Performance Test 1
Configuration of Track
For performance test 1, the objective was to code the AEV to travel from the starting point, marked by the green dot in the figure above, stop prior to the gate, and proceeding through the opened gate. Prior to the gate are two sensors. The first sensor when activated by the AEV opens the gate after seven seconds, while the second sensor, if activated will fail the test run and not open the gate. the test allowed for the best of 3 trials to be counted. In Group C’s case, all three trials ended with the AEV stopping past the first sensors and activating the second sensor.
Performance Test 2
After making adjustments to the AEV using the data and results found from performance test 1, Group C began to prepare for performance test 2. Performance Test 2 is the exact same as performance test 1, with the addition of requiring the AEV to continue down the track and connect to a caboose by using a magnet. The magnet is placed on the the caboose so a piece of metal is required to be added to the AEV to attach the caboose. Once the caboose has been connected, the AEV must travel back towards the gate but does not need to go through again. The main purpose is to ensure the AEV can complete performance test 1 and additionally connect a caboose. For Group C, performance test 2 was completed with a much better result, as the AEV performed perfectly multiple times to obtain a perfect score.
Final Performance Test
The final Performance test once again built off of the previous 2 performance tests, and now adds the task of taking the caboose back to the original starting point. Using all sections of advanced research and design, Group C made the adjustments with the servo motor, the reflectance sensors, and the battery as well as the code to allow the AEV to perform at its highest potential. the first run of 3 was nearly perfect, however the AEV did not stop soon enough when approaching the initial starting point. From this point on, the AEV began to continuously perform worse and worse thus leading to more and more changes to the code. The 2nd and 3rd runs were as successful as the previous two, but still lead to an overall score of 37/40. The exact reason for the decline in performance as more runs are completed has not been found, however there are two potentials including a burned out motor chip in the Arduino or a leak in the battery.