Introduction to Engineering Design with Professional Development 1 Final Report for Smart Muscle Team: Megatron Section : 01 Instructors

: Aren Paster; Graham Knowles Version 1.0 May, 07 2010 Prepared by Oliver Bashan (2014/AERO) Rob Evans (2014/CIVIL) Kelley Fischbach (2013/ENVR) David Herbert (2013/ELEC) Fabian Hough (2014/MECL) Nico Rappoli (2014/MECL) Daniel Yochay (2014/MECL)

Executive Summary
To Do: The Executive summary is a condensation of an entire report and must be short; try to keep it no more than one page. Focus on the objective(s) of project, the major points of your design and validation (what was done), the results and your recommendations. It is neither an introduction nor outline (table of contents) of the report. Hence, it should not contain phrases such as “This report presents …” and “Our main results are described in chapter 1”. A busy executive may only read this page to decide whether to pass your report along to a staff member! It has to grab their attention and make them want to read the rest. Write this part last so that it accurately reflects the content of your completed report.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

i

Table of Contents
......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents .............................................................................................................ii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Objectives & Scope ...................................................................................... 1 2.1 Mission Statement.............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Customer Requirements .................................................................................... 2 2.3 Technical Specifications ..................................................................................... 3 3 Assessment of Relevant Existing Technologies ....................................................... 4 4 Professional and Societal Considerations ................................................................ 5 5 System Concept Development and Selection ........................................................... 6 6 Subsystem Analysis and Design............................................................................. 12 6.1 Subsystem 1 – Device Fits Frame of Lateral Pull-down ................................... 13 6.2 Subsystem 2 – Chassis System Strength ........................................................ 16 6.3 Subsystem 3 – Converting Pull-down Movement to Electrical Energy ............ 17 6.4 Subsystem 4 – Translation of Mechanical Movement to System ..................... 19 6.5 Subsystem 5 – Data Input from Machine ......................................................... 20 6.6 Subsystem 6 – Output from User Information and Storage .............................. 27 6.7 Subsystem 7 – Power System ......................................................................... 33 7 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 33 7.1 Results ............................................................................................................. 33 7.2 Significant Accomplishments............................................................................ 30 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 31 9 References ............................................................................................................. 32 10 Appendix A: Selection of Team Project ............................................................... 33 11 Appendix B: Customer Requirements and Technical Specifications ................... 33 12 Appendix C: Gantt Chart ..................................................................................... 35 13 Appendix D: Expense Report .............................................................................. 37 14 Appendix E: Team Members and Their Contributions ......................................... 38 14.1 Team Member 1 – Kelley .............................................................................. 38 14.2 Team Member 2 – Oliver .............................................................................. 38 14.3 Team Member 3 – Daniel ............................................................................. 38 14.4 Team Member 4 – Fabian ............................................................................. 39 14.5 Team Member 5 – Nico ................................................................................ 39 14.6 Team Member 6 – Rob ................................................................................. 39 14.7 Team Member 7 – David .............................................................................. 40 15 Appendix F: Statement of Work ........................................................................... 41 16 Appendix G: Lessons Learned ............................................................................ 42 17 Appendix H: User Manual.................................................................................... 43 18 Appendix I: Program Code .................................................................................. 43

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

ii

Revision History
Table 1 - Revisions

Version 1 2

Date 5/5/12 5/6/12

Name V1 Final

Reason for Changes Initial document, proofreading necessary, additional figures and sections need to be added.

iii

1 Introduction
Conventional gym equipment such as ellipticals, spinning machines and ergs have always been the best in data acquisition. From the minute the machine powers up and a workout is started, until the last revolution of the generator is completed, all user workout data is recorded and displayed in a neat format. However, gym equipment such as free weights and cable/pulley systems have not been retrofitted or modified to record user data. SmartMuscle is a safe, efficient, and convenient way for hardcore athletes and casual users alike to log their workout all around the gym. Pursuing this project is important as it could start a breakthrough for gym equipment research world wide. In the near future the gym environment will be in no need of clipboards and workout sheets. All data will be recorded on a personalized user account where all previous workouts will be displayed and future workouts suggested.

2 Project Objectives & Scope
The project objective was to complete a repetition and set counter that displays and records the workout information for a lateral pull down machine in the Mueller Center. This retrofitted machine will be selfsustaining and effectively reduce workout time while increasing efficiency in the Mueller Center gymnasium. Semester objectives for the retrofitted lateral pull down weight machine include:  Display repetitions (in scope)  Display sets (in scope)  Self-sustaining (in scope) o The device will be able to be powered solely by the work done by the user on the machine.  Record information on memory card (in scope)  Can be added to variety of machines (in scope)  Record time (in scope)  Record weight used (in scope)  Easy-to-use input (in scope)  Lightweight (in scope) o The retrofitted device will be able to be moved by only one person.  Fit all machines (out of scope)  Clean machines post-workout (out of scope)  Use with free weights (out of scope) Objectives described as “in scope” imply that these are the goals that the team will be working toward accomplishing in this project, whereas objectives that are “out of scope” are those which the team will not be focusing on for this specific project. These are objectives that would be better left for future designs and improvements upon the current design.

1

2.1 Mission Statement
This project will increase efficiency in the Mueller center by effectively recording and displaying the user’s workout on a display screen, and saving the data on a memory card. This will reduce the time of the user’s workout by cutting out the need for manual workout recordings on paper.

2.2 Customer Requirements
The main customers identified for this project are athletes and other students using the Mueller Center. Secondary customers include the owners of gyms who are providing access to the workout machines, along with sports coaches for whom the success of his or her own team may depend heavily on the training of their athletes at the gym. Surveys were distributed mainly to the primary customers – students who exercise in the Mueller Center. Questions asked involved what people wanted out of their workout routine, and what aspects of their workout are most important to them. For example, some of the questions asked potential customers to specify what machines they use in the Mueller Center, whether or not they keep track of their data, how they record their information, and what time of information about their workout was important to them (i.e. number of repetitions, time, calories burned, etc). It was determined that, among many exercise machines available in the facility, the weight machines were frequently used. Also, approximately fifty percent of those surveyed reported that they do log their workout information. Two common methods of recording and analysis were seen throughout the survey were keeping a journal and keeping track of their progress in their heads. Some users of the weight machines expressed their need to find a better way of tracking their progress because they “constantly forget the reps and sets [they] do.” Most of the people surveyed seemed to value a variety of workout information, mainly the number of repetitions completed, the weight lifted, time spent, and calories burned from the workout. Appendix B shows more detailed survey responses. From the results of this survey, it was determined that the customer would benefit from weight lifting machines having some form of visual display that helps them keep track of their workout progress in terms of several different types of data. Table 2.2-1 shows a summarized list of prioritized customer requirements, most of which were determined based on the survey results. Some of the requirements listed – such as safety, low cost, and overall efficiency of the machine – come from requirements of the team and those of secondary customers, such as gym owners. Table 2.2-1: Summary table of overall customer requirements Customer Requirement Rank (lowest number = highest priority) Machine is safe 1 Machine can store and save data 2 Machine does not take up much space 7 Retrofitted machine provides same workout as original 4 Screen is easy to navigate (user-friendly) 6 Display shows a variety of workout information 5 Display powered solely by work done by user of machine 3 Low cost to retrofit 8

2

When designing this list of customer requirements, highest priority was given to safety, as that is even more important to the group than the functionality of the device (a working, unsafe device is just as useless as a non-functioning yet safe project). The next most important features were the ability of the device to store and safe data and the ability of the display to be powered solely by the work done on the machine by the user. These two requirements go hand-in-hand, as they both require the sustainable portion of this project: an ability to display and store information from a workout by only the word done on the machine by the user. Another important criterion is that the retrofitted machine is able to provide the same workout as the original machine. More aesthetic and trivial criteria include the variety of workout data displayed, the user-friendliness of the data input screen, and the small amount of space the retrofitted machine should consume. Although still taken into consideration when developing this project, least consideration was given to low cost, as it was most important to meet other customer needs ahead of those of the group and some secondary stakeholders.

