## 3 Experimental Methods and Results
### Image Processing Process
The ranging plot is shown in Figure 10, and some of the experimental ranging errors are presented in Table 1. The image processing time was about 60 ms, and the camera field of view was about one-half of the disc so as to ensure that the image was fully processed and cutting was completed. The rotation time of the tray was also controlled to be within 10 s per rotation. According to Table 1, there was some error in the distance in the X and Y directions. In the X direction, the error was larger, and the measured values had positive and negative values, which was within the expected error. In the Y direction, the error was smaller and met the requirements for practical use. Figure 9: Plasma-bag input-tube image processing: (**a**) braid position mask map and (**b**) braid corner point detection. To minimize identification errors, we conducted image sampling and recognition of the plasma bag every 50 ms using the camera, followed by averaging the obtained parameters for more precise values, which were subsequently relayed to the lead screw slide. To evaluate the efficacy of this approach for enhancing accuracy, we initially conducted sampling upon detection of the plasma bag by the upper photoelectric sensor, after which we intermittently halted the try rotation every 0.2 s for camera sampling and manual measurement of the input tube position, so as to determine the error magnitude. We repeated the sampling and halting process five times and compared the first sampled value with the mean of six samples, thereby assessing the degree to which the accuracy had been improved. Table 2 shows the positional data of the same plasma bag measured multiple times. The table reveals that during the same experiment, the first sampling may have resulted in relatively large a-directional errors due to the plasma bag not being fully captured by the camera. Therefore, we excluded the first sampling data and averaged the remaining data when calculating the mean error in the a-direction. The b-directional error fluctuated less during each sampling, so we averaged the b-values of the six samplings. The data in the table show that the error was effectively reduced in most cases. However, when the error was already low during the first sampling, there may have been reverse optimization results. Therefore, after weighing the pros and cons of the options, we ultimately chose the mean error method. In actual production processes, a 100% cutting completion rate should be achieved despite larger cutting errors. As the b-directional error was consistently positive, the screw slide only needed to be cut at the averaged b-value to ensure complete cutting. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Direction** & **Actual Size (mm)** & **Measurements (mm)** & **Actual Error (mm)** & **Proportional Error (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & a & 14.27 & 13.52 & \(-\)0.75 & 5.26 \\  & b & 104.32 & 106.26 & 1.94 & 1.38 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2} & a & 15.34 & 14.24 & \(-\)1.1 & \(-\)7.17 \\  & b & 82.69 & 85.29 & 2.6 & 3.14 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{3} & a & 8.81 & 9.84 & 1.03 & 11.69 \\  & b & 123.76 & 125.18 & 1.42 & 1.14 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{4} & a & 10.11 & 11.08 & 0.97 & 9.59 \\  & b & 110.63 & 112.62 & 1.99 & 1.80 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{5} & a & 11.18 & 11.97 & 0.79 & 7.07 \\  & b & 99.12 & 100.57 & 1.45 & 1.47 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Distance measurement error table. Figure 10: Visual ranging map.