1. KAITLIN PERANSKI: IE, PROJECT MANAGER JEREMY BERKE: EE, SCRIBE/LEAD SOFTWARE CHRIS CAPORALE: EE, LEAD HARDWARE SPENCER WASILEWSKI: ME, MODELING/MACHINIST KYLE JENSEN: ME, NST MODULE EXPERT KYLE LASHER: ME, TEST BENCH DESIGNER P14372 Actively Stabilized Hand-Held Laser Pointer

2. Agenda Background System Analysis Concept Development Detailed Risk Assessment Project Schedule Test Plan Challenges Action Items

3.  PROBLEM STATEMENT  STAKEHOLDERS  CUSTOMER NEEDS  ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS  HOUSE OF QUALITY  BENCHMARKING RESULTS  CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULE Background

4. Problem Statement Current State: Module from NST that can steer a laser beam Lacks the ability to detect and reduce unwanted vibrations Future State: System to sense and interpret vibrations Output to NST Module for corrective action Goals: Handheld, self-contained and safe design Constraints: Operating temperature, package size

5. Stakeholders New Scale Technologies, Victor, NY  Dave Henderson, Owner  Daniele Piazza, R&D RIT & MSD MSD Group

6. Needs and Requirements Customer Needs Engineering Requirements

7. House of Quality Top Concerns: 1.Amp Reduction 2.Response Time 3.NST Laser Steering

8. Benchmarking Results Comparison of Gyroscopes and Accelerometers  Gyroscope: output given in rad/sec; measures roll, yaw and pitch; possible vendor- InvenSense IDG- 1000  Accelerometer: cannot sense yaw directly; requires more computation Target Frequency Range: 1-20 Hz  Round 1 testing confirmed range

9. Frequency Range Testing

11. Arm Extended, Unfiltered Arm Extended, Filtered

12. Test Bench Ideas Requirements: Frequency: 1-20 Hz Amplitude: +/- 2 degrees

13. Patent Results US 7553048 B2  Uses a gimbal (13) and magnet (80)

14. Patent Results US 7380722 B2  Uses 2 accelerometers and a mirror

15. Patent Results US 8436908 B2  Uses a stabilizer and actuators

16. Patent Results US 20130077945 A1  Uses 3 actuators and a gyroscope

17. Current Project Schedule

18.  FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION  SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE System Analysis

19. Functional Decomposition

20. System Architecture

21.  MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS  CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES  PUGH MATRIX  CONCEPT SELECTION  SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE Concept Development

22. Morphological Analysis

23. The driving decision currently is digital versus analog.

24. Concept 1 Concept 2 Battery Gyroscope Analog LPF Hardware Integrator Hardware Servo Mode NST Module Battery Gyroscope Analog LPF Hardware Integrator Software Digital USB NST Module Concept Alternatives

25. Concept 3 Concept 4 Battery Gyroscope Digital LPF Software Integrator Software Digital USB NST Module Battery Accelerometer Digital LPF Software Integrator Software Digital USB NST Module Concept Alternatives

26. Concept Selection: Pugh Matrix 1 st Iteration

27. Concept Selection: Pugh Matrix 2 nd Iteration

28. System Architecture Battery Gyroscope Low Pass FilterIntegrator Scaled Inversion Servo/USB (I 2 C)

29. Detailed Risk Assessment Top Concerns: 1.Battery failure 2.Poor sensor accuracy 3.Poor data processing 4.Send wrong control signal to NST module

30. Project Schedule: Next 3 Weeks

31. Test Plan Gyroscope  Accuracy, output scaling Filter Design  Transfer function Integrator Design  Accuracy, response time, noise Test bench  Functionality, calibrate frequency Algorithm  Vibration reduction capacity

32. Challenges Control system design  Response time, accuracy Reached out to NST for input on analog versus digital  Still waiting for a response

33. Action Items Update NST on progress Refine test bench design  1 versus 2 axis Future Benchmarking  Feedback system/loop: analog circuit in some binocular systems  Components: gyroscope, battery, processor

34. Any Questions? Thank You.

35. References Benchmarking Articles:  Measurement Method for Image Stabilizing Systems by Golik and Wueller  Image Stabilization Technology Overview by Sachs, Nasiri and Goehl