2.3 Technical Specifications
As discussed in the Intro to Engineering Design textbook, customer requirements cannot stand alone in the production of a prototype (Ulrich & Eppinger). Even before product concepts have been generated, an important step is to associate each customer requirement with a target specification, or metric. These metrics will specifically determine how the group will analyze each customer requirement to ensure it is implemented in the final design. A needs-metrics matrix is shown below in Figure 2.3-1. Dollars spent per team member Weight added due to resistance

Number of customer shocks

Number of data readouts

On-screen prompts

Storage capacity

Need Machine is safe Machine can save and store data Machine does not take up much space Retrofitted machine provides same workout as original Screen is easy to navigate (user-friendly) Display shows a variety of workout information Display powered solely by work done by user of machine Low cost to retrofit

3

Output current

Dimensions

Voltage

Metric

Power

3 Assessment of Relevant Existing Technologies
From the customer research we conducted, it was determined that both our primary and secondary customers would benefit from a weight machine that provides a means of recording and saving useful exercising data and is self-sufficient. Currently, there is no such product on the market. However, there do exist other types of exercise machines that incorporate display and logging techniques. The Concept2 Rowing Machine, an ergometer, uses a monitor called a PM4 monitor that displays distance, speed, pace, calories and watts achieved by the user (shown in Figure 3-1 below). Ergometers or ergs vary workload using different forms of resistance applied to the flywheel component of the erg, such as water resistance, magnetic resistance, air resistance, and piston resistance.

Figure 3-1: The Concept2 PM4 monitor Lateral pull down weight machines typically work with a weight and pulley system. However, there is a patent for a lateral pull down that uses a generator powered by the pulley system that produces magnetic resistance to produce a workload rather than weights (shown in Figure 3-2).

4

cable generator

Figure 3-2: Independent power-generating weight training machine From these two design ideas, a table was generated that includes each product and its relevance to the project. This table (shown below in Table 3-1) was used to determine which ideas from previous works the team would like to incorporate or build off of in the design of this retrofitted lateral pull down machine. Table 3-1: Competitive Benchmarking Competitive Product/Patent Number Title/Description Relation to this project Concept2 PM4 monitor Displays information A similar display screen would be including distance, speed, required for this project. The same pace, calories, and watts idea of using the rotational energy achieved on an ergometer of the erg to power the screen can be transferred to the lateral pull down machine retrofit project. US Patent #7485076 Lateral pull down that uses a The group will similarly be using a generator powered by a pulley lateral pull down and a system of system that produces pulleys to generate power from the magnetic resistance to workout on the machine. produce a workload rather than weights

4 Professional and Societal Considerations
One of the main focuses of the project since the beginning has been sustainability. The electronic components are run completely by the energy created from the pulley and weight system so no outside resources need to be used. Within the electronic components themselves, the display chosen is an E-paper display. E-paper itself takes up very little energy to utilize because it only needs it for the small flash of the 5

rearranging of the E-ink. The hope is that eventually, with enough devices, the extra energy created will be utilized for another purpose, such as the TVs in the Mueller Center, or with enough scale, the Mueller Center itself. With the output of user workout information to the display and the memory card, more people might start to log their workout statistics. Although a long stretch, this might mean that people will begin to create smarter workouts and ultimately healthier bodies. One of our proposed future changes includes moving away from memory cards and using a card swipe or a centralized system, which would also further promote smarter workouts in addition to possibly creating an ‘inter-gym’ data logging system. This introduces even further possibilities such as the integration of social media. In the final device, the system will be enclosed in a shell that will protect the user from any accidents within the system, such as a gear coming loose, or small parts flying off. The device also weighs around 5 pounds, and if it drops the user isn’t in any serious danger of injury.

5 System Concept Development and Selection
The assessment of relevant existing technologies and the list of customer requirements generated helped to form the basis of team brainstorming for this project. First, a mind map (Figure 5-1) was created that shows possible concept alternatives to meet the requirements.

Figure 5-1: Mind map displaying various ideas and options to the approach of the challenge. The mind map that was created helped the team divide the project into two subassemblies – mechanical and electrical. The mechanical subassembly will deal with modifying a weight machine to power

6

a generator. The electrical subassembly will deal with using the power from a generator to power a display and data logger. For the mechanical aspects of the design, a concept combination matrix was drawn up (Table 5-1). Table 5-1: Concept Combination Table Size Mounting Permanent On Pulley Portable Is Pulley Removable On the Ground

Generator 2-way 1-way

Power Storage Direct Battery Capacitor

There are several ways to combine the possible concepts listed in Table 5-1. Several sketches and brainstorms were done using various combinations of concepts. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show two of these sketches; Figure 5-2 shows a retrofit that combines a one-way generator mounted on the ground and attached permanently to a lateral pull down machine that charges a battery that powers a display/ data logger. Figure 5-3 shows a retrofit that combines a one-way generator removably mounted on the pulley that powers a battery to power a display/data logger.

Figure 5-2: A permanent design with a one-way generator mounted on the ground, connected to a battery powering a data logger.

Figure 5-3: A removable design with a one-way generator mounted on the pulley, connected to a battery powering a data logger.

After further brainstorming, it was concluded that a concept selection matrix would be needed for a more thorough decision between the type of generator used and the portability of the added components. Table 5-2 shows this matrix.

7

Table 5-2: Concept Selection Matrix Generator 2-Way Generator Portable/Removable 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 6 -3 3 2nd 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 6 -3 3 1st

Selection Criteria Cost Difficulty to Implement Size Durability Safety Creativity Efficiency Most Common Practical Sum of +1’s Sum of -1’s Net Score Rank

1-Way Generator -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 7 -2 5 1st

Permanent -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 5 -4 1 2nd

In this matrix, values were determined based on whether or not the proposed solution fit the criteria. If the proposed idea did fit the criteria, it was given a score of 1. Alternatively, a score of -1 was given to concepts that did not fulfill certain criteria. For instance, the 1-way generator was deemed costly and, as such, it received a -1 for the criteria of cost. The concept selection matrix in Table 5-2 demonstrates that, based on criteria influenced both by customer requirements and team preferences, a one-way generator that is either portable or easily removable would be the best options for the mechanical retrofit of a weight machine. The electrical aspects of the design are more complex. Several concept selection matrices were drawn up for different components of the electrical subassembly (Tables 5-3 through 5-7). Ratings are on a scale of 1-5, 1 being poor and 5 being the best. The ratings were then weighted, based on importance to the design process and ultimate design product. For instance, Table 5-4 below shows that power consumption is weighted as 50% of the importance in determining a microcontroller. For the arduino, a rating of 3 was given for power consumption, as it falls somewhere in the middle of high and low power consumption. The rating of 3 is then weighted with the 50% (0.5) and a final weight of 1.5 is recorded. This process is duplicated for all of the concepts and attributes and scores are added to produce a sum. The concept with the highest sum is the concept that the team should highly consider for use in the project. Options with highest ratings are highlighted.

