Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Project 1.1.

6
Compound Machine
Design
Nick Maughan
POE - 3rd Block
Date - 9/25/15
Group Members:
Miles Simpkins
Jacqi Kelly
Design Problem
The object of this project is to build a compound machine that lifts a weight 6
inches up into the air in less than 3 minutes.
The objectives are to understand how elements of design can affect mechanical
advantage and to understand how simple machines can work together to accomplish a
task. Another objective is to compare the efficiency of different simple machines in a

working situation and to experience the capabilities and limitations of VEX components
for future projects.
The compound machine must have a minimum of three mechanisms. There must
be 2 simple machines and one of the following: a gear system; a pulley and belt system;
or a sprocket and chain system. The mechanical advantage of each machine and the
final must be greater than 1.

Brainstorm Idea
A human pulls on a string that turns to gears around. Then, the string turns a
wheel and axle that pulls a pulley. The pulley then lifts the resistance force 6 inches up.

3 Mech

2 SMP

MA > 1

Complex

Time

Total

Jacqi

13

Miles

12

Nick

4 - Best

1 - Worst

Yes

No

Final Design Proposal


We chose to use a decision matrix to narrow down our choice to one idea. Our
criteria included basic requirements such as 3 mechanisms, 2 simple machines, and a
MA greater than 1. We also included complexity and time since we had limited time to
complete our compound machine. A more complex machine may require more changes
or may be more frustrating to build. In the end, we chose Jacqis due to the fact that it
was easy to build and had all the basic requirements.
A human turns a wheel and axle which moves the compound gear system. The
compound gear system is attached to a pulley which is then attached to a movable
pulley which lifts the weight 6 inches off of the ground.

Design Modifications
Our first problem involved difficulty in applying the effort force to the wheel and
axle of our machine. We originally had planned to use used a spool as the input, but it
became evident very quickly how hard it was to turn the spool. We fixed this by

replacing the spool we a larger wheel that was easier to turn and had a larger radius.
This worked very well, the wheel became very easy to turn.
Another problem we encountered was the spacing of the pegboard holes. We
discovered that the holes on the pegboard dont line up very well with the VEX kit. We
decided to scrap the pegboard idea and use a VEX base to hold up all of our
mechanisms instead. This worked out fine, though a pegboard may have been better in
the long run.
The string of our fixed pulley was bent at an angle as it went into our pulley
system which reduced our efficiency. To fix this, we moved the fixed pulley to the left to
be more in-line with the wheel and axle. This kept the string from coming into the pulley
at an angle. This would have been a successful change, but we turned the fixed pulley
the wrong way, causing the same problem to come back.
One of our two most important problems was the friction the compound gear
system encountered when it turned. Our compound gear system was pushed against
the metal VEX base which caused there to be friction when turned. To solve this, we
moved all of the gears out about a centimeter from the base. This was a great success,
we greatly increased our efficiency by removing a huge amount of friction from the
system.
Perhaps our biggest problem was the need for a second human to help run the
machine. Our original machine was unstable and needed a human to hold it up. We
fixed this by adding a second VEX base to hold it. We also added a counterbalance to
the back of the support to keep it from falling forward. This was our most successful
change in my opinion.

Final Design Presentation


Our machine functioned according to plan during the presentation. We had a few
inefficiencies that could be be fixed, but we were able to raise our weight to a height of
above 6 inches in the allotted time.
First Wheel and Axle(FE)

Compound Gear System

Second Wheel and Axle

Fixed Pulley

Movable Pulley

IMA of First Wheel and Axle : 1.27


IMA of A:C:
.4377
IMA of B:D:
1.487
IMA of Second Wheel and Axle: 5.516
IMA of Fixed Pulley:
1
IMA of Movable Pulley:
2
Overall IMA:
9.150
Overall AMA:
1.25
Efficiency:
13.66%

Team Evaluation
Miles:
Miles did a fair share of the work. He helped build the machine and came up with a few
ideas to modify the machine to make it more efficient. He also helped on the
calculations of IMA, AMA, and Efficiency. He followed the group norms.

Jacqi:
Jacqi also did a fair share of the work. She mainly worked on creating the machine. (All
of the different mechanisms) She also helped us calculate the IMA, AMA, and Efficiency
of our machine. She followed the group norms.

Nick(Me):
I think I did a fair share of work as well. I figured out how to make an effective support
for our machine so that it may stand on its own. I also helped make the machine by
tieing knots and taking the AMA. I think I followed the group norms.

Post Mortem (Reflection)


A: It was easiest to determine the mechanical advantage for the pulleys. It was the
easiest to determine because no calculation was involved.

B: It was hardest to determine the mechanical advantage of the wheel and axle
because the it required the precise measurement of the axle and the wheel and then a
calculation.
C: To make our compound machine more efficient, I would rotate the pulley 90 degrees
so that the string would not come into the pulley at an angle anymore. This would
greatly increase the efficiency. I would also make the gear system more stable so that
there was no wobbling or instability.
D: I would calculate the AMA differently. The reading we got was perhaps too high or
low because of the way we measured it and the amount of time we had left. I would use
a more precise spring scale (with a lower maximum measurement) and I would make
the string wrap around the wheel multiple times.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi