Summary

At the beginning of the lab, a program was developed that allowed the AEV to travel from the starting point to the gate. This skill will be useful when programming the final project because the AEV will have to travel certain distances. Before the AEV was tested, the team confirmed that the AEV was balanced on the track. This was to ensure the AEV was stable before it was put above the heads of our classmates. After the code was completed, it was uploaded to the arduino and tested multiple times on the rail in order to ensure that the AEV stopped abruptly once it passed the gate by using the “reverse” and “motor speed” commands. The team collected the data from the successful run. The AEV recorded data every 60 milliseconds over a total of approximately 15 seconds. The team transported the data to MATLAB by using the sketchbook program. The code “aevDATARecorder” included in the sketchbook, helped the team in extracting the data collected from the arduino while the AEV was running. In MATLAB, the units of time was converted from milliseconds to seconds, check this EEPROM current(ADC counts) to current(amps), EEPROM voltage to voltage, wheel counts accumulated to meters, and finally, wheel counts recorded by reflectance sensors to AEV position(meters from starting point). These conversions were made to transfer the information in the arduino, which is in binary measurements to standard units the team could use to calculate the total energy (Joules) from the incremental energy (Joules) and input power (watts) using voltage and current. After the data was collected and converted, a plot of power vs time, power vs distance, energy vs time, and energy vs distance was made to visualize the data of the AEV run and determine where and when the AEV consumed the most power and energy during the run. These plots was developed on MATLAB using the plot features commands and can be seen in the MATLAB Code in the Appendix. The power vs time graph was divided into six different phases according to major changes in power inputs. Total energy was calculated by adding all the incremental energies together. This data is represented in Table 2 which contains the time, distance, phase, incremental energy, total energy, and arduino code that was running. The second plot was a power vs time graph and was made in the second part of the lab used the MATLAB graphical user interface (GUI). The arduino data was downloaded into “AEV_Analysis_tool.mlappinstall” which created the plot automatically. From there, the computer completed the analysis calculations. 

Results

The test data for power vs time was divided into six phases based on major changes in power. The phase division can be seen in Figure 1 on the power vs time plot along with Table 2 which displays the arduino code, time, distance, incremental energy and running total energy at each phase. The first phase ran under the “reverse(2)” and “motorSpeed(4,35)” code from 0 to 0.36 seconds and took up 3.8155 Joules of energy.  The second phase ran under the “goToAbsolutePosition(450)” code from 0.36 to 8.5220 seconds with an incremental energy of 78.3791 Joules which brought the total energy used up to 82.1946 Joules. The third phase coincided with the “reverse(4)” command and spanned from 8.5220 to 8.9420 seconds which took up 4.8179 Joules and brought the running total energy to 87.0125 Joules. The fifth phase ran under the “break(4)” command and lasted from 11.5820 to 12 seconds. This phase took up 1.8690 Joules and added to the total energy to make it 114.5886 Joules.  The sixth and last phase was taken after the AEV braked and stopped running between the times of 12 to 14.7020 seconds with a phase of 0.4407 Joules to make the total energy through the entire run to be 115.0293 Joules. When the AEV first gets started in phase 1, there is a very short spike in power supplied. This is due to the propellers moving from rest. Phase 2 ran for the longest amount of time and took up the most amount of energy.  This phase coincided with the AEV traveling the length of the track to get to the gate. It is expected that this phase took up the most energy because it traveled for the most amount of time. There is a spike in the amount of power used in phase 3 that is a result of reversing the propellers while going full speed.  The propeller motors have to fully come to a stop, and then reverse the direction they are going, taking up a lot of power. Once the propellers were reversed, the power remained consistent with the results of phase 2. As soon as the AEV reaches phase 5 at approximately 12 seconds, there is a dramatic decrease in the power as the command breaks. This is followed by phase 6 as the power decreases to zero. Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show the AEV Test Data of power vs time, power vs distance, energy vs time, energy vs distance and the computer calculated power vs time respectively.