8

Table 5-3: Concept Selection Matrix to Determine an Input Method INPUT METHOD INPUT MUX PARALLEL IN SERIAL OUT W/ 8 PIN INPUT Rating Weight 5 0.25 1 0.05 5 1 5 1 4 2 4.3 OFF SELF DAC

Attribute: Cost Implementation Issues Noise Number of Pins Power Consumption

Scale 5% 5% 20% 20% 50% SUM:

Rating 5 2 5 4 3

Weight 0.25 0.1 1 0.8 1.5 3.65

Rating 1 3 1 5 5

Weight 0.05 0.15 0.2 1 2.5 3.9

Table 5-4: Concept Selection Matrix to Determine a Microcontroller MICROCONTROLLER Attribute: Scale 5% Cost 20% Programming Ease 20% Flexibility 5% Number of Pins 50% Power Consumption SUM: ARDUINO Rating Weight 2 0.1 5 1 5 1 4 0.2 3 1.5 3.8 ATtiny13 Rating Weight 4 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.6 1 0.05 5 2.5 3.75 Atemga328 Rating Weight 3 0.15 2 0.4 4 0.8 5 0.25 2 1 2.6

9

Table 5-5: Concept Selection Matrix to Determine Display Methods DISPLAY METHOD Attribute: Scale 5% Cost 20% Implementation Ease 50% Power Consumption 5% Small Amount of Pins 20% Programming Ease SUM: EPAPER Rating Weight 2 0.1 2 0.4 5 3 3 2.5 0.15 0.6 3.75 LCD DISPLAY Rating Weight 3 0.15 4 0.8 3 2 4 1.5 0.1 0.8 3.35

Table 5-6: Concept Selection Matrix to Determine a Method of Data Logging DATA LOGGING Attribute: Scale 10% Cost 30% Implementation Ease 30% Programming Ease 30% Power Consumption SUM: SD MEMORY CARD Rating Weight 2 0.2 2 0.6 3 3 0.9 0.9 2.6 ETHERNET SHIELD Rating Weight 1 0.1 5 1.5 1 1 0.3 0.3 2.2

Table 5-7: Concept Selection Matrix to Determine a Method of Power Storage POWER STORAGE Attribute: Cost Implementation Ease Power Discharge Power Charging Scale 5% 5% 45% 45% SUM: SUPER CAPACITOR Rating Weight 4 0.2 3 0.15 2 0.9 2 0.9 2.15 RECHARGEABLE BATTERY Rating Weight 5 0.25 5 0.25 4 1.8 4 1.8 4.1 LITHIUM ION BATTERY Rating Weight 3 0.15 2 0.1 4 1.8 2 0.9 2.95

Through the process of concept selection, an alternate design idea was created. This concept is essentially a lateral pull down weight machine that uses a one-way generator to power a display that logs a user’s repetitions, sets, weight pulled, calories burned, and the time consumed by the workout. This new product allows users to record their exercise data as they use the lateral pull down machine. The modifications were made to be simple so that they could be implemented on existing lateral pull down machines in the Mueller Center, with any physical additions being removable, and the data logging device rechargeable through power supplied by the user during his or her workout. The design, showed in more detail in Figure 5-4, is essentially a continuation of the design idea from the aforementioned Figure 5-3.

10

Figure 5-4: Detailed Sketch of Proposed Design After further examination of the group’s criteria and constraints, a final design was d ecided upon. This design (Can someone explain the final design ideas here, and why they are better than other ideas?). CAD models were constructed that display the final design. (Oliver – CAD files won’t open on my laptop. Can you insert them? I’ll explain what each one represents if you can get them from NX to Word)

11

6 Subsystem Analysis and Design
Seven subsystems of this project were created, as shown in Figure 6.1.

A self-powered device that collects and saves work-out data on a lateral pull-down

Device Fits Frame of Lateral Pull Down (Kelley)

Chassis System Strength (Oliver)

Converting Pull-down Movement to Electrical Energy (Daniel)

Translation of Mechanical Movement to System (Fabian)

Data Input from Machine (Nico)

Output User Information and Storage (Rob)

Power System (David)

Figure 6.1- Subsystem Diagram

The following sections (6.1-6.7) describe the function of each individual subsystem and various testing involved with each.

12

6.1 Subsystem 1 – Device Fits Frame of Lateral Pull-down
Prepared by Kelley Fischbach For this product to be considered marketable, it was important that all of the device dimensions were compatible with those of an actual lateral pull down machine. Dimensions were taken from the machine at the Mueller Center and the team ensured the dimensions of the retrofitted device were compatible with those of the weight machine itself. Figure 6.1-1 below shows a Paramount lateral pull down machine, as found in the Mueller Center.

Figure 6.1-1: A lateral pull down machine from the Mueller Center gymnasium The width of the weight machine is 22 inches, so the mock weight machine was made equally as long. The retrofitted device was also fashioned to be 22 inches wide, so that the edges of the device could be clamped to the weight machine’s corner posts. An image of the dimensions of this lateral pull down weight machine is shown below (See Figure 6.1-2).

13

Figure 6.1-2: Dimensions of the lateral pull down weight machine A ¼” cable was used between the lateral pull down handles and the weights at the bottom of the machine. This is a fitting cable diameter, as it is the same size as the cables on the lateral pull down machine in the Mueller Center (See Figure 6.1-2 above). Another important feature for the retrofitted machine was the depth (from front to back) that the device consumed. The weight machines in the Mueller Center had a 25-inch depth, so the device could not exceed that depth measurement. In reality, the device came out to be only 13 inches from front to back and, as such, it fits perfectly inside the frame of the lateral pull down machine. When tested in the Mueller Center’s lateral pull down machine, the retrofitted device was a perfect fit. A few images of the device clamped onto the weight machine are shown below (Figures 6.1-3 and 6.1-4).

Figure 6.1-3: An image of the retrofitted device on the lateral pull down machine

14

Figure 6.1-4: Testing the retrofitted device on the lateral pull down machine When designing the demonstration weight machine, it was important that the raising and lowering of the weights on the cable did not interfere with the gear/pulley system that was added to the machine to retrofit it. As such, measurements were taken at the Mueller Center to determine the average lift of the weights on a typical workout. It was determined that the weights would not exceed a 20 inch height when the lateral pull down machine was in use. This 20-inch measurement was taken after the extended lift of the weights after the user sits down at the machine, adding an additional 13 inches. However, for this proof of concept mock-up weight machine, the initial 13-inch lift can be neglected. As such, the mock weight machine would need to be at least 20 inches tall, with the retrofitted device placed above the 20-inch mark. An image of the mock weight machine created is pictured below (Figure 6.1-5). As shown below, the proof of concept weight machine is approximately 40 inches tall, with the pulley and gear system far above the 20-inch mark (near where the sensor is located).

Figure 6.1-5: The mock weight machine used for demonstration As previously demonstrated, careful consideration was taken when developing this product to ensure it was compatible to the weight machines in the Mueller Center. This being

15

said, this subsystem is successful in that all of the dimensions fit within the frame of the weight machine.

6.2 Subsystem 2 – Chassis System Strength
Prepared by Oliver Bashan Subsystem 2 consisted of making a solid but yet extremely light frame for the generator assembly to attach too. Initial design was to be made all of aluminum as it was very light and yet strong enough to hold the amount of force that was to be exerted. Development began from using 1x1 inch square tubing to construct the arms but was then changed to using half aluminum and half steel. The steel was obviously stronger than the aluminum and this particular type was not that much heavier than the original specifications. It’s weight was still under the required specifications for overall weight, but greatly exceeded what was asked in all other specification, such as maximum total deflection of the material buckled under a 5lb load and under stress from the weights being used. Testing included applying several weights of different masses to the farthest part away from the securing clamps which would give us the greatest deflection. The results showed that under any normal loading situation the arms would not deflect more than .1 inches. This was well under the .5 inch requirement. Bolts that were used were positioned so that minimal shear force would exist and welds were made in locations that would further strengthen the over frame.

