• Worked Hours:  45 hours
• Estimated Hours: 41 hours

🛜 Communication with the Hardware

The firmware responsible for Bluetooth communication was developed so that the ESP can receive the commands "frente", "re", and "off", allowing the car to move in both directions and stop. In the previous deliverable, the functionality to stop when the Hall sensor detects a magnet was already implemented.

WhatsApp Video 2025-10-15 at 19.41.36.mp4

⚠️ Motor Issues

After completing the structure of the car, we tested whether the motors could handle carrying the full load. Unfortunately, during the initial tests, we noticed that the motors were not performing well. Our main suspicion was a low battery charge, but even after charging, the motors remained non-functional.

We performed several measurements of voltages and currents across the components to try to identify the issue, but we haven't reached a definitive conclusion yet. After charging, the battery provides 13.8V at rest and 13.6V with a current of 0.83A when the motors are running. The voltage at the motors is above 10V, which should be sufficient, as they require 6V to operate. However, the current going to each motor is only 0.3A, which is likely the reason for their weak performance.

Based on the data collected, we have three hypotheses currently under investigation:

• The H-bridge we purchased may not be supplying enough current to the motors (according to the datasheet, it can deliver up to 2A per motor, which should be sufficient).
• The motors may be inadequate for the load or possibly damaged.
• There may be mechanical issues with the wheels or with the motor connected to the encoder (this connection could be preventing it from rotating properly).

Notes: The first H-bridge we purchased ended up burning out, so we are now using a new one. Due to delays in charging the battery and conducting all the tests, the new components we ordered have not yet arrived, as we couldn’t find them in stores near the university.

📱 Measurement Collection in the App

The final score was systematically determined by analyzing various angular measurements. Specifically, a weighted approach was employed, allocating 40% of the total score to the assessment of overall body alignment and posture, which required precise measurement of key joint and trunk angles to ensure proper form. The remaining, more significant portion of the score, 60%, was dedicated exclusively to the evaluation of the arm movements, including the accuracy and range of motion of the elbow and shoulder angles throughout the execution of the task.

Scores:

• Shoulders alignment: 10
• Hips alignment: 10
• Column verticality: 15
• Knees alignment: 5