Dylan Ionnotti

Ashmal Irfan, and Timmy Pollard

P.O.E.: 2nd Block
9/25/2015
Project 1.1.6 Compound Machine
Design

Design Problem:
My team (Ashmal Irfan and Timmy Pollard) and I (Dylan Ionnotti) must
create a
compound machine that can lift 80z. of weight 6 inches above ground level
within 3 minutes.
The objectives of this assignment are to understand how elements of
design can affect mechanical advantage, understand how simple machines
can work together to accomplish a task, compare the efficiency of different
simple machines in a working situation, and experience the capabilities and
limitations of VEX components for future projects.
The compound machine must consist of two simple machines and a
third mechanism. The third mechanism can be any of the following: A Gear
System, a Pulley and Belt System, or a Sprocket and Chain System. Each of
these mechanisms must have a mechanical advantage greater than 1 as well
as the final design. The effort force may be provided by a single human
input.

Brainstorm Idea:

Pic. 1 : My Brainstorm Idea

The brainstorm model (pictured above in Pic 1) consisted of one
inclined plane, one pulley, and one sprocket and chain system. The machines
energy would come from a single person via manual power. This such person
would turn the cronk (labeled crank in Pic. 1) that shares a shaft with a
sprocket.
A chain wraps around this same sprocket and then wraps around
another sprocket that is smaller than the one attached to the crank. The
sprocket opposite the sprocket with the crank would turn a shaft that
attaches to the axle.
A rope would then attach to this shaft at one end, and the other end
would run over a pulley. This would leave an open end to which we would
attach the load of 80z. and pull the load up an inclined plane.
This design was rejected due to the fact that it did not meet the criteria
of the pulley needing to have a mechanical advantage greater than 1.. The
sketch itself was also flawed in the fact that it was an inadequate size.

Final Design Proposal:

Pic. 2 : Decision Matrix

My group and I decided to use a decision matrix (seen in Pic. 2) in
order to help us decide who had the best system to use. The matrix ranked
the system on its durability, its simplicity, the amount of time and resources
the idea will take, how efficient the system is, and how easy it is to make and
test a prototype

Pic 3 : Final Solution

Our final solution (seen in Pic 3) consisted of the 3 simple machines
needed working together as a compound machine. (Denotations are
illustrated in Pic 3) Sprocket A is turned by a single person with a crank and
sprockets A and B are connected via chain. Sprocket b shares an axle with
sprocket C, and sprockets C and D are connected by a chain. All together,
sprockets A, B, C, and D are part of a sprocket and chain system.
The axle that sprocket D will rotate with will be elongated enough to fit
a spool on to. The rope will wrap around the spool as it raises the load. This
means Sprocket D will work double as a wheel and axle system.
The rope that wraps around the spool connected to the axle of sprocket
D will be part of a block and tackle pulley system. This block and tackle
system will be attached to the 80z. load and lift it 6 inches above the ground.

Design Modifications
During construction of our original solution we came across an issue
with the stability of the design. The pegboard material we used to support
the compound machine was not designed to be compatible with the VEX
parts that we used to build the compound machine.
We were experiencing major loss of stability between the axles which
were used to mount the components to the pegboard, and the holes that the
axles were fitted through. To solve this issue, we transferred the components
onto a metal frame constructed from the same VEX kit we used to make
the components of our compound machine. This meant that our supporting
frame was now compatible with our design and allowed the machine to
operate with more efficiency.
Other minor design modifications include changing the positions of the
sprockets in order to compensate for the new supporting frame. This change
did not affect the performance of the machine but it did prevent the original
layout from being unsuccessful. We also ended up adding a vertical structure
to allow the pulley to be anchored at a higher elevation. This modification
was necessary due to the fact that without it our machine would not be able
to lift the 8oz. load to the required height of 6 inches. Additionally we added
spacers and bushings to help reduce the amount of friction that the original
design was experiencing. This change had a mild effect and helped with the
efficiency of the compound machine. Lastly, my group and I decided to
change the material of the rope used in the pulley system. The change from
twine to a nylon string was, in theory, supposed to reduce friction. However,
we do not have any data that suggests that this theory is true.

Final Design Presentation

Pic: 3 (Sprocket A and Lever in the top left) (Sprocket B and C in the bottom
left) (Sprocket D and axle spool in the bottom right) (Block and tackle
system bottom right and top right)
During the presentation of our final design we were fortunate enough
to have phenomenal results and the machine operated just as we had
expected it too.The machine operated as it was supposed to and was able to
lift the load of 8oz. up 6 inches within 30 seconds. The tests that we ran
before hand were successful as well.
The IMA of each component and AMA of the complete compound
machine is as follows:

I.MA.:
Lever/ wheel and axle: .5625

Sprocket A-B: 4
Sprocket B-C: 2
Sprocket C-D: .75
Wheel D and axle: 1.66667
IMA of Whole Machine: 2.2500045
AMA of Whole Machine: .51
Efficiency of Whole Machine: 22%

Team Evaluation
Overall I believe our group was able to work together especially well
considering certain circumstances like the constraints on communication.
Each group member was able to fulfill their duties.
Timmy Pollard was an excellent group member to work with. He was
able to communicate his ideas thoroughly with the group and would always
uphold his share of work.
Ashmal Irfan was equally as outstanding as Timmy, and was able to
consistently stay on task and take part in whatever was necessary at the
time.
I, Dylan Ionnotti, believe that I was able to do my share of work as well
as the others. I enjoyed communicating with my group members even
though outside of class it was complicated to maintain that communication.

Post Mortem
The easiest mechanism to calculate the MA for would be the pulley
system because all we had to do was count the amount of supporting
strands in order to get our answer.
The most difficult mechanism would be the sprocket and chain system
because we had to count all the teeth of whatever two sprockets were being
compared for the MA.

The major change that i would have made would be to change the
means of input such as a different crank design, or perhaps even a
conversion from the crank to a wheel driven axle.
If I were given the opportunity to do this again, the most important
differences would be that I would make sure to have cell phone to make
communication easier, Starting out with a VEX component frame so that I
wouldn't have to waste time and switch later on, also I would want to
experiment with the electrical motors provided in our VEX kits.