16

6.3 Subsystem 3 – Converting Pull-down Movement to Electrical Energy
Prepared by Daniel Yochay To properly supply power to the display system and charge the batteries, the generator needs to produce a minimum of 6 volts and a maximum of 54 volts. To produce 6 volts, the generator has to be rotating at a minimum speed of 100 rpm, but cannot surpass 500 rpm, otherwise the generator will produce too much power, and the electrical components with short circuit and burn out. Gears work by having two or more cylinders with teeth around the circumference that line up to rotate in line. Gears are used to increase or decrease the rotational velocity of other mechanical parts by using different sized gears to create a ratio. Gear ratios are based on the circumference differences between the two gears, so that for every rotation the larger gear makes, the smaller gear makes more rotations based on the size difference. Another use for gears it to change the direction of the rotation between two mechanical objects, as one gear may rotate clockwise, its adjoining gear will rotate counter clockwise.

Figure 6.3-1: Two different gear ratios

Figure 6.3-2: Shows two gears spinning in opposite directions.

To achieve an average speed near 300 rpm from the generator, a gear ratio had to be in place to change to short linear motion of the cable, into the rotational motion of the generator. To calculate the ratio needed, we required the average speed of a lateral pull down rep, and the size of the pulley initially used to create tension on the cable and turn the linear motion into a rotational motion. With an average speed of 20 inches per second, and using a 6 inch pulley, it was quickly equated using the circumference of the pulley, that for every 20 inches of cable movement, the pulley rotates 381.97 degrees, which is equivalent to 1.06 rotations per second. Next this speed needs to be spread over a full minute which equates to 63.66 rpm.

17

Using this information and division, the gear ratio required can be calculated by dividing the required speed by the currently achieved speed, the range of the gear ratio is calculated to be between 1:1.57 and 1:7.85 with the average 1:4.71. Now that we know the gear ratio we are trying to achieve, we can easily calculate the sizes needed. For this project, we decided to create a gear ratio of 1:5, meaning that for every rotation the first gear makes, the second gear makes 5 rotations. This ratio is based on the circumference of the two gears; the larger gear needs to have a circumference 5 times larger than the smaller gear, which means that the diameter of the gears must also be in a 5:1 ratio. This ratio was easily achieved using a larger gear with a diameter of 2.5 inches, and a smaller gear with a diameter of 0.5 inches. The larger gear was fixed on the same axel as the pulley, so that the gear and pulley spin simultaneously and at the same speed. The smaller gear was fixed on the generator, and lined up with the larger gear to create the gear ratio and achieve an average speed of 318.31 rpm on the generator

Figure 6.3-3.The final equation used to calculate the average rotational velocity of the generator.

Figure 6.3-4: top view of the pulley and gear system

18

6.4 Subsystem 4 – Translation of Mechanical Movement to System
Prepared by Fabian Hough

19

6.5 Subsystem 5 – Data Input from Machine
Prepared by Nico Rappoli Another key function and fifth subsystem of this device was the input of data from the machine. The purpose of the Smart Muscle device is to record information for the user, and to do this it must have some capability of collecting data from the user’s workout. The way in which it would do this would be through a repetition-counting sensor that would be able to count the number of pull-ups the user does. The first step in completing this subsystem was identifying a proper sensor. The sensor had to meet a few important specifications. The sensor had to detect the motion of a single pulldown on a set of weights. A pull-down consists of the weights being pulled upward a certain average height, then back down to the starting position. This means the sensor must be placed in a spot on the lateral pull down so as to detect weights moving in two directions, up and down, and must work continuously, constantly detecting separate pull-downs. The sensor must also be able to detect weights of different size. Depending on how much weight the user decides, the dimensions of the bar weights vary. If the sensor were to detect the motion of the bar weights moving up and down, it would need to detect this motion regardless of the height of the stacked bar weights. Another specification is that the sensor cannot have dimensions greater than 0.5 cubic inches in order to minimize the space taken up when placed in a lateral pull down machine. There are multiple types of sensors used to detect objects. There are motion detectors that use change in light to detect the movement of an object. Other sensors detect sound. Another type of sensor uses a change in the direction of a magnetic field of an object. A sound sensor would have little application to this device, seeing as the motion of the weights makes little noise – not enough to detect a change in the motion/direction of the weights to successfully count a pull-down. Therefore the choices were between a light sensor and magnetic sensor. Below is a concept selection matrix used to aid the selection of an appropriate sensor for the rep-counter. Some of the important selection criteria include the dimension restriction of the sensor mentioned above; the capability to accurately detect differently shaped objects; the capability to detect only what is meant to be detected and counted; and the ability of the sensor to function consistently no matter the surrounding environment. Table 6.5.1. Concept selection matrix used to determine a rep-counter sensor. TYPE of SENSOR Selection Criteria Light Sensor Magnetic Sensor Dimensions (max. 0.5 in3) 1 1 Accurately detects objects of 0 1 various dimensions (bar weights of varying heights), detecting objects of range 1” width – 20” width Detects ONLY the desired 0 1 objects (bar weights being pulled) Works independent of 0 1 environment/surroundings TOTAL: 1 4 20

It is evident from the concept selection matrix that a magnetic sensor is the more appropriate sensor to use in the rep-counter. Both sensors can be purchased within the dimensions specified. However, light sensors might perform less reliably with a moving object of varying sizes. Since light sensors generally register changes in the light around the sensor, light sensors may be too sensitive and may have difficulty registering the motion of larger weights. The weights vary greatly in width, from 1” to 20”, depending on how many weights the user chooses to lift. A light sensor may not be able to detect all objects within this size range. A magnetic sensor, however, would not be affected by the dimensions of the weights at all. A magnetic sensor would use a changing direction of magnetic field to detect the motion of the weights. Therefore, a magnet would simply have to be placed on the top bar weight, the 10 lb weight – which always moves with each pull-down no matter how many weights in the stack are pulled. A magnet sensor would register the motion of this magnet with each up and down motion of a pull-down, no matter the overall size of the stack of weights. Another reason the magnetic sensor is more appropriate is because it would only sense the desired object of the weights. With a magnet placed on the top-most weight, the magnet sensor detects the motion of the weights, and unless another magnetic field is placed very close to the sensor, it is not disrupted in its rep-counting. A light sensor, however, could easily be affected by another object coming in contact with the sensor, such as the user’s hand creating a shadow for example. In addition, a light sensor may not work reliably when placed in different environments with varying ambient light. In the Mueller Center, some exercise machines are placed near windows, under light fixtures, in corners or near mirrors. While magnet sensors would not be affected by the light of the surroundings, light sensors certainly would be. Therefore, a magnetic sensor was chosen for the rep-counter. The magnetic sensor that was chosen was a Hall effect sensor. The Hall sensor offers low current consumption (50 mA). It meets the dimension requirements, measuring 4.10mm x 17.5mm x 1.5 mm, as shown in Figure 6.5.1. The Hall sensor works using latch magnetic switching. When a magnetic field of a certain strength and direction passes the sensor, it turns the output driver on; when the same magnetic field of same strength but opposite direction passes the sensor again, this turns the output driver off (Melexis, 2006). This allows the sensor to detect the up and down motion of a magnet attached to the weights, thereby allowing the sensor to register a pull-down (See Figure 6.5.2). The magnets chosen to be placed on the weights to detect their motion were computer hard drive magnets. These magnets are neodymium magnets with strength remanence between 1 Tesla and 1.4 Tesla (Buzzle.com, 2012). From tests conducted on the Hall sensor using magnets of this strength, it was found that the sensor can register the magnetic field of the hard drive magnets from a maximum distance of 0.25 inches.

