Professional Engineer Interview

Interviewee name: John Jackson

Interviewee’s specific degree: Associates Degree

Interviewee’s place of employment: United States Navy

Professional Interview

Ask interviewee the questions listed below and record exact responses in your engineering notebook. If you wish to ask additional questions, seek instructor approval.

· Please describe your engineering field.

Expert technician (repairing, trouble shooting, working on correct maintenance on a navy ship)

· What is your current job title?

Supervisor (technical maintenance)

· Please describe your particular job and duties.

Maintaining air conditioning systems, reverse osmosis, hydraulics, laundry, galley equipment (inclusive of stoves and kettles - kitchen appliances).

· What is your average work schedule?

Per week, about 60-80 hours of work is put into job description above. There isn't a set job list of things to do when he gets there, but there are many things to fix around the ship, like the items listed above.

· Starting with high school, describe your educational background chronologically.

He got a diploma from a high school in Chicago, and from there took 5 years of college. Only degree was the Associates degree because of the switch of schools. After the many years of college and high school, he went to the Navy and took various courses with engineering backgrounds.

· If you had it to do over, related to your career or education, would you do anything differently?

He would finish school with a bachelor's and master's degree in the field of engineering.

· What advice would you give to me as someone interested in pursuing a career path similar to yours?

If you are going to pursue a career path similar to yours, it's a great field to work in. Don't give up on it - once you do, it is hard to get back on track. As far as the Navy goes, you have to be very technical in all the equipment you are responsible for, and engineering courses are essential to that sort of upkeep in technology.


Personal Reflection

Reflect on your completed interview and answer the following questions. You may also add additional reflections or thoughts.

- What surprised you the most about the interview?

I was surprised with the number of work hours in one week. My preconcieved notion of the job was not as stressful as had been described until I heard some of this data and I was shocked that I had not conceptualized it that way.
- What was the most important piece of information that you learned from the interview?

The most important piece of information I learned from this interview was the educational side. I liked hearing about how long it took to get to such an important position, and it helped me to start to think about the ways I will have to plan out my education for the next 8 or 9 years.
- How has this interview influenced your feelings about your future career?

This has influenced my feelings about a future career by showing me more and more that my conceptualization had not been accurate and the process of education is going to be long and hard work. I had felt the same way about it before, but I am starting to see the process unravel and the long road ahead after high school.

Energy (energy-neering) Presentation

I had to research electricity, so here is my power point presentation in outline format (still maintaining and containing the original content in a more reasonable form fitting the requirements of my blog):

Electricity

By Carley Warlick

1. Uses of Electricity

 At home appliances that you use every day use electricity to run correctly and efficiently.

Video Game Systems, Cable Boxes, Computers, Phones, I-pods, TV’s, etc.

2. Effects of Electricity

Electricity is generated from many other sources of energy (e.g.: solar power – electricity). The waste from the conversion has a particularly harmful impact on the environment (however, solar power is the only conversion that doesn’t hurt the environment). The following energy sources produce harmful waste: nuclear waste, coal, oil, etc.

3. Pro's and Con's of Electricity

    

Pro's:

Easy access in almost every home – outlets everywhere. It can be produced from every other energy source (nuclear, solar, wind, etc.). Electricity is not very dangerous and not very costly - it is a tried and true method for generating energy for common electronic equipment.

    

Con's:

Energy usage in the United States in 2008 alone was 3,873,000,000,000 kWh (kiloWatts per hour). Some energy sources produce harmful waste to the environment (nuclear power in particular). Major blackouts occur often causing issues to arise with common electronic equipment in many households, such as surges, that permanently ruin items. 

4. The Efficiency of Electricity

The following equation depicts the efficiency of electricity:

    

Defining Variables

Output power: amount of electrical energy given off.

Input power: amount of electrical energy put through the circuit.

I: the electrical current.

V: the transmission voltage.

Subscript #'s: labels to show which current is which (to avoid confusion - refer to diagram below)

5. Recent Developments 

• Could a Computer One Day Rewire Itself? New Nanomaterial "Steers" Electric Currents in Multiple Dimensions

Scientists at Northwestern University have developed a new nanomaterial that can "steer" electrical currents. The development could lead to a computer that can simply reconfigure its internal wiring and become an entirely different device, based on changing needs.

     As electronic devices are built smaller and smaller, the materials from which the circuits are constructed begin to lose their properties and begin to be controlled by quantum mechanical phenomena. Reaching this physical barrier, many scientists have begun building circuits into multiple dimensions, such as stacking components on top of one another.

     The Northwestern team has taken a fundamentally different approach. They have made reconfigurable electronic materials: materials that can rearrange themselves to meet different computational needs at different times.

     "Our new steering technology allows use to direct current flow through a piece of continuous material," said Bartosz A. Grzybowski, who led the research. "Like redirecting a river, streams of electrons can be steered in multiple directions through a block of the material - even multiple streams flowing in opposing directions at the same time."

     Grzybowski is professor of chemical and biological engineering in the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science and professor of chemistry in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

     The Northwestern material combines different aspects of silicon- and polymer-based electronics to create a new classification of electronic materials: nanoparticle-based electronics.

     The study, in which the authors report making preliminary electronic components with the hybrid material, will be published online Oct. 16 by the journal Nature Nanotechnology. The research also will be published as the cover story in the November print issue of the journal.

