To ascertain the Efficiency and Limiting Efficiency of Pulley Systems, an experiment was

carried out. Simple instruments were used in this experiment, including weights, a cable,
pulleys, and a Newton's gauge.

Looking at the first diagram in the first experiment, the value of FE rises as FL increases for
the simple reason that the rope needs a force to maintain the weights being lifted. For
instance, the value of FE grew from 0.625 Kg to 1.005 Kg when a mass of 1.5 Kg was added.
FE went from having a value of 0.625 kg to 1.005 kg. Even if the number of pulleys is
reduced from three to two when comparing the FEvsFL graphs in both experiments, the
relationship between FE and FL will still be direct and linear. The values of FE will increase
when we switch to two pulleys, which is the only difference that can be seen while changing
the pulley. For instance, the FE in the first experiment is 2.3000 Kg when FL equals 6 Kg,
while the FE in the second experiment is 3.590 Kg. This is reasonable because, for instance,
the effort needed to raise a given mass will increase when the pulleys are reduced. In the
experiments, different weights were utilised, for instance in the second experiment.
Normally, we would add 1 kg steadily and continually until we reached a maximum mass of
7 kg, but in the first experiment, we would continuously add 1.5 kg until we reached 10.5 kg.

On the opposing side is a graph of efficiency and FL. When comparing the graph, you can
see how similar they are, but when you look at the efficiency results, you can see that there
are other differences outside the FL change. and FE, but also on the variation in the velocity
ratio, or VR. The calculation process that is shown below the tables indicates that the
velocity ratio depends primarily on a number of rope lengths. Therefore, whomever has a
higher value for VR will be less effective. The efficiency numbers on the second graph,
however, are lower, but it must be remembered that the FE and FL values are not the same
as in the first experiment.

by using the guidelines for the two experiments' machines. When FL is 30 N, we will be able
to obtain the Fe. Using the characteristics of linear functions, we were able to obtain (b) the
FE axis intercept and (a) the gradient of the FE vs FL graph for both experiments.

FE=a(FL)+b GENERAL EQUATION

FE=0.415FL+9.17235 FOR EXPERIMENT 1

FE=0.2533FL+6.1312 FOR EXPERIMENT 2

FE=0.415(30) + 9.17235 = 21.6 N FOR EXPERIMENT 1

FE=0.2533(30) + 6.1312 = 13.72N FOR EXPERIMENT 2

The more pulleys that are turning, the more friction there will be, and the less efficient the
system will be. because each time the rope turns around the pulley there will be friction.
Obviously, there is a force when the pulleys revolve.
Additionally, the pulley's movement produces work. Work is dependent on
Simple machines are various tools with little to no moving parts that perform tasks by
varying force and motion. A pulley is a component of a simple machine, which also includes
a wedge, screw, lever, inclined plane, wheel, and axle.
The same amount of effort is needed in both scenarios.

𝐹𝐿(Kg) 𝐹𝐿(N) 𝐹𝐸(Kg) 𝐹𝐸(N) MA η

0 0 0.625 6.13125 0 0

1.5 14.715 1.005 9.85905 1.492537 0.388075

3 29.43 1.405 13.78305 2.135231 0.555182

4.5 44.145 1.895 18.58995 2.37467 0.617439

6 58.86 2.300 22.563 2.608696 0.678288

7.5 73.575 2.740 26.8794 2.737226 0.711707

9 88.29 3.220 31.5882 2.795031 0.726737

10.5 103.005 3.570 35.0217 2.941176 0.764736

2.135571 0.555271

-𝑭𝑳 (Kg) × 9.81 = 𝑭𝑳 (N)

1.5 × 9.81 = 14.715 N

- 𝑭𝑬 (Kg) × 9.81 = 𝑭𝑬 (N)

0.625 × 9.81 = 6.13125 N

- VR = 𝑺𝑬
𝑺𝑳

10/ (55.8-53.2) = 3.846

𝑭𝑳
-MA=
𝑭𝑬

14.715 / 9.85905 = 1.49253

 𝑭𝑳
-
η
=
𝑭𝑬𝒙𝑽𝑹

14.715 / (9.85905 x 3.846) = 0.388075

η VS FL
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
η

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
FL (N)