21

Figure 6.5.1. The Hall Effect Sensor used for the rep-counter and its dimensions (in mm).

magnet

magnet

Figure 6.5.2. Hall effect sensor concept. Tests were also conducted on a lateral pull-down on the average speed of the weights being pulled. Various exercisers in the Mueller Center, as well as team members, were timed as they used the lateral pull-down, and the distances traveled by the weights per pull-down were measured. These measurements allowed for the calculation of the average speed of the weights to be between 18-22 in/sec.

22

Measurements for where to place the rep-counter sensor were made on the lateral pull down machines used in the Mueller Center. Figure 6.5.3 shows a diagram of relevant dimensions of the lateral pull down.
steel cable steel frame guide pole 5.25” 1” 10lb weights (x20) 4” 20”

Figure 6.5.3. Dimensions of a lateral pull-down in rest position. Repeated observations and measurements have shown that when the user sits down at the lateral pull down machine and reaches for the handles attached to the cable, the weights actually rise to a height of no more than 13” from the ground position shown. From this extended sitting position, the weights are, on average, typically lifted an additional 20 inches. Therefore, the sensor needs to be placed somewhere between 13” and 33” above the resting position of the weights in order for the sensor to accurately detect a pull-down. The distance chosen was 20” above the resting position (see Figure 6.5.4). This is ideal because it is in-between 13” and 33”, and at this height requires less wire to connect the sensor to the display that powers the sensor and displays the reps that the sensor counts.

23

sensor

Additional raise in height of weights during workout

20”

Arm supporting sensor closer to weights

20”
Extended height of weight after user sits

13”

20”

Magnet on top-most weight

Figure 6.5.4. Placement of sensor relative to stack of weights on a lateral pulldown. On a real lateral pull down like the machines found in the Mueller Center, a plastic arm would be constructed that would attach to one of the vertical steel frames on either side of the stack of weights. The plastic arm would extend the sensor out an additional four inches from the inside of the frame, allowing the sensor to extend as close as possible to the magnet attached to the top of the first weight in the weight stack. After deciding where the magnet and sensor needed to be placed on a lateral pull-down, tests were conducted to be sure the main controller could display the state of the Hall effect sensor (See Figure 6.5.5). Tests showed that the main controller correctly displayed the state of the sensor.

24

Figure 6.5.5. Main controller displaying state of Hall effect sensor. Other tests were done with the Hall sensor to be sure that it could register at speeds between 18”-20”/sec. Preliminary tests consisted of passing different faces of the magnet past the sensor (connected to a laptop) at approximate speeds between 18”-20”/second (Figure 6.5.6). From these tests we found that the sensor was able to accurately register the motion of the magnet back and forth at these speeds.

Figure 6.5.6. Preliminary basis testing of the Hall effect sensor and magnet. As part of proof of concept, a mock lateral pull down frame was constructed. While the outer dimensions of the frame matched a real lateral pull-down, the inner dimensions did not. Instead of there being 4 inches on either side of the stack of weights, the weights on the mock frame travel flush against the frame beams, leaving no distance between the frame and weights. This meant that for the preliminary design of this machine, an arm (extending from the frame and bringing the sensor closer to a magnet mounted on the weights) was not required. Instead,

25

the sensor was secured with hot-glue and staples to the wooden mock frame 20 inches above a mock weight, as shown in Figure 6.5.7.

Figure 6.5.7. Sensor attached to mock frame. With the sensor now attached to a working mock frame, the sensor was tested again, with the magnet attached to the mock weights. Team members performed pull-downs at varying speeds. Results showed that the sensor is capable of accurately registering pull-downs of virtually all speeds, from 0”-20”/second. Multiple tests of pull-downs were done, and it was found that the sensor would miss a pull-down only once out of 50 pull-downs. The rep-counter subsystem works to the groups specifications and requirements. Therefore, it was a very successful subsystem.

26

6.6 Subsystem 6 – Output from User Information and Storage
Prepared by David Herbert To make the whole datalogger work, there had to be a main system that must not only monitor the state of the sensors, but control the E-Paper display, Input Controller, and the SD Memory Card system. In order to accomplish this task, a main controller must be chosen.

Figure 6.6.1: System break down of the main controller system. Arrows indicate the direction of data

As shown in figure 6.6.1, the main controller will either read or write to a few devices. The input controller is the only device that will either be read or controlled by the main controller. Since the main controller will need several I/O ports, a microcontroller would be used for the main controller. For the microcontroller, the decision was between an Arduino, an ATtiny13 and an Atmega328.
Table 6.1.1: Concept Selection Matrix for microcontroller

Micocontroller Arduino Attribute: Scale Rating Weight Rating Cost 0.05 2 0.1 Programming Ease 0.2 5 1 Flexibailty 0.2 5 1 Number of Pins 0.05 4 0.2 Power Consumption 0.5 3 1.5 Sum: 3.8

ATtiny13 Weight Rating 4 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.6 1 0.05 5 2.5 3.75

Atemga328 Weight 3 0.15 2 0.4 4 0.8 5 0.25 2 1 2.6

As shown in table 6.6.1, a concept selection matrix was used to choose the best microcontroller for the main controller. The biggest criteria for the microcontroller selection the cost of the microcontroller, how easy is it to program it, how easy is it to incorporate the microcontroller into the input and output devices without adding extra parts to it, number of I/O pins that can be used, and power consumption. Power consumption, programming ease and flexibility were the deciding factors in the design.

27

Although the Atmega 328 microcontroller has 23 I/O pins, it would be frustrating to program and take a little bit more power to use if the power supply section was unchanged. Not to mention the Atmega328 will need more parts in order for it to control several of the I/O devices. The ATtiny13 microcontroller was the second contender as it has the lowest power consumption and was cheaper in price, but it had the problems as the Atmega328. The Arduino was used as the main controller despite the fact it was not the best in low power consumption and cost. The final design used an Arduino since it was the easiest to program, provides the most flexibility to the design, and had a good amount of digital I/O pins (13 digital, 6 Analog). Although the power supply will output 6 volts, the arduino only needed 5 volts. Since the current of the arduino during active mode was .24ma, the power require to turn on the arduino was given by the following equation. W W Figure 6.2.2 shows the initial main controller schematic. As shown in the schematic, the 6v power supply would go directly go to the arduino board, which in turns outputs 5v supply voltage that will be used by several of the I/O devices. Table 6.2.2 shows the pinout the main controller.

Figure 6.2.1: Main controller initial schematic

28

Arduino Pin D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D11 D12 D13

Pin Name Rep Counter EI0 XCK LATCH SLEEPB DI0 CLK INH CS OUT MOSI MISO SCK

Table 6.6.2: Main controller pinout Pin Description Read the state of the rep counter Responsible for the input/output of the chip Responbile for the clocking the E-paper display Latches the pulse input for the display data Enters the display in power saving mode Main input pin for the Epaper Clocking frequency for the input controller Reads the state of the buttons for the input controller SD Card pin 1 Output pin of the shift register SD Card pin 2 SD Card pin 3 SD Card pin 3

Later in the design, it was discovered that the analog pins on the arduino could be configured as as digital output and input pins. Using this knowledge, the pinout the main controller was drastically changed as shown in Figure 6.6.3.

Figure 6.6.2 New Main Controller Output and Input Relations

Table 6.6.2 shows the new pin definitions of the Arduino board.

