Project Report

Team Members:

Lucas Gretta, Rory Gatson, Madeline Farkus, Michael Friedmann

Class:

POE Block 4

Date Submitted:

9/25/15

Assignment:

Project 1.1.6 Compound Machine Design

Lucas Gretta
Design Problem:
We are to design a compound machine that is capable of lifting an eight ounce weight a
vertical distance of six inches before 3 minutes elapses after inputting effort.
We are doing this in order to understand how simple machines can work together to
accomplish a task as well as learning how design elements can affect mechanical advantage. In
addition, we are to learn how to compare the efficiency of different simple machines in a working
situation and better grasp the capabilities and limitations of our VEX kits.
Our final product must include a minimum of three different types of mechanisms with an
ideal mechanical advantage greater than one. We must include two simple machines and one of
the following: chain and sprocket, gear system, pulley drive system. Our final product must have
an ideal mechanical advantage greater than one, and contain only one human input.
Brainstorming:
Sketch:

Lucas Gretta

Description:
In my compound machine concept, I use a wheel and axle to turn the driving sprocket which
turns the driven sprocket, which turns a wheel and axle system, pulling a string upwards
attached to a moveable pulley which drags the weight vertically six inches.

Lucas Gretta
Instructor Signature:

Final Design Proposal:

Lucas Gretta

Description:
In our final design, we use a wheel and axle to turn the driving sprocket which turns the driven
sprocket, which turns a spool (functioning as a wheel and axle system), pulling a string upwards
attached to a moveable pulley which drags the weight vertically six inches.
Reasoning:
As shown in our decision matrix, this design surpassed all other designs in simplicity, reusability,
build time, and precision, and tied for fastest run time. We chose this design according to those
factors as found in the decision matrix. We used this criteria as we felt it allowed us to function
best to develop our design in order to best fit our given constraints

Lucas Gretta
Decision matrix:

Design Modifications:
In our original design, we didnt put any bushings around the axles. We add them to the
final product in order to reduce friction around the axles, therefore increasing the efficiency of
the final product.
Our original design did not take into account precise dimensions, so the one-board
construction wouldnt allow us to raise our 8.6 oz weight six inches.. To solve this problem, we
extended the height by adding another board on top of the previous one.
When running the machine, our weight would catch on the end of our table, hindering
upward motion. We extended our pulleys endpoints to give the weight room to move
unimpeded.
When attempting to hang our weight off of the side of the table, our machine was rather
unstable. To fix this, we attached a weight on the base.
We didnt draw a method to attach the weight to the pulley, so we added rope to allow
the pulley to drag the weight upward.

Lucas Gretta
Final Design Presentation:
IMA:
System 1(Input Wheel and axle): 2
System 2(Chain and Sprocket: 1.5
System 3(Wheel and axle: 4.3
System 4(Wheel and movable pulley): 2
Overall IMA: 25.7
Overall AMA: 8.3
Overall Efficiency: 32%
Final Images:
Front Image:

Back Image:

Lucas Gretta

Side Image:

Team Evaluation:
In our project, I designed our final solution, participated in deciding our final design, and
built the final product alongside Rory. Rory and I modified our teams design while building to
accommodate for problems we didnt foresee in our final design. Rory did his share of the work
well.
Rory participated in deciding our final design, and built the final product alongside me.
Rory and I modified our teams design while building to accommodate for problems we didnt

Lucas Gretta
foresee in our final design. He also took our final pictures seen above. I did me share of the
work well.
Madeline participated in deciding our final design, and focused on attaching our weight
to our pulley. While she didnt do much, she did work for the whole time attempting to attach the
weight in the best possible way.
Michael agreed with our final design, but was not at the first decision due to illness. He
scanned in our teams engineering notebooks while the rest built our product. His work is seen
above in the Final Design Proposal picture as well as the decision matrix image. Michael did
work for the whole time, however his work left out certain parts of my images.
Post-Mortem (Reflection):
1. It was easiest to determine the ideal mechanical advantage for the moveable pulley, as all we
had to do was count the number of supporting strands.
2. It was most difficult to determine the actual mechanical advantage of the whole machine as we
had to add on string and tape to get an accurate measurement
.
3. I would make sure we used a better pulley, as well as made the strands even to maximize
actual mechanical advantage
4. I would reduce the distance between our sprockets, as the dead space between them has no
purpose.