Project 1.1.

6 Compound
Machine Design
Name - Michael Diaz
Team members - Sofia Martinez, Andy
Maughan
Class - Principles of Engineering 4th Block
Date Submitted - 9/21/15

Design Problem:
The machine, composed of at least and two simple machines and a
third more complicated machine such as a sprocket and chain system, needs
to be able to lift 8 ounces 6 inches in 3 minutes or less.
This project will help us learn how design elements can affect
mechanical advantage and how simple machines can work together to
complete a task. It can also be used to compare efficiency of different simple
machines and experience limitations of VEX components.
The constraints and criteria are that applied force must be by a single
human input. You also must use at least two simple machines and a third
mechanism such as the sprockets and chain system. Each mechanical
advantage must be greater than one. Final design must have mechanical
advantage greater than one. It will be judged on professional appearance,
design process, teamwork documentation, design requirements, quality and
functionality, mechanical efficiency, and quality and functionality.

Brainstorm Idea:
Explanation A person will turn the lever which will in turn rotate the
sprocket and chain system. The largest sprocket then turns an axle with a
wheel on it. A rope attached to the wheel then winds around a pulley. This
lifts the load of 8 ounces up to the designated height of 6 inches.

Final Design Proposal:

Our group came up with a decision matrix to test which idea of our three
would work best. We graded them on five different aspects: complexity,
development time, reusability, size, and resilience. We used these because
the more complex the harder it would take to manufacture and complete the
task. Development time was important considering how we had a time
constraint and if it took too long to create, we wouldnt finish in time.
Reusability was also important due to the fact that we would have to test or
project multiple times and if it wasnt reusable, we would most defiantly fail.
Size was also an issue due to the fact of stability and how we didnt have
unlimited room to create or machine. Finally resilience was also a criteria
because our machine would need to undergo several trials and tests and it
would need to be able to survive through all the tests.

Sofia
Martine
z
Michael
Diaz
Andy
Maugh
an
4
Best

Complex
ity
2

Development
time
1

Reusabi
lity
4

Siz
e
1

Resilie
nce
2

TOTA
L
10

13

1
Worst

Explanation on page 3. It is my
design after all.

INTERIM REPORT:
Progress Report:
Our group is currently at green. We are done with building our project
and doing some last minute calculations of IMA and AMA. We are on course
towards the deadline. Our project has been tested and approved. The top
speed of completion for the task is 18 seconds.

Design Process:
We started with a large board. We then attached supports on the base
to keep it standing. Next, Sofia and I began attaching axles for our chain and
sprocket system while Andy worked on the Block and Tackle system. We then
attached the chain and sprocket system to the board. Sofia then began
working on making a spool for us to use in our project. I began working on
how to make a lever for the project. After much work and then eventual
guidance from Mr. Landers, I went instead with a wheel and axle crank. After
some consideration, Sofia and I added an idler to help out the chain and
sprocket system. Andy was also able to complete the pulley system. That
ended day one of work.

The next time in class I replaced Sofias spool with a better fitting spool
that wouldnt rotate on its own. Andy and Sofia also got guidance and
reworked the pulley system. A few minutes later, we made an executive
choice to flip the whole thing upside down. This successfully made our
project sturdier and easier to work with. We then tested the project and got
outstanding results. We then pulled a small prank on Mr. Lander and Mr.
Paloma with our project before getting a progress check by them. We then
tightened a few more screws and things before finding out measurements to
identify the IMA and AMA. We then packed up to go home. This ended day
two.

Ideal Mechanical Advantage of Components:

1) Block and Tackle Pulley:
a) IMA 2

b)
2) Wheel and axle:
a) IMA 11.67

b)
3) Sprocket and Chain:
a) IMA 1.125

b)
4) Wheel and axle(2) (input)
a) IMA 35.33

b)

Design Modifications:
On September 17th, we made three modifications to the original design.
The first and most major change was switching our original pulley system to
a block and tackle design. This was due to the fact that without it, our project
wouldnt complete the criteria. The second was to add an idler to our chain
and sprocket system. Our reasoning behind this was to improve the
smoothness of our design. This addition has proven to have worked. Our
third change of the day was a fairly large one. After countless tries and
failures, we changed our original lever design to a wheel and axle crank.
Before this change, we couldnt get the lever system to work at all. Changing
to the wheel and axle did in fact fix this problem.
On September 21st, our group made three more changes. After some
problems of having to drop our weight of the side of our table, we made an
executive decision to completely flip our project upside down. The system
still worked and it gave us more room for the weight without having to worry
about dropping it of the table or adding huge support beams. After several
difficulties, we also adjusted our pulley system by using a different type of
pulley support. This proved successful and less troublesome than our

previous design. Finally, after a large amount of failures with our first spool
system we changed it to a different type that had the same shape as the
axle. This change has made our pulley fully operational and successful now.

Final Design Presentation:

Block and
tackle

Chain and
Sprocket
system

Wheel and
axle

Wheel and
axle
(2)
(input)
8 ounce
weight
(Output)

Idler

Result:
Our machine did work although it was rather inefficient. It was also
kind of depressing after seeing other teams designs and how well they
worked. In the end though, our machine fit all the needed criteria and
completed the task at hand. In other words it worked and was a successful
project for us.

*IMAs of each component on page 6.

Whole Machine:
Ideal Mechanical Advantage .5825
Actual Mechanical Advantage 927.68
Efficiency 0.062%
Time to Complete:
According to record in my notebook, we started working on the project
on September 11th, 2015. We officially concluded work on September 23rd

and on September 25th we turned in our reports to be graded. In total it took

us six days to complete the whole project if you include the 25th as a work
day.

Team Evaluation:
Sophia Martinez By my observation Sophia Martinez did her share of the
work. She helped me attach the sprockets and wheels to the project and did
a good job on supporting our structure. At the same time, she also built us
our weight and did a number of our IMA calculations. She followed all the
group norms, did her share of work, and was a good teammate to have.
Andy Maughan He probably had the hardest job and he did it almost
completely on his own. I originally told him to create the pulley system and
then help us finish up the rest of the job. I did this without knowing the
difficulties in the future. After learning our pulley wasnt a real one he went
through constant changes and corrections from Mr. Landers and Paloma.
Many times, the two engineering teachers would disagree with the others
designs and tell Andy to redo it. However, Andy stayed patient and was able
to create a fully functioning and pulley that accomplished what we needed.
He too followed the group norms and did his share of work. He was also an
excellent teammate to have.
Michael Diaz By my own observation of myself, I have concluded that I
did my fair share of work. I worked with Sophia one making the sprocket and
chain system and I also spent a while trying to create a lever. This was
before our wheel idea later on. After this, I worked with Sophia to test all the
parts and the main machine. I did my share of the work and followed all the
group norms. I liked working with myselffor the most part.

Post Mortem (Reflection):

a. The Pulley was the easiest to figure out the ideal mechanical
advantage. This is because all you had to do was count the support
strings. In our case, there were two. Therefore, the IMA was two.
b. Either one of the wheel and axles. This is due to the fact that these
contain the most calculations and require a calculator. In reality
though, our mechanisms werent too hard to calculate.
c. I would have liked to make a larger block and tackle system. Also, as
an added note, I would have liked to move the idler so that it was inbetween the two sprockets.
d. I would have liked to do a lot more test runs if I had more time. Also, I
would have made a larger sprocket system along with a better wheel/
crank to lift the weight with.