In Figure 1, the power vs time plot located in the appendix gives a physical representation of the power used during the test run. This plot aided in the team’s coding strategy in many facets. The plot showed multiple different phases of the AEV and the amount of power during every phase. The graph showed the time in seconds (x-axis) being plotted against power in watts (y-axis). Each phase is either oscillating, increasing or decreasing. The results of each phase can be helpful in reading the amount of power used in different tested programing codes, this would better the AEV performance in future labs by giving the team information to make changes that will better the AEV design. Figure 2 was the same plot as Figure 1 but without the phases. Figure 2 is the power vs distance which has similar results to Figure 1 and Figure 2 because the only thing changing in the plot is distance for time, which has similar incremental values of power. In Figure 4, Energy vs Time is being graphed, the plot helped the team notice that as time increased so did energy, which means they have a directly related correlation. In Figure 5, the energy vs distance plot showed that as the AEV distance increases, lower amount of energy is needed for the AEV to keep moving.  Figure 6 is the same plot as Figure 1 and Figure 2 but it was made by the MATLAB Application and not the MATLAB program like all the other graphs. The plots made aided the team in writing a better program and design because the team tested for the most efficient Arduino code that will be achieved by analyzing the plot that corresponds to the program written by the team and adjusting the code depending on an increase or decrease of power or energy input.

Looking ahead, Lab 05a and Lab 05b deals mainly with screening and scoring of the design concepts. In this lab the team will code a program that will allow the AEV to travel on a straight path on the track. Additionally, the team will develop a screening and scoring of the AEV design.  All the responsibilities for the labs are located in the appendix.

Team Meeting Notes

Date: 2-6-2017

Time: 6:00-7:50  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles, Ahmed Negnm

Topics Discussed: Distributing parts of the lab report and assigned specific roles to everyone.

Objective: Get the agenda set for the lab.

To do/Action Items: Split up each section between each other.  Plan the next meeting and what should be done by then.

Decisions: Evan is going to complete the results and analysis along with keep the team meeting notes and proofreading the final paper.  Ahmed is doing the present situation, weekly schedule, and question 2. Alex is going to do the future situation and question 1. Cameron is going to complete the takeaways, weekly goals, and work on question 1 with Alex.

Date: 2-9-2017

Time: 9:30-11:00  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles

Topics Discussed: What we have completed so far on the lab and what we still need to complete.

Objective: Start the lab and get some of the parts completed.

To do/Action Items: Plan the next meeting and what should be done by then. Continue to work on our parts of the lab.

Decisions: We will meet Saturday morning to complete most to all of the report and not worry about it during the week.

Date: 2-11-2017

Time: 10:00-11:30  am

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Ahmed Negnm

Topics Discussed: What parts still need to be completed.

Objective: Finish most to all parts of the report so we don’t have to worry about it over the week

To do/Action Items: Finish up the calculations along with all of the parts we each have to do.

Decisions: One more meeting needs to be in place to go over everything. We need it done by Monday to take it to the GTA and get it checked over.

Date: 2-14-2017

Time: 4:00-5:00  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff

Topics Discussed: Square away loose ends of the project work on formatting

Objective: Proofread and finish lab

To do/Action Items: Make sure all aspects of the lab are present, complete, and valid

Decisions: Turn in lab and plan next meeting

Summary

This lab focused mainly on aspects of the creative thinking process. The lab emphasized two techniques for creative design thinking which included generating a useful idea and effectively communicating it to others. The team became familiar with obstacles to creativity which included fear of criticism, lack of confidence, and negative stress. These obstacles were important to understand as they were taken out of the brainstorming process to make for a creative, safe environment. The team individually brainstormed unique and inventive ideas for the AEV which included features that could aid the AEV’s ability to complete the scenario as well as provide aesthetic aspects. Implementing these new ideas, individual AEV designs were created by each team member using orthographic paper and proper dimensions. This was done to give the members experience in creating orthogonal drawings from real world objects. The team then brainstormed together and the remaining time was spent combining ideas and individual drawings into one master design. This was done so the AEV would have a final design all members agreed upon as well as giving the group a chance to share ideas and collaborate on a final design. This design was made as an orthographic drawing, followed all design guidelines, had overall dimensions, scale, estimated weight, and bill of materials.

Results

The individual team members had similar designs that resembled the original AEV design for the most part. However, when the team brainstormed together, the final design incorporated aspects from each design that made for a creative and unique final drawing. This made for a sketch that is easily differentiated from its counterparts. These changes were implemented in order to cut down weight, make for a more aerodynamic vehicle, and to add aesthetically pleasing aspects to the design.

