Deliverables

Preliminary Research and Development

Lab 1:

Glossary of Basic Arduino Function Calls:

 

Source: https://osu.app.box.com/s/ter1ysxfl88vej3wezqleed30cymth1p

Code:

celerate(1,0,15,2.5); //Accelerate motor one from start to 15% power in 2.5 seconds
motorSpeed(1,15); goFor(1); //Run motor one at a constant speed (15% power) for 1 second
brake(1); //Brake motor one
celerate(2,0,27,4); //Accelerate motor two from start to 27% power in 4 seconds.
motorSpeed(2,27); goFor(2.7); //Run motor two at a constant speed (27% power) for 2.7 seconds
celerate(2,27,15,1); //Decelerate motor two to 15% power in 1 second
brake(2); //Brake motor two
reverse(2); //Reverse the direction of only motor 2
celerate(4,0,31,2); //Accelerate all motors from start to 31% power in 2 seconds
motorSpeed(4,35); goFor(1); //Run all motors at a constant speed of 35% power for 1 second
brake(2); motorSpeed(1,35); goFor(3); //Brake motor two but keep motor one running at a constant speed (35% power) for 3 seconds
brake(4); goFor(1); //Brake all motors for 1 second
reverse(1); //Reverse the direction of motor one
celerate(1,0,19,2); // Accelerate motor one from start to 19% power over 2 seconds
motorSpeed(2,35); motorSpeed(1,19); goFor(2); //Run motor two at 35% power while simultaneously running motor one at 19% power for 2 seconds
motorSpeed(4,19); goFor(2); // Run both motors at a constant speed (19% power) for 2 seconds
celerate(4,19,0,3); //Decelerate both motors to 0% power in 3 seconds
brake(4); //Brake all motors

Progress Report Question:

  1. There was significant resistance when the propeller moved at low speeds. The performance of the electric motors worked best when moving at higher speeds.

Lab 2:

The reflectance sensors help to determine the distance traveled by the AEV. They do this by tracking the reflective tape that is spaced out on the wheel signaling that the wheel is turning. This is important in determining not only how far the AEV moves, but also how fast- which are both key aspects to know when evaluating the efficiency of different designs.

Lab 2 Code:

motorSpeed(4,25); goFor(2);  //Run all motors at a constant speed of 25% power for 2 seconds.

motorspeed(4,20); goToAbsolutePosition(295);   //Run all motors at a constant speed of 20% and using the goToAbsolutePosition function travel a total distance of 12 feet (from the starting point).

reverse(4);  //Reverse motors.

motorSpeed(4,30); goFor(1.5);   //Run all motors at a constant speed of 30% power for 1.5 second.

brake(4);   //Brake all motors.

 

Progress Report Question:

  1. The AEV had a slow “reaction time.” As seen in lab 1, there was resistance when starting movement, stopping movement, and changing direction. In order for the code to be the most efficient, it would be best to limit the number of commands significantly changing its motion. It might be best to have the AEV coast than to stop the vehicle right before the end of the track.

Lab 3:

Please see “Evolution of Design”

Progress Report Question:

The most important feature Maria’s design is the change in shape of the front of the base using a laser cutter. The triangle shape allows the AEV to be more aerodynamic, increasing the efficiency, while also decreasing the weight of the project.

Daniel’s design has a big importance on aerodynamics and power. While it may not be the lightest AEV, it has a lot of power coming from the two motors and the wings on the side allow the AEV to avoid air resistance. Increasing the power and aerodynamics of the AEV allows for more control of when the car moves and stops.

The key feature of Kaylee’s design is its smooth curves and edges to maximize its aerodynamic properties. Both propellers are kept in this design to maximize speed. To compensate for this, all unnecessary weight will be cut out, such as unnecessary plastic for the initial construction of the AEV.

There are several key aspects of the combined design. Using the concept of laser cutting the front of the base, the AEV will be lighter and more aerodynamic. Expanding upon this concept, the wings will be cut to might the design lighter and rounded 3D-printed “cups” will be added around the end of the motors. The final change will be switching the mounting bar from an “L” shape to the “T” shape will aid the center of balance.

This design is a very light and efficient design. It has pieces cut off and uses both motors. It costs about 163,974 Dollars and weighs about 340g.

This design is very similar to the sample AEV and does not have any cut off pieces. It also uses both motors and weighs about 343g. This design costs about 163,820 Dollars.

This design is highlighted by some plastic being cut off, and it being very aerodynamic. The estimated cost for this design is 164,128 Dollars, and it weighs about 134g.

The final drawing uses all of the original pieces of the sample AEV and uses laser cutting to remove some of the back of the AEV and then uses the 3D printer to print cups that will help with the AEV being more aerodynamic. The total cost of the AEV is 164,458 Dollars and the AEV weighs about 337g.

 

 

Lab 4:

Code:

celerate(4,0,25,3);   //Accelerate all motors from start to 25% in 3 seconds

motorSpeed(4,25); goFor(1);   //Run all motors at a constant speed (25% power) for 1 second

morotSpeed(20); goFor(2);   //Run all motors at 20% power for 2 seconds.

reverse(4);  //Reverse all motors.

motorSpeed(4,25); goFor(2);  //Run all motors at a constant speed (25% power) for 2 second.

brake(4);   //Brake all motors.

