Testing Results 

After conducting the tests, I was able to evaluate the data that I had collected. The evaluations for each test are listed below: 

 

Leaf Collection Test: The results of this test are somewhat disappointing, considering that after 1 go over, approximately 75% of leaves remain. It is only after 3 go overs that the optimal percentage, 95%, is picked up. This requirement may be inconvenient - not quite up to the point where it would be simpler to use a rake, but up to the point of annoyance to the user. While the mechanism to collect leaves does function, it could be improved, in order to allow more efficient collection mechanisms. A way to do this could involve lowering the leaf pickup mechanism to the ground, preventing certain leaves from escaping the device, and allowing the device to capture smaller leaves as well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rocky Terrain Test: In this test, the Yard Mess Eraser proved only Mildly Reliable within various terrains. Testing proved that it reliably crossed the terrain without error 88% of the time. It was much more likely to succeed at crossing terrain containing sticks, and smaller rocks (92% Success), than it would be with medium sized and large rocks (84% Success). While it succeeds a majority of the time, the terrain of a yard is diverse - and much terrain transition will take place. A success level lower than 90%, consequently, can lead to an inconvenient time to the user - as they must continually re-adjust the controls to direct the path, or manually move the device. A point of weakness leading to this periodic failure was the structure of the wheeling/movement system - it frequently got jammed in the process of moving. A potential solution could be the addition of treads to the system, instead of individual, commercially purchased wheels. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radio Test: This was most the most successful test out of the ones conducted. The radio proved to be perfectly functional up to a range of approximately 110 feet (Success Rate 95%). However, after that range, the device proved irresponsive, and behaved sporadically. This led to a much lower success rate of 91%. The signal range is a good one, for a device of this nature. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feasibility Test: The device, overall, failed to pass this test. It had a success rate of approximately 73%, which is too low to realistically expect individuals to use as a final product. The three major components worked together a majority of the time to allow successful function, but too many instances involved the failure of one - leading to the failure of the device as a whole. For example,  terrain transitions caused the leaf collection mechanism to get stuck, while steep slopes led to a failure of the rugged body system, and increased forced required from the motors to overcome.