OBSERVATION, DATA AND RESULTS

CRANK
ANGLES, 0
(Degrees)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360

EXPERIMENTAL
SLIDER POSITION,
x (mm)
68
60
52
45
37
31
25
20
16
12.5
11
10.5
12.5
16
23.5
31
42
53.5
66
80
94
105
114
120.5
125
127
127
126.5
124
119
114
107
100
93
85.5
78
70

THEORETICAL
SLIDER POSITION, x
(mm)
68
59.67
51.43
43.47
36
28.93
22.65
17.24
12.81
9.8
8.18
8.29
10.354
14.61
21.21
30.19
41.34
54.2
68
81.79
94.66
105.81
114.79
121.39
125.65
127.71
127.82
126.21
123.12
118.77
113.36
107.10
100.10
92.53
84.53
76.36
68

VELOCITY
0
0.833
0.824
0.796
0.747
0.707
0.628
0.541
0.443
0.301
0.162
-0.011
-0.2064
-0.4256
-0.66
-0.898
-1.115
-1.286
-1.38
-1.379
-1.287
-1.115
-0.898
-0.66
-0.426
-0.206
-0.011
0.161
0.309
0.435
0.541
0.626
0.7
0.757
0.8
0.817
0.836

PERCENTAGE ERROR
(%)
0
0.55
1.11
3.52
2.78
7.16
10.38
16.01
24.9
27.55
34.37
26.66
20.77
9.51
10.80
2.68
1.60
1.29
2.94
2.19
0.70
0.77
0.69
0.73
0.52
0.56
0.23
0.71
0.19
0.56
0.09
0.10
0.51
1.09
2.15
2.77
2.94

CROSSHEAD POSITION (mm)

300

Graph Of Crosshead Position Versus

250

Theoretical
Experimental

200
150
100
50
0

0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200220240260280300320340360

CRANK ANGLE (DEGREE)

CROSSHEAD VELOCITY (mm/s)

Figure 1: Graph of crosshead position against crank angle

Graph Of Crosshead Velocity Versus

0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200220240260280300320340360
-0.5
-1
-1.5

CRANK ANGLE (DEGREE)

Figure 2: Graph of crosshead velocity against crank angle

Sample Calculations:

DISCUSSION
1. How well does the experiment result agree with the predictions from the theory?
With reference to FIGURE 1, it can be said that the shape of the experimental
results has the same shape to the theory of this experiment, which are slow
cutting stroke and a fast return stroke. Therefore, the experimental result tends
to agree to the predictions from the theory of the experiment. The graph shows
that the slope in the return stroke region is steeper than the slope in the forward
cutting stroke. The cutting stroke takes higher percentage crank revolution so it
can be assume that it requires more power and work to operate it compared to
the return stroke due to the mechanism of the quick return motion. In view of
the information, the experimental value error reached as high as 34.37% of the
theoretical value calculated. This range of error is in well condition to make the
crank and slotted lever quick return motion a suitable mechanism to be applied
to a machine tool. The difference between the theoretical and the experimental
results may be caused by personal error during taking the readings and during
setting the pointer at the specific angle, where the pointer is not accurately set to
the angle. The experiment predicts that for an infinite radius curvature of the
revolute pair, the movement of the slider will convert from an angular motion to
a linear motion. This will require the error analysis to be referred again to make
relevant in discussion. The error ranges around 0% to 34.37% from the
theoretical value. It is acceptable to consider that the slider behaves as a liner
motion body.
2. What rotation angle is required for the cutting and return strokes?
From the data, it can be clarified that the cutting stroke is demonstrated by a
reduction in the slider position and return stroke is shown by an increment in
the slider position. From the experimental data tabulated and the plotted graph,
the minimum experimental slider position, x is 10.5 mm, occurs at 110. The
maximum slider position, at 127 mm, occurs at 260. Thus, the return stroke
occurs from 110 to 260 crank angles while the cutting strokes occur from 0 to
110 and from 260 to 360 crank angles.

3. Discuss the motion of the slider and verify that is indeed a quick return
mechanism.
With reference to the plotted graph, by considering the minimum and maximum
slider position point and assuming that the mechanism is rotating at a constant
speed, it can be said that the return stroke occupies about 150 (from 110 to
260), which is about 41.67% from the full revolution. The cutting stroke
occupies about 210 (from 0 to 110 and again from 260 to 360), which is
about 58.33% from the full revolution. So, it can be said that the return stroke
takes less percentage of crank revolution compared to the cutting stroke. Thus,
the return stroke requires less energy to operate and less time taken compared
to the cutting stroke. The precise pace of the driven wrench is uniform. The span
of the movement for return stroke is shorter than the cutting stroke. At the end
of the day, time taken amid the cutting stroke is more than the time taken amid
the return stroke. That is the reason this gadget names fast return instrument.
The cutting stroke takes higher rate wrench upheaval so it can be expect as that
it obliges more power and work to work it, contrasted with the return because of
the system of the brisk return movement.
4. What is the increase in efficiency obtainable in the mechanism?
The return stroke occupies about 150 (from 110 to 260), which is about
41.67% from the full revolution. The cutting stroke occupies about 210 (from
0 to 110 and again from 260 to 360), which is about 58.33% from the full
revolution. The possible maximum increase in efficiency is calculated. It is about
16.66%.

CONCLUSION
We can conclude that all the objectives of this experiment have been
achieved which is to investigate the kinematics motion of a Crank and Slotted Lever
Quick Return mechanism. The investigation is to show that it is indeed a quick return
mechanism and to evaluate the increase in efficiency that this would offer if applied
to a machine tool. It is confirm that the quick return motion may increase the
efficiency of the machine tool because it can reduce the rotation angle for the return
stroke. Therefore, the occurrence of the cutting stroke can be done in many
instances. There were small errors in this experiment due to faulty of the
mechanism. The error is so small due to the accurate readings that have been taken
and the apparatus is in the best condition for being tested. This value of error
determined that the experiment met the objective in order to study the kinematic
motion (sliding motion) of the crank and slotted lever. Finally, the aid of the crank
and slotted lever quick return mechanism has demonstrated to the students the
difference of rotation angle for cutting and returning stroke that may increase the
efficiency of machine tool. The rotation angle of the cutting and return stroke is
different, where the return stroke rotation angle must be smaller than the rotation
angle of the cutting stroke due to its quick return motion. The smaller the return
stroke rotation angle shows that the mechanism is very efficient because cutting
procedure can be done in many instances.