Project 1.1.

6 Compound
Machine Design
By:Rofin Maknojia
Date: 9/25/15
POE Block 4
Group members:
Corbin Capo
Joanna McDonald
Ben Thompson

Design Problem

Description of task:
Our group has been given the task to build a compound machine using simple
machines and other mechanisms. The compound machine must lift a weight of
approximately 8 ounces a vertical distance of 6 inches in less than 3 minutes.
Learning objectives:
We need to understand how elements of design can affect mechanical
advantage. We also need to understand how simple machines can work together to
accomplish a task. This project will help us compare the efficiency of different simple
machines in a working situation. Finally, we will get to experience the capabilities and
limitations of VEX components for future projects.
Design Constraints:
The applied effort force may only be provided by a single human input. The final
design must include a minimum of three different types of mechanisms. Of these three,
it must include two simple machines and the third can be any of the following: a gear
system, a pulley and belt system, or a sprocket and chain system. Each required
mechanism must have a mechanical advantage greater than 1 and the final design
must have a mechanical advantage greater than 1.

Brainstorm

Written description/explanation: The applied force will be a person pulling the string
in the downward direction. As this happens, the string will be going through a fixed
pulley. So as this string goes down, the other end of the string goes up causing gears 3
and 4 to rotate counterclockwise. They are on the same axle so it's a wheel and axle as
well. The string will be attached to gear 4. These gears will cause gears 1 and 2 to turn
clockwise. The string is attached to gear 1. This finally causes the weight attached to
the end of the string to move up the inclined plane which is at least 6 inches high.

Final Design Proposal

The process our group used to select a final proposal was by using a design
matrix. We came up with five categories to judge each proposal and those categories

were: connections, complexity, development time, reusability, and testability. We felt like
these categories were important to our project.
Connections was important because the different components need to be able to
interact efficiently. Complexity was important because we didnt want to build a project
that was too hard to make or took too much time. This leads into development time
because we dont want a project that takes forever to make and the less time it takes to
make it, the better. Reusability was important because we need to be able to test it
multiple times without wasting too much time in between. Testability was important
because we need to be able to get the calculations for IMA and AMA easily. Finally we
voted on a rating for each of the categories for each of the projects. The project with the
highest total was the one we chose to build.

Our Project Design Matrix

Ideas

Connection
s

Complexit Development
y
time

Reusabilit
y

Testabilit
y

Total

Rofin

15

Corbin

15

Joanna

16

Ben

15

Picture

Description
A person will pull upon the string to start the machine. This will cause the big
wheel to turn counterclockwise. The gear attached on the same axle will turn
counterclockwise as well, causing the next gear in the gear train to turn clockwise. This
motion will turn another small gear counterclockwise which will finally turn a big gear
clockwise. A wheel will be attached on the same axle and it will turn clockwise as well.
The string attached to this wheel will be reeled in and the lever will raise the object 6
inches high.

Design Modifications
We made several design modifications. The first one we made was to replace the
wheel in the second wheel and axle system with a spool. There were two reasons for
this. The big reason was that the two wheels were too big and they didnt allow the

gears to interface since the wheels would touch themselves. The second reason was
because the string was easier to tie around the spool. This worked well as the gears
could now interface and turn each other. So it was a much needed modification.
The second modification we made was to put spacers and bushings between the
gears and the vex backboard. The reason for this change was that the gears had too
much friction since they would be touching the back of the vex board. So we decided to
put spacers to allow the gears to turn freely. The bushings were put to stabilize the
components of the two wheel and axles since they had too much wobble before. It
worked well because the gears didn't have as much friction since they didn't touch the
back.
The third modification we made was remove the two middle gears. The reason
for this was that we were running out of time and we decided that having two gears
would be simpler and easier to make. This modification worked well as it saved us a lot
of time. It also kept each component with an IMA greater than 1 so the end project also
still had an AMA greater than 1 which meets the criteria.
The fourth modification we made was that we shortened the length of the lever.
The reason for that was the lever was unnecessarily big and it was hard to connect the
string to the lever from the second wheel and axle. Also, it added more resistance on
the machine to perform its task. This modification was helpful as we maintained a
positive IMA for the lever, met the criteria for lifting the object 6 inches, and it made the
machine smoother to perform its task.
The last modification we made was to add a plate across the bottom of the base
of the lever and the base of the gear system. The reason for this was that the two
components werent connected so they kept sliding around and didn't stay in a straight
line. This worked well as the machine didn't slide around anymore and everything
stayed intact.

Final Design Presentation

Our machine functioned well in the official presentation. On the first try, when the
string was pulled, all of the parts worked together as planned and the object was lifted
up. It met all the criteria as the object weighed 11.15 ounces which is more than the
required 8 ounces. The object was raised at least 6 inches and the task was completed
in less than 3 minutes.
We also met the criteria for the IMA and the AMA of the machine and each
individual component. For our first wheel and axle, our IMA was 1.6. For our second
wheel and axle, our IMA was 5. For our gear system, the IMA was 1.4. Finally for our
lever, the IMA was 1.1875. The total machine IMA was 13.3. The total machine AMA
was 6.1. All of these meet the criteria as we have at least 3 components, two of which

are simple machines, that have an IMA greater than 1 and the total machine AMA is
greater than 1. Based on this, our machine efficiency was 45.9%.

Team Evaluation
Corbin did a good job in doing his task. He made the lever for our group and
calculated the IMA for the lever as well. He also helped make modifications to the
machine when needed. He followed the group norms by being respectful to everyone
and stated his thoughts on the project. He did his share of the work and contributed
positively.
Joanna did a good job as well. She is the one who came up with the idea for our
machine that we used. Although she was absent one day, she let us know before hard
that she would be absent during class so she followed group norms. Although she was
gone on the second day, on the first day she helped lay out the design and get
everything started.
Ben also did a good job. He worked on the gear train and the wheel and axles
with me. He contributed positively by adding spacers when we needed to reduce friction
between the gears and the board. Ben followed group norms as well as he
communicated with us to make sure we knew what we had to turn in the next day in
class.
I also did a good job. I worked on the gear train and the wheel and axle with Ben.
I added bushings to make the wheel and axles more stable and to reduce the wobble
they created. I also followed group norms because I created a group chat for us to
communicate in. I also let my group know when I would be absent. I think i did my fair
share as well.
As a whole, each person in our group did their part and fair share. This helped
our group work well together and complete the task without too many problems
amongst ourselves. We all followed group norms as well and will continue to do so. This
was a successful first project.

Post-Mortem
a. The mechanism that was easiest to determine the mechanical advantage
for was the gear train. We just had to measure each gear and those gear
measurements were already recorded from when we found the IMA of the wheel
and axles. So we just had to plug the values in the formula and get the IMA.
b. The mechanism that was the hardest to determine to mechanical
advantage for was the lever. The reason it was the most difficult was because we
had to measure the distances from the fulcrum and that was harder to measure
than to simply measure the diameter of the gears.
c. If I could make more modifications, i would wrap and tie the string better
around the first wheel. This way, there could be less friction and the object would
be easier to raise.
d. If we couldve done anything differently was to work more efficiently. We
wasted the first building day and didnt make much progress. Another thing is that
we could have all of us working on something instead of people standing around
at times doing nothing.