Progress Report Question:

During Lab 4 where the data for the AEV was collected using the Data Analysis Tool, the reflective sensors were not working. The Reflectance Sensor test did not work, but the sensor worked when a manual test was performed. So, since the sensor did not work the graphs came out a little weird. The first graph which is power vs. distance showed that the power was increased to about 11 watts, but the AEV did not travel any distance. Although this is what the graph shows, when the car was tested on the track, it did follow the code and travel forwards and backwards. The second graph shows the how the power increases and decreases over time as the code runs. The code starts off by accelerating all the motors from 0 to 25 % for 3 seconds which is shown on the graph as a positive slope for the first 3 seconds. Then all the motors run at 25 % power for 1 second which is shown in the graph as a horizontal line from 3 to 4 seconds. Next, the motors were reduced to 20 % power for 2 seconds. This is shown by the sharp decrease and then the horizontal line from 4 to 6 seconds. Then, the motors are all reversed, which is shown by a sharp increase then decrease at about 6 seconds. Next, all the motors are run at 25 % for 2 seconds. This is shown on the graph as another horizontal line from 6 to 8 seconds. It is clear the power for the second step and this step are running at the same power, because on the graph they both have horizontal lines at approximately 6.22 watts. Finally, the motors all brake, which is shown by a steep decline in the power down to 0 watts.

Lab 5:

When looking at each design, we took a quick screening approach represented by the first table. Then to confirm our thoughts, we used a more numerical scoring method. The first table is known as concept screening, and the second being concept scoring. Both methods confirm that Design A and Design D should be further developed in the subsequent labs because they excelled in the most important areas such as safety and efficiency.

 

Advanced Research and Development

Battery Testing:

Code:

reverse(4);                                      // Reverse both motors              

celerate(4,0,25,5);                        //Accelerate both motors from 0 to 25% in 5 seconds   

motorSpeed(4,25);                      //Set both motors at 25%

goToAbsolutePosition(50);       //Go to the absolute position of 50 marks

brake(4);                                       //brake both motors

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power (Watts) vs. Distance (Meters)

 

 

 

 

 

Voltage (V) vs. Distance (Meters)

 

 

 

 

 

Voltage (V) vs. Number of Runs

From these results, it can be concluded that the batteries do not lose voltage very quickly base on number of runs. This is shown by the fact that the voltmeter couldn’t even detect a voltage change, and when it did, it was only by a maximum change of 0.01V. This is significant to know, because it relieves the need to consider the voltage drop between runs when planning the runs themselves since you can trust that it will be able to power a substantial number of runs. This makes our AEV more marketable, because it is efficient and will last between charges.

 

Propeller Configuration

Code:

Two Motors:

Push:

reverse(4);                                      //Reverse both motors

celerate(4,0,25,5);                        //Accelerate both motors from 0 to 25% in 5 seconds

motorSpeed(4,25);                      //Set both motors at 25%

goToAbsolutePosition(50);       //Go to the absolute position of 50 marks

brake(4);                                       //brake both motors

 

Pull:

celerate(4,0,25,5);                        //Accelerate both motors from 0 to 25% in 5 seconds

motorSpeed(4,25);                      //Set both motors at 25%

goToAbsolutePosition(50);       //Go to the absolute position of 50 marks

brake(4);                                       //brake both motors

 

One Motor

Push:

reverse(1); //Reverse the motor

celerate(1,0,35,5); //Accelerate the motor to 35% power for 5 seconds

motorSpeed(1,35); //Set the motor speed to 35%

goToAbsolutePosition(100); //Go to 100 marks from the starting point

brake(1); //Brake the motor

 

Pull:

celerate(1,0,35,5); //Accelerate the motor to 35% power for 5 seconds

motorSpeed(1,35); //Set the motor speed to 35%

goToAbsolutePosition(100); //Go to 100 marks from the starting point

brake(1); //Brake the motor

 

 

In the first portion of the propeller configuration lab, different types of propellers were used. We tested 3030, 3020, and 2020 blades. The code listed under “Push” was held constant and the power and time became the dependent variables. The 2020 blades were not very effective as it would not travel at the given power level in the code. The AEV had to be pushed to overcome the force, creating error. This is likely the cause of the AEV using 2020 blades traveling a longer amount of time shown in the following graph labeled “Comparing Blade Types Power vs. Time.” The 3030 and 2020 blades were very comparable. There is little difference in the data, but it is recommended that the 3030 propellers are used as they were used in Tests 1 and 2, and show a slight decrease in power used, increasing efficiency and making the AEV more marketable without increasing the cost.

Comparing Blade Types Power vs Distance.

Comparing Blade Types Power vs. Time

In the second half of the propeller configuration lab, push, pull, and push-pull configurations were used. It was determined that the push configuration was more energy efficient. It used significantly less power with the same code and was able to travel further, as illustrated in the following two graphs comparing Power vs. Distance and Power vs. Time. In order to make the configuration pull instead of push, the “reverse” was removed and the power and time became dependent variables. The combination push-pull code should not be used, as the AEV does not move. They reverse the effects. This makes the AEV overall more marketable, as its efficiency can be improved at no additional cost.

Power vs.Distance (Push vs Pull)

Power vs. Time (Push vs Pull)