Development and Progression

The final few days of development have seen a big rise in the level of activity surrounding the buggy. The group have worked hard to develop a well built, professional product that meets all the aims; with numerous problems arising. These problems have seriously hindered progress but have resulted in a better quality product being created.
The problems were:
1. Motor Power. The motors do not have the torque to turn the chassis (which still appears to be relatively light) upon command.
2. Motor driver board problems. Fault diagnosis suggested that the motor driver board was faulty (a blown chip was suspected), but after creating a new resistor board the fault was found to be in the input voltage to the system (the batteries!).
3. LDR sensitivity. As the suspected fault with the motor driver board briefly stopped development of the moving parts, the group focused their attention onto developing the sensing elements. The LDR's and LED's were mounted onto the front of the buggy at a sensible height to allow adjustment; once testing commenced. Upon reflection it was realised taht the variable conditions experienced in the actual testing laboratory (Room 160 in Aston university) were vastly different to a dimly lit basement.
4. Available products/parts. The supplier used to precure all the components and parts had run out of the LED's that were used to provide a more stable light source for the LDR's to detect. This resulted in a change of LED - a solution that quickly enabled testing to get back on track.

Progress report - 15/3/10 - Ian Thomas

The following issues were discussed in the classroom session (15/3/10):

Type of Design -
4 Wheels. Harder to setup - Unnecessarily so.
2 Wheels. Unless perfectly balanced it would be likely to drag - this was seen as an unprofessional approach.
3 Wheels. Manouevrable and reasonably easy to construct, if not the most original design.
Tracked. Good manouevrability but complicated to construct and needs specific parts.
Hover craft. Too complicated with a lack of manouevrability.

The group decided to analyse a 3 wheeled design and a tracked design further.
TRACKED - Luke Hildred to investigate available track parts.
3 WHEELED - Excellent control. Favourite of the group.

Sensor Choice -
MAGNETIC - Reed switches (Requires further investigation and testing). The less sensitive switch provided in class isn't up to the task - Duncan Scriven to investigate other options.
INFRA RED - Cheap and effective in the right conditions. Lots of online reviews have recommended that these aren't used so the group have decided to forget using them).
LDR - Cheap and effective with extensive research readily available.

Gantt Chart, Ian Thomas

I have created a Gantt Chart to track the progress of the group and make the allocation of tasks easier. It cannot be uploaded to this blog; so it will be utilised at the classroom session each week. All group members will receive an up to date copy each Tuesday; where new tasks will be agreed and documented.