Micromouse Proposal
Senior Design Project 2012-2013
Spencer Cupp, Sasha da Rocha Pinheiro, Kiel Wood
10/17/2012
Contents
Problem Statement: ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Objective Statement: .................................................................................................................................... 2
Literature Survey:.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Algorithm: ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Microcontroller: ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Motors: ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sensors: ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Batteries: ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Existing designs: ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Marketing Requirements: ............................................................................................................................. 8
Realistic Constraints:..................................................................................................................................... 9
Objective Tree: .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Functional Block Diagram: .......................................................................................................................... 11
Alternative Solutions:.................................................................................................................................. 13
Test Plan:..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Budget and Cost Analysis: ........................................................................................................................... 17
Schedule: ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................. 19
References: ................................................................................................................................................. 20
1
Problem Statement:
The IEEE Micromouse Competition is a meeting where students design and build robots to
autonomously solve a maze. The maze is a 16 x 16 block of cells, each cell measuring 18 x 18 cm. The
walls of the maze are 5 cm high and 1.2 cm thick. The robots in the competition may use various sensors
to find the most efficient path to the center of the maze in the shortest amount of time possible. The
winner of the competition is the mouse that travels from start to finish in the shortest amount of time.
Robots entered in the competition must not exceed 25 x 25 cm length and width and must be
completely self contained. Any outside communication with the mouse is strictly forbidden. It is
necessary that a device be designed and constructed to enter in the Micromouse Competition. In
addition, the ECCS department would like to retain the Micromouse so it can be demonstrated to
prospective students as well as at various university and college of engineering events.
Objective Statement:
The objective of this project is to design and construct a robot to enter in the Micromouse Competition.
The robot will meet the specifications of the competition and follow all of its rules. It will use various
sensors to detect the maze, utilize a dynamic programming algorithm to find the most efficient path
through the maze, and will propel itself through this path to the end of the maze. A major focus of the
design will be making the robot as fast as possible, giving it the best odds of placing first in the
competition.
Literature Survey:
Algorithm:
Maze solving algorithms have been studied in mathematics for a number of years and there are many to
choose from. The types of algorithms typically used in micromouse competitions are called flooding
algorithms. The term comes from the idea that if water was poured into the beginning of the maze, the
drop of water that reached the end of the maze first would have travelled the shortest path to get there
[10]
. With the micromouse, this approach can be used by assigning a value of zero to the starting cell and
numbering every other cell in the maze based on how many connected cells away from the beginning
cell it is [10]. Once every cell is mapped this way, the algorithm can follow a path such that the number of
the cells along the path always decreases as the mouse moves away from the maze’s center and
towards the beginning. The resulting path will be the shortest possible path in the maze, as can be seen
in Figure 1.
2
Figure 1: Flooding Algorithm Diagram
[10]
Though this type of flooding algorithm is frequently used in micromouse, the difference from one
algorithm to another lies largely in how the mouse decides where to go before the map has been
produced. Because the mouse does not know where the walls of the maze are when it enters the maze,
one method is to assume there are no walls and take the most direct path to the center of the maze.
When the mouse does encounter a wall, it will then reassign the cell values based on the new
information about the wall, and take the most direct path from the current cell to the center based on
that information. The reassigning of cell values can be seen when comparing Figures 2 and 3 below.
Figure 2: The shortest path before knowledge of walls in the cell above the mouse
3
[10]
Figure 3: The shortest path after knowledge of the walls in the cell
[10]
Microcontroller:
A micromouse design will require a microcontroller to control the motors, receive input from the
sensors, and essentially be the “brain” of the mouse. The microcontroller is programmed with an
algorithm to help the mouse determine the best possible path through the maze as well as physically
guide the mouse through the maze. When researching possible microcontrollers that could be used that
would provide the necessary performance a few were found that would be suitable. The first
microcontroller that was researched is the widely used Arduino. This microcontroller would provide the
resources and connections necessary to drive and act as the “brain” for the mouse. There are also motor
shields available that are compatible with the Arduino, essentially providing a plug and play driver circuit
for the motors. Another microcontroller that was researched was the Raspberry Pi. This device is a full
on Linux machine that would be very easy to program and would provide the necessary power and
performance.
