In the last week the team tested two different designs, and determined that the second one was much more effective because it allowed for more balance. The team used these two different designs to traverse the first half of the monorail track. The team made scoring matrices to rate the two different designs based on the observations that were gained in the runs. The team did however find out that the sensors that were placed on the AEV did not work properly, and that has slowed down the team’s progress greatly. The team has since acquired new sensors and they work much better and allow the team to complete the mission. The bad sensors did not however interfere with the scoring of the two different designs.
The difference between the two designs is the addition of a support between the wheel arm and the base, and the addition of a battery holder so that the battery will not slide around. These two additions were thought of by the team because the AEV was not balanced at all when performing and that was affecting the performance of the AEV. These differences can be seen in the two documents attached below. The team then scored them and concluded that the new AEV design is in fact more effective.
The team used the same code in each of the runs so that different code could not be an extra variable to consider in the scoring and screening matrices. The code was to get the AEV from the start to the gate then stop. The code did its job in allowing the team to analyze the performance of the two designs.
Design 1
Design 2 (The better one)
Takeaways:
- The team will use the second AEV Design
- The team has new sensors that actually work, so the mission is now within reach of completion
- The team works very well together