After completing advanced research and development one, while testing which motor configuration was better, push or pull methods. While running multiple tests for each configuration, it was very clear that the push method was going to work better for the AEV. All of the collected research supports these findings because when the same code was applied to both motor configurations, the push configuration went a lot further along the track. In order to utilize this for the future of the AEV project, it is important that the push method be used as much as possible when working towards completing the final test. It will require less energy when using the push method to go the same distance compared to when using the pull method, which is a very important aspect of ensuring this project is as efficient as possible.
a pull graph
a push graph
For the second portion of the advanced research and development, it was decided that the group was going to look into SolidWorks simulations and other aspects within SolidWorks that can help compare the newly designed AEV with the original. When working to figure out how to run the simulation, it was a lot more difficult than what was originally anticipated. Without expertise and many hours spent learning how to use it, data would be hard to come by. One interesting finding was that when a circular motor was applied to the two rotors in the vertical design, and the same was done for the original design, the vertical design was spinning a lot faster and smoother. The motor speeds were set to be the same, so it is unsure what may have caused this, but it looked good for the vertical design. Also, with the animation, it was found that the vertical design was going to be a lot easier to assemble and put together. This was very important for the overall performance of the AEV. When looking at the two designs, the vertical design was slightly heavier than the sample AEV design that was provided. It was decided that this slight difference in the long run would not be as important as other aspects of the design. Another comparison between the two AEV’s is the volume each one takes up. These were also very similar, with the sample being 7.71 cubic inches and the new design being 8.62 cubic inches. This isn’t a huge difference, but the new design is small and compact enough to still be effective. It is important to keep size small because this will allow more AEV’s to run through the city and it will minimize the space being taken up by the overall project. Another crucial aspect of the new design was the center of gravity. This was very important because we did not want the AEV to be swinging back and forth along the rails. With the new design, the center of gravity was almost in the very center of the AEV, which was ideal compared to the original design. In the original design, the center of gravity was not even in the center vertically, when looking in the top view. And, all the weight was towards the back, which was not going to help complete the project.
Overall, these findings will make the AEV a lot more marketable in a variety of ways. One way is that since it is going to be taking up less space along the rails, investors will realize that more of them can be installed around the city without having too much of an effect on the appeal of the city. Also, the fact that the new design is much easier to construct and destruct, that will be appealing to the market because the engineers designing and building each AEV will want something simple enough, but still good enough to complete the task at hand. And, after revealing which method, push or pull, was more efficient, the AEV will be trusted on the market that it is getting the job done as efficiently as possible.