Motors:
With micromouse designs, the main option in motors is the choice between stepper motors and simple
DC motors. Stepper motors can provide precise positioning and reliability and can function in some
applications in an open loop control system. The motors can be operated from the microcontroller with
existing libraries which simply need an input of how many degrees to rotate. Provided there is no wheel
slippage when moving with a stepper motor, feedback on rotor position is unnecessary. Weaknesses of
stepper motors are poor performance in rapid acceleration and constant current draw, which could
drain the robot’s battery [6].
Simple DC motors offer more torque and therefore can typically move a robot faster, but are more
difficult to control. These motors require an encoder to feed the rotor position back to the
4
microcontroller. Controlled movement is attained by supplying power to the motor, monitoring the
encoder to determine how far the motor has rotated, and shutting the motor off when the desired
position is reached. DC motors can accelerate rapidly and can be operated at variable speeds by rapidly
toggling the power to the motor on and off [7]. Both motor types can be found for a wide variety of
voltages, and there are many gearboxes available either attached to a motor or as a separate assembly,
which can be used to increase torque.
Sensors:
A micromouse needs sensors to locate the walls of the maze. This information is then used to avoid
colliding with them, keep the mouse moving in a straight line, make decisions about where to move, and
determine when the maze center has been reached. There are many different ways to use sensors, but
micromouse entries tend to use one of two basic schemes. The first involves looking down on the tops
of the walls to locate them, and the second involves looking at the sides of the walls from within the
maze. In the first scheme, by looking at the top of the wall on both sides of the robot, the sensors can be
used both keep the robot travelling in a straight line and to look for openings on either side of the path.
If looking at the walls with sensors from within the maze, it may be necessary to use separate sensors
for these two tasks. Though extra sensors may be necessary with this method, the robot can be much
smaller and likely faster because it doesn’t need to be taller than the walls of the maze.
There are multiple types of sensors that can be used in both schemes, but the primary types used are
infrared and ultrasonic transmitter/receivers. Both can detect the distance to an object by bouncing
either sound or light off of it. Ultrasonic sensors calculate the distance to the object based on the time it
takes for sound to travel to and from the object, whereas infrared sensors determine how close an
object is based on how much infrared light is reflected off the object and returned to the sensor. These
differences mean that many ultrasonic transmitters have a linear relationship between output voltage
and distance to the object, whereas infrared sensors have a non-linear relationship, giving them an inner
threshold distance at which an object’s location cannot be reliably detected [1].
Both infrared and ultrasonic sensors are susceptible to noise, and because the amount of noise in the
competition maze is unknown, precautions should be made to make the design highly noise tolerant.
One way to reduce noise is by focusing a sensor’s “vision” in a particular area. This can be done to an
infrared sensor by putting blinds around it, limiting its field of view to a particular plane. Some infrared
sensors also have built-in noise reduction features that rely on modulating the sensor signal to
distinguish it from noise [5].
Batteries:
The batteries on a micromouse power the microcontroller, sensors, and motors. A chief concern is
having enough current to run the motors, while minimizing weight is desirable. Rechargeable batteries
are also a favorable option due to the large number of non-rechargeable batteries that would be
consumed during the testing phase of production. In micromouse competition, battery life is not of
major concern because each team is only allowed ten minutes in the maze.
5
Several options are available among rechargeable batteries, including NiCad, NiMH and Lithium Ion. All
three of these options should provide the current needed to drive the motors, but differ slightly in other
areas. Lithium Ion batteries are typically 3.4 – 3.7 V, whereas NiCads and NiMH are typically about 1.2 V
[2]
. This means that for a desired voltage, it will require more NiCad or NiMH batteries than it would to
provide the same voltage with Lithium Ion Batteries, leading to a heavier battery pack.
