Results Lab 05
In lab 5, the team ran four different designs using the same code, and then compared their results using two different scoring methods, Concept Screening and Scoring. During testing, the team discovered that braking the AEV before reversing the motors decreased power usage by a large amount, and this idea was then used in the runs. The first design tested was the “push/pull” method which consisted of a motor pushing from the back while a motor on the front pulled. This design ran well on the track. It generated quite a bit of speed quickly, and seemed to be pretty balanced. The second design was a one motor push method. It needed a little help to get going, and moved pretty slow. It was also not as balanced since all of the torque from the motor was coming from one side. The third design was a one motor pull method. This design performed better than design two. It did not need any help to move, but it still moved slowly. It was also unbalanced; especially since the motor and the arduino were both positioned toward the front of the design.
Based on the results design one recorded the best net score of 4. The scoring matrix also leaned toward design one which racked up a total score of 3.45 compared to the sample AEV score of 2.65. All of the designs did end up being more efficient than the sample AEV in both scoring formats. All of the designs outperformed the sample AEV. However, the “push/pull” system seemed to be the favorite based on other scoring methods, even though it used more power because of the two motors. The team plans to move forward with this design making a few more changes to improve the scores even more. The team did not have all of the parts needed to make the most efficient design possible. Parts need to be 3D printed in order to reduced blockage and improve the center of gravity. The team hopes to have the parts soon and reevaluate the designs using the scoring methods from this lab.
Table 1
Table 2