The team first decided that one propeller on the front and back of the AEV should be implemented into the new design. This makes for a combination of the pull and push design, in which the the propeller in the front is pulling the air and the propeller in the back is pushing the air. This decision was made in order to distribute the weight more evenly between the front and the back of the AEV. The team also put two trapezoids for wings on the side of the AEV. This allowed for a more aerodynamic AEV that would glide through the air and reduce drag. It was also decided that this AEV would include aesthetic aspects that would incorporate aspects of Ohio State. The team added two buckeye stickers on the wings along with an Ohio State cardboard cutout on the front. The use of cardboard instead of a heavier material allows the AEV to maintain its lightweight features. The cardboard is also in a triangle shape so that it cuts through the air better. The team also decided to take off the angle bracket that was located in the front of the sample AEV. This bracket did not serve a purpose and cut down more weight from the vehicle. The sample final AEV with most of the features we have incorporated is shown in Figure 6. All of these changes were made to help better assist the AEV in completing the scenario in the MCR.

In Figure 1: Propellers Down AEV Design, the wings on the sides were pointed downward along with the wings. This design was much different than the original design as the force created by the propellers is pointed downward and backwards. The force therefore was pushing the AEV upward as well as forward which took friction off the wheels and created lift using the wings. The wings were also pointed downward which created a lift force on the AEV and took more friction off the wheels. Less friction on the wheels would allow the AEV to travel at higher speeds and use less battery power. The design used very minimal materials as seen on the bill of materials in Table 1. Most of the materials were reused from the original AEV design. Brackets and a small piece of plastic are the only new materials needed to complete the new design.

In Figure 2 the design consisted of the 2.5 by 7.5 rectangular base, along with two trapezoids on either side at a slanted position. The two trapezoids were connected at the back of the AEV, with the propellers attached to each one. The propellers were put at the back of the AEV which decreased drag from the “wings” (trapezoids) of the AEV on either side. This AEV design included the L-shape arm and the wheels implemented similar to the original AEV design. Additionally, this drawing included a rounded dome at the front of the AEV, which worked to make the vehicle more aerodynamic and aesthetically pleasing. This addition allowed air to move up over the base of the AEV, reducing drag, and allowing the vehicle to move faster and more efficient. This dome would be made utilizing 3-D printing or would be purchased at a store in order to be implemented into the design. No other items would need to be printed or bought in order to complete the remainder of the project, as the rest of the materials were already present in the AEV kit. The team utilized a brainstorming techniques by asking questions about how far the design of the AEV could be taken. Asking these questions effectively helped the team gather information that aided in the design, and allowed the team to add more creativity and individuality to the design process.

Figure 3: Arrow Head design was similar to the original AEV design, but with some different features. The base is a 7.5” x 2.5” plastic sheet with two trapezoidal wings connected toward the back of the AEV making them wings. The motors and propellers are under the wings. There was an L shaped arm that is perpendicular to the base that will hold the AEV to the rail. The change that was made is that there is a small triangle connected to the front of the AEV to make it more aerodynamic. This would allow the AEV to glide through the air better and complete the scenario more efficiently. This triangle would be made out of cardboard so that it would not weigh much at all. The team utilized this triangle shape on the final AEV design by making an Ohio State logo that is triangular shaped at the front. This was the only thing that the team took from this design.

Referring to Figure 4, the AEV was built to go faster and withstand damage while it maintained a lightweight design. At first it was challenging to come up with an original design, but using the brainstorming technique it allowed for a more creative design. The design from the top orthographic view has a triangular shape with 6’’x9’’ and a rectangle that is 3’’x2’’ at the bottom with wings attached to the rectangle with a 6’’ distance between them to represent the propellers. The wings are built far apart from one another in order to make the AEV capable of pushing as much air behind, which allowed the AEV to move better in the air and increase its speed capability on lower battery power. Each individual sketch was done with materials that make the AEV as efficient as possible. The less materials used made for a more efficient AEV, due to this, this design does not include many outside materials. Most of the materials are used from the original AEV design. Instead of using the same exact shape of the plastic material though, it would be more cost effective and efficient to cut the thickness of plastic material in half; allowing for an AEV with a lighter weight. Cardboard would be used to build the bottom rectangle to make it even more lightweight.