Existing designs:
Egg Torte
The “Egg Torte” micromouse designed by Kato-san won first place in Japan’s Half Sized Micromouse
Competition in 2010 [4]. It is constructed on a printed circuit board which houses the microcontroller and
can be seen in Figure 4. It runs on lithium batteries and operates using four motors, but only two
wheels. It appears that one motor turns each wheel and the second set of motors is used to make the
mouse run faster after the first mapping run of the maze. In demonstrations the Egg Torte travels at a
visibly faster rate in long, straight segments of the maze [9]. This design uses four IR sensors to navigate
the maze: two looking forward and two looking out to the sides. The front two sensors look across each
other to the opposite sides of the maze. By comparing the intensity of IR returned to either sensor, the
mouse can determine whether it is travelling down the center of a path in the maze and whether there
is a wall directly in front of it. The other two sensors seem to be looking at the walls to find openings
where the maze branches away from the current path. On the underside of the mouse, there are two
pads supporting the front and rear of the mouse to lower friction and prevent the underside of the
circuit board from dragging on the ground. This mouse’s algorithm displays some impressively efficient
features, such as moving diagonally through zigzags and rounding out its turns, narrowly missing the
wall at the inner edge of a corner [4].
Figure 4: The Egg Torte Micromouse
[4]
Min7
The Min7 is a micromouse design that won the All Japan Micromouse competition in 2011 [11]. Its design
also uses a circuit board with embedded microcontroller as a chassis, but uses only two motors to power
its four wheels. The design again uses a lithium polymer battery and infrared sensors, and Figure 5
6
shows the visor which is placed over the sensors to reduce noise. Weighing in at only 90 grams and
having a 10 x 7.5 cm profile, this mouse can reach speeds of up to 3.5 meters per second, solving a maze
at competition in four seconds [11]. This design’s algorithm also employs corner cutting and diagonal
movement techniques [12].
Figure 5: Min7 Micromouse
[11]
Top-Down Sensor Layout:
A third design reviewed during research can be seen in Figure 6. This design utilizes infrared proximity
sensors looking down at the maze walls from above. It has two wheels powered by stepper motors and
uses a ball bearing to hold up the front end of the mouse. No footage of the mouse moving through the
maze was available, but most mice found during research that used a top-down sensor approach were
much slower than mice looking at the walls from within.
Figure 6: Top-Down Sensor Design
7
[8]
Marketing Requirements:
Rules for the Micromouse





[3] :
The micromouse shall be self-contained (no remote control)
The micromouse shall not use a combustion process energy source
The micromouse shall not leave any parts behind while moving through the maze
The micromouse shall not jump over, fly over, climb, scratch, cut, burn, mark, damage, or
destroy walls of the maze
The micromouse shall not exceed 25cm in length or width
Definition of Maze to be Solved














The maze consists of 16 x 16 unit squares
Each unit square is 18cm square
Maze walls are 5cm high and 1.2 cm thick
The outside wall encloses the entire maze
The sides of maze walls are white, the tops are red, and the maze floor is black
The maze is wooden, finished with non-gloss paint
The start of the maze is in one of the four corners
The starting square has walls on three sides
The destination of the maze is the four central squares
In the center of the destination, there is a post 20cm high and 2.5cm on each side
The destination only has one entrance
At no other point in the maze are there four cells with no walls between them
Multiple paths to the destination are allowed
The maze layout will be such that a wall-hugging mouse will not be able to find the destination
square
Competition Rules






[ 3] :
[3] :
Each micromouse will be allowed 10 minutes of access to the maze
Each run in which a mouse successfully navigates from the start cell to the destination square
will be given a run time
The minimum run time a mouse performs will be the mouse’s official time
First prize goes to the mouse with the shortest run time
Mice that do not enter the destination square will be ranked by the maximum number of cells
they traversed without being touched
Operators may abort a run at any time
8
o









If an operator touches the mouse during a run, it must be removed from the maze and
placed back in the starting cell before proceeding
If a mouse has entered the destination square, it may be removed, but a 30 second penalty will
