Criteria 6: Testing

Test 1: Maximum speed

Purpose: This test is designed to measure the maximum forward speed of the vehicle
Method: This test was conducted inside on wooden flooring using fresh batteries. Two
points were marked on the floor with duct tape one metre apart. The vehicle was coded to
simply drive forward, with no sensor input. The front of the vehicle (jockey wheel end) was
placed behind the starting line of the tape. The two batteries were plugged in (one into the
Arduino and one directly soldered into the motor driver). I had a stopwatch on my phone
ready and started it as I released the vehicle. When the vehicle reached the other tape mark
at 1m, the stopwatch was stopped. This reading was recording and the test was completed
three times to calculate an average.
Results:
1st Run: 0.9seconds
2nd run: 1.3 seconds
3rd run: 1.1 seconds
Average speed = (0.9+1.3+1.1)/3 = 1.1 seconds/metre
Notes/Comments: Initially, my car was going incredibly slowly, and was not receiving even
power for the sensors to properly function. I worked out that this was due to my battery
being plugged in through the Arduino. To solve this, I made the modification of using a
second battery into 2 of the ports on the motor driver. This meant the motors and sensors
received more voltage and were able to operate faster and more effectively. The wires kept
coming out of the blue ports due to the tight positioning of the motor driver next to the
Arduino. To further modify my design and solve this, I soldered the extra battery onto the
pins underneath the motor driver. This worked quite effectively, allowing me to use two
batteries at once and operate at a higher speed.
Obviously, this speed is not consistent as it will change depending on how charged the
batteries are, what the surface it is driving on is- traction, etc.

Test 2: Different Lighting Conditions

Purpose: This test is designed to determine the capability of the flying fish sensors under
different lighting conditions.
Method: This test was conducted indoors with the paper on wooden flooring, with a fresh
set of batteries. One sensor was calibrated to detect a black line on a white sheet of paper
under regular room conditions. I then tested the ability of the sensor to detect the same line
under different lighting conditions. First, I shined a torch on the line and sensor to increase
the brightness of the area. Next, I tested the sensor at nighttime, in a room with no lights-
pitch black. Finally, I tested the sensor in a dark room with the lights on slightly- a dim room.
Results:
Regular Conditions: Success. Sensor works, can detect the black line.
Torch: Success. Sensor works, can detect black line.
Pitch Black: Fail. Sensor is unable to differentiate between black line and white.
Dim: Unreliable. The sensor is unreliable under these conditions; it can work somewhat but
not 100%.
Notes/Comments: As expected, the optimal light conditions for these sensors to operate
with full functionality is a highly illuminated room.

Test 3: Straight Line

Purpose: This test is how well the car can follow a straight line.
Method: This test was conducted indoors, on wooden flooring, with fresh batteries. A
straight, black line was drawn on white paper, around 50cm in length. The batteries were
plugged in and the sensors were calibrated with a Phillips head screwdriver. The car was
then placed with the middle sensor over the line and allowed to attempt to follow the line
by itself. The success of this was observed and recorded. This was attempted 3 times, to
ensure there were no outliers and the result was accurate and reliable.
Results: Success. The car was able to follow a straight line reliably.
Notes/Comments: This proves the car is functional in following a simple line, and thus the
hardware of the car is suitable. For a more complex line, sophisticated coding would be
required.

Test 4: Curved Line

Purpose: This test is designed to determine the car’s ability to follow a curved line.
Method: This test was conducted indoors, on wooden flooring, with fresh batteries. Two
curved, black lines were drawn on white paper and positioned on the floor. One was a
sharp, 45 degree angle turn, and the other was a gentler gradient, closer to 10 degrees. The
batteries were plugged in, sensors calibrated and the car was placed on the line with the
middle sensor over the line. The car was observed following the line and the success of it
following was recorded.
Results: Fail. The car struggles to follow the curved line consistently. The less sharp turn was
achieved a few times, but very unreliably.
Notes/Comments: My car seemed to have some issues with the middle sensor, I believe
there were some issues with the coding. To tackle this, I made the modification of omitting
the middle sensor altogether, to see how the car would run with only the left and right
sensor. I theorised that the simpler approach would benefit my car, as some problems
would sometimes arise when all 3 sensors were activated. The car was able to follow the
curved line slightly more successfully, but again was unreliable; most definitely due to my
limited coding ability.

