Date: 31 – Mar – 2017 to 6 – Apr – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 10

Objective: Lab 10 was focused on getting the AEV to run consistently on the upstairs track in order to finalize the code. The team brainstormed about how to combat the problem of the downstairs and upstairs tracks being different. The team also had the task of modifying the code in order to counteract the inconsistencies due to the change in the AEV’s weight.

Tasks Completed:

• Modifying code (All Members)
  • AEV could run most of the MCR successfully but it needed help stopping at gates
  • Majority of time spent adjusting the code for gate stops
  • Adjusted code on a Trial-and-error/as-needed basis
  • Inconsistencies from battery life, sensor reception, bumps in the track
  • current code worked best when it was the 2nd trial in the battery’s life
  • Able to complete all aspects of the MCR during that run
• Energy Optimization
  • Not much time was spent in this area since getting the code to actually work took a higher precedence
  • When code was adjusted for gates, energy usage was considered
• Downstairs Track (All Members) **This happen during Lab 11A, but is still important to report**
  • The same code used on the upstairs track worked surprising well, if not better on the downstairs track
  • less energy used on downstairs, Final testing should have been done there!!!
  • The team tried to account for the loss in battery life when testing, however changing the battery only made testing worse

Upcoming Tasks:

• Fix all hiccups in run and finalize code for performance test on upstairs track
• Decide the logistics of testing (which day? which trial will be testing trial? etc.)
• Practice giving CDR Oral Presentation
• Work on CDR Report

Reflections:

Many experimental limitations came to the team’s attention this week. Trying to perfect the code has become extremely difficult due to these limitations. During the shorter lab classes (Tuesday and Thursday) it is hard to test more than four times due to time limitations, which doesn’t give enough data for how many corrections the team needs to make. The batteries die quickly, which can completely change how the AEV performs. The team needs to check the voltage of the battery before and after runs to monitor when the battery needs switched and to tell which voltage produces the best performance. In hindsight, the team should have done the graded runs on Friday Lab 11 A.

Date: 24 – Mar – 2017 to 30 – Mar – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Code

Objective:

The focus of Lab 9 was on the AEV code and specifically its efficiency, consistency, flexibility to changes in the track. The Team needed to modify the chosen code from PDR to fill out more of these qualities. By the end of this lab, the code should be nearly completed and be able to accomplish the MCR without any major obstacles

Tasks Completed:

• Modifying the Code (Derek)
  • Reverse functions (seen in Code 1) were incorporated into Code 2 since this function gave Code 1 more performance consistency
  • AEV runs its motors in reverse during a certain position on the track rather than by a selected amount of time
• Performance Analysis (All Members)
  • The team modified the code in lab on an as-needed basis, using hiccups in the trials to program the next step
  • The most time was spent adjusting the portion that the AEV reverses on
• Test With Gates On
  • The AEV ran the track with the gates on for the first time, the team did not mean to have gates on, but the AEV accomplished the MCR

Notes on AEV Performance:

• AEV runs slow on track, making the best of efficiency
• AEV is stable and does not wobble
• When the AEV hit zero velocity while still in its reversing portion of the track, it began to move backwards, which failed the rest of the code
• Better overall consistency  than Code 2 and Code 1

Upcoming Tasks:

• Final look at energy analysis
• Testing energy efficiency between most recent code and Code 1 and Code 2
• Test with the gates turned on
• Taking inconsistent environmental factors into consideration

Reflections:

It isn’t easy to tell the difference between the upstairs and downstairs tracks. A TA informed the team that the lighting in one of the rooms affected the reflectance sensor. If that is the case, then the team does not see an ideal way of correcting that environmental change. At this point in the project it may not be worth writing a full new code, hopefully the track we test on will run similar to the track used in the upstairs, since most of our testing is done there. The team will also brainstorm on how to fix this obstacle.

