Lab 8 consisted of performance test one which focuses on the design of the AEV. The lab consists of designing two different AEV’s and testing them accordingly to determine which AEV design would start to complete the MCR and minimized the energy used. Using the data gathered from the tests, a energy used vs time graph can be made allowing us to see how much energy is used through the AEV’s run. Also this week is the Lab Proficiency Quiz. This quiz will test everyone’s individual knowledge of all aspects of the AEV project: Hardware, Software, and Engineering Calculations.
The first design tested was similar to the AEV stock design originally used (Figure 1 in Appendix). This design consisted of a flat body with the Arduino chip attached on the upper side while the battery was attached to the lower. Two rear end wings then mounted the propellers. The second design consisted of a plus-shaped base with the Arduino chip also mounted on the upper side and battery on the lower side (Figure 2 in Appendix). Instead of two rear end wings, the propellers were mounted on both sides of the AEV. Similarities about both designs is the position of the Arduino chip and battery. Differences between them were the shape and position of the propellers. Another noticeable difference was that the second design had a more slimmed down body making it weight less.
During the test runs, the Arduino code had to be modified for design one. The first code would not move the AEV when the start button was clicked. To fix this problem, the power needed to initially accelerate design one from rest was bumped up. The code for design two did not have to be modified and worked as expected. From here, the data needed to find out which design used the least energy was gathered.
As stated above, the data above was then used to calculate time (sec.), current (amps), voltage (volts), distance (m), position (m), and supplied power. In order to see which design used the least amount of energy throughout the time period, a graph of supplied power vs time was made for each scenario (Figures 3,4 in Appendix).
As a result, design two used far less energy than design one. A theory of why design two used less energy than design one is that design two weighed less. The original scenario code that was going to be used to test both designs had to be modified slightly in order to make it move whereas design two had no troubles accelerating. The increase in power due to weight for design one ultimately is what made it lose.