Test 5: Broken Line

Purpose: This test is designed to determine the car’s ability to navigate a line with a
gap/break in it.
Method: This test was conducted on wooden flooring, with a fresh set of batteries. A black
line was drawn on a white piece of paper, with a gap/break in the line, approx. 50mm in
length. The batteries were plugged in and the sensors were calibrated to the black line. Due
to this being a straight line with a break in it, the car was coded to drive forward when it did
not detect the line.
Results: Success. The car was able to drive past the break in the line and navigate itself back
onto the line and continue following it.
Notes/Comments: This would probably only work with a straight broken line, both due to
the limitations in my coding and due to the fact that the car struggles with a regular curved
line.
Test 6: Finding the Line
Purpose: This test is designed to determine the car’s ability to locate the line, should it come
off or be placed on a white area.
Method: This test was conducted indoors on wooden flooring, with a fresh set of batteries.
A straight black line was drawn on a white piece of paper. The batteries were plugged into
the car and the car was placed over a white section of the paper. The car was coded to go
forward if the sensors did not detect any black, in this instance. This was repeated several
times and the results were observed and recorded.
Results: SUCCESS. The sensors reliably were able to detect the black line. There was
unreliability, however, in how seamlessly the car was able to begin following this line, and
which direction the car would go once it did start following it.
Notes/Comments: This is very dependent on coding capability, and due to my limited
knowledge, I was only able to conduct a simple forward test. If my coding were more
advanced, I might’ve tried out testing the sensors ability to find a curved line, or for the car
to do something different when it doesn’t detect any black line; spin in a circle, for instance.
Test 7: Different Surfaces
Purpose: This test is used to determine the capabilities of the flying fish sensors on different
surfaces
Method: This test was conducted indoors, on 3 different surfaces with a fresh set of
batteries. The wheels were taken off the motors so that the car would not move while I was
trying to test the sensor. One sensor was detached from the car and the batteries were
plugged in so the sensor could be calibrated. It was then observed whether or not the
sensor could reliably detect and a black line of duct tape on different surfaces.
Results:
White paper: Success. The flying fish sensor reliably detected the black line from the white
paper.
Wooden Desk: Success. The sensor had no issues detecting the black line from the orangey
wood of the desk.
Lino flooring(Dark in colour): Fail. The sensor was unable to recognise the black line from
the dark greyish colour of the lino flooring.
Notes/Comments: One important factor for whether or not the sensor was successful
seemed to be the contrast in colour between the line and the surface. White and Black was
the best contrast, but a light colour like wood also worked. Dark colours like grey, was
shown to not work.

Test 8: Different Line Thickness

Purpose: This test is for determining how the thickness of the line affects the car’s ability to
follow it.
Method: This test was conducted indoors, on wooden flooring, with fresh batteries. 5
Different black lines were drawn on white paper, of varying thickness 5mm, 15mm, 25mm,
35mm and 45mm. The batteries were connected and the car was placed (with middle
sensor on the middle of the line) on each line 3 times to see if it could successfully detect
and hence follow each line. Each line was straight and the space between sensors was not
changed at all between tests, to ensure only the effect of the line thickness was being
tested- all other variables were being controlled.
Results: The car struggled with the 5mm line, as the line was simply too thin for the sensor
to reliably follow it. The middle sensor would not accurately and consistently detect the line.
The car was fully functional for the 15mm and 25mm thick lines. This middle range is the
sweet spot for the distance I had between my sensors. The car was unable to function with
the 35mm and 45mm thick lines, as all three sensors were activated while the car was over
the line.
Notes/Comments: This is an important measurement to know, as if your line is too thick or
too thin the overall functionality will be severely affected. In order to overcome this, it
would be wise to make a design that has sensors with adjustable distance between them of
some sort.

Test 9: Voltage Drawn

Purpose: To calculate the voltage drawn while the car is running
Method: The car was set up on a small box (tissue box) so that it could run without moving
as the wheels were hanging over the side. The batteries were plugged in- one to the
Arduino and one directly to the motor driver, so that the wheels and car was running. A
multimeter was used to measure the voltage drawn. One diode was placed on a black pin,
and the other was placed on the adjacent red pin.
Results: 4.91 volts recorded
Notes/Comments: This seems low, considering there are two 9V batteries connected to the
car. I think this may be due to the Arduino having a limit of 5V, using a voltage regulator.

Test 10: Current Drawn

Purpose: To calculate the current drawn through the car
Method: The car was set up on a small box (tissue box) so that it could run without moving
as the wheels were hanging over the side. One battery was plugged into the Arduino. The
other battery was half plugged in, with one metal connection unplugged. The multimeter
prongs are attached to the open metal connection coming from the motor driver and the
open metal connection coming from the unplugged battery. The multimeter will then
display the current drawn.
Results: 0.21 amps recorded

Test 12: Speed and independence in completing the ‘HARD TRACK’ course
Purpose: To test my car’s line following capabilities on a complex course
Method: The test was conducted indoors, with fresh batteries. The ‘HARD TRACK’ course
was taken out of the tube and unrolled onto vacant floor space. Something heavy was
placed on each corner to stop it rolling up. Batteries were plugged into the car and the
sensors were calibrated on the black line using a Phillips head screwdriver. The middle
sensor was place over the middle of the start line and the car was allowed to attempt to
follow the track. Its success in following the black line was observed and noted. Also, a
phone stopwatch was used to record how long it would take to go around the track, should
it be successful.
Results: FAIL. The car was unable to complete the entire course independently. Thus, a time
was not recorded.
Notes/Comments: The car struggled around some of the tighter corners and zig zag sections
of the track. To see how it would go in some other sections, I started the car on other areas,
for interest. It was slightly successful in following some of the straighter sections and
sections with gentler curves/gradients.