## 4 Discussion  
The paper presents a system that performs detection and execution during its motion process through the collaboration of detection algorithms and driving actuators. The system's detection accuracy, execution accuracy, and overall accuracy are all verified. After repeated testing, the system had some random errors in detection, which were reduced by continuously collecting images and optimizing the average values. Regarding drive execution, the system planned the timing to improve the efficiency of the screw slide movement and achieved a balance between efficiency and precision.  
In this paper, we first observed and analyzed the distribution of residual-input tubes in the plasma-bag distribution feature and classified it into two types: residual tube ends rotate normally with the plasma bag and residual tube ends rub against the supporting surface during rotation. In the design of the plasma bag cutting machine, it needs to recognize and cut the residual-input tube ends during the rotation process. When the residual-input tube end rubs against the supporting surface, it produces displacement relative to the plasma bag for some time. To solve this issue, the paper established a coordinate system model based on data collected from multiple images and introduced a soft-body dynamics algorithm  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Number**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Input Tube Length (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Inclusion to End Distance (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **No Algorithm** & **Adding Algorithms** & **No Algorithm** & **Adding Algorithms** \\ \hline
1 & 68.7 & 3.7 & 2.1 & 5.39 & 3.06 \\
2 & 67.2 & 4.9 & 1.8 & 7.29 & 2.68 \\
3 & 60.9 & 4.8 & 2.0 & 7.88 & 3.28 \\
4 & 58.3 & 4.3 & 2.8 & 7.38 & 4.80 \\
5 & 57.5 & 4.8 & 3.7 & 8.35 & 6.43 \\
6 & 54.0 & 5.2 & 3.5 & 9.63 & 6.48 \\
7 & 51.3 & 4.4 & 1.3 & 8.58 & 2.53 \\
8 & 49.7 & 2.3 & 1.9 & 4.63 & 3.82 \\
9 & 46.5 & 4.3 & 0.7 & 9.04 & 1.50 \\
10 & 45.5 & 3.6 & 2.4 & 7.91 & 5.36 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Experimental data sheet for contact between the input tube and bottom surface.  
Figure 13: Experimental diagram of the residual-input tube-end-cutting system.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Number**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**To Cut or Not to Cut**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Input Tube Length (mm)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Inclusion to End Distance (mm)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Error (\%)**} \\ \hline
1 & Yes & 74.0 & 3.0 & 4.05 \\
2 & Yes & 71.7 & 2.0 & 2.79 \\
3 & Yes & 66.4 & 2.5 & 3.77 \\
4 & Yes & 63.2 & 3.2 & 5.06 \\
5 & Yes & 60.7 & 3.1 & 5.11 \\
6 & Yes & 60.5 & 2.7 & 4.46 \\
7 & Yes & 58.1 & 1.3 & 2.24 \\
8 & Yes & 55.8 & 3.1 & 5.56 \\
9 & Yes & 51.9 & 1.9 & 3.66 \\
10 & Yes & 47.5 & 2.1 & 4.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Cutting experiment data sheet.  
to calculate the time required to complete the deformation. After the deformation was completed, images were collected and detected, and the average value was optimized. The cutting component then moved to the calculated value and waited for the residual-input tube to arrive, finally completing the end cutting and obtaining a more accurate final result.