When looking at the 2 results obtained for the value of the inertia, one from the oscillation
experiment and the other using point masses there was a significant difference. This difference
could be due to an error in the measurement of length of the connecting rod, an error in the mass of
the parts and even due to inaccuracies in the timing of the oscillations. Having slight in accuracies in
even some of these measurements could cause a large error to appear after calculations have been
made. The potential for all these inaccuracies to contribute can explain why by using the point mass
method a value of 8.4199x10-4Kgm2 was obtained and when using the oscillation method a value of
1.715x10-3Kgm2 was calculated.

Using the graphical analysis can be extremely helpful because it shows the direction of velocities
relative to each other and visually shows the reader what is occurring in the system and the
direction of different velocities relative to each other. The disadvantage of using the graphical
method is that errors can easily start to appear. These errors can either be from the actual
measurements taken on the day of the experiment or they can come from reading the values off the
diagram. Using a scale can amplify these small errors, for example on a 1mm:100mm scale polygon
an error in measurement of just 1mm can result in the final answer being out by 100mm/s. When
comparing the results obtained from both methods the velocity of the piston by the graphical
method was calculated to be 6500mm/s compared to a value obtained by the analytical method of
5552.5mm/s. when calculating the velocity of the big end bearing centre the calculations were much
more accurate with the graphical method returning a result of 8450mm/s and the analytical
returning a result of 8488mm/s. The graphical method is great for getting an idea of what is
happening within a mechanism but if someone was designing one the analytical approach would
return much more accurate results.

To calculate the compression ratio a minimum and maximum volume had to be obtained. This could
be obtained by measuring both the bore and stroke then adding the small volume of the combustion
chamber, to measure this soapy water was used. The combustion chamber was filed with the soapy
solution then the amount used was weighed to calculate the volume. The final calculated
compression ratio was 6.438:1 this is very close to the quoted compression ratio from Honda which
is 6.5:1 for the G200.

The aim of this experiment was to make students familiar with the disassembly and assemble of a
combustion engine and the different methods for analysis for velocities and accelerations of
different components within the combustion engine. This experiment was really the link between all
the theory that students had been learning and a real world example, it’s all well and good to use
theoretical values to make calculation about 4 bar mechanisms but when students actually take the
measurements themselves and then use the different methods of analysis and find how accurate
each is in a real world example it allows students to make informed decisions about which method
to use later on after they graduate. It also highlights how important accurate measurement is when
an analysis is being conducted, the calculations can only be as accurate as the measurements taken
for them.

It also shows students how even the most complicated mechanical systems can be broken down into
a 4 bar mechanism and the equations for velocity and acceleration learned in the classroom hold
true in the real world no matter how complicated the system may appear to be.
The lab itself was run extremely well, the engines were simple enough to be able to dismantled
without having a large amount of tiny parts sitting on the table and the step by step instructions on
how to dismantle and then re-assemble them were very helpful. Having the lab demonstrators
walking around to provide assistance was also an invaluable resource. One thing that could be
improved about the experiment was when it came time to do the oscillation calculations all groups
came to do this part at around the same time so you had to either wait to use the one stand at the
back of the classroom or try and find something in the lab to use as a swinging point, even 2 or 3
more pendulum stations would have made the experiment quicker to complete and for those that
used alternative stands possible given more accurate results.