29

Arduino Pin A5 D1 D2 A0 D4 D5 A3 A1 D8 A2 D11 D12 D13

Pin Name Rep Counter EI0 XCK LATCH SLEEPB DI0 CLK INH CS OUT MOSI MISO SCK

Table 6.6.3 New Arduino pin out definitions. Pin Description Read the state of the rep counter Responsible for the input/output of the chip Responbile for the clocking the E-paper display Latches the pulse input for the display data Enters the display in power saving mode Main input pin for the Epaper Clocking frequency for the input controller Reads the state of the buttons for the input controller SD Card pin 1 Output pin of the shift register SD Card pin 2 SD Card pin 3 SD Card pin 3

The first output device for the datalogger is the datalogger’s display. There were only two clear contenders at the time were a standard LCD display and the other was an Epaper display. Like the main controller, a concept selection matrix had to use to help with the design decision.
Table 6.6.4: Display concept selection matrix

Display Method Epaper Attribute: Scale Rating Weight Rating Cost 0.05 2 0.1 Implementation Ease 0.2 2 0.4 Power Consumption 0.5 5 2.5 Small Amount of Pins 0.05 3 0.15 Programming Ease 0.2 3 0.6 Sum: 3.75

LCD Display Weight 3 0.15 4 0.8 3 1.5 2 0.1 4 0.8 3.35

As shown in table 6.6.4, the decision for the datalogger’s display was slighty tough. While programming the main controller to use the LCD paper will be easier compared to the Epaper display and will be easier to implement, the LCD will require at least seven pins to fully operate and would require more power compared to the Epaper. While the Epaper would be a little bit more complicated to programmed and slightly more difficult to put into the final design, it made up for its amazing low power consumption.

The only necessary test done on the Epaper was writing “Team Megatron” to the Epaper display (see Figure 6.6.4).

30

Figure 6.6.3: Test code running on the Arduino that simply writes the team name to the Epaper display.

The biggest ability that the datalogger must have is its ability to store workout data that the user can easily retrieve. Again a concept selection matrix was used to decide the storage method of the datalogger as shown in Table 6.6.5.
Table 6.6.5: Datalogging concept selection matrix

Data Logging SD Memory Card Attribute: Scale Rating Weight Rating Cost 0.1 2 0.2 Implementation Ease 0.3 2 0.6 Programming Ease 0.3 3 0.9 Power Consumption 0.3 3 0.9 Sum: 2.6

Ethernet Shield Weight 1 0.1 5 1.5 1 0.3 1 0.3 2.2

As shown in table 6.6.5, the SD memory card won out against the Ethernet shield. While the Ethernet Shield would be easy to implement in the design, it not only add additional costs to the project, but it would be difficult for the main controller to use, and consume more power than the SD card. The SD card used in shown in Figure 6.6.5.

31

Figure 6.6.4; SD Card shield for Arduino

Since SD memory card is purely magnetic, power consumption was not a concern in the final design. In order to accomplish the SD memory card reading and writing, the Sparkfun Micro SD card was used as shown in figure 5. To get the SD card shield working, the only thing needed to be done was soldering male headers to the shield and putting the shield ontop of the Arduino. To see if the shield is working, initial code was written to write files to the SD card. The problem with the SD shield is that there are times which will write to the card, but times it won’t write the necessary data to the card.

32

6.7 Subsystem 7 – Power System
Prepared by David Herbert

7 Results and Discussion
7.1 Results
Once the prototype was constructed, it was essential for the group to test certain aspects of the prototype to test how well it fulfills the customer requirements and technical specifications. These tests were done to ensure that the team’s project objectives were met. For the display, minimal testing was required to ensure that it correctly displayed repetitions, sets, time consumed, and weight lifted. The team input different values for repetitions and sets and tested the retrofitted device numerous times without error. The device exceeded the requirement of being able to register each repetition at the average pull-down speed of 18-22 inches per second, and could register both incredibly slow and incredibly fast repetitions. This was tested both in the IED shop and during the demonstration in class when the professors tried using the mock weight machine. Another objective was to create this retrofitted device to be lightweight so that it could be moved by just one person. The device itself weighed less than 5 pounds and every member of the team was able to lift and move it with ease. Despite being lightweight, the device was able to support the target weight of 5 pounds with less than half an inch deflection. In fact, during testing, there was no deflection at all when the 5 pound weight was placed on top of the retrofitted system. The ability of this retrofitted device to be implemented into other weight machines was yet another objective of this project. At the Mueller Center, the team was able to test the device on two different types of weight machines successfully. Images of the device on the two machines are shown below in Figures 7.1-1 and 7.1-2.

Figure 7.1-1: Device on lateral pull down machine

Figure 7.1-2: Device on seated row machine

33

The group was also able to test how much power was supplied to the battery from each workout. This was done by attaching a multimeter during testing for 45 trials to get voltage readings. The target power output from the battery was set at 6 volts, as this would ensure the device was self-sustaining because that would be enough to power the display. The voltage readings from the 45 trials are shown below (Table 7.1-1), along with a graph of power output readings (Figure 7.1-3). These results show that the target specification of 6 volts was almost always met. The average reading was over 6 volts and there was never a time when the reading was low enough that the display could not be powered. Table 7.1-1: Table of 45 trials for output voltage of battery charger Volts Test # Volts Test # Volts Test # Volts Test # 5.96 6.1 5.92 6.01 11 21 31 41 5.94 6 5.92 6.01 12 22 32 42 6.02 6.01 6.2 6.01 13 23 33 43 5.95 5.99 6.02 6.01 14 24 34 44 6.01 5.98 6.02 6.01 15 25 35 45 6 5.8 6.04 6.01 16 26 36 5.94 6.02 6.03 6.01 17 27 37 5.96 6.02 6.2 6.01 18 28 38 5.96 6.1 6.02 6.01 19 29 39 6 5.92 6.02 6.01 20 30 40 Average: 6.0015 Variance: 0.0042 S.D.:

Test # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Volts 5.95 5.98 5.97 6 6

0.0647

Figure 7.1-3: Output voltage of battery charger measurements for 45 trials While it is true that testing went well and the technical specifications were met, this design could be improved. One major problem that the team had was the fact that a plastic gear was used with a metal gear. The two materials were acetal and steel. The table below shows the wear characteristics of plastic on metal. As shown below, acetal and steel do not work well together. The team did have some issues with the plastic gear stripping because of the wear that

29

the metal gear was causing on it. However, it worked well enough for demonstration and testing purposes. The team understands that if this project were to be continued or potentially used in the Mueller Center, different materials (i.e. both acetal or brass and steel) would be used for the gears to avoid this problem. Table 7.1-2: Wear characteristics of plastics

7.2 Significant Accomplishments
The team learned several things about project planning and execution. Time management and organization of tasks was an extremely crucial lesson. The group found that such a large scale project requires a lot of extra time commitment and planning ahead in case of error. The team frequently encountered errors and setbacks. For example, on several occasions, it was decided it would be to the groups advantage if aluminum components of the chassis were welded together, to ensure the strength and safety aspects of the project. Since no one on the team is experienced with welding aluminum, and to be sure the components were welded correctly, the team sought help from other sources at RPI to have the components welded. Welding often took more than one day, and this set the group back. We were able to overcame time setbacks by assessing project priorities, completing other project components while waiting for other components to be finished, and setting up additional times to work. The team ran into issues when it was discovered that certain aspects of the project took longer to complete than expected. In the future, more time could have been allotted in the Gantt chart to account for such unexpected setbacks. In addition, the team ran into issues with some of the materials that were chosen in this project. All the materials used were chosen for good reasons (i.e., functionality, cost and availability of a part made of certain materials); however, in

30

the future, more research and materials assessment could be done in order to ensure that certain parts would last long enough.

8 Conclusions
To Do: Bring together, concisely, the technical conclusions to be drawn. Your conclusions must be supported by the material presented in the previous sections. Recommend next steps if appropriate. If your project were continued by your team or another team, what would you suggest they investigate / do / improve / etc?