Team Meeting Notes

Date: 2-6-2017

Time: 6:00-7:50  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles, Ahmed Negnm

Topics Discussed: Distributing parts of the lab report.

Objective: Make sure we can finish all parts of the report by tomorrow.

To do/Action Items: Split up each section between each other.  Plan for all the parts to be completed by tonight and read over tomorrow morning.

Decisions: Turn in the lab report tomorrow night before it is due. Meet then to finish everything.

Date: 2-6-2017

Time: 7:00-8:00  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles

Topics Discussed:

Finalizing all aspects of the design and proofreading all lab material

Objective: Ensure that all parts are present and accurate.

To do/Action Items: Have each member to a complete readthrough of the lab and make sure there ar e no glaring errors

Decisions: Turn in the lab

Summary

Lab 02 placed an emphasis on the external sensor hardware components. The team became familiar with troubleshooting techniques and the program functions calls related to the external sensors with the AEV control. This was done by programming a line of code that made the AEV travel a certain distance on the track and then reverse. Being familiar with programming will be useful later in the project when the AEV will be required to run multiple tasks. The team constructed the base of the AEV by referencing the 3D model. The external sensors were then installed along with the wheels. This was done by referencing  images and examples in the Lab Manual and 3D model and replicating the designs. The construction of the AEV is required for the mechanism to run on the track. Using the command “reflectanceSensorTest” the team was able to observe how the number of marks from the serial monitor increased or decreased depending on which direction the wheel was turned. This was done in the sketchbook program. This is relevant because converting from tics to distance through a simple math conversion helped the team determine how far the AEV traveled. This information will be utilized when the AEV has to line up with specific points along the track. The final part of the lab required additional testing of the reflective sensors by entering a set of commands. This testing was done the same way as before – using the sketchbook folder and programming a set of commands that use the “reflectanceSensorTest” command line. This was done to ensure the sensors were working correctly. Due to time constraints the team was not able to complete this portion. Time will be alloted from the next lab to accomplish these tasks. The team collected data that measured current, thrust scale reading, RPM, and the arduino power setting. This was accomplished by one group member going to collect data from the wind tunnel testing area. This is useful because this data was utilized in calculations that are relevant for future aspects of this project.

Results

To collect accurate data, one member of the team observed a test of two different propeller configurations at various arduino power settings. The team member observed the RPM of the Puller 3030 started off higher than Puller 2510, but after 15% arduino power the Puller 2510 had a much higher RPM. At 60% arduino power, the Puller 3030 had an RPM of 12596 and the Puller 2510 had an RPM of 20248. The propellers were only tested up to 60% arduino power which can be seen in Table 1 and Table 2 located below. Although the RPM of the Puller 2510 was much higher, the Puller 3030 had a significantly much higher thrust scale reading throughout the whole experiment. At 60% arduino power, the Puller 3030 had a thrust scale reading of over 300 grams and the Puller 2510 had a thrust scale reading of approximately 220 grams at the same power setting. The Puller 3030 had a higher current after 10% arduino power. At 60% arduino power, the current of the Puller 3030 read at 1.86 amps and the Puller 2510 read at 0.57 amps.

The team then proceeded to make a graph of Propulsion Efficiency vs Propeller Advance Ratio. he graphs are depicted from right to left because as power increases, advanced ratio decreases. Looking at Figure 7, the Puller 3030 started with an efficiency of approximately 35%, rose to over 50%, and then steadily decreased to 15% efficiency at the highest power percentage. Considering Figure 6, the efficiency of Puller 2510 started at 0% and steadily rose to 17% by the highest power percentage. The Puller 3030 tested out to be the best propeller to use because it had a higher propulsion efficiency through most of the experiment. When evaluating the best propellor, it was best to go off the efficiency of the respective propeller. Considering these points, the Puller 3030 was the best propeller configuration to use on the AEV.

