Lab Deliverables 3&4

Website Deliverable:

Lab 3:

Individual concept Sketches:

Explanations:

Alex: Had to keep the Arduino far enough away from the magnet and thought that the best way to attach the battery would be to create another platform for it beneath so that the top had enough space to attack everything else. Cost:$159,820

Celia: Wanted to keep the design as minimal as possible so the AEV could be as light as possible, however I ran into the issue of not having a big enough surface to attach all the components of the AEV. Cost: $159,180

Rylee: I wanted to give the propellers their own space away so wires would not get caught and they would have no interference. However, this design did make the AEV heavier which is an obstacle that will need to be addressed and fixed. Cost: $151,240

Tyler: My thought process was put the propellers in the back so when the caboose is picked up by the AEV with the magnet they still had space to move the AEV. I was looking for a simple but effective design. Cost: $152,560

Team concept Sketch:

 

Progress Report Questions:

Lab 3:

Lab 3:

Each individual design had its own features. Rylee’s design featured a vertical panel with the arduino and battery attached to it, with a thin horizontal panel below it with the propellers attached to it. The design focused on aerodynamics and a favorable center of mass. Celia’s design employed a “the simpler the better” mindset. It features a single, rectangular pattern with all components secured to the top and propellers located in the very front of the AEV. Tyler’s design, much like Celia’s, also used a single panel with all components located on the top with the propellers located in the front. The design, however, looked to cut costs to a minimum by using a smaller, t-shaped panel, only as large as it needs to be for the AEV. Alex’s design focused on durability of the AEV. It employed a two layer design, with a second panel below the main panel of the AEV to secure the battery too in an attempt to prevent and components from falling off during a test.

All designs used only parts available in the AEV kit. Alex’s design used the most materials since extra panels were required to make the second platform for the the battery in addition to the 7.5”x2.5” main panel. All designs used the L-shaped arm to connect the AEV to the track. Tyler’s design used the T-shaped panel as the main panel. Rylee’s design used the 6”x2” panel as the main panel with smaller wing panels to mount the engines and propellers on. Celia’s design used only the 6”x2” panel in the design.

 

Lab 4:

 

 

// Run motor one at a constant speed (15% power) for 2.5 second.
celerate(1,0,15,2.5);
motorSpeed(1,15);
goFor(1);
// Brake motor one.
brake(1);
// Accelerate motor 2 to 27 percent over 4 seconds
celerate(2,0,27,4);
// Set motor 2 to 27 percent (const)
motorSpeed(2,27);
// Run all motors at current settins for 2.7 seconds
goFor(2.7);
// Decelerate motor 2 to 15 percent over 1 second
celerate(2,27,15,1);
// Brake motor 2
brake(2);
// Reverse motor 2
reverse(2);
// accelerate motor 1 to 31 percent over 2 seconds
celerate(1,0,31,2);
// accelerate motor 2 to 31 percent over 2 seconds
celerate(2,0,31,2);
// set motor 1 and 2 to 35%
motorSpeed(2,35);
motorSpeed(1,35);
// run motors for 1 second
goFor(1);
// brake motor 2
brake(2);
// run all motors for 3 seconds
goFor(3);

Progress Report Questions:

The above power versus time graph does show data of interest.  The code the AEV was executing during this run had the AEV accelerate it’s motors from 0 to 25% power in 3 seconds.  However the graph shows that the AEV kept accelerating for 5.78 seconds to 25%. We believe the extra 2.78 seconds is due to the fact that the motors have resistance and it takes the motors longer than normal to accelerate to the desired speed.  The team also believes this resistance is what is responsible for the non-smooth lines that can be observed in the figure. The code then had all motors run at 25% power for 1 second. The flat section of the graph from 5.78 seconds to approximately 7 seconds shows that the AEV did run at constant power for approximately 1 second.  The code then had the AEV reverse all motors (without braking). In the graph this reversal can be seen happening shortly before 7.22 seconds. The motor power output drops drastically, presumably hitting zero and then spiking back up as the blades had to stop to switch directions, but this is not shown in the graph. The code then had the motors run at 25% for 2 seconds backwards.  The graph has a very interesting result for this section of testing, and that is that the motors power output at 25% power is less in the reverse direction than at 25% in the forward direction. After this, the motors were braked (0% power), this can be seen in the spike towards the origin on the graph.