Performance Test 1- Advancing through the Gate
After the team finished its Advanced R&D, the next step was to complete Performance Test 1. Two different designs were analyzed in order to conclude which design should be used for the test. The first design housed the lithium ion battery on the top of the AEV between the arm and arduino, while the second design stored the battery on the bottom of the AEV near the front using a battery clamp. Graphs of power vs time were used to analyze which design should be carried on with. These graphs are shown below.
By analyzing these graphs, the team was able to clearly conclude that Design 1 used less energy than Design 2 and should therefore be used for the test. Design 2 reached a maximum power of 10.89 Watts, while Design 1 only reached around 10.5 Watts. This data suggests that Design 1 is the more efficient design. Another observation from both runs was that Design 1 travelled farther on the track given the same code than Design 2. This means that Design 2 consumed more energy only to travel less distance than the previous design. For this first test, the team decided to use a coasting code in which the AEV motors ran for a certain amount of time and then cut off to allow the AEV to coast to the gate. By testing multiple codes and making small changes, the team finally perfected a code that brought the AEV right between the sensors, held for 7 seconds, and proceeded through the gate. The test went perfectly with no flaws at any part of the run.
Finally, the team made discoveries through Performance Test 1. In this lab, the team was able to finalize a design for the AEV. The team chose Design 1 because it used less energy and traveled further than Design 2. One way that the possible error of using different class tracks for testing could be addressed would be by having all classes in the same room from now until the end of the year. This would assure that the same track is being used for all the tests. A shortcoming found in this lab was the slight inconsistency of using time intervals instead of distance intervals in the code. Although the team successfully completed the task, it was noticed that teams that used Relative and Absolute position in their command had much more accurate results between runs.
With all of these conclusions in mind, the team has several recommendations for the future. The first priority for the team is to remake a code for Performance Test 1 using the goToRelativePosition commands. The team discovered that codes using time intervals are way too inconsistent due to the difference of batteries used between different lab periods. Position commands, however, solely depend on the length of the track, which remains constant. These commands will be much more accurate and will allow the team to progress much faster in the AEV project due to this precision. Another recommendation the team has is to utilize the help of other teams in the company more in the future. The team has not consulted other teams to learn about their findings at all, and this may have limited the success of our team as a whole. In the future, we will seek out members of our company in order to make more improvements in our design and codes.
Code Used:
reverse(4);
celerate(4,0,41,3);
goFor(2);
motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(7);
celerate(4,0,40,2);
Design 1(Battery on Top)
-Design 1 selected because of less energy use
Design 2 (Battery on Bottom)
*Used more Energy*
reverse(4);
celerate(4,0,41,3);
goFor(2);
motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(10);
celerate(4,0,40,2);