TEST ANALYSES:
Each variation of the AEV performed differently, and although the efficiency of each design may only differ slightly, any advantage was taken into consideration. Below are graphical analyses of each design’s efficiency, as well as a brief description of the variations between designs.
On the left side is a graph of the time of the trial run VS. the power input during the run of Design A. On the right side is that same graph, but this time showing data gathered from Design B.
Despite how similar these graphs look, Design A is far less consistent than Design B. For example, there are a total of six intervals in between points in which the motor speed is changed where the power input remains relatively constant. In the Design A test, the power input seems to be less constant and fluctuate more, causing more elevated graph elements and uneven intervals. The Design B graph, however, shows more stable power input, with each of the six aforementioned intervals are more linear, representing a more predictable and preferred power input.
Due to this inconsistency, we ultimately decided to use Design B as a final design for our AEV. This will, in theory, maximize efficiency and predictability of the AEV’s movement, which will in turn make calculating stopping distance much easier while measuring marks.
FINAL RUN ANALYSIS:
Below is the final graph created by the physical parameters calculated from the EEPROM data of the final run of the AEV.
