Project 1.1.

6
Compound Machine
Design
Individual Report: Andy Maughan
Group Members:
Michael Diaz
Sofia Martinez

POE - 4th Block

Date: 9/25/15

Andy Maughan 2

Design Problem

The goal of this project is to build a compound machine that's applied

effort force may only be provided by a single human input. Along with this constraint the
final design must include at least three types of mechanisms, there must be two types of
simple machines, the third must be a gear system; a pulley and belt system; or a
sprocket and chain system. Each mechanism must have an MA greater than 1, and the
total MA must be greater than 1.
Through this project we will understand a variety real world problems.
These include the elements of design affecting mechanical advantage, simple machines
work together to accomplish tasks, the capabilities and limitations of VEX components.

Andy Maughan 3

Original Brainstorm Idea

My brainstorm idea was intended to use a lever to provide input effort force. The
lever would work a gear system, with spools attached to each gear. The spools would
feed string to a pulley system which as the lever worked, the pulley would pull an object
through the pulley.

Andy Maughan 4

Final Design Process

My group used a five-item decision matrix to determine which brainstorm idea we

would further to the final stages. We included complexity, development time, reusability,
size and resilience as criteria for our decision. We used a 1-4 scale, 4 being the highest
rating a category for an idea could get.

Andy Maughan 5

Final Design Proposal

The final selected idea works using a sprocket and pulley system as the main
mechanism. A pulley bearing the resistance load is threaded onto a spool on a sprocket
in a sprocket system. The sprocket system should contain 2 main sprockets. A lever is
attached to the sprocket furthest from the pulley and has no spool on it. The lever is
where the effort input comes in, working the sprocket system in order to lift the
resistance on the pulley.

Design Modifications

Andy Maughan 6

Our group ran across a variety of issues while constructing our initial
design, on September 17th, a build day, we initially changed our single pulley system,
which didn't provide enough mechanical advantage, to a block and tackle, this block and
tackle would provide us with an IMA of 2. In terms of the sprocket system, we added an
idler to reduce the slack on the chain and make the system flow smoother. We also
removed the lever system and added a wheel and axle instead, in the form of a crank in
order to operate the system with user input.
On September 21st, the second and last build day, we adjusted the pulley
system once more, changing the fixed pulley to be able to swivel, so the rope would be
able to deal with horizontal direction change. We also changed the spool system in a
way that we had 2 wheel and axles, instead of the initial 1 wheel and axle.

Andy Maughan 7

Final Design Presentation:

Our machine in the official presentation was turned by the crank, and
very slowly rose up to 6 inches, and stayed there without being held. Our machine
functioned to the best of its capabilities, however its efficiency was very low, being
0.06% efficient overall. The IMA of pulley system was 2,the wheel and axle on the left
being 35.3, and the final wheel and axle had an IMA of 11.6. The sprocket system as a
whole had an IMA of 1.125.
The whole machine had an overall AMA of 0.5825 and an IMA of 921.33.
Once again the efficiency of the whole system was 0.06% efficient. The object took at
most 20 seconds to lift, and the machine took around 2 hours to build and measure.

Andy Maughan 8

Team Evaluation
Sofia Martinez
Sofia in our group followed all the group norms properly. She did her share of the
work, which was to build the sprocket system along with Michael Diaz. She followed the
initial design correctly, and she made adjustments throughout the course of the building.
Sofia did her job adequately.

Michael Diaz
Michael followed all the group norms. Michael's job in our group was to build the
sprocket system and the input wheel and axle with Sofia. Michael did his share of the
work. He followed the initial design and was able to adapt to the problems that came up.
Michael did his job adequately.

Andy Maughan
I followed all the group norms properly. My job was to build the pulley system for
the project. There were many difficulties with the construction, but I followed the initial
design correctly. Once problems came up I identified the problems and changed the
design to accommodate. I did my job adequately.

Andy Maughan 9

Post-Mortem
Q1) For which mechanism was it easiest to determine the mechanical advantage or
drive ratio? Why was it the easiest?
A1) The pulley system was the easiest to determine the mechanical ratio of. The IMA of
the pulley system is the number of opposing strings, making it instantly accessible. The
AMA just required a simple resistance and effort measurement, which weren't complex
to get.
Q2) For which mechanism was it the most difficult to determine the mechanical
advantage or drive ratio? Why was it the most difficult?
A2) The sprocket system was the most difficult to determine the mechanical advantage.
The IMA had to be determined through tedious measurements of diameters. The AMA
had to be measured using a second string attached to a pull scale in order to only get
the sprocket systems measurements.
Q3) What modifications would you make to your compound machine to make it more
mechanically efficient. If you didn't have to worry about time?
A3) Our compound machine would not be built on a pegboard. The pegboard provides a
height advantage, but the friction gained from the improperly fitted bars we used was
simply inefficient. Another modification I would make would be to change the idler from
providing a downward force on the chain, to providing an inward force on the chain. The
chain would get more wrap around the wheel and axle, and the chain would be more
straightened, providing more MA and less friction.
Q4) Is there anything else you would do differently?
A4) In terms of the whole project, I would spend more time on the brainstorm phase and
planning in order to come out the gate with a more efficient solution. I would do more
hypothetical number crunching before we even choose which solution we want to use
and conceptually think about the idea in greater detail. I would also generate at least
twice as many ideas in order to reap a greater harvest of ideas.

Andy Maughan 10