English Component

For my English Component, I am keeping a journal to keep track of all aspects of my project

November 1st 2015:

Previous observations of pneumatic machine: The machines total efficiency as seen was 95 percent. Even though it does carry out the basic injecting functions, the machine itself carries out the functions roughly. A vaccination requires a gentle, smooth approach rather than this rough function. It was also very big in size making it less compatible. Therefore, the machine should be rebuilt this year but using a different mechanism. Improving on the pneumatic machine is much harder as pneumatics is much harder to control to a specific setting and may be very expensive

New idea for year 2 of the Automated Injection device: Base the entire machine on an electric mechanism.

November 5th:

Driving question established:

If I use an electric mechanism utilizing a motor, will my machine be able to carry out the basic injecting functions without any interaction with the target or the machine itself?

Goals:

-To have a better efficiency than pneumatics with a smoother function

-Make the machine small and compatible

November 10th:

For the past 5 days, I have been consulting with an engineer to figure out what parts will be needed in order to build this machine. Since goal and driving questions have been established, it has been easier to figure how the machine will work and what parts will be used. We came up with the following parts:

1. 3/8-12 x 12 in acme power screw

2. 3/8-12 acme square nut

3. 3x3 sqr tube

4. 18x12x.062 sheet bent

5. motor

6. break beam sensor

7. wires (assorted)

8. buttons (assorted)

9. rails

10. connection of motor to screw

11. Software and controller

12. laptop charger 200-240 Volts

13. laptop charger 120-200 Volts

November 17th:

It has been a week since the parts have been figured out. We are trying to come up with a final design of how these parts will assemble so I can actually build the machine. The design has not been completed and I am falling behind on time. Goal is to complete design in the next three days so parts can be ordered and machine can be built to test.

November 20th:

Goal not complete. Design still not done.

December 1st:

Design is finally complete. Parts are being ordered online. Should be here in 20-25 days. In the meantime, I am trying to decide which software to use to code the actual machine once its done.

December 10th:

I have decided to use the Arduino Software to code so it is easier to hook up to the actual machine using the controller. I am still waiting on the parts to arrive. In the meantime, I am starting to register for Houston Science Fair. (Registering and starting the forms and information.)

December 27th:

I am still continuing the Houston Science Fair registration. Parts are here and need to start building with the original design planned. Estimated date of machine fully built: January 19th

January 1st 2016:

Machine is coming along well. Drive system is almost complete. Still working on the railings and the bearings. Hopefully, machine does not come out unstable.

January 6th:

Drive system complete, motor attached. I have started working on the code on the Arduino Software for the system to work. Goal is to complete coding in 4-5 days.

January 10th:

Coding is done and is implemented into the controller. Working with the engineer, we test the code out to see if the motor even starts running and turns the rod. Motor does not turn rod, and is very weak. We decide on a larger motor. We go and buy a stepper motor and start replacing it with this simple motor.

January 15th:

Stepper motor works and turns the screw. Work is continued on rails and bearing. Houston Science Fair registration also going along well. I need to finish before February as deadline for Houston Science Fair is February 5th.

February 1st:

Machine is finally complete, yet is a bit unstable as we had to flip the drive system over as it was not working the other way. Yet, it is still carrying out the basic vaccination functions. Today, we do the actual data collection. I ran 3 trials of 5 runs each

Data:

Trial 1

Notes:

Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 2: The arm did not retract back when the motor began running in opposite direction, thus 25 percent of total “efficiency” was subtracted.

Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Trial 2

Notes:

Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 2: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Trial 3

Notes:

Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 2: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions

Overall "efficiency" is 98.3%, higher than pneumatics machine "efficiency" of 95%

Machine function is very slow though Function is smooth I uploaded all this to the Houston Science Fair registration and submitted my project. I am waiting on an approval.

Feb 3rd

My project was approved for Houston Science Fair. Actual judging: February 29th

Feb 29th

The fair was great! I had judges come up to me to tell me to apply for internships. I am considering some that they had mentioned. I also saw different projects and was impressed.