After many tests and modifications, Team C’s design has become a very efficient AEV. The best thing about this AEV is the low cost. The lack of a servo and using only the T-shaped body allowed this AEV to be the low price of $158,240. This cheap vehicle is also very energy efficient and fast. The deign that Group C used only used 225.76 Joules. Using such little energy also helps keep the cost low. On top of the low cost and energy use, this AEV is quite quick. The AEV was able to complete the final run in 50.82 seconds. The design that Team C created is also very safe. Throughout the entire AEV project, there were no safety violations. The AEV was consistently stable and safe. Overall, this AEV design is masterfully crafted with a minimal amount of materials. Its gets the job done and it does it well. Team C’s design is the best design.
This website is the portfolio for Baker International Group, which documents their design process and implementation of Division A, C and N’s Advanced Energy Vehicles (AEV).
Division A’s AEV “Sales Pitch” :
To develop an Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) to transport people from Linden to Easton and Polaris, labs and performance tests were conducted and centered around the creation of the most effective, efficient and safe AEV. The labs tested the AEV’s efficiency and accuracy of the completion of different tasks assigned. This report shows the testing of different components of the AEV, analyzation of different designs and the decision upon the AEV to best complete the mission objective through scoring practices. The main objective was to create a vehicle that could transport a caboose along a monorail system with consistency and efficiency. The design and development process was composed of several tasks that helped to direct the lab work: reflectance sensor reliance, propeller configuration and performance, creative design thinking, and how the code impacts the performance and operation of the AEV. The following report shows how the team decided on a design, how the team conducted testing, how data analyzation was used, and how the AEV changed and performed throughout the whole process. Our AEV uses coasting, power braking, motor configuration to create the most optimal and efficient AEV. We decided the specific design of our AEV to optimize energy efficiency and consistency by using the data from the Advanced R&D and Preliminary R&D tests. The team deferred to a centered design for stability and consistency; shown in the Performance Tests. Division A’s AEV was successful due to reduced weight, maximum accuracy, and maximum safety and comfort for transporting people. The total cost of building our AEV design is $155, 080.00 and our energy usage was 254J.
Division C’s AEV “Sales Pitch”:
Division N’s AEV “Sales Pitch”:
The developmental process of creating an Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) has concluded and yielded a model capable of completing the desired mission. The AEV went through multiple design states before the team decided the best approach to solving the problem of coming up with an energy efficient transportation system would be to lighten the AEV as much as possible to reduce the amount of energy lost to friction between the monorail and the AEV wheels. This approach means that the AEV uses very little material driving its production cost down. The team was able to produce a vehicle that costs $159,180. $146,000 of this cost is materials that are vital for the AEV to run (motors, Arduino, wheels, etc.), showing that the team used very little material besides the bare essentials. In addition to conserving energy through weight reduction, the program the AEV uses to navigate utilizes coasting segments that allow the motors to be shut off while the AEV is still moving allowing it coast. Using coasting on the track was found to be an innovative and reliable way to conserve energy. Saving energy makes the design environmentally friendly and more cost effective. Each joule of energy is worth $500 dollars. The team was able to complete the mission in 51 seconds while only using 220 joules of energy coming in 6 joules lower than the class average energy use of 226 joules. This means the team’s AEV saves $3000 dollars per run compared to the average class AEV. The AEV never failed a performance test and had a flawless final run making it a reliable and viable model to use in practice.