31

9 References
Author, Title, [cited Date]. Available from World Wide Web: <URL> Buzzle.com. (2012). Neodymium magnets. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/neodymium-magnets.html Delson, Nethan. “Gear Ratios and Mechanical Advantage.” UCSD. 2004. 1 May 2012. <http://www.maelabs.ucsd.edu/mae_guides/machine_design/machine_design_basics/Me ch_Ad/mech_ad.htm>

Melexis. (2006). Hall Latch - High Sensitivity. In M. M. I. Systems (Ed.). Nichols G, W. “Clutch and Manual Transmission/Transaxle.” AutoZone. 1998. 1 May 2012. <http://www.procarcare.com/icarumba/resourcecenter/encyclopedia/icar_resourcecenter_ encyclopedia_manualtran.asp>

Ulrich & Eppinger. (n.d.). Product Design and Development. School of Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Intro to Engineering Design (IED).

32

10 Appendix A: Selection of Team Project
Oliver had the initial idea to solve the problem of potential energy from weight machines going to waste. The group decided that a generator could be used to capture the energy from the rotational motion of a weight machine, and that this captured energy could be used to power something useful for person working out. After some brainstorming, the group considered the fact that weight machines do not include any method of digitally recording information about a user’s workout like many other workout equipment do. The idea to create a data-recording device – powered by energy from the weight machine itself – began to form. Other project ideas were bounced back and forth, but the group agreed to go with original Mueller Center retrofit idea. Due to the large spread of everybody’s majors – structural, environmental, electrical, aero, and mechanical engineers – we wanted a project that could include strengths from each person. This project would allow every group member to have a role – the electrical parts were to be handled by the electrical and the structural. Gears and frame were to be put together by the aero, mechanicals and environmental.

11 Appendix B: Customer Requirements and Technical Specifications
For this project, the customers and stakeholders were defined to be those listed in Table B-1 below: Table B-1: List of customers and stakeholders RETROFITTED LATERAL PULL DOWN WEIGHT MACHINE Customers Stakeholders Student athletes Gym owners Students using Mueller Center Sports coaches Customer requirements were gathered primarily through a survey conducted online that was distributed to Rensselaer students who exercise at the Mueller Center. INSERT SURVEY INFORMATION AND RESULTS AND DISCUSS THEM After compiling the survey results, the group was able to gather a list of customer needs, which were then ranked and given a value for “importance.” Table B-2 below shows this table of interpreted customer needs with importance values given to each customer need. Importance values are ranked on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. For instance, importance values of 5 were given to safety, the ability to store and save data, and the ability of the display to be powered solely by work done by the user on the machine, as these were determined by the group to be of the most importance for this project. A value of 1 for importance was given to low cost, as this requirement was deemed least important for this design project.

33

Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Table B-2: Interpreted Customer Needs Customer Needs Machine is safe Machine can store and save data Display powered solely by work done by user of machine Retrofitted machine provides same workout as original Display shows a variety of workout information Screen is easy to navigate (user-friendly) Machine does not take up much space Low cost to retrofit

Importance 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1

From here, the team was able to develop technical specifications for each customer requirement. The table of customer requirements and their technical specifications, as well as target values for these specifications, is shown below in Table B-3. Table B-3: Customer Requirements and Technical Specifications Customer Requirement Technical Specification Metric or Target Value The machine must be safe Number of customer shocks 0 shocks/person Machine can store and save Storage capacity 1 GB data Display powered solely by Power 500 milli watts work done by user of machine Voltage 5 volts Output current 500 milli amps Retrofitted machine provides Weight added due to ≤ 5 lbs. same workout as original resistance Display shows a variety of Number of data readouts 5 data points workout information Screen is each to navigate On-screen prompts 4 on-screen prompts and (user-friendly) continuous display Machine does not take up Dimensions 22” width, 25” depth, 0.25” much space cable diameter Low cost to retrofit Dollars/team member $25/team member

34

12 Appendix C: Gantt Chart
Table: 12.1. Semester Gantt Chart

35

The Gantt chart that the team created was both helpful and unhelpful throughout the project. The main aspect through which we felt its aid was through organization. The Gantt chart displayed the time allotted for any part of the project when one had to have completed. This information helped in creating a nice guideline for team members to follow. However the Gantt chart did not help when team members started to get behind in their work. Once a deadline was past, whoever was working would get flooded with more work in spite of having more to do from the first part. Our team definitely used the Gantt chart up until milestone one, keeping us both caught up with the work load and meeting every deadline. Nevertheless, after milestone one it took too long to order all of the parts, leaving a few of the subsystems delayed longer they should have been. Ultimately, the team did not follow the Gantt chart as closely after milestone one.

36

13 Appendix D: Expense Report
Table D.1. Project expenses Item Quantity Generator * Electronic components Sparkfun) Metal spur gear Plastic spur gear Metal bearings Frame pulleys Steel shaft Six-inch pulley Lumber (2x4) Total *refundable deposit 1 on 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 Unit Price $125 $98 $12.65 $14.39 $5.55 $12.54 $14.67 $29.55 $2.76 Subtotal $125 $98 $12.65 $14.39 $11.10 $25.08 $14.67 $29.55 $8.29 $338.73

(bought

Table D.1 shows the expenses for this project. As noted in the table, the most expensive component of this project – the generator – was purchased on initial deposit and can be later returned for full refund (if returned with no damage to the generator). All tools necessary were borrowed, and all specific processes (i.e. welding) were completed for free via contacts at RPI. Cost of project parts was closely evaluated before purchase. Before considering purchase of a part, the parts were searched for in the extra parts collection, available to the group for free in the shop where most construction took place. Some of the parts that came from recycled projects included parts of the chassis that holds the generator and gears in place on the lateral pull-down. The fact that recycled, used parts were used for this component of the project made little difference to its strength. Purchasing the steel parts used for the chassis would have worked equally well, but reusing recycled steel parts allowed the group to build the chassis essentially free of cost. However, our project could have been improved if, instead of purchasing a plastic spur gear, the group had invested in buying or making a metal gear. The issues regarding the use of a plastic gear are discussed in the Results section (Section 7.1).

37

14 Appendix E: Team Members and Their Contributions
14.1 Team Member 1 – Kelley
For this project, I took on the responsibility of ensuring that the logistics of the design were in place. As such, my subsystem was primarily concerned with making sure the dimensions of the retrofitted device would fit inside the lateral pull down machine at the Mueller Center. I took the lead on measuring the dimensions of the lateral pull down machine at the Mueller Center and helped the group determine how large to make the retrofitted device. I was also able to help determine how large the proof-of-concept demonstration frame would have to be in order to accurately represent the lateral pull down machine for demonstration and testing purposes. Section 6.1 describes more of the goals of my subsystem. In terms of the engineering design process, I helped the group in the brainstorming process by creating a mind map of our initial ideas and helping to contribute with possible solutions to meet criteria. I also took part in testing the retrofitted device both in the IED shop and at the Mueller Center to determine how well it fit the customer requirements and technical specifications. Possibly one of my biggest contributions was in compiling and writing sections of the two reports. I took charge of looking over suggestions and comments from the Milestone I report and making edits and changes so that they could be included in this final report. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Section 3, Section 5, Section 6.1, Section 11, and Section 14.1.

14.2 Team Member 2 – Oliver
My contribution to the team was inportant in my opition as I had the most experience with all the machines and equipment to be used to construct the project. I have had the most time construction projects of different sorts and was able to come up with solutions to problems that the group encountered at any given moment. I believe that I strenghened some of the team members in the use of the availible machinery and techniques used. I was able to get to different departments in the JEC and science center to get our frame welded very quickly with short notice. Being part of the Formula SAE team, I have been able to aquire much knowledge of manufacturing many different sorts of parts in a small period of time, and how to correct issues involving parts that are too small or too big. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 1, Section 6.2, Section 10, and Section 14.2.

