Lab 05

Progress report lab 05

Backwards looking summary:

The focus for Lab 05 was Concept Screening and Scoring for the AEV designs that the group designed in the previous lab. Concept Screening is a way to simply compare aspects of multiple designs to a reference model. As chart 1 shows, the group used zero, plus, and minus symbols to compare the four member designs along with the composite and standard reference design. The basic design which we have been testing with since lab 01 was used as the reference, and given a neutral score of all zeros. The other designs were then compared to the reference in 10 categories and given symbols showing improvement or regression in each category. The results of the Concept Screening chart showed the three overall best designs were, Tim’s, Christian’s, and the reference design. Tim had the third highest design, and tied with the reference model for a net score of 0. This is due to Tim’s design’s emphasis on appearance occasionally outweighing function. Andrew and Matt both created designs that ended with negative total scores. The theoretical nature of their design harmed their overall grade, focusing on radical new ideas rather than streamlining. The reference design ended with a neutral score, since it was the reference, but this grade was balanced enough to outscore Andrew and Matt and tie with Tim. Christian and the composite design both emphasized streamlining and improving parts of the reference design.

The three highest scoring designs (Reference, Christian, and composite) were moved to a Concept Scoring Chart as a more rigorous way to find the objectively best design. The Concept Scoring sheet looked like the Screening sheet, but with a weight for each category. In addition, we replaced the rating symbols by a numeric rating between 1 and 5. The reference design was given an “average” score of 3. Just like with the Screening chart, the composite design had the highest rating, and is the design the group will use going forward. As is tradition, the AEV struggled to follow the code due to what the group strongly suspects is a problem with the base. Our AEV moved at a crawl and only moved one eighth of the total distance on its initial run. On subsequent runs, the AEV went more smoothly. By the lab’s end, the AEV was running more consistently, but still with variation. We also learned that we can get more accurate results by running the AEV at a faster speed. Moving forward, we will need to keep in mind the minor variation in the reflectance sensors, and the need to run the AEV at higher speeds. The final page of the Progress Report is a chart showing the data from the reflectance sensor. Although there is still variation in the data, Professor Schrock ruled that the changes were minor enough for the group to continue testing.

This coming week is all concentrated around a group update of the primary performance tests of the AEV. In class, we will be taking a quiz on the software calculations, the hardware of the AEV and the Arduino software we have used in sketchbook. From there, the rest of our time in lab will be concentrated around getting on the same page in the AEV design process. The first order of business is deciding which part we are going to have printed. This is because in previous drawings and labs we have considered a F-35 remodel. If we decide not to print that then, we should come up with a potentially beneficial part that will provide more aerodynamic features to the AEV. Next of the list of this to complete will be the presentation that we need to complete for the PDR Oral Presentation. When we take the worksheet to be complete at the start of Lab 6, then delegate work to come up with a nice presentation. To complete this, we will discuss areas of completion of each individual and then get together to work on practicing the presentation once each part is completed. This presentation is important to not only get our group on the same page but also enlighten the entire class on the direction of our project.

Concept Screening:

Concept Scoring:

Sensor test data: