A-Nicholas Brendle, Lars Kristenson, and Brayden Skall Progress Report 2
Instructor – Professor Busick, GTA – Benjamin Richetti 19 March 2019
Report of Progress:
Lab 5:
Situation:
The grant proposal slide (B.1) was presented. Group A was trying to get funding to have an entire AEV 3D printed, so that they could reduce almost all unused space and have a large reduction in weight while also reducing the number of parts needed to assemble the AEV. It would get rid of all screws and nuts needed to hold the AEV controller and battery down.
Results and Analysis:
Other groups were presenting more focused ideas. Consequently, it was easier to visualize what they were trying to sell. Therefore, they got more votes from the class and Group A’s design did not get funded.
Takeaways:
Although Group A’s design did not get funded, looking at ideas that other groups pitched, could help Group A to alter their design by invoking other groups ideas.
Lab 6:
Situation:
Group A sent its members to their respective stations for a committee meeting to discuss how things were going and the future of things in their respective departments. In the Research and Development, it was discussed to come up with two things that Group A would be researching for the following two weeks. It had to be different from the two other groups in their company. Because Group A is short a member they were not able to send anyone to the finances committee meeting.
Results and Analysis:
After conversing with the two other groups, Group A decided that they would conduct research on the usage of different propellers and motor placement.
Takeaways:
Making different propeller designs is not allowed, so Group A finalized their decision and decided to pursue research on motor placement and finding the most optimal motor speed where the energy is at its lowest.
Lab 7:
Situation:
Group A changed their AEV design so that the motors could be placed in three different locations equally spaced apart. The would do one trial where the motors are as close as possible (engine position 1), one at the halfway point on the wings (engine position 2), and finally, one with the motors as far away from the center as possible (engine position 3). Each trial consisted of running a code (A.1) which would have the AEV run a set amount of distance, then have the motors cut off and let the AEV coast. After each trial, the data was extracted with AEV Data Analysis Tool on MATLAB. Before anything, a sensor test was run.
Results and Analysis:
Group A was limited in the number of places to put the motors resulting in only three different variations that would have the same weight and require no additional parts that could throw off the results. A graph of all three trials compared to one another was made (C.1). A trend occurred. As the motors were moved further and further away from the center, the amount of energy used to go a set distance increased from 24.739 joules to 25.441 joules to 29.261 joules. The reason for that was because as the motors are moved further out, they can provide more torque making the AEV move side to side more and more. As a result, energy was wasted, causing the trend on the graph (C.1).
Takeaways:
The position in which the motors are at their closest (engine position 1) is the best position to reduce the amount of energy wasted because it provides the least amount of torque and side to side movement.
Lab 8:
Situation:
The AEV was put back to the way it was originally because the extra area that was added so that the motor configuration could be altered was no longer needed. Group A then moved on to their second area of research. The were looking for the most optimal speed to run the AEV at, to reduce the energy used to complete the same task. Like the previous test, the used a code (A.2) that would have the AEV run at set speed, travelling the same distance, then cut off the motors and let it coast. The speed was increased by five percent each time starting from 20 until a decrease was seen in the amount of energy used. After each trial, the data was extracted using AEV Data Analysis Tool on MATLAB. Before anything, a sensor test was run.
Results and Analysis:
Due to the time limitation, only four of the six initial trials were completed and were graphed together graphed together (C.2). As the motor speed was increased from 20 (Power Test 1) to 25 (Power Test 2) to 30 (Power Test 3) and to 35 (Power Test 4), the amount of energy used was increasing, due to the motor speed being increased.
Takeaways:
As the motor speed increases, the energy used does as well. If Group A cannot find a point below 50 percent motor speed where the power used by the motors decreases, they will have to choose a motor speed that is both low in order to increase efficiency and high enough to go up the sloped monorails and not struggle.
Lab 9:
Situation:
They are finishing up testing the different motor speeds by testing from motor speed 40 (Power Test 5) to 45 (Power Test 6). Then they are going to upload the data to the AEV Data Analysis Tool on MATLAB and analyze it to see if there are any dips on the graph that show a decrease in energy used. Before anything, a sensor test was run.
