In lab this week, the team created two different ways to distinguish between two different AEV designs then tested new code for the AEV, and harvested data from the arduino to analyze the code and the power used by the AEV. This lab was very successful since everything that was needed to be accomplished was accomplished and the team operated as a very efficient team.
In the two tables below, the team chose 9 criteria to consider when designing the AEV and they are: weight, durability, balance, efficiency, control, looks, aerodynamic, forward speed, and backwards speed. What the team is looking for weight and durability is an AEV that weighs very little and will sustain an entire run without falling apart. The weight is very important since that can help determine the efficiency. The team also considered efficiency since the team’s goal is to make the most efficient vehicle. Aerodynamics is also a big part of efficiency due to the fact that it requires more power to propel a vehicle if the air is resisting it. The balance of the vehicle is also very important since the vehicle can’t fall off the track and complete the mission. The balance could also play into the efficiency. Some of the most important criteria for performance are forwards and backwards speed, and control. The team needs to have control over the AEV when the AEV is attempting to complete the tasks, otherwise the mission will be impossible to complete. The speed affects how the vehicle will start up and slow down which are both very key in surpassing the gates on the track. Lastly, the team is considering looks because the team wants to be proud the vehicle it created and no one likes driving an ugly car.
In Table 1, the team used +,-, and 0 to score the different designs. Then totaled up the occurrence of each for the design. The team with the greatest ratio of + to – is considered the best design. In this table, the best design was determined to be the new design the team has created.
In table 2, the team used the same criteria as above, but scored the vehicles differently The team weighted each criteria according to the believed importance. The greatest went to efficiency and second was weight. The team then gave each criteria a vote from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and multiplied by the weight (decimal form). The new design had the highest score of 3.3, while the old AEV design had a score of 1.85. Clearly the team has made a better design than before.
After the team had constructed these, the team then started to code the AEV. The team developed a very simple code to get the AEV to go forward then backwards. It worked and then the team took data from the arduino and created the two graphs shown below. The team was able to draw away that reversing the direction of the AEV can result in a big usage of power. The team decided that reversing the AEV with that certain line of code should not be done and that an alternative method should be developed in future labs. The spike in power in the two graphs below shows where the AEV reversed direction.
Finally, The team used its new AEV construction design in this lab which is shown in the two pictures below. The team considered weight the most and used the score sheets above to determine which AEV was design. The team was very happy with the AEV’s performance in its first few runs, since it was energy efficient and maneuvered the track with ease.
Update: The Drawing of the new AEV
Takeaways:
- The team has figured out which AEV design it is going to stick with
- The team can figure out what functions are energy efficient so the vehicle can be perfected energy wise
- The team has figured out how to make the AEV stop and travel a certain distance