The goal of performance test two was to find the most efficient code to use for the AEV. The students came up with two sets of coding designs, a pulse method and a constant speed method. The pulse method had the AEV run at short burst of high speed. The constant speed method had the AEV run at a constant speed over the duration of the run. The students programmed the AEV to run to the first starting gate. The AEV was ran with both codes and had the data extracted.
After looking through the data, the pulse method used less energy and less time than the constant speed method over the duration of the run. In Figures 1 and 2 below contain an analysis of both codes over the distance the AEV traveled. Table 1 below shows how the two codes compare against each other.
Figure 1: Pulse Method Energy Analysis over Distance
Figure 2: Constant Speed Method Energy Analysis over a Distance
Table 1: Comparison of Coding Methods
|
Specification |
Pulse Method | Constant Speed Method |
|
Energy Used (J) |
35.795 |
45.55 |
|
Duration of Run (seconds) |
8.041 |
20.76 |
| Distance Traveled (m) |
5.5474 |
5.2254 |
The students have decided to use the pulse method when coding the AEV because the AEV uses less energy and as well as less time than the constant speed method.
Below is a PDF file of the lab memo