Situation
This week major changes and decision were executed. Changes occurred in both hardware and software. The group started the week by testing the consistency of the distance traveled by coding the AEV with power and time. The group was interested in these results because of their broken sensors. After the data, seen in table 1 of the appendix, was recorded and analyzed it was clear to the group that they needed to find a way to use the sensors. The group had the teaching assistant look more closely at their vehicle and the assumed broken sensors. Since the beginning, the group thought that the sensors had been broken, but really it was the wheel that was broken. The teaching assistants realized it was the tape on the wheel that created a reflectance that was incorrect on the AEV. The teaching assistants helped fix the wheel then the group continued testing both the straight away and the first gate. After the sensors were fixed the group created their second design. This design had added sensors and only one plane. This design was then tested the same way as design I on the straightaway, but this design used a code created with distance. This data was then recorded in table 1 in the appendix. After obtaining this data the group could see that the second design, with the sensors, was much more consistent. These tests helped the group come to the decision of using the second design as their final design.
Takeaways
After weeks of trying to program the AEV on a time-based code, the lab group concluded that this was not worth pursuing. Not only did the project directions advocate for the use of a sensors and mark driven code, but also Professor Busick informed the group that he has never had anyone successfully use a time-based AEV in his class. This was inspiring at first, but after the analysis of the data in table 1 of the appendix the group put the goals of completing the mission statement above their curiosity and switched to using the sensors. The biggest takeaway was that the group should not have spent so much time studying the consistency of the power and time written code and should have studied why their sensors were not working in the first place. Had we inquired earlier, a lot of time and effort put into proving that a time-based code was just as reliable could have been saved and used elsewhere. Although a power and time written code would have been the first of its kind, the mission statement must be completed and this would not have been possible due to the lack of precision of the first design.
Schedule:
| Task | Team Member | Start Date | Due Date | Time |
| Upload progress report | Emily | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 30 min |
| Lab 10 progress report compile and check, appendix | Megan | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 2 hour |
| Lab 10 progress report: Situation | Michael | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| Lab 10 progress report: Results and Analysis | Justin | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| Lab 10 progress report: Takeaways | Emily | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| Lab 10 progress report: Looking forward | Emily | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| Code for Test 1 | Emily | 3-23-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| SolidWorks First Design | Justin | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 5 hours |
| SolidWorks New Design | Michael | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 5 hours |
| SolidWorks Final Design | Justin | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 1 hour |
| PDR: Executive Summary | Michael | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 2 hours |
| PDR: Results | Emily and Megan | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 3 hours |
| PDR: Conclusions and Recommendations | Justin | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 2 hours |
| PDR: Appendix | Emily | 3-20-17 | 3-26-17 | 2 hours |
| PDR: Compile | Megan | 3-10-17 | 3-26-17 | 2 hours |
Meeting Notes
Team Meeting Notes
Date: 20 – March – 2017
Time: Post-Class
Members Present: All
Objective:
Consider options other than using power and time
To Do:
- Talk about problems with coding by power and time
- Reevaluate the option of sensors
- Each member give their opinion on what way the group should go about coding
- Make final decision on coding
Decisions:
- Decided that power and time was too inconsistent to continuing further tests
- Decided that sensors must be the solution
- Decided that each TA was going to be asked to look at the group’s AEV because this problem has been so persistent
- Decided that the next lab would be dedicated to solving sensor problem
Reflections:
- The lab group felt relieved that the final decision was made, but was nervous that the sensors my never work.