Homework #3

By Eric Emer

Reference Design

k = 2, d = 1

k = 2, d = 3

k = 5, d = 1

k = 5, d = 3

k = 10, d = 1

k = 10, d = 3

These simulations tell us a lot about the circuit. For gains of 2 and 5, the motors response time was fast. For these gains, the motor responded accurately as well. From looking at the slope, and the value attained, it is clear that the gain of 5 produced both a faster, and more accurate response. When we increased the gain to 10, the motor did not function. This is because the voltage passing through the motor was out of its capable range. We can also see that changing the distance of the light altered the motors speed, because the slope of the graphs at d = 1 is greater than the slope of the graphs at d = 3. However, changing the distance of the light did not alter the accuracy of the system, as the final value achieved was the same.

Alternative Design

k = 1, d = 1

k = 1, d = 3

k = 5, d = 1

k = 5, d = 3

k = 10, d = 1

k = 10, d = 3

These simulations also tell us a great deal about the circuit. The alternative design trumps the reference design in both speed and accuracy. If we compare the slopes of the alternative design graphs to the reference design graphs, we see that the slopes of the alternative design graphs are greater. They react to changes in light faster than the reference design ones. Here we see that if we set gain equal to 1, the response is very accurate. However, for gains of 5 and 10, the response is a bit too eager, and shoots beyond the target value before leveling out. In this design, the gain of 10 works because there are not 10V on both motor terminals.