be added to the mouse’s following run
The operator shall not feed any information on the maze into the micromouse
The run timer will start and stop when the mouse crosses the start line (outside the start cell)
and finish line (at entrance to destination cell), respectively
Every time the mouse enters the start square, a new run begins
The mouse may continue to navigate the maze after reaching the destination square for as long
as their time allows
Judges have the right to ask the operator for an explanation of the micromouse, stop a run,
disqualify a micromouse, or give instruction as they see fit
Contestants may perform the following procedures to a mouse
o Move switches
o Replace batteries
o Adjust sensors
o Change speed settings
o Make repairs
Contestants may not alter a mouse in a way that changes its weight
Contestants may request a break for their mouse, stopping the ten minute timer and resuming it
again when the mouse is prepared to compete again
Realistic Constraints:
The realistic constraints that properly apply to this problem are as follows: Maintainability, Operational,
Functionality, and Performance. When speaking about maintainability, it has been decided that this
design will allow for easy access to all components to make troubleshooting easier. Also, good
documentation is needed so that this design can be modified easily at a later time by others. The
operational constraint is important because, if followed, the design will have a high tolerance for noise
coming from outside the maze. This will further guarantee reliability of the system. When fulfilling the
functionality constraint it can be guaranteed that the mouse will reliably navigate the maze and
successfully find the center within the allotted amount of time. Concerning performance, it can be
guaranteed that the mouse will, with the use of an algorithm, determine the most efficient solution to
the maze and follow this path.
Objective Tree:
The objective tree seen in figure 7 outlines the major criteria considered throughout the design process.
The most important criterion in this design is reliability, as there is only one opportunity to perform at
the competition. This includes a relative invulnerability to sensor noise and a robust algorithm for
solving the maze. Speed and physical structure are both given equal weight as the next priority in
design, as they are related. It is desirable for the design to have a high speed, but not at the sacrifice of
precision in positioning. Meanwhile low weight without sacrificing durability is also desirable to help
9
improve speed. Another desirable quality which falls under both the physical structure and efficiency
categories is for the mouse to be narrow enough to travel in a straight line through zigzags, which will
help shave small amounts of time off of a run.
Figure 7: Micromouse Objective Tree
10
Functional Block Diagram:
The functional block diagram for this design can be seen in figures 9 and 10. The five main components
can be seen as separate modules in the level 1 diagram. The functionality of these components:
microcontroller, sensors, motors, battery, and user interface are outlined in Tables 1-5, which describe
the inputs, outputs, and functionality of each module.
Figure 8: Functional Block Diagram Level 0
Figure 9: Functional Block Diagram Level 1
11
Table 1: Functional Block Diagram Level 1 - Sensors
Module
Sensors
Inputs
Signals reflected from maze walls
Power
Outputs
Signal to microcontroller
Functionality
Detect walls of maze
Table 2: Functional Block Diagram Level 1 - Microcontroller
Module
Microcontroller
Inputs
Sensor input signal
Power
UI: On/Off and Reset
Outputs
Motor Control
Functionality
Navigate maze using sensor inputs to control the motors
Table 3: Functional Block Diagram Level 1 - Motors
Module
Inputs
Motors
Power
Control wires from microcontroller
Outputs
Movement
Functionality
Rotate wheels to move the micromouse
Table 4: Functional Block Diagram Level 1 - Battery
Module
Battery
Inputs
Outputs
none
Power to microcontroller
Power to motors
Power to sensors
Functionality
Supply power to micromouse
12
Table 5: Functional Block Diagram Level 1 – User Interface
Module
User Interface
Inputs
User
Power
Outputs
Power on/off
Reset microcontroller
Run maze again
Functionality
Toggle power with a switch, reset microcontroller with a button, and perform
an additional run of the maze using a button
Alternative Solutions:
Because there are many options for each component of a micromouse, it was decided not to evaluate
alternatives in terms of entire micromouse designs, but rather evaluate the options for each component
independently. For the most important components of the design, decision matrices were developed to
help determine the best option among several.
