Lab 3 was about critical thinking and finding the best way to sort out which designs to test and which designs to throw out. In order to do this, our group individually drew their designs for the AEV in orthographic views. Then, once in class, we all brought them together in order to narrow down which one would work best. To perform this task, we used a process of elimination. This helped define the parameters of what our group wanted in our AEV and matched those to our designs.
Progress Report Questions
- The criteria for which our group had decided on were Safety, Durability, Stability, Performance, Efficiency, and Appearance. Each person varied in importance with each of these, but the categories seemed to be the majority desirabilities on our AEV. The changes will improve the AEV’s performance overall and help the division improve the technical quality of the AEV faster and with brevity. The techniques of breaking down and determining what was most important, and voting on them, helped rule out the designs which may have hindered our group’s performance.
-
Descriptions of Sketches
Brice’s Sketch was similar to the same AEV except with a different place for the Arduino and the Battery in order to differentiate the weight and help the vehicle to slide smoother along the overhead track.
Tyler’s sketch included a front cone which would also distribute the weight evenly along its front and also possibly help in having less drag while going across the track.
Kevin’s sketch is the most unique including a different mounting bracket (included in box) and placing the turbines in a different location in order to give it better force moving forward and backward. The front is more tangent to the body and it would use fewer materials and weight.
Reference:
OSU Carmen, LM_PreliminaryR&D_18AUG2017.pdf,
https://osu.app.box.com/s/ter1ysxfl88vej3wezqleed30cymth1p