The team used the 3-Dimensional model of the AEV to assist them in building the sample AEV. The AEV was built exactly as pictured in the online model. The team first tested the code while holding the AEV to make sure the code was working properly. The team rolled the wheels with their hands to make sure that the code counted the ‘tic’ marks correctly. The code correctly counted the number of ‘tics’ and responded correctly. When the team first put the AEV on the track, the propellers thrusted the AEV in the wrong direction. After the team reversed the motors, the AEV moved in the correct direction, but the code did not count the number of ‘tic’ marks. The team noticed that the AEV struggled to move with only 25% power to the motors. The team concluded that the AEV’s motors must be above 25% power to move steadily. Due to time constraints, the team was unable to test different powers with the motors. The team also was unable to fix the problem with counting the number of tics. The team will use time in lab three to fix these problems.

The AEV stayed on the track and moved from the start gate to the finish gate as directed by the code. The constructed AEV made it to the desired gate, however it did not stop when the code had indicated. The AEV continued through the desired stopping point. The team utilized troubleshooting techniques the problem and concurred that the AEV did not stop for two possible reasons. First, an error in calculating the correct number of ‘tic’ marks needed to run could have caused the AEV to travel more than sixteen feet.  Additionally, the team used a reverse command to get the propellers to turn in the right direction. In doing this, it reversed the sensors input so that it was increasing instead of decreasing. After further inspection of the AEV behavior on the track it was observed that the vehicle travelled at a slower speed than required because the motors were not running at full power output.  The AEV would occasionally stop at points on the track, which required a push from a team member. The team members tested the AEV at 25%, which is what accounted for the slower speed of the vehicle. The team did not have time to test different speeds due to time constraints, and will allot time next lab to correct this issue.   

After reviewing and discussing the propeller results, the Puller 3030 was determined to be the best propeller configuration. When evaluating the graphs of the propulsion efficiency, the graphs are depicted from right to left because as power increases, advanced ratio decreases. Looking at Figure 7, the Puller 3030 started with an efficiency of approximately 35%, rose to over 50%, and then steadily decreased to 15% efficiency at the highest power percentage. Considering Figure 6, the efficiency of Puller 2510 started at 0% and steadily rose to 17% by the highest power percentage. The Puller 3030 tested out to be the best considering it had a higher propulsion efficiency  throughout most of the experiment. Considering these points, the Puller 3030 was the best propeller configuration to use on the AEV.

After putting the AEV on track the team will utilize the knowledge gained from analyzing the AEV on the track to construct the code for the final project. The group tested out a specific motor power percentage and how the power percentage affected the propellers that controlled the AEV. The team also noticed the design of the AEV cannot be too wide or it will be problematic due to clearance dimensions of the track.

Team Meeting Notes

Date: 1-22-2017

Time: 8:00-9:15  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles

Topics Discussed: We discussed who should do which projects and parts on the progress report.

Objective: Evenly distribute the work of the progress report along with setting dates they should be completed by.

To do/Action Items: Divide all the parts and communicate with team members not present to the meeting what portions of the report they are accountable for.

Decisions: The entire progress report should be completed by 1/29 and a meeting will take place on that date.

Date: 2-2-2017

Time: 10:00-12:30 pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles

Topics Discussed: We discussed what needs to be done to turn in a finished product.

Objective: Finish all parts not completed so far and turn in the progress report.

To do/Action Items: Results and analysis; questions 1,2,3; proofread the entire report.

Decisions: All the individual components will be completed and in the lab report by tonight, the lab report will be submitted tomorrow morning and the paper copy will be used printed out for class tomorrow.

Date: 2-3-2017

Time: 8:30-10:00 pm

Members Present: Evan Berry, Alex Savelieff, Cameron Eckles, Ahmed Negm

Objective: Make sure everything on the progress report is completed and finalized along with no spelling errors and grammar mistakes.

To do/Action Items: Proofread report and turn in the lab, along with printing out a hard copy for class.

Decisions: The lab is ready to turn in with no mistakes or parts missing.

Topics Discussed: Proofread the lab and format all parts into the correct section of the paper.

Summary

Throughout Lab 01, which dealt with Arduino programming basics, the team became familiar with the automatic control system hardware components. They went through and identified each part in the kit; marking them off on the “AEV Kit Checklist” when each part was accounted for. This ensured  all parts needed for the project were provided and that each team member knew the name and function of each part. This will aid the team in future projects, making it easier to understand the lab readings, and better understand the project. In addition to the inventory check, basic function calls were used to program a set of instructions and upload the code on the Arduino using the sketchbook program. This was done by opening up the sketchbook program, and putting the code under the “01_myCode” tab. The basic function calls utilized included “celerate”, “motorSpeed”, “goFor”, “brake”, and “reverse”. The team split up the work between the group and each member coded a portion of the program before connecting the Arduino to the computer and uploading the final code. This provided experience with basic programming and connection skills that will be used throughout the project to operate and test other controls. The team also mounted the curved propellers firmly to the motors with the dull side away from the motor. This was done to observe how the code worked with the propellers and eventually how it will move the AEV later in the project. Lab 01 left the team members with an understanding of the functions of the sketchbook program and how a program can be uploaded to the Arduino.