Microcontroller:
The Microcontroller was possibly the most important hardware decision for this design, and two
different options were evaluated: the Arduino Uno and the Raspberry Pi. The Arduino Uno was selected
for several reasons, some of which can be seen in the decision matrix (Table 6).
One of the most important differences between the two microcontrollers was the presence of analog
input pins on the Arduino. Because analog sensors will be used, analog to digital converters would need
to be implemented outside of the Raspberry Pi, increasing complexity and weight with a potential
sacrifice of reliability and precision. Though the Uno has significantly less processing power, it was
determined that the power available was sufficient for this application. Another benefit of the Uno is the
plug-and-play motor driver circuit that is available, which will simplify the control and power circuitry for
the motors.
13
Table 6: Microcontroller Decision Matrix
Criteria
Optimum
Factor Weight
Processor
Speed
(MHz)
Analog
Input
Pins
Weight (g)
high
15%
high
50%
low
15%
Motor
Driver
Chip
Available
high
20%
Arduino Uno
Raspberry Pi
20
700
6
0
30
45
1
0
Min
Max
20
700
0
6
0
45
0
1
Score
0.75
0.15
Motors:
The decision matrix seen in Table 7 was developed to choose between stepper motors and simple DC
motors. Initially, the precision control criteria led to stepper motors being selected. After questions
raised by the project review board, this was reconsidered for two reasons: Firstly, the fact that stepper
motors draw current at all times, even when not moving had been overlooked, and there was concern
that the minimal batteries being used could be fully drained. Secondly, because some amount of
slippage is unavoidable, it was decided that an encoder would be necessary for feedback on motor shaft
position. Since the encoder provided the precision initially desired, the additional weight and lower
speed of stepper motors was no longer justified.
Table 7: Motor Decision Matrix
Criteria
Optimum
Factor Weight
Speed
Control
Weight
Power
Consumption
high
30%
high
25%
low
25%
low
20%
Stepper Motor
DC motor
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
Min
Max
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Score
0.25
0.30
Batteries:
When choosing batteries for the design, the most important criterion was to minimize weight. A
sampling of battery types were analyzed as seen in Table 8, though most non-rechargeable batteries
14
seemed impractical because of the number of batteries that would be consumed during testing. Lithium
Ion batteries were determined to be the lightest, while still satisfying the motor’s current drawing
needs. Due to the typical Lithium Ion battery having 3.7V potential, fewer batteries are necessary to
deliver the same voltage than with other battery types.
Table 8: Battery Decision Matrix
Criteria
Optimum
Factor Weight
Current
Weight
high
40%
low
50%
Alkaline
NiCad
NiMH
Lithium Ion
1
4
2
3
3
4
2
1
Min
Max
1
4
1
4
Score
0.17
0.40
0.47
0.77
Sensors:
Ultrasonic and Infrared type sensors were compared as seen in Table 9. Because of the intended sensor
array layout, detecting objects at an angle to the sensor was deemed very important. Ultrasonic sensors
do not always perform this function well, being more successful at detecting objects perpendicular to
the sensor. Minimum detection distance was also analyzed to verify that a sensor would work
appropriately when in close proximity to the walls of the maze.
The third criterion evaluated was noise vulnerability. As stated earlier, reliability in this design intended
for competition is paramount. Though both sensor types are subject to noise, it was decided that
infrared sensors can tolerate more noise than ultrasonic sensors. This is because blinds can be used to
limit the sensor’s field of vision to the plane between the mouse and the walls, eliminating most noise
coming in from above. Also, the specific model of infrared sensors looked at at use additional noise
tolerating features.
