In correlation of learning about energy in class, we experimented with little robots and measured the energy efficiency while comparing our recorded results to those measured by the computer. The robot was comprised of a small body, which records data, and three wheels, two big wheels on the side and a small one on the front. During this experiment, we had to measure the distance the wheels traveled at three varying combinations of power and time. The power determined how fast the motor would run and the time determined how long the motor would be running for. We also recorded the number of wheel rotations and the time it took for the wheel to rotate. In order for the computer to make those calculations we had to input the circumference of the rear wheels.
For the three different settings, my partner and I decided to run all three settings at a constant time of 1 second and increased the power by 25 each setting. The first setting was ran at the power of 50, the second was at 75, and the third at 100. With each setting we realized that increasing the power increased the distance the robot traveled. When looking at the data collected from the experiment, strong connections between with number of wheel turns and distance traveled can also be seen. As we raised the power and the robot traveled further, the wheels rotated more times.
When comparing our manually recorded distances to the computer’s calculations the results were similar but with varying error percentages. It appears that the percentages grow steadily as the power was raised. I believe the primary reason for the error percent was because of the short time we chose to run the different settings. Accelerating quickly and then coming to a complete stop after one second didn’t make for the most constant results, especially on the power of 100. The robot would accelerate rapidly for a moment and then didn’t come to a necessarily slow stop, causing the measurements to be inconsistent. If we had chose to run the robot at lower powers for longer periods of time, I believe our measurements would have been more similar to the computers and there would be less error.
Setting 1:
Time: 1 second
Power: 50
Trial 1:
- Measured: .162 m Error =5.8%
- Wheel Rotations: 0.8388
- Distance: 0.1528 m
- Velocity: 0.1528 m/s
Trial 2:
- Measured: .167 m Error =3.87%
- Wheel Rotations: 0.95277
- Distance: 0.17359 m
- Velocity: 0.17359 m/s
Trial 3:
- Measured: .167 m Error = 3.24%
- Wheel Rotations: 0.9472
- Distance: 0.1725 m
- Velocity: 0.1725 m/s
Setting 2:
Time: 1 second
Power: 75
Trial 1:
- Measured: .319 m Error = 17.66%
- Wheel Rotations: 1.4667
- Distance: 0.26722 m
- Velocity: 0.26722 m/s
Trial 2:
- Measured: .26.2 m Error = 5.32%
- Wheel Rotations: 1.51667
- Distance: 0.27633 m
- Velocity: 0.27633 m/s
Trial 3:
- Measured: .257 m Error = 3.33
- Wheel Rotations: 1.45833
- Distance: 0.2657 m
- Velocity: 0.2657 m/s
Setting 3:
Time: 1 second
Power: 100
Trial 1:
- Measured: .358 m Error = 9.24%
- Wheel Rotations: 2.15556
- Distance: 0.3927 m
- Velocity: 0.3927 m/s
Trial 2:
- Measured: .365 m Error = 7.96%
- Wheel Rotations: 2.16944
- Distance: 0.39527 m
- Velocity: 0.39527 m/s
Trial 3:
- Measured: .369 m Error= 6.71%
- Wheel Rotations: 2.16389
- Distance: 0.3946 m
- Velocity: 0.3946 m/s