Group C – Teressa Pell, Madeline Shaffer, Joe Spinazze, Danny Tomaszewski Progress Report Lab 7
Instructor: Dr. Kecskemety, GTA: Isabel Fernandez 3/9/2017
Lab 7
Situation:
In lab 7, the group gave a group presentation to the class. It was an oral presentation focused on the outcomes of the previous labs. The presentation went well and no major problems occurred. Before lab 7, the group was able to pick up the laser cut parts from the instructor. These parts were attached after the lab, and the AEV was constructed. In the previous labs, the design was sketched and finalized. At the end of lab 7, the group was able to attach the laser cut wings and test the AEV on the straight track. The AEV performed well and no errors or problems occurred.
Results and Analysis:
Throughout the past six labs, there have been multiple takeaways and direction changes as to where the AEV design was headed. First, programming commands were familiarized and the rules and guidelines of the project were assessed. Then, data was analyzed to decide on which system, a push or a pull, would initially be used. A pull system was decided on for the way there, and a push for the way back because it fit with our design and maintained optimal efficiency. Next, creativity and originality became a focus in order to make the AEV a unique visual experience. Brainstorming individually and collectively became an important way to challenge and further any current design. Evaluating these designs categorically then narrowed down the options and provided a better understanding of the goals for the AEV in its final stages. Balance and creativity quickly turned into two of the more important aspects, attempting to add large wings and a laser pointer. A constant challenge has been balancing creativity with practicality.
The two design concepts that will be tested this week are based on a cross platform versus an upper-case ‘T’ platform. Where the propellers are on the bar of ‘T’ on the one design, they are placed on opposite ends of the cross platform on the middle bar. The Arduino is placed in the middle of both designs, with the battery placed underneath in an attached carriage and the arm placed in front of the Arduino. There are wings on opposite sides of the AEV for the cross platform design, but they are not attached on the upper-case ‘T’ platform design to reduce weight. Both designs cut unnecessary platform space, although the propellers on the upper-case ‘T’ platform design are in the same place as the reference AEV. The battery carriage underneath on both designs comes from the reference AEV design to utilize the underside of the platform.
Two designs were tested as a base for the AEV. Design 1 included a cross base for the AEV and design 2 included a ‘T’ base for the AEV. Based on the concept scoring matrix located in the appendix, both of the designs coincidentally scored the same total points of 3.4, which the reference AEV had a score of 3.35 points. Although both new designs were similar in their ratings, they differed from the reference AEV in balance, cost and creativity. The reference AEV was unbalanced compared to the new designs that place the Arduino and battery more in the center and have a spread out platform. When the new models were created, there was an understanding that they would be lighter and therefore not as bulky and durable as the reference AEV. Taking liberties with a lightweight design got the designs away from the original reference look, advancing the creativity criteria with it. Since the designs are both tied, more test runs and labs will have to be performed before a clear choice is presented. The concept scoring matrix provided a very clear way in comparing and deciding between the aspects of different designs, and it is a technique that this team plans on using for future decision making for the AEV. Based on the concept screening score sheet located in the appendix, it was also determined that design 1 was the superior design as it scored higher with a four and design 2 scored a three. This allowed the team to make the decision to use the cross base instead of the ‘T’ base.
In the next few weeks, the group plans on completing the code to go around the track and pick up the R2D2 successfully. The current “Scorpion Fighter” design will be analyzed and determined to be adequate as a final design. If the current design appears to be too cost effective or inefficient, there is another design to try which includes a teardrop shape for the body of the AEV. This will allow for more efficiency. If the design of the AEV is changed, the code will also need to be changed and the design will have to be re-analyzed. The next few weeks for the team will include a lot of trial, error, and patience.
Takeaways:
- From observing the progress made so far, the next step would be to create a plan going into each lab to work intelligently and efficiently. By having a plan for each lab, there will be an understanding of what needs to be accomplished and it will limit wasted time.
- Programming has been a small part of the project thus far. The group should be prepared to spend a large portion of class editing and testing new and modified code to eliminate inconsistency. When lines to test the AEV on the track are long, other group members should focus on code for future segments. As long as half of the team members are always working on a task related to the AEV, plenty will get done.
Lab 8
Situation:
In lab 8 the group will complete performance test 1. The will decide on two designs for their AEV to test. The team will use a code developed in Lab 4 and run both designs on the track using the same code. The operation and success of the AEV will be analyzed for both designs. The designs will be tweaked and
run again to see how those tweak effect the operation of the AEV. The designs will also be tested with small changes in code to see how the AEV reacts to those changes. This will help the team decide how they want their design to be for future success.
Weekly Goals:
- Design and build two AEV’s
- Test both AEV’s on the same code
- Make Tweaks to designs and test again
- Make small changes in code and test design
- Decide what design is best for future success
Weekly Schedule:
| Task | Start | End | Due | Teressa | Maddie | Danny | Joe | Complete | |
| Choose Two Designs | March 9 | March 9 | March 23 | x | x | 90% | |||
| Adjust Code from Lab 4 | March 9 | March 10 | March 23 | x | x | 90% | |||
| Test Designs | March 10 | March 10 | March 23 | x | x | x | x | 0% | |
| Tweak Designs and Test | March 10 | March 21 | March 23 | x | x | 0% | |||
| Change Code and Test | March 21 | March 21 | March 23 | x | x | 0% | |||
| PT 2 Report | March 20 | March 23 | March 23 | x | x | x | x | 0% |
Appendix A
Table 1: Concept Scoring Matrix
| Reference | Design 1 | Design 2 | |||||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | ||||
| Balanced | 15% | 2 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Minimal Blockage | 5% | 4 | 0.2 | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 0.25 | ||||
| Center-of- gravity | 5% | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | ||||
| Maintenance | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | ||||
| Durability | 20% | 4 | 0.8 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | ||||
| Cost | 20% | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.8 | ||||
| Environmental | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Creativity | 5% | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.1 | ||||
| Total Score | n/a | 3.35 | n/a | 3.4 | n/a | 3.4 | |||||
| Continue? | no | yes | no | ||||||||
| *Note: wings and propellers not attached yet | |||||||||||
Table 2: Concept Screening Scoresheet
| Success Criteria | Reference | Design 1 | Design 2 |
| Balanced | 0 | + | 0 |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | + | + |
| Center of Gravity | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maintenance | 0 | 0 | + |
| Durability | 0 | – | 0 |
| Cost | 0 | + | + |
| Environmental | 0 | + | 0 |
| Creativity | 0 | 0 | – |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| Sum 0’s | 8 | 3 | 4 |
| Sum -’s | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Net | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Continue? | Combine | yes | no |
Appendix B
Date: 03 – March – 2017
Time: 8:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Teressa Pell, Madeline Shaffer, Joe Spinazze, Danny Tomaszewski
Topics Discussed: PT 1/Lab 8A
Objective:
Today’s main focus was on meeting to complete the progress report and talk about the performance test in tomorrow’s lab.
Tasks Completed:
- Progress report
- Devised a plan for tomorrow
Tasks To Do:
- Update portfolio with new information
- Finish building the AEV
- Start working on a completed code to go around the track
- Work on the PDR
Timeline:
- 3/8/17 – meet to finish PT8
- 3/9/17 – lab proficiency quiz and performance test (lab 8A)
- 3/10/17 – lab 8B
Decisions:
- We will each work on the PDR over break
- We will finish building the AVE tomorrow in class
Reflections:
- We should start to come up with some other designs in case our first one doesn’t work out well
- Writing the code will be a lot of trial and error, especially as our design changes