Situation
For Lab 09- Performance Test 2: The team had to establish two Arduino codes that could complete the full track layout, as described in the Mission Concept review (MCR). The codes would be tested on the chosen AEV design, focusing on its consistencies. Testing the AEV with different codes is so crucial as it helps the team to decide a better codes for the final design, following the focused criteria valued by the team. The team members adjusted the two codes created by the team and tested them on track so many times. The team observed how the AEV ran on track when the code was activated. The group also defined purposes of each set of codes and clarified the pros and cons of the logic.
Results & Analysis
Figure 1 : Graph of power against time
Table 1 : Table of Coding and Total Power Used
Based on the observation, the AEV ran smoothly from the starting position to the finishing line. The AEV was perfectly balanced during the turn and also when it was in a straight line. The team believed that this behaviour was due to the fact that the AEV moved at a slower velocity compared to the other group’s design. Even though the AEV was set at 30% power setting (same power setting of other designs), the use of one motor instead of two motor contributed to this stable behavior. The first coding was based on the previous lab, which used position-based function to move the AEV. The system made use of the reflectance sensor to move the AEV. The second coding (coding 2), used time-based function to complete the mission. The idea to use time-based coding was due to the fact that the team had been facing inconsistency issue during each trials. The AEV sometimes reached the first gate perfectly (only reached the first sensor) and sometimes reached the second sensor which prompted the gate to not open for the AEV to move. The team suspected that the problem was because of the reflectance sensor might not be working ideally and also due to the drop of battery voltage upon trials. To increase the consistency, the team decided to use the time-based coding which would not use the reflectance sensor. Based on the run, the time taken to complete the run was almost the same as the perfect run of Coding 1. The AEV completed the full run perfectly for three times of trials. Unfortunately, the time-based coding also have a small problem because the time is depending on the speed of the motor. If the team changed the speed of the motor, it will affect the rest of coding and it takes a lot of time to do that. Both of the codes have a risk such as the position and time of the AEV to move on the track because comparing the total power used for Coding 1 and Coding 2, the power used by Coding 2 was greater than Coding 1. Due to this, the team decided to continue using Coding 1 because the codes used a lesser energy than Coding 1.