Propeller Configuration testing was the second test meant to enhance the performance of the AEV. Group F predicted that the configuration of the propellers could affect the AEV’s energy efficiency and movement speed/distance. In order to determine which configuration was best, 4 different ones were ran through similar codes in order to be compared. Data for all 4 trial runs can be seen at the end of the page as well as Group F’s conclusions.
Testing
Push
Push was the first configuration tested on the AEV. A picture of the configuration can be seen below:
During the testing of the push configuration, the AEV would start accelerating at a constant rate, then move at a constant speed, reverse in the same constant speed, then all motors would stop to allow for the AEV to coast. Code for this can be see below:
| Code | Comments |
| celerate(4,0,15,3); | Accelerate all motors from 0% to 15% in 3 seconds |
| goFor(1); | go for 1 second |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| reverse(4); | reverse all motors |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| brake(4); | brake all motors |
Pull
Pull was the next configuration tested. Both motors were turned in the opposite direction as Push. A picture of this can be seen below:
During the testing of the pull configuration, the motors were reversed in the code to account for the flipping of the motors. The rest of the code was the same as the Push configuration. This code can be seen below:
| Code | Comments |
| reverse(4); | reverse all motors |
| celerate(4,0,14,3); | accelerate all motors from 0% to 15% in 3 seconds |
| goFor(1); | go for 1 second |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| reverse(4); | reverse all motors |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| brake(4); | brake all motors |
Push/Pull
The Push/Pull configuration was the third configuration to be tested. This configuration only consisted of one motor the was flipped while the other one stay forward. In testing this configuration only 1 motor was ran at a time fallowing the same patters of the first two. A picture of this configuration can be seen below:
The code for the Push/Pull configuration was written to where the pull propeller would be the starting propeller and the pull would be the ending one. This was done in order to obtain consistent data with the rest of the tests. If both motors were ran at the same time there would be no comparable data at those points. The code for Push/Pull can be seen below:
| Code | Comments |
| celerate(1,0,15,3); | accelerate motor 1 from 0% to 15% speed in 3 seconds |
| goFor(1); | go for 1 second |
| motorSpeed(1,25); | run motor 1 at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| brake(1); | brake motor 1 |
| reverse(2); | reverse motor 2 |
| motorSpeed(2,25); | run motor 2 at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| brake(4); | brake all motors |
Small Push
The last configuration tested for the AEV was the small push configuration. This configuration is the same as push but with smaller propellers. A picture of this can be seen below:
The code for small push is the exact same as Push but will be listed below:
| Code | Comments |
| celerate(4,0,15,3); | Accelerate all motors from 0% to 15% in 3 seconds |
| goFor(1); | go for 1 second |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| reverse(4); | reverse all motors |
| motorSpeed(4,25); | run all motors at a constant 25% speed |
| goFor(5); | go for 5 seconds |
| brake(4); | brake all motors |
Data
Results
Working with each configuration allowed Group F to compare each configuration with not only data but experience as well. Note that the data does give a good representation of what the configurations capabilities are, but, it was better to use empirical data to explain the pro’s and con’s of each configuration.
Push and Pull
In using the push and the pull configurations it was very obvious to Group F that they were both similar in the way they ran. It was made clear to Group F that one direction was more efficient than the other. While observing, Group F decided that because the pull method gave more movement to the AEV that this would be the one that would be more efficient. Either method was determined usable by the Group due to their similarities.
Push/Pull
The Push/Pull was observed to be the most efficient in terms of energy. The group predicted correctly that because only one motor is being run way less energy would be used. Although this was true, it was also observed that the Push/Pull configuration did not provide as much movement to the AEV as the team thought was necessary. It was decided that the Team would not go further with this configuration
Small Push
The small push configuration was very poor in movement. At the same power as the other configurations the small propeller was barley able to provide any movement to the AEV. It was also noted by group F that the small push used more energy than Push/Pull. This configuration was not going to be used going forward in the design of the AEV.
Conclusions
Looking at the data and experiences obtained by Group F it was concluded that the team would use the Push method in future tests. This decision was based on the extra power the propellers give to the AEV when ran in reverse as well as the data research(Are More Propeller Blades Better?). This power would allow the AEV to pick up weight and easily transverse the track with the extra load. This would allow Group F’s AEV to be more controllable with extra weight and more efficient through out its lifespan.