FIGURE 1.1

FE VS FL
40

35

30

25
FE (N)

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
FL (N)
FIGURE 1.2
 𝐹𝐿(Kg) 𝐹𝐿(N) 𝐹𝐸(Kg) 𝐹𝐸(N) MA η
0 0 0.935 9.17235 0 0

1 9.81 1.350 13.2435 0.740741 0.266645

2 19.62 1.695 16.62795 1.179941 0.424745

3 29.43 2.195 21.53295 1.366743 0.491988

4 39.24 2.675 26.24175 1.495327 0.538275

5 49.05 3.165 31.04865 1.579779 0.568675

6 58.86 3.590 35.2179 1.671309 0.601623

7 68.67 3.965 38.89665 1.765448 0.63551

1.224911 0.440933

-𝑭𝑳 (Kg) × 9.81 = 𝑭𝑳 (N)

1× 9.81 = 9.81 N

-𝑭𝑬 (Kg) × 9.81 = 𝑭𝑬 (N)

1.350× 9.81 = 13.2435 N

-VR = 𝑺𝑬
𝑺𝑳

10/ (47.0-43.4) = 2.778

𝑭𝑳
-MA= --------
𝑭𝑬

9.81 / 13.2435 = 0.7407

n = 𝑭𝑳

𝑭𝑬𝒙𝑽𝑹

9.81 / (13.2435 x 2.778) = 0.2666

 η VS FL
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
η

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
FL (N)

FIGURE 2.1

FE VS FL
45

40

35

30

25
FE (N)

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
FL (N)
FIGURE 2.2
Finally, we were able to establish the efficiency and limiting efficiency of pulley systems
during the experiment. To calculate the values, we used numerous different systems. The
fact that the limiting efficiency was higher than 100% was what I found most odd. It was
also challenging to obtain the answer because the FE values on Newton's gauge were
continually changing as weights were added or removed. Before receiving a response, we
had to wait a few seconds or minutes. Additionally, the experiment had to be interrupted so
that the Newton Gauge could be fixed before continuing because the gauge occasionally
gave incorrect or inaccurate results.
 SHORT REPORT
COURSE: Laboratory 1(SEMM 2921)
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

TITLE: Simple Machines - Pulleys

SEMESTER : 1 2 3 SESSION : 2022/2023

NAME : Nader Mohammed Ahmed PROGRAM
IC NO: 202002M10279
MECHANICAL
SECTION : 10 GROUP : 10F AUTOMOTIVE MAIN -
DESIGN STREAM
SUB-GROUP :
AERONAUTICS SPACE
MATERIALS ENG. ATMA
MANUFACTURING OTHERS
INDUSTRIAL ___________
DATE OF EXPERIMENT: 6/6/2022 MARINE ___________
___________
LECTURER : Dr. Muhammad Firdaus Bin Isham

FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY

DATE OF RECEIVED : LABORATORY STAMP & SIGNATURE

NOTE :

Evaluation Scale
Weightage
Criteria 1. Below Expectation (< 2. Acceptable (41% 3. Outstanding Score
%
40%) - 74%) (75% - 100%)
Collect minimum data, poorly Completed data gathered, properly
Adequate data Collected
Data Collection presented, missing data, presented in tables, graphs etc,
45 but not well presented.
(Test Results) inaccurate recording tables and figures properly
Mark (30 -39)
Mark (0 – 29) captioned Mark (40 – 45)
Complete analysis with good
Adequate analysis and supporting evidence. Describe
Analysis & Simply restating gathered
discussion with some relationship, trends, etc. Discuss
Interpretation 30 data and information
supporting evidence. the findings in-relation to theory
(Discussion) Mark (0 – 9)
Mark (10 – 19) Mark (20 – 30)

Conclusion partially Well supported conclusion based on

Weak conclusion (not directly
supported by findings. Conclusions are related to
Conclusion 20 related to objective)
results/findings objectives
Mark (0 – 11)
Mark (12 – 15) Mark (16 – 20)
COMMENT: