Justin Alpern

Andrew Dyar, Beth Hosmer

POE Block 3
September 25, 2015
Project 1.1.6 Compound Machine Design

Design Problem

a.

In this project, we will be making a complex machine made of at least

3 simple machines, one of which will be a sprocket or pulley and belt
system.
b.
We are doing this project in order to understand how elements of
design can affect mechanical advantage, understand how simple
machines can work together to accomplish a task, compare the
efficiencies of different simple machines in a working situation, and
experience the capabilities and limitations of the components in our VEX
kits.
c.
We will be designing our complex machine to lift a weight of 8 ounces
upwards 6 inches in a time of less than 3 minutes.

Brainstorm Idea

An effort force will be applied to one end of the string that is resting on the
pulley. The other end of the string will turn a wheel whose axle will drive a
gear which is the driving gear in a gear system, located on the back side of
the board. The final gear in the system will turn another axle, which will turn
another wheel attached to it (specifically, a spool), which will pull in another
string and pull up the weight.

Final Design Proposal

We picked Beths idea as our final design after using a decision matrix to rate
each of our ideas in several important categories, which were availability of
required resources, time it would take to build and develop the machine,
overall sturdiness of the design, mechanical advantage (overall and of each
part), and whether or not it met the criteria of the project itself, such as the
number of simple machines and each part having a mechanical advantage
greater than 1. We decided as a group that these were the most important
things for a good design to have.

Developme
nt Time

Mechanica
l
Advantage

Meets
criteria
for # of
simple
machine
s

Availability Sturdines
of
s
resources

Total

Andrews
idea

14

Justins
idea

10

Beths
idea

15

Design Modifications
There were 5 major modifications that we made to this project after the final
design proposal. Some of these modifications stayed in the final machine and
some were scrapped, but all 5 were made with the same general purpose; to
improve the way in which the machine functioned overall.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

We switched around the locations of the differently sized gears.

Before, as you can see in the Final Design Proposal, we had the largest
gear in the middle and the smallest at the end of the system, with the
driver gear being medium-sized. However, in order to increase the
systems mechanical advantage, we changed it so that the driver gear
was the smallest of the 3, the one in the middle was medium-sized,
and the final gear in the system was the largest.
In an effort to prevent the axles holding up our machine from
sagging under the force of the lifted weight, we added counterweights
to the backs of the axles. We did so by affixing door hinges to them,
which was the same thing that we used for the lifted weight. In the
end, we scrapped this change in favor of a different change.
In the original plan, the axles were placed through a single pegboard, which was not included in the VEX kit, but we had permission to
use it. Later on, we changed the design so that the axles instead went
through 2 peg boards spaced a few inches apart. This greatly helped to
stabilize the axles and prevented almost all wobbling and sagging that
had previously been a big problem.
As shown above, the Final Design Proposal had a moveable pulley,
with one end of the string being on a spool and the other end being in
a fixed position. We eventually decided that we would do this by
putting the string through one of the holes on the peg board and tying
a knot at the end, preventing the string from slipping back through the
hole.
As we were building and testing the machine, we found that the
axles were too small for the holes in the peg board, and as such were
wobbling a great deal. In order to remedy this, we used some black
spacers that we found in the VEX kit. We used them as washers,
affixing them to the axles against the peg board, in order to brace the
axle against the board and prevent it from wobbling as much.

Final Design Presentation

In the final presentation, our machine functioned exactly as it was

constructed to. The wheel was very easy to turn due to the machines high
mechanical advantage, all the parts held together well, and the weight was
properly lifted to the required height.
Components and their IMA:

Gear System: 2.33

Wheel & Axle #1: 2.587

Wheel & Axle #2 (spool): 5

Moveable Pulley: 2

(continued on next page)

Final Design Presentation continued
Data for the machine as a whole:

IMA: 60.277
AMA: 2.062
Efficiency: 3.42% or about 1/30 of maximum efficiency
Time to complete task: less than 30 seconds out of allowed 3 minutes

Team Evaluation
Beth was, in a way, the brains of the operation. Even though she was
absent for the first day of the project, she got caught up with us really
quickly. She ended up having the best Brainstorm idea out of the 3 of us,
which was used as our final design. Most of the changes we made to the
machine were her idea, including the second peg-board. However, I wouldnt
say that she was the leader; even though she was the driving force behind
the project, she never gave us orders for what to do. We mostly ran the
group together.
Andrew seemed like the most focused one out of the 3 of us. He was
usually the one to decide what we should do next and if we were ready to
move on to it. He and I came up with the group norms and decision matrix
together, and he also provided the pictures that I used in my report (I had my
own pictures, but I feel like his were better. Plus, Im in one of them!). He was
probably the closest to the group leader out of all of us, since he was
usually the one to think of what our next step should be, and he also
provided most of the group materials via Google Drive.
As a whole, I dont feel like I did much, but I do still feel that I
contributed greatly to the group. I didnt have any standout roles in the
group, but I helped with most of the things that we did. I helped with the
writing of the Group Norms and Decision Matrix, and I helped a lot with
constructing and optimizing the machine to work better. I was involved in all
5 of the changes, either by coming up with them or putting them into action.
Overall, I didnt contribute anything individually, but rather helped to
improve the groups function as a whole, which is usually how I prefer to
work.

There were no issues or arguments between us. We all followed the

group norms and did our share of the work. Whenever there was a problem
or a disagreement, we solved it quickly as a group and continued with our
work. I feel like we were a very efficient group, even if our machine wasnt
very efficient.

Post-Mortem
a.

The mechanism for which it was easiest to determine the

mechanical advantage was definitely the moveable pulley, because a
moveable pulley with parallel strands will always have a mechanical
advantage of 2; no exceptions.
b.
The mechanism for which it was the hardest to determine the
mechanical advantage was the wheel and axle that included the spool
due to having to take measurements of circumference. While both
wheel and axle systems required this, the second one was calculated
at the last second before we dismantled the machine because we
didnt realize until then that we needed it!
c.
If we didnt have to worry about time, we would move our whole
machine over to the metal board included in the VEX kit. These were
designed to actually be used with our axles, unlike the peg-boards, so
there would be less wobbling, requiring fewer changes to reduce
wobbling, and overall reducing the friction on the axles and increasing
the efficiency.
d.
If we could do this project again, I think it would be a good idea to
communicate more. We all gathered each others phone numbers and
set up a group text to communicate efficiently, but we didnt use it a
single time! Then again, we didnt end up needing to use it, but it
would have still felt better if we had communicated more.