Date: 3 – Mar – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Oral Presentation

Objective: The focus of the PDR Oral Presentation was to convey the progress made on the AEV to the TAs and other groups in a formal manner. The team should pay attention to other groups’ presentations in order to compare ideas and learn from other groups’ mistakes.

Tasks Completed:

• Background and Coding Progress (Derek)
  • Presented MCR and elaborated on current ability of the code
• Concept Design and Performance Goals (Lauren)
  • Presented current design
  • Mentioned weight distribution issue and introduced implementation of new blades
• Future Plans & Website Progress (Olivia)
  • Mentioned future tests with R2 unit and personal touches to website
• Teamwork & Development History (Samantha)
  • Presented setbacks within lab-work and major decisions made throughout progress

Upcoming Tasks:

• Rebuild the AEV to test the two different best designs
• Test each design for energy efficiency and performance quality
• Learn how the addition of the R2D2 unit affects the energy efficiency and performance
• Learn how the new propellers will affect the energy efficiency and performance
• Collect the data needed for the Results section of the PDR Report
• Split up assigned work for the PDR Report

Reflections:

The team did not receive as high of a score as anticipated. This was probably due to the lack of raw data presented in the presentation. Also, team members did their best job to elaborate when asked questions by the GTA, however the group could have been more prepared. The team should spend more time prepping the presentation next time.

Date: 17 – Feb – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 5

Objective: The focus of Lab 5 was to learn about concept screening and concept scoring and how each can be used in AEV evaluation and decision-making regarding the AEV. The team was tasked to use these methods to understand what areas of the project need improvement and which ideas should be developed or discontinued..

Tasks Completed:

• Concept Screening & Scoring (Olivia)
  • Sheets for the activity were made with a google spreadsheet
  • Evaluation was not finished in lab due to focusing on test running the AEV
  • The team agreed to complete evaluation after lab
• Coding (Derek)
  • The code used in previous labs for testing was used again with slight adjustments
  • With the adjustment, the AEV should come back to the starting point
• Test Runs (All members)
  • Observations were made for criteria listed in concept scoring/screening
  • Tested to see if the code would bring the AEV back to the original starting point
    • AEV’s return trip was inconsistent and code needs to be refined
  • The R2 unit was used for one test at the end
    • AEV did not come close enough to latch to the R2 unit
    • no observations could be made about return behavior of AEV with R2 attached

Upcoming Tasks:

• Finalize the design of AEV
• Adjusting the code so that it is compatible with the new AEV design
• Completing the PDR worksheet in preparation for the PDR presentation
• Creating the full code for the mission concept

Reflections:

The AEV was still not yet constructed into the team’s agreed concept design created at the end of Lab 3. The current design does not have a place to hold the arduino or battery, and the wiring is poorly managed. Group progress was hindered by having to spend time fashioning a new way to hold each part in place and rearranging the wires. The new design needs to be constructed because it has prebuilt holders for the parts and good wire management. This will save crucial time in lab.

Date: 10 – Feb – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 4

Objective: The focus of Lab 4 is to have a successful test run of the AEV and collect the EEPROM data stored in the arduino. Once obtained, the group needs to use Matlab and Excel to upload the data and convert it to physical parameters that are understandable. The team must also use the Design Analysis Tool and conduct a performance analysis.

Tasks Completed:

• Track Run (all members)
  • AEV ran smoothly on track and followed the code it was programmed with
  • Several attempts were taken to make sure the code worked consistently
• Uploading data (all members)
  • EEProm data was extracted from arduino using Matlab and put into an excel sheet
  • Another Matlab program was used to put the data from the excel sheet into a Matlab workspace
• Performance Analysis
  • The team decided to conduct the performance analysis and tasks using the Design Analysis Tool later in the week outside of lab

Upcoming Tasks:

• Learn how to screen and score design concepts
• Use the sample AEV design to practice screen and scoring
• Develop a better code to suit the new AEV design created at the end of Lab 3

Reflections:

The team finished the lab tasks well before lab time expired. However, there was much more work to be done for the lab that could take place outside of lab. In future labs, the team should remain in lab to work on more tasks whether they can be completed outside of lab or not.

