Advanced Research and Design #1: Propeller Configuration
Purpose: to determine what kind of propellor configuration is more energy efficient
Procedure:
- have three different configurations (pulling, pushing, and in the middle)
- run the same code for all three configurations
- graph the energy vs. time and energy vs. distance graphs
Results:
- although a small difference, it’s more energy efficient to run a pulling configuration on the AEV
- Graphs:
Graph 1: Power vs. distance for Graph 2: Power vs. distance for Graph 3: Power vs. distance for
pushing configuration. pulling configuration. middle configuration.
Conclusion:
- The graphs showed that pulling from the front required the least amount of power initially. While the power consumption over time is quite similar throughout, the movement with pulling had a lower average power consumption. The biggest gains made was seen in the power vs time graph, where the power required in every change of motion at any given time was lower for the pulling scenario.
Advanced Research and Design #2: Alternative Propulsion
Purpose: to determine whether there is a better way to propel the AEV instead of using propellers
Procedure:
- get a band and a bottle cap to attach to the wheel and the arm
- run the motor
- measure how much energy is used
Results:
- did not work out because the band was too tight, so the bottle cap slipped off each time the motor ran
- Pictures:
Left- Figure A: Advanced testing for wheel | Middle- Figure B: Advanced testing for cap | Right- Figure C: advanced testing for band.
Conclusion:
- Based on analysis of the given data, a conclusion was determined. The team questioned whether this design was the best alternative method. It was previously established that the cap would mimic the small gear. The cap failed both testing scenarios terribly! The team believed that there was a strong chance that the small gear would fail too. The instability of the system was unacceptable as the primary goal of the AEV was passenger safety. Preliminary testing revealed that the wheel’s designs (also fixed) is not designed to withhold the band in place. Also, the cap’s rigidity and undulations reduce the smooth spin of the AEV. Advanced testing indicated that the flexibility of the band was compromised due to the distance between the wheel and cap (this distance is fixed and cannot be shortened). This also verified that in the actual testing atmosphere this AEV design would fail and, therefore, is not a good alternative design. In the end, our observations and analysis helped indicate that this indeed was not the best alternative method.