Designed by Cody
Triangle based design to improve balance of AEV. The design adds an attractive triangle feature that adds to the aesthetic.
Final Design:
Rectangular Blades:
Curved Blades:
Servo Motor:
Research:
Many different tests were performed to design a final, most efficient AEV for the group. It was necessary, that the final design, and alternate designs as they got better with improvements, went in the direction of using the least possible energy, and provide the most displacement to the AEV. It was important to make the AEV easy to brake, when needed.
At first, the AEV was tested with the rectangular propeller blades, and curved blades. When the data from both tests was aquired, it was quite clear that the rectangular blades used more power and energy over a distance, as compared to the curved propeller blades. The curved blades were more efficient than the rectangular blades, lacked the drag that rectangular blades had because of their rectangular shape. The curved blades were wide in the middle and shrunk down in the end, as well as being curved. This provided the push the AEV needed to overcome air-resistance. Thus, curved propeller blades were finalized to be used for this project.
Apart from the blades, another factor that helped with the final design of the AEV was the decision to not use the servo motor. The servo motor was good at providing an instant stop to the AEV, and stopped it easily, with less testing required, as it functioned quite consistently. However, when tested, the servo motor used too much power to lift the handle and provide friction with the track, that it was almost inefficient to keep the servo, instead of braking the AEV through coding. Also, it was quite difficult to find tha stable position to place the servo motor on the AEV.
The servo motor also required an external part attached to its hand, to provide that friction to the track. Testing also suggested that at high speeds, the servo could cause the AEV to fly off the tracks, and would also add significant amount of weight to the AEV, which could slow it down. With all these cons combined, it was concluded that the it was too inefficient and time consuming to make the servo motor work the right way for the AEV, and thus it was left out of the final design of the AEV.
The final design of the AEV looks a lot like the model design provided, but with provisions to the placement of the arm, and an added external part to magnetically connect the AEV to the caboose.
Team Design
Table 1: Concept Screening Matrix for an AEV Design
| Success Criteria | Reference | Design C | Design J | Design M | Design S | Design T |
| Energy Efficiency | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aesthetics | 0 | + | + | + | + | 0 |
| Weight | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | – | + |
| Speed | 0 | + | + | 0 | + | + |
| Air Resistance | 0 | + | + | + | – | + |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Sum 0’s | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Sum -’s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Net Score | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Continue? | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Table 2: Concept Scoring Matrix for an AEV Design
| Reference | Design C | Design J | Design M | Design S | Design T |
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Energy Efficiency | 30% | 2 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.9 | 2 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 | 3 | 0.9 |
| Aesthetics | 10% | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Weight | 20% | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.8 |
| Speed | 20% | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.6 |
| Air Resistance | 20% | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.6 |
| Total Score | 2.6 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 11 | 2.7 | 3.2 |
| Continue? | No | No | Develop | No | Develop |