During the first set of performance test labs, students designed two prototypes capable of traversing the monorail track. Both of the Advance Energy Vehicles or AEVs utilized a simple set of code that included all of the Arduino commands. The simple set of code would allow a better comparison between the two designs. If one design performed more efficiently, the code wouldn’t be a variable. This type of testing is important to the scientific community because many big automobile manufactures produce many prototype concepts before producing a line of vehicles. So it is common practice to design a couple of prototypes, and perform tests to determine the proper choice. Design 1 and Design 2 can be seen below.
During the first set of performance test labs, students designed two prototypes capable of traversing the monorail track. Both of the Advance Energy Vehicles or AEVs utilized a simple set of code that included all of the Arduino commands. The simple set of code would allow a better comparison between the two designs. If one design performed more efficiently, the code wouldn’t be a variable. This type of testing is important to the scientific community because many big automobile manufactures produce many prototype concepts before producing a line of vehicles. So it is common practice to design a couple of prototypes, and perform tests to determine the proper choice.
Both of the designs utilized the EP-3030 propeller. This type of propeller had the most efficient advance ratio, this can be observed below. Design 1 utilized both a push and pull configuration, with one propeller on the front, and another along the back. The intent was to allow the AEV to travel both forward and backward with ease. This AEV design used a minimal amount of parts to keep a lower weight, the AEV also had a good center of gravity, but was not completely level side to side when sitting on the track. Furthermore the first AEV design had trouble with the turns in the track. Members speculated it was due to the imbalance on the track. The second design utilized a pusher configuration, and used minimal parts as well. The second design had a good center of gravity as well. The center of gravity was located toward the lower half of the design, in between the two wheels. The second design sat well on the track relatively level from side to side. The second design also handled better along turns when compared to the first design. Both designs yielded relatively similar looking Power and Efficiency versus Time graphs as seen below the Propulsion Efficiency versus Advance Ratio graph. The first graph is for Design 1 and the second graph is for Design 2. It should be noted that design 2 traveled at a faster velocity and completed the code in a shorter amount of time. The incremental energy and time elapsed and phases for Design 1 can be seen below the Power and Efficiency versus Time graphs. It should be noted that the some of the data was not saved for Design 2. So the students could not create an energy phase table for the second design.
