Deliverables | Engineering 1182 Spring 2018 ACPQ Group

Preliminary Research and Development:

Lab One:

Glossary for coding the arduino
- (Can be found in preliminary r&d labs, page 5)
Code used in lab 1 (p r&d pg 11):
- celerate(1,0,15,2.5); // Accelerate motor 1 from start to 15% in 2.5 seconds.motorSpeed(1,15); // Set motor 1 speed at 15. goFor(1); // Set for 1 second.brake(1); // Brake motor 1.celerate(2,0,27,4); // Accelerate motor 2 from start to 27% in 4 seconds.motorSpeed(2,27); // Set motor 2 speed at 27.goFor(2.7); // Set for 2.7 seconds. celerate(2,27,15,1); // Decelerate motor 2 from 27% to 15% in 1 second.brake(2); // Brake motor 2.reverse(2); // Reverse motor 2. celerate(4,0,31,2); // Accelerate both motors from start to 31% in 2 seconds. motorSpeed(4,35); // Set both motor speed at 35.goFor(1); // Set for 1 second.brake(2); // Brake motor 2.goFor(3); // Set for 3 seconds.brake(1); // Brake motor 1.goFor(1); // Set for 1 second.reverse(1); // Reverse motor 1.
  celerate(1,0,19,2); // Accelerate motor 1 from start to 19% in 2 seconds.
  
  motorSpeed(2,35); // Set motor 2 speed at 35.
  
  goFor(2); // Set for 2 seconds.
  
  motorSpeed(1,19); // Set motor 1 speed at 19.
  
  goFor(2); // Set for 2 seconds.
  
  motorSpeed(4,19); // Set both motors speed at 19.
  
  goFor(2); // Set for 2 seconds.
  
  celerate(4,19,0,3); // Decelerate both motors from 19% to 0% in 3 second.
  
  brake(4); // Brake both motors.

Lab Two:

AEV built
Code used in lab 2 to test (p r&d pg.15):
- motorSpeed(4,25); // Runs both motors are speed 45%.
  
  goFor(2); // Runs for 2 seconds.
  
  motorSpeed(4,20); // Runs both motors at speed 20%.
  
  goToAbsolutePosition(295.385); // Has motors go for so many marks (12 feet).
  
  reverse(4); // Reverses both motors.
  
  motorSpeed(4,30); // Sets both motors to run at speed 30%.
  
  goFor(1.5); // Runs motors for 1.5 seconds.
  
  brake(4); // Brakes both motors.
- The importance of the reflectance sensors is that when using the relative or absolute position codes, how far the AEV goes is based off of how many marks the reflectance sensors count. The reflectance sensors count eight marks for every one time the wheel turns.

Lab Three:

Lab Four:

Graphs from lab 4:
- Power vs. Distance Graph:
  - From zero to .15 meters, it took a lot of power (5.8 Watts) to overcome the weight of the AEV and get it moving, this where the AEV accelerates to power of 15%. From .15 to .70 meters it didn’t take as much power (3.70 Watts) to keep the AEV moving, this is where the motor speed is set to 20%. From .70 to .75 meters the power usage spiked and went up to 8.56 Watts, this is where the motors are reversed. Then from .70 to .91 meters the AEV power leveled off at 5.9 (Watts), this is where the power is set to 25%, until the AEV power goes to zero Watts and remains there.
- Power vs. Time Graph:
  - From zero to 2.8 seconds, the AEVs power gradually increased with a slope of .87 W/s, this is where the motors are accelerating to 15% power. At 2.8 seconds the power usage spiked at 7.1 Watts, this is where the motor speed is set to 25%. From 2.85 to 4 seconds the AEV power levels off at 5.8 Watts, this is where the motor speed is set to 20% . Then the usage of power goes down at 4 seconds and remains at 3.67 Watts until 6.15 seconds, this is where the motors are reversed. At 6.15 seconds the power usage spiked to 8.56 Watts. From 6.20 to 8.10 seconds, the power usage stayed at 5.9 Watts, this is where the motor speed is set to 25%. At 8.1 seconds, the power goes to zero Watts and remains there.

Lab Five:

The team’s designs were put through a Concept Screening and Scoring process to determine the best design. The team’s designs were graded based off of the stability of the design, the blockage, how easily it can be fixed, how often it needs to be fixed and the level of safety it has because it is needed to transport passengers. Design E and design C will be carried forward in the design cycle.
Concept Screening:
Scoring Marix
Pros/Cons of each design
- . Design A is a lightweight and efficient design, but it’s durability and safety are questionable. Design B is a bit better as it is very stable and durable, but not very efficient. Design C is one the team will develop because of its stability, durability and safety. Design D had some components in it that might lead to minimal safety and high maintenance, but it was a very durable design. Design E is the final sketch that was chosen and includes components from each of the team’s ideas. As expected. Design E produced the highest rating and scored exactly like the reference AEV.

Advanced Research and Development:

Energy Analysis Lab:

Track Comparison Lab:

Questions:

Current AEV findings:
- The best track to run the AEV on based on the track comparison lab was track 4, this was based on the consistency of the data from both runs on that track, and it took the least amount of energy to run the code. The energy analysis lab showed us that the marks were being counted correctly by the AEV and the data obtained was consistent.
How does research support these findings?:
- Based on the graphs, it shows how much energy was used vs. the amount of time it took to run. It shows that the data obtained was consistent through the trials and that the energy used for trial 4 was consistently the lowest. Also, the AEV was consistently 12 marks off.
How will this make the AEV more marketable?
- This will make the AEV more marketable, because the most efficient track will be used, so that less energy will be used to run the AEV back and forth on the track. Which will save the consumer and company money.