Results and Analysis:
Another graph (C.3) was made that compares the last test from Lab 8 (Power Test 4), Power Test 5 and Power Test 6. On the graph, it shows that Power Test 4 used 27.477 joules, Power Test 5 used 26.972 joules, and Power Test 6 used 27.861 joules. Therefore, between Power Test 4 and 5, there was a decrease in the amount of energy used. As a result of that Group A decided to conduct Power Tests 4.1 (motor speed 36) and 4.2 (motor speed 37) to see where it was at its lowest. After which, another graph (C.4) was made. It shows that Power Test 4 used 27.477 joules, Power Test 4.1 used 25.367 joules and Power Test 4.2 used 25.405 joules. As a result, the energy used was at its lowest at Power Test 4.1. Because groups are not to exceed 50 percent power, Group A was unable to determine if there were any more dips in power usage, and due to the time limitation, they were not able to analyze each and every motor speed from 20-50 (anything below 20 would not be effective in getting to the top of the sloped monorail).
Takeaways:
Since the graph (C.4) shows a decrease in the amount of energy used at a motor speed of 36 and an increase at both the motor speeds surrounding it (35 and 37). A motor speed of 36 is optimal because it allows the AEV to move fast while also reducing the amount of energy used.
Lab 10:
Situation: The group was finishing up analysis of the data from the power testing performed over the last two labs. After that, the group began preparations for Performance Test 1. Initial Code was approximated based on known distance values and then the code was tested and modified through trial and error. Prior to beginning all work with the AEV, a sensor test was run.
Results and Analysis: The approximate code created ended up being close to what was needed. The first change was an extension to the duration of the air brake in order to ensure the AEV came to a complete stop. The remaining changes were to the distance the AEV would travel before breaking because the initial code was not sending the AEV far enough. After a few tests the proper distance was determined and met the requirements of the performance test.
Takeaways: The group is confident the code they have written will lead to a successful performance test although it will need to be slightly modified to account for the differences between the tracks in the different rooms. The group is also happy with the findings of our different power and position tests.
Lab 11:
Situation: The group is performing final preparations for performance test 1 and then completing performance test 1. Once performance test 1 is complete, the group will begin preparations for performance test 2. A sensor test was run prior to use of the AEV.
Results and Analysis: The code written in Lab 10 for performance test 1 was slightly modified to account for a change in the start position of the AEV and the change of track. The distance was decreased by about 10 marks for the change in start position and two tests were performed to ensure the AEV would pass the performance test. The performance test was successful using the code shown in A.3 allowing the group to begin preparations for performance test 2. The group began by writing the code to get the AEV to the caboose. The group also added a metal attachment point for the magnet on the caboose to the AEV. After two tests, the group still plans to reduce the distance traveled before activation of the brake so the AEV connects to the caboose at a slower speed. The group was unable to add code for the AEV to move with the caboose yet. The in-progress code for performance test 2 is shown in A.4.
Takeaways: The group completed performance test 1 properly and is off to a good start with performance test 2. The group would like the AEV to contact the caboose at a slower speed than it has in the tests performed so far.
Future Work:
Situation: The group will continue preparations for performance test 2 by writing approximate code for the remainder of the test and performing tests to fine tune it while also modifying some of the code already created. The group will also prepare to present the findings of the power and motor position tests.
Upcoming Goals: Successfully complete performance test 2 and continue to apply the findings of our testing along with the findings of others in order to improve efficiency of the AEV.
Upcoming Schedule: In lab 12, Brayden will continue to write code for performance test 2 and test it with the help of the group while others in the group will prepare to present findings from the motor position and power tests. In lab 13 the group will present test findings. In lab 14 the group will do performance test 2.
Appendix A: Codes Used
A.1
//set all motors to power 25 until the AEV travels 150 marks then brake
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(150);
brake(4);
A.2
//set all motors to power 25 until the AEV travels 150 marks then brake
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(150);
brake(4);
**Multiple iterations of this code were used with only the power level being changed**
A.3
//set all motors to power 25 until the AEV travels 270 marks
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(270);
//reverse all motors then run them at power 30 for 1.2 seconds
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(1.2);
//brake for 10 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(10);
//reverse all motors then run them at power 25 until the AEV travels 50 marks then brake
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(50);
brake(4);
A.4
//set all motors to power 25 until the AEV travels 270 marks
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(270);
//reverse all motors then run them at power 30 for 1.2 seconds
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(1.2);
//brake for 9 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(9);
//reverse all motors then run them at power 25 until the AEV travels 200 marks
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(200);
//reverse all motors then run them at power 30 for 1.3 seconds then brake.
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(1.3);
brake(4);
Appendix B: Pictures
B.1
Appendix C: Graphs
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
