the servo for it to move correctly. The
cause was that our servos were being powered by the Arduino microcontroller and its separate power
supply (5V, 500mA max output). This problem was remedied by modifications to our motor shield. First,
a trace from the 5V pin on the Arduino to the servo was cut. Next, jumpers from the servo leads were
soldered to our external battery supply in parallel. With the servo now running off our main power
supply, testing could be conducted. Using the same setup as the propulsion testing, we selected the left
turn command on the controller to operate that function. The servo and propulsion motor at 8.34V
averaged 285mA or 2.38 Watts. The wiring schematic for this test is shown in Figure 4.1.2.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
26
Figure 4.1.2 – Control Motor Power Consumption Test Schematic
4.1.3
Push-Pull Rod Strength Test
The push-pull rods are the channel of mechanical energy from the servo motor to the rudder. They have to
be strong and long enough to move the rudder in the desired direction. We tested three different types of
common metal: 18-gauge single strand copper wire, music wire, and aluminum paper clips. Our testing of
these metals was performed with the operational prototype in a body of water. We had the three decoys
each with a different metal for the push-pull rod. Using the controller we oscillated between right and left
three separate times. During testing the paper clip only lasted two cycles before becoming ineffective.
The copper wire and music wire both withstood the test. The music wire however is much more
expensive and shorter than the single strand copper that can be cut to desired length. This test solidified
our use of the copper wire.
4.2.
Test Certification – Wake Subsystem
Two tests were performed on the wake subsystem that creates the ripples in water giving RCD2 another
dimension of movement. The first test was the wake subsystem DC motor power test. The second was the
shaker stability test.
4.2.1
Wake Subsystem DC Motor Power Test
Testing the power consumption of the wake subsystem used the same procedure as the previous two
power consumption test. The 8.4V battery and Quiver Magnet was connected to the motor shield. With
the multimeter running, the command for the decoy to shake was given. We originally recorded just over
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
27
600mA at 8.4V. This was too large of a current draw and would not allow us to meet our six hour life
constraint. We reprogramed the motor shield to only operate the Quiver Magnet at 80% of its maximum
capacity. The retest of the power consumption resulted in acceptable numbers. At 8.27V we recorded
322mA or 2.66 Watts. This allows us to meet our sustainability constraint. Figure 4.2.1 shows the
schematic of the test.
Figure 4.2.1 – Wake Subsystem Power Consumption Test Schematic
4.2.2
Shaker Stability Test
The wake subsystem creates a vibration that creates ripples throughout the surrounding water. This
vibration also has an effect on our components housed within the decoy. To test this, we ran the wake
subsystem continuously for three minutes. After this test some of our components had been moved out of
position and almost caused a short circuit between two motor leads. To prevent this foam inserts were
added to dampen vibration. This helped, but was not enough. We then secured our processor and
checked for any frayed wires on the motor leads. We also added a layer of silicon between the decoy and
the wake system. Once secure, the test was run a third time for a longer five minutes. The test implicated
that we had provided enough stability within our decoy preventing vibration-related issues.
4.3
Test Certification – Wing Subsystem
During the testing of the wing subsystem we recorded several values. As recalled from the approach
section, the wings are made from 3-D printed polymer. The mechanical motion of the wings is provided
by a MG995 TowerPro servo motor. Both of these components were tested individually. After each of
these components was tested, a full scale wing test was then implemented. The results of this test proved
a fatal flaw in our design. The wings were designed to be pulled up by the line and down by gravity. The
design worked in the laboratory setting; however, in the outdoor setting it proved detrimental to our
prototype. Once the wings were pulled up by the line and servo, occasionally the wind would keep the
wings held up. This provided an undesirable torque on our wings that could have easily flipped our nonwaterproof prototype. Our solution was to add a rubber band from the base of the bracket mounted to the
decoy and to the arm where the wing was mounted. The same test was then performed and the wind no
longer had the negative effect.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
4.3.1
28
Wing Subsystem Servo Power Test
The wing servo motor was tested using the same setup as the propulsion, control, and wake system power
test. When testing using the flap command, our servo motor drew, on average, 400mA or 3.31W at
8.27V. This test circuit is show in Figure 4.3.1. This 400mA current is less than our 580mA maximum
current requirement to meet our sustainability constraint.
Figure 4.3.1 – Wing Servo Power Consumption Test Schematic
4.3.2
Solid Works Stress Analysis
After designing the 3-D brackets in AutoCAD, we sent the files to Solid works to run a stress test on the
part. This was performed by giving the part a fixed position and applying a force in the direction that the
servo motor will pull the string. This proved to us, that under a one Newton force, the part was most
likely to fail at the bottom edges. Figure 4.3.2 shows the stress test that was performed.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
29
Figure 3.4.2 – SolidWorks Stress Analysis
4.4
Test Certification – Processor and Communication Subsystems
The processor subsystem is responsible for communication, user interface, and decoy output. We
