MIT2_00AJs09_sw03 - MIT OpenCourseWare http:/

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MIT OpenCourseWare 2.00AJ / 16.00AJ Exploring Sea, Space, & Earth: Fundamentals of Engineering Design Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: .
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Pros: Cons: Simplicity Ease of Build/ Repair No need to waterproof frame Difficult to mount motors and other components Pool testing was very helpful for us. The first time we tested, the rear motors worked but the top did not and we ended up blowing a fuse because of some faulty wiring. The next pool test went much more smoothly. Nemo worked very well and with minimal malfunctions. The only issues were with the instrument container and the propellors. Water- proofing the instruments with plumber’s puddy was not working so we switched to moneky dung. Also, due to the waterproof endcap the buoyancy was thrown slightly off, causing Nemo to veer slightly to one side. This is easily compensated for by the driver of the ROV. The plane propellors we used kept falling off so we had to
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/28/2012 for the course AERO 2.0 taught by Professor Alexandratechet during the Spring '09 term at MIT.

Page1 / 2

MIT2_00AJs09_sw03 - MIT OpenCourseWare http:/

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online