Highlights follow each problem and the ways we could have potentially mitigated it, through A & B.
Question A)
Our test [I'm assuming this refers to the one watched for grading] did not run from start to finish. It stopped within the first piece, in that the marble missed the funnel. I believe this happened because we did not have the marble we used for testing the device, which was stolen, because the difference in the marble's weight influenced its trajectory; furthermore, the marble was relatively unpredictable to begin with. In the same portion, when the marble did go through the funnel, it didn't set off the mouse trap. When tested, it functioned with the original marble, but I believe that because we didn't have Drew Ingram there before the test, who was very instrumental in creating that device, and who knew how to set the mouse trap up to make it work, we set the trap too heavily and therefore impaired the mechanism from actually releasing on the weight of the falling marble alone. Last to fail was the pin in the wedge that was supposed to release the marble. The mechanism was meant to function in that when the suction from the bottle released, it would weight the tin can, tension the pulleys, and then pull out the pin. In stead, the pin simply fell out when the large mousetrap shook the board. I believe that the pin was not far enough into the wood to create the necessary friction to resist the change created by the shaking of the mousetrap's transferred torque to the peg-board.
Question B)
Overall, I had a tremendous amount of fun with this project.
I honestly believe that we planned well, but failed to foresee some of the challenges that our ideas presented, and some of the discrepancies we encountered while putting them together in a linear set.
In reference to building, I would have tried to make sure that we stayed on track with construction between days 3 and 5. I think we became so focused on attempting to perfect the first few mechanisms that we neglected to continue to add new ones...
I believe that both of these issues could have been solved by creating a better design, and a figurative time allotment and work schedule for each component.
As a group of disparate personalities, we faced most of our challenges in communication. I experienced multiple scenarios in which changes were made that were not discussed by the group altogether, including by myself. I realize now that if we had more openly discussed ideas, we would have been more efficient. About each of my group members:
Nick Regan's extensive knowledge of tools and experience with mechanics was encouraging and helpful, and Nick communicated honestly and bluntly, which I appreciated. He was also consistent.
Consistency goes for all of the guys. They each contributed in their own ways.
Drew Ingram's sense of humor brightened times when the project seemed unmanageable, and he always held himself and other group members accountable for his each other's own fallacies, respectively.
Michael Bowen was an excellent contributor, and unrelentingly displayed optimism, willingness to work, and an overall 'can-do' attitude, which was encouraging and productive. Bowen is also a good leader, and often attempted to turn the group's attention to managing time well.
I also noticed quite a bit of bickering between Nick and Drew, and, in rare cases only, Michael, and also noted Nick and Drew employing name-calling to make themselves heard. While I don't internalize any of that kind of banter, I know that even when it's not intended aggressively, it can be disparaging to other group members, and is in no way constructive to the actual project.
I frequently felt like a referee between Nick, Drew and, only on seldom occasion, Michael Bowen.
I could have benefitted by using a less assertive tone, and being less demanding of my fellow group members. I often communicated while doing the actual work in ways that, although not outrightly aggressive, were delivered in a condescending tone.
As for the for the marble and the funnel, I would have cut the hose to make the jump longer, then used a metal marble that would be not only more predictable in hitting the funnel, but also would solve the problem of tensioning the mousetrap, because the heavier marble would have been more likely to have depressed the cheese-holder when it was set tightly.
Additionally, I noticed that the funnel moved some on the impact of the marble. With a metal marble, this issue would have worsened. I would have put a zip-tie around the bottom area of the funnel, and through the back holes of the peg-board on both sides, and then tightened it enough from the back side to secure the base of the funnel and prevent its rotation.
As for the pin and the wedge, I don't recall that happening even a single time during testing, therefore I don't believe I would have been able to mitigate it without knowing... Although, I could have simply pushed it into the hole further, which I believe I did during testing with great success.
Question C)
We learned most from each other as friends and peers, about communication, and how to organize projects and keep people accountable for their own mistakes and share of the work. I believe I covered ways that we learned about planning, building and group dynamics in question B.
-Pascal Reina
No comments:
Post a Comment