Movement
|
Control
|
Simplicity
|
Cost
|
Total
|
|
Design 1
|
10
|
8
|
7
|
8
|
33
|
Design 2
|
7
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
20
|
Design 3
|
5
|
8
|
8
|
6
|
27
|
Design 4
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
16
|
Overall, the winner for best design is design number 1. For movement, this design is as efficient as can be. The two propellers on the back and one on bottom make for the easiest movement in all directions. The other designs all have flaws to the movement (such as design 4's poorly chosen front dome, or design 2's slowly changing ballast tanks). For ease of control, designs 1 and 3 are both at the top of the list. Design 2 has ballasts that could be difficult to handle when quick movements and changes in path are needed. Design 4 has a pivoting hang glider piece on top that would not be great for slight changes in depth. Designs 1 and 3 both have propellers that would easily make slight movements and quick drastic movements as well. For simplicity, design 3 has the best features. Design 3 has one large propeller that pivots for movement in all directions. One propeller leads to one controller, and that makes the ROV much easier to control via the remote. Design 1 is the next best option, with propellers on the back for forward and backward motion, and a central propeller on the bottom to control depth. The propellers can all be turned on and off separately to control motion as easily as possible. Design 4 has a hang glider attachment and domed front that complicate movements and make changing direction complicated when necessary. Also, an issue I did not realize at first is that having the hang glider on means that moving backwards would be far more difficult than usual. Although it is not a particularly simple and efficient design, the additional piece would also complicate movement in the backwards direction. Lastly, design 2 has ballast tanks which are not only difficult to control, but also much more difficult to attach to the ROV than the other methods of movement. On the cost side (which for us, is an important factor to evaluate), designs 1 has a great advantage. Design 1 has 3 simple propellers that are attached to the back and bottom of the ROV. Design 3 is the second most cost productive, with one large propeller that pivots, but that may prove to be more expensive than expected. Design 4 features multiple additions along with two of the three propellers included in design 1, and will not be worth the cost, seeing as that design is overall not the best anyway. Finally, design 2 is the most expensive of all. The ballast tanks on the ROV would also require pumps to fill or empty the tanks on command, and this design would be complicated and expensive to create.
After careful consideration, design 1 was chosen as the best option, but it needs some changes to be ready for final production. One important change I have decided on is a PVC bar through the center of the front of the ROV to allow Ms. Dronne to attach the arm centered on the front. Another change that will be put into place will be the exclusion of the foam flotation devices. I have recently learned that at certain depths, (around 6-8 feet) the air becomes too pressurized to stay within the foam, and the flotation devices then become useless. To avoid having wasted materials, I will not be including the foam. Other than those two changes, the design will remain the same. After careful consideration, I have found that with a few minor changes, design 1 will be the best option to move forward with. (See images below).
 |
| ROV CAD 3D Rendering |
 |
| ROV CAD Orthographic |
 |
| ROV CAD Exploded View |
No comments:
Post a Comment