14.3 Team Member 3 – Daniel
Over the course of this project, I tried to make as many contributions as I could. From the beginning, I was the designer of the ideas, taking any idea the group gave me, and making sketches on paper to describe and showing the group potential designs to see if their ideas are even possible to create in the time for the project. Once we decided on the project and design, I was assigned to the subsystem of the gear ratio, once deciding upon the gear ratio and gear sizes, a scale drawing of how the gears, pulley, and generator will fit together in a frame was made, this drawing was then converted into a CAD drawing by Oliver. After my subsystem was taken care of, as far as designs and parts, I assisted the group by helping them drive to stores for parts,

38

building the demo frame for the demo presentation, and helping Oliver with the physical work of welding and putting all the mechanical aspects of the system together. Although I contributed a lot to working on the mechanical system and design, I wasn’t able to contribute much to the electrical system in the project, due to time and my knowledge of electrical engineering, and programming. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 2, Section 2.1, Section 6.3, and Section 14.3.

14.4 Team Member 4 – Fabian
I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 4, Section 6.4, Section 14.4, and Section 17.

14.5 Team Member 5 – Nico
My main responsibility in this project was to complete the rep-counter subsystem (subsystem 5, see Section 6.5). I identified the main constraints on my subsystem (i.e. the varying speed of the weights and the placement of the rep-counting sensor relative to the weights and overall machine). By doing research and evaluating the mechanics and dimensions of a lateral pull-down, I was able to determine the appropriate sensor and placement of the sensor for the rep-counter subsystem to work consistently and accurately. I also made sure that my subsystem could be incorporated with all other subsystems, and that it could not only work properly on it’s own, but be integrated into the entire device without interfering with other subsystems. Other contributions I made to this project included research on existing technologies, materials research (such as the material the gear and shaft are made of) and research and testing of lateral pull-downs in the Mueller Center. I handled all expenses by collecting all receipts and keeping track of any payments or deposits group members contributed (see Expense Report, Appendix D.). I also played a significant role in planning meetings and organizing the group in preparation for presentations and papers. I took responsibility for most of the Concept Memo written for Milestone One, and helped organize and write the section of this final report. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 6.5, Section 7.2, Section 8 Section 13, and Section 14.5.

14.6 Team Member 6 – Rob
Throughout the course of the project my main source of contribution came from aiding each team member when needed, along with the main organization of the project. During the initial phases of the project I created two Gantt charts; one for the first milestone, and another for the final milestone. With these Gantt charts I continuously tried to push the project forward and keep to the schedule as closely as possible. Also during the initial phases I measured the target weight machine (the lateral pull down) and set dimensional restrictions on the project that later helped during the buying phase. If we ordered or built any parts that were smaller or larger than the actual dimensions of the lateral pull down machine then the project would not fit properly. During the building phase of the project I assisted in designing and building the mock lateral pull down machine needed for demonstration purposes, while using the measurements I took earlier. 39

As for the electrical side of the project, I continuously helped with the input controller and programming. This was done by giving requirements that the program should accomplish (i.e., counting reps, sets, asking the user to input information, etc.) while repetitively testing the code and giving suggestions. I also contributed to the sensor subsystem by supplying powerful hard drive magnets while giving key specifications that needed to be taken into consideration. For example, I suggested that the sensor needed to be placed much higher on the machine since the weight (which would be holding the magnets) would already be slightly lifted when the user sat down. Also, I informed the team members that measurements should be taken to get an average minimum and maximum pull height in order for every rep to be counted for every user. Lastly I contributed in gathering some materials for the project such as, wood and dumbbells for the mock frame, and a couple of strong magnets for the sensor. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 8, Section 12, Section 14.6, Section 15 and Section 16.

14.7 Team Member 7 – David
For the Datalogging project, I was responsible for the design, building, and the testing the datalogging electrical systems. The first task given to me is choosing the right generator for the datalogger in order for it to be sustainable. One of the important tasks given to me was choosing the electrical devices that will be needed for the project, which included devising concept matrices for the power system, Input and Output devices, and the main controller. Although several of the datalogging parts were pre-built such as the SD Memory card shield, Epaper display and the main controller, the Input controller and the battery charging circuit required to be designed and built. After designing the input controller and the battery charging circuits, I put the circuits on the breadboard. I also connected all the datalogger’s input/output devices, and power system to the main controller. I was also responsible for programming the main controller. The main controller was programmed using Arduino IDE, a combination between C/C++. The programming included devising several test codes for the input controller, SD card shield, the Epaper diplay, and the main datalogging program for April 30th demonstration. The final contribution I did was making sure that the electrical system was able to be integrated into the mechanical system. I prepared the following sections of the final report: Section 6.6, Section 6.7, Section 14.7 and Section 18.

40

15 Appendix F: Statement of Work
Team Kelley Fischbach, Oliver Bashan, Dan Yochay, Fabian Hough Nico Rappoli, Rob Evans, David Herbert Semester Objectives 1. Design and build a working device for weight machines that records workout information. 2. Design and engineer a way to make a self-sustainable data logger. 3. Build a functional weight machine for prototyping. 4. Perform engineering analyses and tests to ensure full functionality and sustainability. 5. Research and continue the design to function on a variety of weight machines. Approach Produce a functional and fully sustainable prototype that can be attached to the target weight machine without causing damage. Observe the device in use and utilize the data gathered to develop a second prototype that is more user friendly and can be adjusted to fit a variety of weight machines. Deliverables and Dates 1. Document of benchmarking and finalized concepts presented (3/8) 2. Finalized sketches and CAD drawings (3/12) 3. Completed input controller and data output subsystems (4/20) 4. Test weight machine finished (4/20) 5. Completed mechanical subsystems (4/27) 6. Test results for the system obtained and presented (4/30) 7. Document test results for further prototype modifications (5/2) 8. Document of the engineering design process presented (5/7)

41

16 Appendix G: Lessons Learned
Throughout the entirety of the project, the team learned a few key aspects to working with others: an idea should never be rejected unless it has been fully discussed; explanations should always be given when confusion arises; and every possible option should be explored before the idea is finalized. For starters, every idea should be considered; especially when trying to choose the initial concept. Even if a new idea sounds irrational, the team may have been more enthusiastic about it: an idea that pleases everyone deserves a chance. Ultimately, not all of the ideas for this project were explored from the start. Given a few extra days to explore ideas may have caused the team to choose an entirely different project. This opportunity can make team members less nervous about presenting new, sometimes ridiculous, ideas that might actually turn out beneficial in the end. Moreover, confused members are not happy members. Throughout this project there have been countless moments when members were confused about a design or even the project in general. This hindrance limited their abilities to contribute to the project, slowing down the building process in the long run. To fix this, the team should have taken the time to explain ideas and concepts through the duration of the project. This response could have allowed the confused team members to be able to understand the project and possible contribute more efficient ideas. Furthermore, do not jump quickly into a project. This is partially what our team did and it completely drowned out any other ideas. Sure, everyone may agree that the current idea is great; but the team should have considered new ideas for the project. With these new ideas the team could have looked into designing and benchmarking to see which project would work best. While it may have had no impact on the project whatsoever, the team could have had the opportunity to consider other projects instead. Overall, these lessons are all very similar and should not be overlooked: more ideas generate more opportunities, and more opportunities lower stress levels while increasing the chance for success.

42

17 Appendix H: User Manual
To Do: Present the procedure to operate your prototype. Assume that the reader is not one of your instructors or part of your team and has never seen the device operated. Make sure to include all safety related instructions.

18 Appendix I: Program Code

43