Author: Daniel Deng

Team members: Noah Zahm, Osric Nagle, Danielle Morris

Class: POE Block 3
Date: 9/25/15

Project 1.1.6
Compound Machine Design

Design Problem:

a. The problem of this assignment is to make a compound machine that comprises

of two or more simple machines and at least one gear system, pulley and belt system, or
sprocket and chain system. The various simple machines need to work together in order
to lift a weight of eight ounces a distance of six inches while having a mechanical
advantage greater than one.
b. The learning objectives for this project are to understand how different designs
will affect the mechanical advantage of different machines. We will also learn how simple
machines work together in order to complete a goal and understand how the the
capabilities and efficiency of the simple machines vary. Finally, this will give us
understanding of the VEX components for future projects.
c. The project criteria and constraints are to only apply a single effort force which
will result in a mechanical advantage greater than one in the final design. Additionally,
each simple machine must also have a mechanical advantage greater than one. The
machine must lift a weight of about eight ounces a vertical distance of six inches in a
time of less than three minutes. The design must include at least three components that
includes but are not limited to: Two simple machines and a gear system, a pulley and
belt system, or a sprocket and chain system.

Brainstorm Idea:

Force is exerted upon the input gear by turning the crank attached to the gear. This causes the
input gear to spin one way and the gear attached to it spins the other way at a faster speed.
Another smaller gear is attached to the same axis so that a chain can be attached to it. There is
a chain attached to the gear which causes another gear to turn. This is a sprocket. A spool is
attached to the gear (Wheel and axle) so the rope can be spooled around it. The pulley rope is
attached to the weight, and when the pulley moves, the weight is pulled up the incline plane.

Final Design Proposal:

The process our group used to select a final proposal is using a decision matrix and an online
coin flip application. After our decision matrix, it turned out both Osric and Noah were tied at 15.
So we proceeded to vote. The vote however, was still tied at 2-2 because Danielle voted for
Osric while I voted for Noah. We then went online at www.random.org and did a virtual coin flip
(best 2 out of 3) and Osric ended up as the winner.

Design Modifications:
The first modification we changed was to make a crank. we were going to use a
premade crank in the VEX kit. However, since there was no crank, we had to make our own
crank. The crank was kind of hard to crank, but it served its purpose. Secondly, In our original
design, we were going to attach our bevel gear directly on the gear train. The bevel gear slipped
and did not interlock with the gears on the gear train, so we decided to add another bevel gear
and a gear box. It worked really well and gave our machine a nice look. Another modification we
made was to use nuts and bolt to attach to the weight instead of a paper clip. This allowed the
weight to pass the height limit (6 inches) while our original plan did not pass the height
requirement.

Final Design Presentation:

Our machine functioned like how we planned it in the official presentation. Everything
went smoothly except that our weight did not drop freely when the input force was released.
That means that we lost efficiency somewhere in our machine. The IMA of Wheel & Axle A
(Gear train) is 15.18. the IMA of Wheel & Axle B (Big gear to spool) is 30.26, the IMA of Wheel &
Axle C (Axle & spool) is 0.18, and the IMA of the pulley system is 2. The total IMA of the system
is 155.7109, the total AMA is 4.8, and the estimated efficiency of the entire system is 3.08%.
The time to complete the task took less than three minutes.

Team Evaluation:
Osric was essentially the team leader since this design was his. He completed his
allotment of the work, which was to create the gear train system. That was a lot of work. Osric
also completed a large portion of the calculations. He also followed the group norms.
Noah was also one of the primary builders in our design. He completed the entire pulley
system and also did quite a large portion of calculations. Noah also definitely completed his
share of the tasks and followed the group norms.
Danielle mostly recorded information in her notebook about changes and other
information to the machine. She also helped out Osric and Nagle with their parts by bringing
them supplies and followed the followed the group norms.
I mostly worked on making the crank, which took longer than expected because it kept
wiggling around. After that, I just helped assemble the machine together and make it work
smoothly. Although I have to credit Osric and Noah for completing the major steps in our
machine. I believe I have followed the group norms.

Post-Mortem:
A. The pulley was the easiest to determine the mechanical advantage because we
didnt have to measure it. We could just look at the number of strings it had and
determine the mechanical advantage from that.
B. The mechanism that was most difficult to determine the mechanical advantage
would have been the gear train system. It was really difficult to measure because the
tool would slip as we pull it across the gears. Also, it was difficult to maintain the same
direction as we turned the gears.
C. Modifications we would make to our machine to make it more efficient will be to
loosen up the collars that made the gears rub against our board. This caused it to not
turn as easily and therefore, we lost efficiency.
D. Something else I would have done differently would have been to make the crank
easier to turn. In our machine, it was extremely close to touching the board so it was
really awkward to turn it easily. By moving it further away, it would have been easy to
turn.