performed three tests to verify this subsystem: a range test, a communication test, and a processor power
usage test.
4.4.1
Range Test
The range test was conducted at Davis-Wade Stadium. We were allowed access to the field to get an
accurate range test in yards. Initially the laptop receiving the signal from the controller Xbee was placed
at the south end zone goalpost. The controller was then tested at three different ranges. Our constraints
we had to meet were 50 and 75 yards. We easily achieved these and tried to find our upper limit on
range. Our test showed that we have an upper range limit of 100 yards, which is more than enough to
meet our constraints. This test is shown in Figure 4.4.1
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
30
Figure 4.4.1 – Range Test at Davis-Wade Stadium
4.4.2
Communication Test
For the software testing of the controller and the decoys, we simulated running one duck with the wireless
controller. We are using an Arduino GUI/IDE to see the information being sent and received over the
serial monitor. Figure 4.4.2 is a screenshot of what the controller is sending to the decoys to be processed
inside the decoy. When the packet is received the Arduino will process the information being sent over
the serial monitor. Then the decoy will perform the desired command. Figure 4.4.3 is a screenshot to
show when the motors are running and what command is being executed.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
Figure 4.4.2 – Commands Sent
31
Figure 4.4.3 – Commands Received
To allow this information to be sent, we are using wireless communication. The testing we have done for
communication is through XCTU software. This software allows us to operate the coordinator and
receiver at the same time to show the information being sent through the terminal. Figure 4.4.4 is a
screenshot to show the output of the two modules communication between each other and the method of
configuration.
Figure 4.4.4 – Configuration Screen & Communication Terminal (Master – Red, Slave – Blue)
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
4.4.3
32
Communication Delay Testing
When using wireless devices, delays in communication are unavoidable. Although it is not directly listed
as a constraint, we felt this to be an important test in moving forward with our prototype. Our test was
conducted by using two channels on an oscilloscope. Channel one (yellow) was connected to one of the
motor leads, and channel two (blue) was connected to the pushbutton that commands the motor to propel
the decoy forward. In our test we recorded a one second delay in between the command being entered,
transmitted, interpreted, and preformed. Figure 4.4.5 shows the oscilloscope screen where the cursors
measure the difference in time.
Figure 4.4.5 – Oscilloscope Measurements
4.4.4
Processor Power Usage Test
For this test a Universal Serial Bus (USB) Ammeter was used to test the current being drawn for our
transceivers. For the controller with all three decoys selected and all decoy indication LED’s on, the
largest current draw was 250 mA. Our batteries that power the processor rated for 5V, 3200mAh, and
500mA max output. Using these numbers, our device running at max power (1.25 Watts) will last almost
nine hours, thus meeting our six hour constraint. The decoy receivers draw 90mA (0.45 Watts) when
receiving commands and communicating with the Xbee and motor shield. With the same power supply
mentioned above, the decoy processor will last around 24 hours.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
4.5
33
Test Certification – Total System Test
For the total system test, we evaluated RCD2 with three tests: waterproof test, main battery test, and
swarm control test. These tests were crucial to the overall functionality of RCD2.
4.5.1
Waterproof Test
Our ducks will be impacted by water on two separate fronts. The first is the water RCD2 will be floating
on top of. To test this we filled the duck with weights to match the weight of our electrical components
and placed the duck in the water. Initially, there were no leaks but we noticed the duck had the tendency
to lean towards its turning direction. This was fixed by adding a floating board under the decoy to
prevent rollover. The other front RCD2 must battle is in the form of precipitation. To test waterproof for
this we simulated rain with a water hose. No leaks were found even when the amount of water was
increased. During the simulated rain, the corrugated plastic wings did not swell or sag due to the amount
of water they received. The wings also doubled as a channel for precipitation to drain thus further
protecting the access hatch of RCD2.
4.5.2
Primary Battery Test
Each motor shield is powered with a 7.2V, 5000mAh nickel metal hydride battery. Our battery, when
fully charged, outputs a voltage of 8.4V. The wake system is our largest current draw of all the
continuous functions (322mA). With our calculations, the maximum current for six hour sustainability is
580mA. Despite the large range of current throughout the wing subsystem, it has a median value of
400mA. This falls under our upper limit; therefore, our system will be sustainable for its constrained
minimum. Table 4.5.1 shows the voltage, current, and power ratings for all functions of RCD2.
Table 4.5.1 – Power Consumption
4.5.3
Swarm Control Test
The defining feature of RCD2 is its swarm control feature. Each decoy has a unique value that enables its
features. Once this decoy is selected the value is incremented, and each processor interprets the
commands. This feature was tested by having each duck and our controller assembled and powered. We
connected three oscilloscopes to each of the decoys’ motor leads. This was done to show the motor
pulses as we selected each duck. Figure 4.5.1 shows the layout and each individual oscilloscope. The
decoys are in order of one to three from left to right. First, decoy one was instructed to run its motor.
