- In Performance Test 1 our team developed two designs capable of traveling to, triggering, and proceeding through the gate. The mission for this test was to compare the two designs together in terms of energy and efficiency. From this test one design was selected to proceed onto the remaining performance tests. To compare the codes used for Design A & Design B, please reference the “Arduino Codes” tab.
Prototype Designs:
_________________________________________________________________
- Below are SolidWorks drawings of the two designs being compared.
Design A pictured above as shown from orthographic views
Design B pictured above as shown from orthographic views
Results:
_________________________________________________________________
- Below are four figures showing “Power vs Distance” and “Power vs Time” for each design.
- Figures 9 & 10 above focus on Design A
- Distance – Design A was very consistent at stopping at the top of the incline, but varied a little when it came to stopping before the gate.
- Time – Design A showed surprising consistency in time for each run.
- Power – The power consumed for the first hill leveled off around under 8 Watts for each run with spikes just reaching 9.3 Watts.
- Figures 11 & 12 above focus on Design B
- Distance – Design B was very consistent at stopping at the top of the incline, but varied a little when it came to stopping before the gate.
- Time – Design B showed slight variation between each run but consistency showed the same general shape for each run.
- Power – The power consumed for the first hill leveled off with a wide spread around 8 Watts for each run with spikes reaching 9.3 Watts at least.
Conclusion:
_________________________________________________________________
- Design A proved to be the more consistent/efficient design and will be continued while Design B will no longer be developed. The image below shows the winning design hanging from a segment of rail.
