1.1.

6 Compound Machine
Design
Miles Simpkins
Group: Jacqi Kelly and Nick Maughan
POE Block 3
9/25/2015

Design Problem:
Our task is to lift an 8 ounce weight 6 inches in less than 3 minutes. We will be
able to relate parts of a design to mechanical advantage, know how simple machines
work together to complete a task, compare efficiencies of different simple machines,
and gain experience using the VEX kit.
Our machine must accomplish the task given certain constraints. The effort force
must originate from a single human input. The compound machine must be comprised
of 3 different types of mechanisms with 2 being simple machines and the third being a
gear system, a pulley and belt system, or a sprocket and chain system. The mechanical

advantage of each mechanism is greater than 1, and the final compound machine must
have a mechanical advantage greater than 1.
Brainstorm idea:

A human pull on a string (FE) is applied to a spool (wheel and axle) and rotates.
On a common axis with the wheel and axle, the first sprocket of a chain and sprocket

system also rotates initiating the system. At the other end, another sprocket rotates a
spool (wheel and axle) located on a common axis. The string attached to the spool is
hooked on to a 2nd class lever where FR is located. The lever initiates and FR is then
raised 6 inches.
Final design Proposal:
To find the best design proposal our group created a decision matrix. We chose
the first 3 criteria to determine if the given design met the design constraints. We
selected the complexity criterion knowing that as complexity increases so does the
room for error. The time for construction criterion was based on the amount of time we
had to test, build, and calculate mechanical advantages of our compound machine.

Proposals

2 simple

machines

machines

Jacqi

13

Miles

12

Nick

4 --------- 1
best

worst

ME>1

Complexity

Time for

Total

construction

Yes

No

We picked Jaquis design because it achieved all of the requirements within the
given constraints. The design is a quick build and not too complex.

Fe is a human input force (pulling on a string) which turns a wheel and axle on
the same axis as Gear A (the wheel was later converted from a spool with string to a
turnable wheel). This initiates a compound gear system. Gear A transfers energy to
Gear C which is on the same axis as Gear B. Gear B turns Gear D which is on the
same axis as a spool (wheel and axle). The spool initiates a pulley system containing a

fixed pulley and a moveable pulley. FR is attached to the moveable pulley.

Design Modifications:
We had 4 design modifications that we made to our initial design. Our vex kit only
had one spool, so we had to convert the input spool to a wheel. The input force became
a turning motion from a human.
The next modification we made to our initial design was to improve efficiency.
The fixed pulley was located to the right of the spool making the string at an angle to the

pulley, minimizing the amount of string in contact with the wheel on the pulley. To solve
this we moved the fixed pulley directly over the spool.
Initially our compound machine was attached to a peg board. But, it was difficult
to properly align the gears in the compound gear system. We ended up using a metal
board from the VEX kit instead.
Another important modification we had to make was to add stabilization and
support to our compound machine. At first our compound machine required a human to
hold it vertically and another human to turn the wheel. This did not fit the criteria of the
project. We attached a metal board perpendicularly to the bottom of the current metal
board supporting the compound machine. As a safety net, we used the magnetic bowl
from the VEX kit as a counterweight which was placed on top of the stabilizing board.
Our last modification was to add more efficiency by reducing the friction between
the compound gear system and the metal board it was attached to. To do this we added
1 spacer to each gear raising the train well above the board.
Final Design Presentation:
Our machine completed the assigned task of raising our 8.81 ounce. weight 6
inches. Everything functioned as planned except for a couple inefficiencies. Gear D
began to wobble as soon as the compound machine initiated. This was likely due to a
loose bearing supporting Gear D. Also, the string attached to the fixed pulley slipped off
of the wheel but soon after guided itself back on. We found out later this was due to our
pully not lining up with the spool and string it was connected to.
The ideal mechanical advantage for the first wheel and axle was 1.27, the
compound gear system had an IMA of .650, the second wheel and axle containing the
spool had an IMA of 5.51. The fixed pulley had an IMA of 1 and the moveable pulley had
an IMA of 2, naturally. The total IMA of our compound machine was 9.15. The effort
force was 200 grams making the actual mechanical advantage 1.25, and the efficiency
was 13.66%.

Team Evaluation:
Nick Maughan upheld the group norms and did his fair share of work by
contributing to brainstorming, calculating mechanical advantages and constructing the
support for our machine. He was a productive team member.
Jacqi Kelly upheld the group norms as well. We used her brainstorm proposal for
the final compound machine. Jacqui lead the construction effort and we were able to
construct the machine quickly. Jacqi without a doubt did her fair share of work.
I upheld the group norms and assisted Jaqui in the construction of our compound
machine and Nick with finding mechanical advantages. I was able to find and identify

issues that came up resulting in the discovery of two of the four design modifications;
substituting the wheel for the spool , and moving the location of the fixed pulley closer to
the spool to allow for more efficiency.
Post-Mortem (Reflection)
A. Finding the mechanical advantage of the two pulleys was the easiest
because no calculations were necessary. Fixed pulleys have an IMA of 1 and
moveable pulleys have an IMA of 2.
B. Finding the mechanical advantage of the compound gear system was
most difficult because we were unsure whether or not to include the gear ratio of
Gear B and Gear C in the mechanical advantage. We asked and were given
wrong information about the formula for a compound gear system. But, after our
presentation, we were informed of the correct formula of a compound gear
system and we corrected the error in our calculations of IMA, AMA and efficiency
(mechanical advantages and efficiency given in this report are accurate).
C. I would have added more pulleys to our compound machine to form a
block and tackle. This would increase the mechanical advantage of the
compound machine.
D. Yes, looking back we should have rotated our pulley 90 degrees to the
spool so that the string did not wrap around the pulley at an awkward angle. This
dramatically reduced our mechanical advantage. Also, we should have used a
shorter string to secure FR to the movable pulley. The longer string stretches
more than a shorter string would reducing the total efficiency.