Package Science Services LLC 3287 Kifer Road Santa Clara, CA 95051

+1 (408) 969-2388 +1 (408) 841-7597 info@pkgscience.com

April 25, 2016    1 

2016 IEEE Micromouse Competition Report University of Hawaii Manoa April 15, 2016 Tom Tarter, IEEE Senior Member The annual Micromouse Competition for Region 6 IEEE was held at the University of Hawaii, Manoa on April 16, 2016. This report details the activities, participants and winners for the Micromouse Maze and the CPMT Packaging contest. The agenda for the day is show below.

Michelle Shimoda from the University was the primary student organizer and planned the day well. Tim Worboys of IEEE Region 6 was the event manager. Overall it was a very enjoyable and exciting event. All of the students and R6 members present did a great job of keeping things going. The schedule varied a bit as is usual in events like this, but the organizing team kept it together. The teams and organizers met at the University campus, with introductions and a buffet breakfast organized by the students. First, a series of talks from Tom Coughlin, Kathleen Kramer and others outlined the mission and future of IEEE Region 6 membership and core values. Section and student reports were also presented. The two candidates for Region 6 Director-Elect, Keith Moore and Ram Sivaraman, also gave a short presentation and answered questions from the audience. After a short break the teams were off to prepare their entries and perform any last-minute adjustments. At this time Tom Tarter from CPMT SCV was provided with a room to perform the CPMT Packaging Contest measurements. Tom was assisted by Region 6 past Director Mike Andrews and Ram Savaraman which he is very grateful for. The measurements include power (capacity), temperature, sound, electrical noise, weight and design factors such as quality of assembly creativity, markings, human factors and design aesthetics. All nine university teams at the event entered the packaging contest.

    2 

The nine teams entered are: Team IEEE East Bay, CSU East Bay, Jonathan Phung, Freddy Flores, Clinton Burns, Timothy Wong, Cristian Gonzalez Team Green Machine, CSU Sacramento, Ernesto Salcido, Jesus Villalobos, Micaela Kapp, Ching Saetern Team Gray Machine, SCU Sacramento, Ernesto Salcido Team Unicorn IX, UH Manoa, Paulo Lemus, Nicole Hortizuela, Cynna Taylor, Rudolfo Julian Team Jerry Da Mouse, UH Manoa, Creighton Chan, Jerry Wu, Justin Chock, Scott Nishihara Team Logic Breakers, UH Manoa, Brandon Amano, Kimpee Castro Team Raichu, UH Manoa, Garrett Young, Brian Chan Team Wolfie, U Nevada Reno, Scott McKenzie Team Waffles, Santa Clara University, Taylor Mau, Andrew Michelmore, Jun Chang, Thomas Chung All teams qualified for the packaging contest by making two turns in the maze or staying in the maze for 3 minutes except Team Wolfie. Based on the guidelines for measurements and reviews the winner of the CPMT Packaging Award went to Team Raichu, UH Manoa with 21 points. Second place went to Team Jerry da Mouse, UH Manoa with 19 points. Third place went to Team Logic Breakers, UH Manoa with 14 points. Result details are shown in Appendix 1 with ratings and rankings. All of the teams did a good job with varying levels of engineering applied. Many used ‘kits’ with PIC™ or Arduino™ processors in SMT and DIP formats. 3D printing was extensively used in the constructions. Motors were mostly steppers, with varied form-factors or DC motors with encoders integrated into the motor housing. Both IR and acoustic sensors were used, sometimes both. IR sensors were preferred, but SONAR sensors also worked well. General comments from the students are that the software and coding is no problem, but the hardware presented some real-world engineering challenges. The most solid machine in terms of construction was Team Logic Breakers with many 3D printed parts and large stepper motors. This helped with the robustness of the entry, but it suffered due to a large weight. Although Team Wolfie did not meet the maze requirement, this student used an off-the-shelf processor and hand-wired the entire circuit. I gave Scott a special mention as he did not use a kit and used a relatively complex microprocessor. Team Wolfie also learned a very important lesson about parasitics in long wires (see picture). The overall winner of the maze event is Team Logic Breakers with a time of 2:04:70, completing 78 cells in the run. Second place went to Team Raichu with a time of 2:12:77 and 34 cells, and third place went to Gray Machine with a time of 2:28:00 and 19 cells. After the contest a group of no less than 35 students and staff headed out to Waikiki Beach to gather and make dinner plans. All in all, it was a very good event and I believe all of the students, as well as the staff, learned from each other. Being a competition, I was pleased to see that there were friendly rivalries, and the teams worked together well. All the teams cheered for each other during the runs. Not all of the entries completed the maze, but several did and it was exciting for the students on all teams when a perfect run was completed! Of the entries that did not complete the entire maze, many were very smart and amusing, sometimes the behavior elicited laughs and gasps from the audience. Important lessons are learned in engineering, teamwork, and comradery that IEEE brings together with the Micromouse contest.

    3 

Kathleen Kramer, Tom Coughlin, Tim Worboys, The 2016 R6 April Micromouse Group Mike Andrews and HI Chapter Chair

The Maze IEEE EAST BAY

GREEN MACHINE GRAY MACHINE

    4 

UNICORN IX JERRY DA MOUSE

LOGIC BREAKERS RAICHU

WOLFIE WAFFLES

    5 

APPENDIX CPMT Packaging Contest Results

    6 

IEEE Region 6 April Micromouse Competition Results