Sales Pitch

Smart City Columbus and any consumers looking to buy this product should choose our AEV for many reasons. The first reason being that our AEV has a base shape that allows the propellers to be far enough away from the arduino board which allows for air flow and more distance traveled.

 

T-shaped base-final AEV design

Another reason someone should buy our AEV is because we chose a propeller shape that allowed for the most distance traveled with the least amount of power. Throughout our testing, we determined the larger-curved propellers to be the best shape because these propellers allowed the AEV to travel the farthest distance with the least amount of power, traveling 1.6 meters with a peak power consumption of 7.78 watts. Compared to the other shapes, the data from the large-curved blades proved to be in between the other two blades. The other propellers either went a far distance with a very large power consumption, or they went a very short distance with a small power consumption. The large curved blades were a happy medium for power and distance. 

 

Large-Curved Blades

 

Large-Curved Blades: Power vs Time Graph

Large-Curved Blades: Power vs Distance Graph

The third reason a consumer should buy our AEV is because it has a servo arm attached which helps with braking. Upon adding the servo arm, the team noticed the AEV was able to stop at consistent points on the track. This was different than using coasting a reversed propellers to stop. When we tried to have the AEV stop with coasting, the stops were not always at consistent points, and we had trouble landing in bet

ween the sensors for each performance test. The servo arm took away the worry of being inconsistent with braking.

Servo Arm

The final reason someone should buy our AEV is because it was able to complete the given tasks. The code we used for the final performance test was able to have the AEV begin at the starting doc, stop at the stop sign for seven seconds, continue on until the end of the track, connect to the caboose, and reverse back through the track to the starting dock. We decided to code these tasks in marks instead of time, because through our testing, we determined marks-based codes are more consistent than time-based codes. Th

e average distance the AEV traveled for the time tests was 2.2066 meters with a standard deviation of 0.09804 meters. The average distance the AEV traveled for the marks tests was 2.219 meters with a standard deviation of 0.01611. Comparing the standard deviations for each type of test indicates that marks is a more consistent and reliable way to code for distance.

With the final performance test completed and graded, we were able to determine the final data for our AEV. In our final performance test, we used 254 jules of energy and our AEV averaged a time of about 59 seconds. The cost was about $626,306.11 which is over the budget of $500K. The majority of our cost came from our energy usage which was probably due to how much the AEV weighed. Things that could definitely be improved upon with the AEV are the energy use and the weight of the vehicle. Decreasing the mass of the vehicle would likely decrease the amount of energy that the AEV was using and also help it move quicker through the performance tests saving money on both time and energy. Even though our AEV went over budget, it would be simple to fix the problem areas.

Smart City Columbus and any consumers should buy our AEV because the design is impeccable, the propellers produce the most distance with the least amount of energy, there is a servo arm attached to help with braking, and the AEV is coded in marks which is more consistent than a time-based code.

 

AEV picking up caboose and exiting the loading zone