For this week, the team worked on two codes and used the chosen design to test the codes. The purpose of constructing the two codes is to compare which code is the most consistent, energy efficient, flexible in various trials, and reacts well in the changes of environment. To do this, the team was supposed to construct two different codes, test the codes using the chosen AEV, observe the performance of the AEV and compare the results.
However, the group was unable to create the second code as the group were trying to figure out the problem with their Arduino. The group tested the first code many times but the AEV did not operate according to the written code. Since the team could not proceed with the AEV, the second code was not tested.
The main difference between the codes was that one of them used time instead of distance to measure how long the AEV will run for in each instance. Because the arduino was not working the codes could not be correctly the main difference would be the timing would not be as accurate distance-wise, and the energy efficiency would most likely be less efficient. The next lab will be used to complete the tests that were intended to be done in this lab. As well as altering the codes to allow for some coasting time in an attempt to improve efficiency.
Using the codes that were made in lab 9A, the team will complete one full circuit with the stops at the gate each time. The team will need to test the AEV in multiple sections first for each individual part of the track, the first 400 marks cover the first distance before the gate, then there is a 7 second wait at the gate. After that there will be another 420 marks at which point the AEV will pick up the R2D2. The AEV will continue to the gate again which is another 400 marks and then wait another 7 seconds before continuing to the end of the circuit.
After figuring it out, the GTA and UTA discovered that the problem of the AEV was the Arduino. It seemed like the Arduino is broken and thus could not operate normally. The problem was resolved by replacing a new Arduino and will be tested again in next lab. No result was obtained.
| Task | Teammate(s) | Start Date | End Date | Time Expected |
| Update the portfolio | All | 3/27/17 | 3/31/17 | 1 hour |
| Complete the Weekly Progress Report | All | 3/31/17 | 4/2/17 | 2 hours |
| Test the Performance of AEV | Shane and Stephen | 3/27/17 | 3/29/17 | 2.5 hours |
Team meeting notes
Date: 29 – March – 2017
Time: 6:00 pm (Face to Face)
Members Present: All
Topics Discussed: The criteria the team needs to consider in constructing the two codes
_________________________________________________________
Objective: To fully understand what needs to be done for the progress report.
_________________________________________________________
To do/Action Items:
Distribute the tasks among the team members.
_________________________________________________________
Decisions: The team decided to start on the progress report as soon result is obtained.
_________________________________________________________
Reflections: It is better to get the tasks done few days before the deadlines so that the any mistake can be fixed.