Elizabeth Hosmer

Justin Alpern, Andrew Dyar

POE Block 3
September 23, 2015
Project 1.1.6 Compound Machine Design

Design Problem
Our group has been tasked with creating a compound machine capable of lifting
an eight-ounce weight a height of six inches.
The lifting must be accomplished in less than three minutes, and the effort force
must be provided by a single human input. Three different mechanisms are to be
included in the machine; two simple machines must be included and the third part can
be a gear system, pulley and belt system, or sprocket and chain system. Each part and
the overall design needs to have a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
This project will reinforce the understanding of how design elements affect
mechanical advantage, and how simple machines working together can accomplish a
task. It will also allow us to observe and compare different simple machines and their
efficiencies in accomplishing a task. The experience we gain with the VEX components
used to build our compound machine will be useful for future projects.

Brainstorm

The force effort is applied by a person manually spinning the wheel counterclockwise. The gear on the same axis acts as an axle and is spun in the same direction,
at the same RPM, by the wheel.
The axle for the wheel & axle acts as the driver for the gear system. It interlocks
with a larger gear that will spin clockwise, which interlocks with a small
counterclockwise-spinning gear.
On the same axis as the final gear is a spool, which will spin with the gears and
wind up the pulleys thread. This will cause the pulley to move and to carry the weight
with it vertically. The other end of the thread is fixed above the final gear.

Final Design Proposal

Developme
nt Time

Mechanical
Advantage

Meets
criteria for
# of simple
machines

Availability
of
resources

Sturdiness

Total

Andrews
idea

14

Justins
idea

10

Beths idea

15

We created this design matrix to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each
design according to the criteria and constraints we had been given. We ranked them
according to development time because we had a limited amount of time in class to
work on them. We looked at their mechanical advantages to see if each part had an
advantage of greater than one, and which had the greatest overall advantage. We
checked to see if they met the criteria for the number and types of machines. Using our
prior knowledge of the vex kits, we estimated how likely we would be able to find
enough resources, and how sturdy each design would be.

Using the design matrix, our group ranked each of our ideas according to the
criteria. Everyones designs met the criteria for number of simple and complex
machines, and wouldve been sturdy enough for multiple trials. Justins idea required
the most components, so it was likely to take the most time and to require more
resources than what is available. Andrew & I had very similar ideas that we estimated
would take about the same time & resources. The deciding criteria was the mechanical
advantage: both Andrews and Justins designs wouldnt have mechanical advantages
greater than one on the gear systems unless modifications were made, my design had
relative sizes for the gears and a mechanical advantage for all components. When we
totaled up the points, my design was the best selection.

The force effort is applied by a person manually spinning the wheel counterclockwise. The gear on the same axis acts as an axle and is spun, in the same direction
and with the same RPM, by the wheel.
The axle for the wheel & axle also acts as the driver for the gear system. It
interlocks with a larger spacer gear that will spin clockwise, which interlocks with the
smallest, counterclockwise-spinning gear.
A spool, attached to the same axis as the final gear, will spin with the gears and
wind-up the pulleys strand. This will cause the pulley to move up and carry the weight
with it. The other end of the strand is fixed above the final gear.

Design Modifications
Originally the largest gear was in the middle, but that arrangement of the gear
train didnt align with the pegboard holes. We switched it with the medium gear so that
the gears were lined up in order of decreasing size, or a > b > c , with a the driver
attached to the wheel.
Later we realized that the gear train had a mechanical advantage of less than
one since the output gear was the smallest and the input was the largest, however the
gears were screwed into the boards in a way that made moving them difficult without
disassembling the whole setup. Instead, we switched the wheel with the pulley system,
attaching the wheel to the largest gear and the pulleys spool to the smallest.
Since the pegboard and the axles were not manufactured to work together, the
axles & gears were loose and no amount of tightening the shaft collars would stabilize
them. When the 8 ounce weight was added the gears were pulled so far out of position
that they didnt mesh, so we tried several modifications to correct it. We added large
washers between the collars and the boards, which slightly improved the issue. A
second string was tied to the axle where the fixed strand of the pulley was attached,
which stabilized that part of the pulley system. Counterweights tied to the axles on the
other side of the board only caused the axles and gears to see-saw, so we quickly
removed that addition. Placing a second pegboard a couple inches behind the main
board supported the axles and prevented them from twisting very far out of position.
While the second board didnt totally eliminate the wobbling, it kept the axles steady
enough that the gears stayed in place and were able to mesh and turn properly.

It was pointed out to us that the smallest gear and the spool created a second
wheel & axle that we hadnt taken into account before. While this wasnt technically a
modification to the original design, it was not labelled or explained as a wheel & axle,
and we had to recalculate the IMA and efficiency of the compound machine to include
the second wheel & axle.

Final Design Presentation

In the official presentation our machine fulfilled all the criteria, lifting the 8 ounce
weight over 6 inches in less than a minute. There was significant resistance from the
gears not exactly lining up, but the mechanical advantage was still greater than one.
The IMA of the first Wheel & Axle (the handspun wheel and the driver gear) was
2.5873. The IMA of the Gear System was 2.33. The IMA of the second Wheel & Axle
(the smallest gear & spool) The IMA of the movable pulley was 2.
For the overall machine, the IMA was 60.37, and the AMA was 2.062, meaning
we had 3.5% efficiency. Our machine completed the task in less than three minutes.

Team Evaluation
Elizabeth Hosmer: I read and followed the group norms, and contributed to the best of
my ability. I actively participated in all group discussions and decisions and spent the
time we were given in class constructing, improving or measuring our machine.

Justin Alpern: Justin contributed positively to the group, pulling his weight in all parts of
the activity and sharing his input in discussions and decisions.

Andrew Dyar: Andrew worked well with the group and hard on the project, he was active
and involved the entire time we worked together.

I felt that everyone in our group not only stayed on-task but worked with the
intention of exceeding the expectations for this project. We didnt have to assign roles
when constructing the machine because if one member was already working on one
part, the others automatically found another, or assisted if necessary. Whenever we
found issues with our design, everyone contributed innovative solutions. I had a very
positive experience working with this group.

Post-Mortem
The movable pulley was the easiest mechanism to determine the ideal
mechanical advantage for. Since we ensured the strands were parallel, the mechanical
advantage was a given two according to our notes.
The two wheel and axle systems gave us the most difficulty when we were
finding mechanical advantages. We had to measure the diameters with a caliper to find
the distance efforts and distance resistances, which left room for human error,
especially since the gears had uneven edges that made it unclear if we were measuring
the exact diameter or were slightly off-center.
If we hadnt been constrained by time our group would have made a couple
modifications to improve efficiency, in addition to including the second wheel and axle in
our calculations. The wheel, gears, & spool were attached to the axles about half a foot
away from the pegboard, this distance meant the weight of the attachments pulled the
axles & gears significantly out of place, and while the gears meshed and turned, most of
the efficiency was lost due to the mispositioning. With more time we could have moved
the attachments closer to the board, while still leaving the spool & pulley system far out
enough that the weight wouldnt rub against the pegboard. We also would have had
time to find better spacers between the board and gears, as the ones we used didnt
seem to be the exact same length and likely caused some more mispositioning and loss
of efficiency.