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 0.01 V. 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. However, consideration of battery voltage changing must still be taken when numerous runs are performed.
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)