A-Nicholas Brendle, Lars Kristensen, and Brayden Skall Progress Report 3

Instructor – Professor Busick, GTA – Benjamin Richetti, 4 March 2019

Report of Progress

Group A is performing a few tests to ensure that everything is in order with the AEV and then completing a graded run of performance test 1. The code used for the graded run, seen in A.1, will not use findings from the power testing performed in labs 8 and 9.

No changes were made after the initial test. The team then carried out a graded run of performance test 1 and received full credit. After the test was completed, the team continued to work on slowing the connection of the AEV to the caboose by increasing the break and cutting off the motors at an exact time in order to coast up to and down the hill in order to save energy.

The group successfully completed a graded run of performance test 1 with the code written in Lab 11, see A.1, and is finalizing the slow connection of the AEV to the caboose.

Group A is presenting their advanced research and development findings for their AEV. The group is then listening to other groups in their company and Bevis Devise Inc. share their research findings.

Group A focused on creating a design that was balanced, compact, and that used minimal parts. The design evolved from the begin of the development with these goals in mind. For the group’s research, they tested the effects of engine position and motor power. The results of their tested conveyed that the closer the engines lie to the center of the AEV the more efficient the vehicle. Additionally, through analyzing the data of many tests, the group determined that the most efficient motor power was determined to be 25%; however, they chose the second most efficient at 36% power because the AEV must be able to pull a caboose up an incline in the future. The code in A.2, with using multiple power levels, helped the group come to these conclusions.

Group A presenting its findings to the other groups in Baker International and to Bevis Devise Inc. They determined that the motors are the most energy efficient when they are placed in the center of the vehicle and that the most efficient motor power level is 36%.

Group is preparing to complete and completing performance test 2. Group has a version of the code saved that they know will work (A.3) but would like to use the modified code they have been working on (A.4) which runs the AEV at the efficient power level they found previously.

Group was prepared to continue testing the modified code (A.4) with the hopes of using it for the test. The group was forced to revert to the original code (A.3) they had written due to time constraints because of limited batteries. The group performed a couple of tests and found they

needed to increase the power on the incline. This was attributed to the battery used not being completely charged. Once they adjusted the power, they made another adjustment to the distances before and after the stop gate before completing the graded test. The group completed

the graded test.

The group concluded that the AEV is much easier to control at the lower speeds and went with the lower speed code that they had working although it was less efficient for the purpose of completing the test on time. They also had not thought about how battery charge could affect the AEV previously.

The group must complete committee meetings with other representatives from their company and the committee advisors. Within the meetings they will go over different aspects of the project and get advice from committee advisors.

During the meetings the groups went through websites, surveys regarding group members and their research topics. They gained advice regarding how to further improve their website for the public and what topics would be good to pursue in further research.

The group needs to improve their website by taking information out of the posted progress reports and separating it for easier viewing. They also need to improve their styling for the website. The group will also begin researching how to improve the efficiency of the air brake.

The AEV was given an initial code (A.5), but it was not enough marks to get up the track to the peak before switching to the brake, as intended in the plan to test the brakes. Therefore, marks were added to the code (A.6), so that the motors would immediately switch to braking once the

top of the hill was reached. Then, Group A did guess and check work with brakes of power 30, 35, 40, and 45 with varying amounts of time applied. Once the brake stopped the AEV completely without having any forward or backward movement, the data was extracted using the AEV Data Analysis Toolkit, and a graph was made (B.1).

A pattern emerged in which each time the brake speed was increased, consequently running for less time, the total amount of energy used decreased by a small amount. The reason it appears to be insignificant is because it includes the energy it takes to get from the start line and up the sloped track. On one of the graphs (B.1), the total energy for a 30% power brake was 51.892 joules as opposed to the 51.717, 50.707, and 50.272 joules that 35%, 40%, and 45% brakes used. The total power decreases in that it decreased by 0.175 joules in the first increment followed by a 1.10 and 0.432 joule decrease in the second and third power increment, showing that the energy consumption is consonantly decreasing as the power of the brake increases.

Since Group A was unable to test any further during Lab 17, the data in the graph (B.1) shows that the relationship between the increasing the brake power and the amount of energy used are inversely proportional in that as one increases the other decreases.

More brake testes were completed to reach a conclusion on if the trend between the brake power and energy consumption was in fact inversely proportional. After each successful brake test, the data was extracted using the AEV Data Analysis Toolkit and a graph was made comparing the trials (B.2).

After increasing the brake power to 50%, the energy consumption turned out to be greater than that of the brake at 45% power showing an increase of 1.178 joules going from 50.272 to 51.450 joules. Because of that, the lowest amount of energy is at a point between 40-50% power.

Therefore, a test was done at 46% brake power and graphed (B.3), and the total amount of energy increased from 50.272 to 50.810 joules (a 0.538 joule increase).

The lowest energy point is between 40-45% brake power or the tests at 45% or 46% were not good tests and they need to be redone since the data shows there is such a drastic increase between 1% more power in the brake. It could very well be the threshold and 45% is the low point, but tests between 40% and 45% power need to be done before that can be concluded.

Because performance test is a week from lab 19, Group A will be working on performance test three tests once they have reached a conclusion finding which power level brake provides the least amount of energy

consumed. That way they can apply all of the knowledge gained from all of the advanced research and development they have been doing for the past weeks, so that they can perform at their best.

 Reach a conclusion in regard to finding the most energy efficient power level for the motor brake.

 Successfully complete performance test three at least five times prior to the graded test.

 Apply all of the knowledge gained throughout all of advanced research and development to the

final performance test.

Lab 19: finish testing the braking power levels and find what percentage of power leads to the highest energy efficiency and begin testing performance test three.

Lab 20: have a draft presentation completed highlighting all of the information that has been gathered throughout advanced research and development. Also, successfully run performance

test three at least once.

Lab 21: successfully run performance test three at least five times and ensure all levels of advanced research and development have been implemented.

Lab 22: Practice performance test three a few times. Then, complete performance test three.

Lab 23: Have the final version of the presentation completed

Lab 24: Work on the Critical Design Review and update the website.

Lab 25: Have everything complete.

Appendix A: Codes Used

//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);

motorSpeed(4,X);

goToRelativePosition(150);

brake(4);

//multiple values used for X

//set all motors to power 26 until the AEV travels 272 marks

motorSpeed(4,26);

goToRelativePosition(272);

//reverse all motors then run them at power 30 for 1.3 seconds

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,30);

goFor(1.3);

//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 1.6 seconds

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,30);

goFor(1.6);

//brake for 10 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(10);

//set all motors to power 25 until the AEV travels back 50 marks then //brake

motorSpeed(4,25);

goToRelativePosition(-50);

brake(4);

/set all motors to power 36 until the AEV travels 226 marks

motorSpeed(4,36);

goToRelativePosition(226);

//reverse all motors then run them at power 45 for 1.3 seconds

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,45);

goFor(1.3);

//brake for 9 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(9);

//reverse all motors then run them at power 36 until the AEV travels 75 //marks

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,36);

goToRelativePosition(75);