Testing, a wheel success.
11/9/18
Today's activities mostly consisted of design testing, in which a number of conclusions were reached, resulting in changes to design.
We tested the current design of the robot in an outdoors setting, which was reflective of the intention to run the robot in the outdoors. This initial test was designed to assess the function of the robot itself and how the robot responded to variations of power and rough terrain. No sensors were tested in this initial functionality test. The robot itself performed reasonably outdoors. The power presented by the dual motors was underwhelming, with the robot failing to negate even a 1cm ledge. This failure was disheartening, and meant our proposed course had to be simplified to accommodate for the apparent lack of motive power. Despite this, we tested how the robot reacted to rough surfaces such as drain meshes and uneven surfaces. The thick four wheels at the front of the robot performed well and as desired over these surfaces. We also identified sites of potential suitability for our demonstrative test. We identified that the rear wheels needed to be upgraded from small, thin wheels to larger, thicker wheels that were present on the front wheels. These changes were implemented, with the small rear wheels exchanged. The lesson ended very shortly after these changes were implemented. At the end of the lesson we identified that the Ultrasonic sensor would work better than the middle touch sensor. We have decided to integrate the ultrasonic sensor into the design next lesson (Thursday, 13th)
Today's activities mostly consisted of design testing, in which a number of conclusions were reached, resulting in changes to design.
We tested the current design of the robot in an outdoors setting, which was reflective of the intention to run the robot in the outdoors. This initial test was designed to assess the function of the robot itself and how the robot responded to variations of power and rough terrain. No sensors were tested in this initial functionality test. The robot itself performed reasonably outdoors. The power presented by the dual motors was underwhelming, with the robot failing to negate even a 1cm ledge. This failure was disheartening, and meant our proposed course had to be simplified to accommodate for the apparent lack of motive power. Despite this, we tested how the robot reacted to rough surfaces such as drain meshes and uneven surfaces. The thick four wheels at the front of the robot performed well and as desired over these surfaces. We also identified sites of potential suitability for our demonstrative test. We identified that the rear wheels needed to be upgraded from small, thin wheels to larger, thicker wheels that were present on the front wheels. These changes were implemented, with the small rear wheels exchanged. The lesson ended very shortly after these changes were implemented. At the end of the lesson we identified that the Ultrasonic sensor would work better than the middle touch sensor. We have decided to integrate the ultrasonic sensor into the design next lesson (Thursday, 13th)
Comments
Post a Comment