15
Table 9: Sensor Decision Matrix
Criteria
Optimum
Factor Weight
Ultrasonic
Infrared
Min
Max
Minimum
Range (cm)
low
30%
Angled
Object
Detection
high
50%
Noise
Vulnerability
Score
low
20%
0.01
3
1
2
2
1
0
3
1
2
1
2
0.30
0.70
Test Plan:
To ensure the design is at optimal condition for competition, the plan is to test exhaustively. Another
result of the project review board discussion was to move the algorithm development and simulation
earlier in the design process, starting work immediately. It will be useful to try algorithms that have
been used in micromouse previously, making adaptations to improve them.
Meanwhile, as parts arrive, the design will be assembled and each of the components will be tested. The
following outline shows the different functionalities of the micromouse and the order in which these
features will be tested. Once each feature is functional, the next will be tackled, with the exception of
the algorithm, which will be developed in tandem with the hardware.
16
Test Plan:
1. Algorithm Simulation
a. Test various existing mapping algorithms
b. Make enhancements to a selected algorithm
2. Motor Control Testing
a. Move forward in a straight line
b. Move a specified distance forward
c. Make a 90 degree turn
3. Sensor Testing
a. Test each sensor individually
b. Use sensors to keep robot in center of path
c. Use sensors to stop before hitting a wall
d. Use sensors to detect openings when a wall is reached
e. Use sensors to detect openings to the sides on a straight path
4. Basic Maze Navigation
a. Travel until a wall is reached, then decide which direction to turn using sensors
b. Turn down an opening detected by sensors before reaching a wall
5. Algorithm Testing
a. Use the algorithm to locate the center of the maze
b. Locate the center of the maze and return to its beginning
c. After locating the maze center, look for shorter routes
d. Discover all routes from beginning to center and choose the shortest route
e. Discover all routes, choose the shortest, and follow it at a higher speed
6. Algorithm Refinement
a. Make a 45 degree turn
b. Traverse a series of alternating 90 degree turns in a straight line at a 45 degree angle
c. Recognize alternating turns with the algorithm and decide to travel at a 45 degree angle
autonomously
Budget and Cost Analysis:
To determine the total cost of the project, a parts list was developed. The resulting price breakdown can
be seen in Table 10. A 15% contingency was included to account for any parts that may be damaged
during shipping or testing, as well as a lump estimate for shipping costs. Expenses for travel to the
competition in Morgantown, West Virginia were included, as well as an estimate for the cost of
engineering labor to develop and implement the design.
17
Table 10: Micromouse Cost Breakdown
Parts
Quantity
Individual Cost Total Cost Bulk Order Rate
Arduino Uno
1 $
29.95 $
29.95 $
25.46
Arduino Motor Shield
1 $
19.50 $
19.50 $
15.60
DC Motor w/ Encoder
2 $
36.95 $
73.90 $
29.56
Motor Mounting Bracket
2 $
7.45 $
14.90 $
6.33
Right angle gearbox
2 $
50.95 $ 101.90 $
50.95
Shaft couplings
2 $
8.18 $
16.36 $
8.18
IR sensors
4 $
13.95 $
55.80 $
11.16
IR Sensor Wires
4 $
1.50 $
6.00 $
1.20
Sensor Mounting Brackets
4 $
4.95 $
19.80 $
4.47
Wheel Hubs
2 $
6.95 $
13.90 $
5.21
Wheels
2 $
4.25 $
8.50 $
3.82
Casters
2 $
4.99 $
9.98 $
3.99
Chassis
1 $
12.00 $
12.00 $
4.00
Power Switch
1 $
0.50 $
0.50 $
0.40
Run Button
1 $
0.50 $
0.50 $
0.40
Battery
1 $
11.59 $
11.59 $
10.76
Battery Charger
1 $
23.95 $
23.95 $
21.54
Misc. screws and brackets
1 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
9.00
Shipping
Contingency
15%
Total
Prototype Budget
Competition Expenses
Travel to MorganTown WV
Meals
Total:
Labor
Quantity
Individual Cost
Project Engineer Hour
540
$30
Project Total:
$
80.00
$
76.35
$ 509.03
$ 585.38
Total Cost
$333
$185
$518
Total Cost
$16,200
$ 17,303.38
Bulk Order Total
$
25.46
$
15.60
$
59.12
$
12.66
$
101.90
$
16.36
$
44.64
$
4.80
$
17.88
$
10.42
$
7.64
$
7.98
$
4.00
$
0.40
$
0.40
$
10.76
$
21.54
$
9.00
$
370.56
Estimated comittment
6 hrs/person/week * 30 weeks
A break even analysis was performed based on the development costs seen above and the retail price
shown in Table 11. If this design were developed and mass produced, 570 units would have to be sold
before beginning to profit from the sales.