Date: 3 – Feb – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 3

Objective: The focus of Lab 3 is to engage in creative thinking by having each group member brainstorm on concepts for the AEV’s design. Each member needs to create orthographic concept sketches and share their ideas with the other members. Finally, the team should come to a consensus on a common design.

Tasks Completed:

• Lab 2 Makeup Activity, Test Run Code (Derek)
  • AEV short circuited and emitted smoke during setup
  • May have been caused by incorrectly connecting battery and wires to the arduino, the team is unsure of the true cause
  • GTA restored AEV,  other inconveniences arose (finding USB cable, trouble connecting arduino to computer, trouble uploading code)  
  • Very little time left for testing AEV, after first test there was no time to adjust code
  • Power was not strong enough to make AEV move, propellers spun the wrong direction, creating thrust opposite of the desired direction
• Concept Sketches (All members)
  • The team worked on orthographic concept sketches
  • It was decided that the team consensus on the design would be made later in the week

Upcoming Tasks:

• Familiarize the group with the automatic control system
• Learn to interpret EEPROM data into physical parameters
• Use MATLAB to create graphs of energy and power usage
• Become familiar with the Design Analysis Tool to upload wind tunnel and arduino data
• Conduct performance analysis

Reflections:

• The AEV accident and other inconveniences caused a setback for this lab, these interruptions need to be avoided in future labs

Date: 27 – Jan – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 2, Part 1 and 2

Objective: The focus of Part 1 of Lab 2 is to familiarize the group with the AEV’s external sensors. This includes installing, calibrating, and testing the reflectance sensors. The group also needs to learn how to use external sensor function calls and how troubleshoot any problems with the setup. The focus of Part 2 of Lab 2 is to use wind-tunnel testing to learn about propulsion efficiency.

Tasks Completed:

• Part 1 Installing and Testing External Reflectance Sensors (Lauren and Derek)
  • Wheels were attached to the AEV’s black arm and the sensors were put in place and secured with zip-ties
  • The serial monitor was used to test whether to sensor connections were in the correct ports; they were correct on the first try
• Part 1 Writing the Test Code for Track (Lauren and Derek)
  • The code was written, though no time was left for AEV track testing, this will be completed in the next lab if possible
• Part 2 Wind Tunnel Testing (Samantha)
  • Even with only one member working on wind tunnel testing, all data was collected in time before the lab ended
  • An excel sheet with formulas was to calculate the power thrust, efficiency, etc.

Upcoming Tasks:

• Possibly run the test code on the ceiling track
• Engage in group-collaborative creative thinking
• Brainstorm on AEV concept designs
• Create orthographic drawings of AEV designs

Reflections:

• The group was missing one member due to sickness; this slightly inhibited the group’s progression rate through the lab
• The team should become more time efficient at coding

Date: 20 – Jan – 2017

Time: 11:10 AM (Face-to-face)

Members Present: Olivia McNeil, Derek Gupta, Lauren Hole, Samantha Flora

Topics Discussed: Lab 1

Objective: The focus of the first lab was to become familiar with how to operate the arduino using the editing program. Also, the team needed to learn how to assemble the motor parts, connect them to the arduino, and troubleshoot the coding.

Tasks Completed:

• Coding for Lab 1 exercise (Lauren and Derek)
  • Coding was smooth once the team members learned the basic rules of arduino syntax through trial and error
  • Wrote an additional code to test motor behavior
• Assembling the propeller apparatus (Samantha and Olivia)
  • Went smoothly after exchanging faulty parts from previous lab

Upcoming Tasks:

• Build a sample AEV for testing
• Become familiar with external sensors
• Test energy efficiency and effects of wind/air resistance on the AEV

Reflections:

• The team was very efficient, splitting up the work worked well
• Team members got an idea of what parts of the project they will enjoy/be best at
• The extra motor test helped the team understand how motor programming works