Next, decoy one and two were instructed to do the same. Finally, all three decoys were operating and the
waveforms show how many times each duck ran their motor.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
34
Figure 4.5.1 – Swarm Control Test
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
5.
35
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
During the first semester of ECE 4512 the Remote Control Duck Decoys made great strides towards
being a completed product. We achieved all of our major functions: directional control, flapping wings,
wake creation, and swarm control. The power supplies, rudder, propeller, propulsion motor, and servo
motors proved to operate these functions effectively. For RCD2 to be a product on the shelf of hunting
stores, more work is needed in particular areas.
5.1
3-D Printed Stability Inserts
One of the issues RCD2 has approached is that all of the parts inside the decoy need to be mounted, so
there are no stability issues. The solution, we have decided, would be to 3-D print a piece that would fit
inside the decoy. This piece would be tested and created to support every part within the decoy while
limiting its ability to shift. This would create a stable environment during turns and changing conditions
on the water’s surface.
5.2
Wing Cosmetics
We currently have “prototype” wings on the decoy. The plan is to make a more realistic wing by adding
designs relevant to the type of decoy we are using. Testing will be implemented to see if there is a better
material for the wings such as a silk sleeve around a wire frame. This is commonly used on other winged,
electronic decoys on the market.
5.3
Push-Pull Rod Improvements
The push-pull rods we are using are working properly for our use. However, this process could look more
professional. This could be done by changing the placement of the servo, changing the placement of the
rudder, or just making more precise bends in the copper to connect the two.
5.4
Controller PCB and Housing
For the controller, schematics have been created for the microcontroller we are currently using and the
breadboard prototype we used. This includes our controller layout along with the decoy selection LEDs.
The controller will possibly be 3-D printed to fit our button layout and design. The next step would be to
create a schematic for our communication and consolidate the three of these together to manufacture.
5.5
Communication & Microcontroller Research
We plan to research the use of our communication and microcontroller components to see if there would
be a more efficient process. This could be due to a cheaper, smaller, or less complex product. There are
many different combinations we can use to reproduce what we have created. This research will determine
whether we have one of the more efficient of these choices, or if we need to proceed with another option.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
6.
36
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Remote Control Duck Decoy senior design team would like to thank Brian Patton for his drawing
expertise and allowing us to use the 3-D printer at The Factory in Patterson Hall. We also wish to thank
Joshua Lyles and Ryan Smith for their mechanical expertise in designing the wing system of RCD2. Ryan
Meechum is also to thank for guidance and donation of servo motors. We thank Ed Dechert for critiquing
and improving our technical writing and presentation skills. And finally, we give special thanks to our
faculty advisor, Dr. Robert Moorhead, and the Mississippi State University Electrical and Computer
Engineering Department for giving us the advice and knowledge needed for our success.
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
7.
REFERENCES
[1]
G. Gresham, The Complete Wildflower. New York: Winchester Press, 1973.
37
[2]
G. A. Baldassarre, E. G. Bolen, Waterfowl Ecology and Management. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1994, pp. 3-6.
[3]
D. Tonelli. (2008, June 6). 1935: The End of an Era [Online]. Available:
http://edecoy.org/livedecoy.html
[4]
Division of Migratory Bird Management. (2005, February 10). Review of ElectronicMotorized Decoys for Taking Migratory Game Birds [Online]. Available:
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway/ElectronicMotorizedDecoyReviewUSFWS2005.pdf
[5]
M. P. Vrtiska, J. H. Gammonley, L. W. Naylor, and A. H. Raedeke, As Waterfowl Hunters
Decline. Internet: http://news.wildlife.org/twp/2013-summer/as-waterfowl-hunters-decline/
[6]
ZigZag Swimmers [Online]. Available:
http://ozdecoys.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=42
[7]
(2014). [Online]. Available: http://www.mojooutdoors.com/index.php/vendor-productsmenu-item/product/476-mojo-swimmer/category_pathway-38
[8]
Forecast Your Duck Hunt. [Online]. Available: http://www.ducks.org/hunting/huntingtips/forecast-your-duck-hunting-successweather-matters
[9]
Understanding ERM Vibration Motor Characteristics. [Online]. Available:
http://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/application-notes-technical-guides/application-bulletins/ab-004understanding-erm-characteristics-for-vibration-applications
[10]
IEEE 802.15.4: Wireless Personal Area Networks (PANs). [Online]. Available:
https://standards.ieee.org/about/get/802/802.15.html
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015
8.
38
APPENDIX: PRODUCT SPECIFICATION
ECE 4512: Design I
April 27, 2015

Remote Control Duck Decoys - Senior Design

Transcription

Similar documents

July News Letter - Minnesota Decoy and Wildfowl Carving Club

Decoys as Investment

eggo waffles. golden crispy, warm and fluffy. un

duck a l`orange

Check out our community events

MDCA Newsletter 2013 - The Minnesota Decoy Collectors Association

Chase Luker - Core Sound Decoy Carvers Guild – Harkers Island, NC

What`s New? - Higdon Decoys

Discover • Preserve • Celebrate - North American Vintage Decoy

slide presentation available