Division H – Plans/Codes

Plans/Notes

Three Key Areas we have studied so far in our AEV Project including how to slow the vehicle down effectively, which method is best for moving the AEV, time or distance, and what design requires the motors to use the least amount of power.

As we tested the AEV, we noticed that using the brake command only stopped the motor and did not bring the vehicle to a stop. This was something we expected to have happen though (1182 Lab Manuel) as we had previously read about it. To counter this, we decided that putting the motors in reverse was an effective way to bring the vehicle to a stop. This was an advance tactic we used to brake the vehicle.

We also figured that using distance was much better suited for moving the AEV in most situations as power was not perfectly identical each time. This would mean if the vehicle moved based on time, it would move slightly different distance each time. If distance were to be used to tell the AEV how to move, it would move to a precise spot each time, granted only if the starting position stayed the same. We decided absolute positive worked best as long as we had a starting point marked.

Finally, we looked at design to see which on the AEV putting the motors would be most efficient. Ultimately we haven’t come to a final conclusion yet but we are more than likely expecting the motors to be on the top of the main platform. Once again, this has not been fully tested yet though.

February 9th:

When choosing an AEV to carry onto aR&D, we looked at aerodynamics, weight, durability, and cost. These features are important to the consumer and production of the AEV. The aerodynamics and weight affect how fast the consumer arrives to their destination. The durability and and cost for the AEV affect how often they need to be replaced and how much it will cost each time as well.

March 17th:

The group has accomplished performance test 1 and 2 using a code the undershoots the AEV to specific locations such as the gate and loading zone, and then coasted in used a short burst of energy to the motors. This ensures a successful run without having to worry about outside factors effecting the accuracy of the AEV.

April 4th:

The team has completed the final performance test using Grant’s design.

Codes

The codes used for each test is provided on separate pages due to the length of the codes.

 

Full Team Schedule

Task Role Start Date End/Completed Date Time Needed % Completed
Prepare for exercise 1 and 2 of pre r&d Team 1/12/18 1/19/18 1 hour 100
Team meeting minutes Team 1/15/18 1/19/18 2 hours 100
Prepare for exercise 3 of pre r&d Team 1/19/18 1/26/18 1 hour 100
Website Update 1 Ben 1/22/18 1/26/18 2  hour 100
Prepare for exercise 4 and 5 of pre r&d Team 1/26/18 2/2/18 1 hour 100
Website Update 2 Ben, Tysir 1/29/18 2/2/18 1.5 hours 100
Progress Report 1 Team 1/29/18 2/9/18 5 hours 100
Prepare for adv r&d Team 2/2/18 2/9/18 1 hour 100
Grant Proposal Slides Grant 2/9/18 2/16/18 1.5 hours 100
Committee Meeting Materials Team 2/12/18 2/16/18 1 hour 100
Finish adv r&d Team 2/16/18 2/23/18 1 hour 100
Website Update 3 Tysir 2/26/18 3/2/18 2 hours 100
Progress Report 1 rewrite Team 2/23/18 3/2/18 3 hours 100
Adv r&d presentation slides Team 2/23/18 3/2/18 2 hours 100
Progress Report 2 Team 3/5/18 3/9/18 6 hours 100
Coding for performance test one Grant 3/19/18 3/21/18 1 hour 100
CDR draft Team 3/19/18 3/25/18 5 hours 100
Coding for performance test 2 Tim, Grant 3/26/28 3/28/18 2 hours 100
Committee meeting 2 materials Team 3/28/18 3/30/18 1 hour 100
Coding for final performance test Team 3/28/18 4/2/18 1 hour 100
Progress Report 3 Team 4/2/18 4/6/18 5 hours 100
Final presentation slides draft Tysir 4/6/18 4/9/18 2 hours 100
Prepare for Presentation Team 04/13/18 4/20/18 1 hour 100
Final Website Tyisr 04/16/18 4/20/18 1 hour 100
Finish CDR Team 4/16/18 4/20/18 1 hours 100