Results

An arduino code attempted to test and control the AEV propellor system. One of the motors did not work; this was an internal error that was difficult to resolve. One of the motors responded to the code while the other stopped and started very quickly. The motor must be replaced for the system to work correctly. This lab error was useful as any internal errors that occur will be quickly identified. Lab setup and testing takes a large amount of the lab period and efficient work was required to finish the lab on time. The lab was not completely finished in the period provided and the second optional part of the lab, Scenario 2, was not attempted. Better time management and allocation of lab responsibilities are necessary in future labs. No quantitative results were taken from the lab but many qualitative results were recorded from the system failure.

During the first test, the propellers were unable to run. After an examination of the motor, the propellers were determined to be touching the motor and creating unwanted friction – stopping the propellers from rotate. After testing a second time, it was determined that the friction against the wall was not the problem. The lab group attempted to troubleshoot the problem, checking each connection. With no success, the TA was asked to check over the configuration for any obvious errors made during the setup. An error was not discovered and the group was referred to the GTA office hours. At the office hours, another unsuccessful attempt was made to get the motors to run, the problem was postponed to the next lab period. The group will attempt a third time along with more troubleshooting to resolve the problem.

The commands used to make the AEV function have limitations associated with them. When using the “brake(m)” command the AEV does not stop immediately. The function does not brake the AEV system, but rather cuts the power from the motor. Additionally, the track itself was a restriction as the AEV can only go as far as the track allows. This will need to be taken in consideration when programming the tasks that will need to be completed by the AEV – it cannot be programmed to go a further distance than the track will be capable of carrying it.

The team wasn’t able to finish the first scenario and as a result could not start on the second scenario due to multiple errors. The first significant error was connecting the wrong COM port in the program, which wasted time trying to figure out why the program did not connect to the Arduino. Another error that was made by the team was mounting the propellers too far down the shaft creating friction. The second Scenario was  to test out and get familiar with more sketchbook commands, including running both motors at the same time with different acceleration.

The team had trouble getting started during the lab experiment as seen in the errors made. The TA’s were needed often throughout the period to accomplish simple tasks. The lab group as a whole needs to read the laboratory manual thoroughly before the experiment for it to run more smoothly and efficiently in the future.

Team Meeting Notes

Date: 1-22-2017

Time: 8:00-9:15  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry and Alex Savelieff

Topics Discussed: We discussed who should do which projects and parts on the progress report while incorporating and taking in consideration objectives and goals we needed to accomplish outside of the lab report including building the AEV.

Objective: Evenly distribute the work of the progress report along with setting dates they should be completed by.

To do/Action Items: Situation for past week, situation for next week, and weekly goals and schedule.

Decisions: The next meeting date was determined to be on 1/23.

Date: 1-23-2017

Time: 6:30-9:00  pm

Members Present: Evan Berry and Ahmed Negn

Topics Discussed: Possibly setting up a general meeting time every Sunday that all members will attend if progress report is not completely finished.

Objective: Complete all parts of the progress report assigned to Evan and Ahmed.  Work together to figure out what should and should not be included on the takeaways and weekly goals.

To do/Action Items: Takeaways, next week schedule, situation.

Decisions: Create two mandatory meetings every week all group members attend.  One on wednesdays to plan the progress report completion and one on sunday to create the final copy of the report.

Date: 1-24-2017

Time: 9:30-10:30  am

Members Present: Evan Berry and Alex Savelieff

Topics Discussed: What changes need to be made to the progress report before we can submit it as a final copy.

Objective: Turn in final progress report and print out hard copy

To do/Action Items: Proofread entire report. Correct all errors including incorrect tense and grammar mistakes.

Decisions: The progress report is complete and ready to be turned in