Table 11: Break Even Analysis
Development Cost
$ 16,785.38
Unit Cost
$
370.56
Unit Price
$
400.00
Break even quantity
570
18
Schedule:
The project schedule can be seen in attachment 1
Conclusion:
In summary, this proposal outlines the format and rules of an IEEE micromouse competition, gives a
sampling of research pertaining to micromouse designs that have worked in the past, identifies criteria
used to guide the design process, describes the constituent parts of a general micromouse design,
explains the decisions made to select specific component types, details the procedures the design will
be tested by, estimates the cost of prototyping and mass producing the design, and schedules the work
necessary to deliver a finished product. This final product will fulfill all specifications of the competition
while maximizing speed, accuracy, and reliability in hopes of taking first place. In addition, this
micromouse will also be put on display by the ECCS department to prospective students and at other
College of Engineering gatherings. With the plans and schedule previously described, the complete
design should be ready and well documented by April 4th, 2013.
19
References:
[1] - "Bildr Are We Getting Close? Proximity Sensors Arduino." Bildr. N.p., 8 Mar. 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.
<http://bildr.org/2011/03/various-proximity-sensors-arduino/>.
[2]-Bluejay, Michael. "Your Guide to Types of Household Batteries (AAA, AA, C, D, and 9V Sizes)." Battery Guide.
N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. <http://michaelbluejay.com/batteries/>.
[3] -"Competitions." IEEE Entity Web Hosting. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. <http://sites.ieee.org/sb-
osu/sac-2012/competitions/>.
[4] - Edwards, Lin. "Micromouse Robot Runs Maze in Record-breaking Five Seconds (w/ Video)." Micromouse Robot
Runs Maze in Record-breaking Five Seconds (w/ Video). N.p., 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
<http://phys.org/news/2010-11-micromouse-robot-maze-record-breaking-seconds.html>.
[5] - "How to Build a Robot Tutorial - Society of Robots." SocietyofRobots.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.societyofrobots.com/sensors_sharpirrange.shtml>
[6] - Jones, Douglas W. "Control of Stepping Motors." Jones on Stepping Motors. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
<http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/step/>.
[7] - Kamal, Ibrahim. "Closed Loop Speed and Position Control of DC Motors." IKALOGIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept.
2012. <http://www.ikalogic.com/closed-loop-speed-and-position-control-of-dc-motors/>.
[8] - Kanesalingam, C. "Design and Development of a Micromouse." Design and Development of a Micromouse.
N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Kanesalingam/kanesh.htm>.
[9] - "Micromouse Chubu Local Competition 2010 - "EggTorte"" YouTube. YouTube, 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Oct.
2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzBwnsnxFGU>.
[10] - "Micromouse - Maze Solver - Theory | Member Robot Tutorials." SocietyofRobots.com. N.p., 28 Feb. 2008.
Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://www.societyofrobots.com/member_tutorials/node/94>.
[11] - "Micromouse - Ng Beng Kiat." Micromouse - Ng Beng Kiat. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2012.
<https://sites.google.com/site/ngbengkiat/Downhome/Topic1>.
[12] - "Swift Robotic Mouse Navigates Huge Maze in Less than 4 Seconds!" YouTube. YouTube, 09 Dec. 2011. Web.
15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Y4ODmweYA>.
20