Well Windlass!!

A VISUAL SUMMARY

Brainstorming: I was a little late on the start but I think Keer did a wonderful job on catching me up on brainstorming and we spend the first class talking about how to structure the base and how to use the triangle.

Foam: Then we cut out our design out of foam core and decided which parts to use which ways of fastening and attaching.

SolidWorks: Because we decided to use slots/pegs for attaching the base, we tested with different measurements which was a tight fit. We ended up with a 3.105mm radius for the rod and 9.8mm for the peg.

Laser-cut: For the laser-cutting process, we used the 3/16′ Delrin. We weren’t too worried about the area since we started the design to be as compact as possible. (not to scale)

Iterations:
There were a couple of iterations that we made. First was the piano wire for the handle. When we first actually tried to pull up the bottle, because of the weight the rod and the oval part of our windlass kept on slipping and we weren’t able to pull the bottle up.  So we used the piano wire.

Then we tested it again and we found another failure to the rod/delrin. The middle spinning part did not function because the friction caused them to slip. So, again, piano wire.

After than although it worked, it was very unstable and kept on wobbling so we added some bushings to make it more sturdy and also added piano wire to the base too for sturdiness.

A ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Final Design:

Key Design Elements:
1. Minimum Material Used
As you can see in the photo above, our design is based on simplicity. We reduced the function of the windlass to the basic functions, base, posts, spinning&cranking.

2. User Friendly Crank
Our crank is a very common design but because of the common design, it is very easy to handle and the spinning part with the rods function very smoothly.(smug fit)

3. “Fastening and Attaching”
What allowed us to make a compact design is the bare minimum attachment. For the pegs/slots we made sure it was a tight fit by testing the measurements out first, and we added piano wire fastening for other parts that needed more sturdiness. The smug fit also allows the rotation of the crank to be easily handled.

Physics behind:

We chose to make the spinning part much shorter than the overall length and also made it shorter after making the foam core as you can see in the photo above because from physics, the longer the beam is the more easier it is to have stress focused on one spot. Also the reason why the base is much shorter than most of the other windlass is because this too, the longer it gets, the easier it is to bend.
Applying more physics, for the beam to bend, there are four elements that can be changed; length of the rod/base, inertia, Young’s Modulus, and the weight of the mass/bottle/material. Since the material was fixed, we were only able to play around with the length and the inertia which is basically the height of the windlass. Our minimum length and height is what allowed the windlass itself to work.

REFLECTION

I think overall, although our windlass worked and I am satisfied with the main functionality of it, we were so committed to finishing it quickly and moved too fast from brainstorming to SolidWorks. I think spending more time exploring other options and looking at the basic functions of a windlass more would have helped us a lot.
Also, our windlass is fairly a common design of what people would first think when they think of a well windlass. Not that it would matter to the grade but making a more unique windlass would have made the process a lot more…fun. Well working with Keer is always fun though:)

IF WE HAD MORE TIME…

Definitely, something that we would work on right away would be a better base. This means to make the length of the two beams of the base longer and more heavier by possibly attaching another pair of the same beams and piling up on top of each other. We would add vertical side bars like the other team for more sturdiness.

Also, from Kelsey and Julia’s windlass I thought how to divide the mass’s weight to two strings (image below) was an interesting point to focus on since Keer and I had not thought of it during the iteration process.

MATERIAL WE USED: (in cm)

Base: 15 x 1 x 2=30
Triangle: 18 x 1 x 4 +13 x 1 x 2=98
Square: 5 x 5 x 2= 50
Oval: 6 x 2.5=15
Bushings: 1 x 1 x 3 =3
TOTAL: 196cm^2

Rod: 7×4+3+18=49cm