     "Besides acting as three-dimensional bridges between existing technologies, the reversible nature of this new material could allow a computer to redirect and adapt its own circuitry to what is required at a specific moment in time," said David A. Walker, an author of the study and a graduate student in Grzybowski's research group.

     Imagine a single device that reconfigures itself into a resistor, a rectifier, a diode and a transistor based on signals from a computer. The multi-dimensional circuitry could be reconfigured into new electronic circuits using a varied input sequence of electrical pulses.

     The hybrid material is composed of electrically conductive particles, each five nanometers in width, coated with a special positively charged chemical. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.) The particles are surrounded by a sea of negatively charged atoms that balance out the positive charges fixed on the particles.

     By applying an electrical charge across the material, the small negative atoms can be moved and reconfigured, but the relatively larger positive particles are not able to move.

     By moving this sea of negative atoms around the material, regions of low and high conductance can be modulated; the result is the creation of a directed path that allows electrons to flow through the material. Old paths can be erased and new paths created by pushing and pulling the sea of negative atoms. More complex electrical components, such as diodes and transistors, can be made when multiple types of nanoparticles are used.

     The title of the paper is "Dynamic Internal Gradients Control and Direct Electric Currents Within Nanostructured Materials." In addition to Grzybowski and Walker, other authors are Hideyuki Nakanishi, Paul J. Wesson, Yong Yan, Siowling Soh and Sumanth Swaminathan, from Northwestern, and Kyle J. M. Bishop, a former member of the Grzybowski research group, now with Pennsylvania State University.

• Electromobility: New Components Going for a Test Run

The future belongs to electrical cars - that's what most experts think. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of problems that have not been solved. This is the reason why researchers at 33 Fraunhofer institutes put their heads together in the Fraunhofer System Research for Electromobility project to move electromobility one big step ahead.

     This two-year project was completed on July 30, 2011, and the demonstrator vehicles they came up with were showcased at the final event in Papenburg, Germany, on September 2, 2011, on the ATP test track.
In the future, it will be whisper-quiet on road because in the long run electric cars will replace the internal combustion engine. But there are still some unanswered questions. For instance, how do you store the electricity in cars? Or what power networks do you need? And anyway, how do you pay for charging your battery? Two years ago, researchers from 33 Fraunhofer institutes joined forces to answer these and many other questions while coordinating the various components of electrical cars. The idea behind this partnership is supporting the German car and supply industry to make sure they stay on top in electromobility for a long time to come. This is why this project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research with 34.5 million euros from its Economic Policy Program II.

     Professor Ulrich Buller is the Senior Vice President for Research at Fraunhofer Gesellshaft. He describes the idea behind system research: "We take care of overarching aspects starting with generating the energy and going all the way down to business models." Professor Holger Hanselka is the director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Structural Durability and System Reliability LBF and the project coordinator. He goes into detail:
"We have defined a total of five concentrations: issues of decentralized power generation and power transport to vehicles, energy storage, vehicle engineering and system integration. We're talking about new value-added chains and getting people to accept the idea of electromobility. We added the concentration of 'function, reliability, testing and launch' in 2011."

     After the project was over, the institutes involved unveiled their findings on the ATP test track in Papenburg, Germany, on September 2; researchers invited visitors for a test ride in the experimental vehicles. This is where the first and second generation of Fraunhofer's Frecc0 developmental vehicles are ready for testing. Both of these electrical cars are based upon Artega GT, a two-seater sports car. Franz-Josef Wöstmann, division director at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Bremen, Germany, says: "We installed commercially available components into the Frecc0 1.0 and concentrated on streamlining the way these components interact." This Fraunhofer Institute took on project management for building the Frecc0 demonstrator vehicle.

     Frecc0 2.0 contains components recently developed by these scientists. A case in point are wheel hub motors that the researchers from IFAM conceived in teamwork with their colleagues at the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Systems and Device Technology IISB, the Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM and the Fraunhofer Institute for Structural Durability and System Reliability LBF. Franz-Josef Wöstmann stresses, "We engineered the motor from the onset for the European market and we selected a diameter to make sure it has room in a 15-inch wheel rim. In turn, the engine is adapted to the available construction space. This is why we had to come up with completely new components with maximum power density - starting with the power electronics through setting up the cooling right down to the design."

     Totally new vehicle designs are possible since the researchers moved the entire drive train -- the entire engine including the center tunnel, cardan shaft and transmission -- out of the car and into the wheel hubs or even eliminated them altogether. For instance, the passenger compartment on a vehicle that is about the same size as a VW Passat would be as big as an S-Class Mercedes. Another advantage is the fact that every wheel gets the performance it needs. This means greater safety for each passenger because each individual wheel cannot only be separately braked, but also accelerated. That gives the wheel hub motor torque vectoring, an advancement over today's ESP. Franz-Josef Wöstmann adds that "all components in the wheel hub motor are designed for series production."

     Another innovation is the cast coil. Now, Fraunhofer researchers can cast coils with a new technique instead of winding them as previously. This has the benefit that the installation space in the drive motor is used more efficiently. In contrast to the lot fill factor of approximately 55 percent normal today, experts achieve lot fill factors in excess of 90 percent. This permits higher power density and greater efficiency with an equally large coil installation space. Much smaller coils can be used due to the higher lot fill factors, or aluminum can be used with the same dimensions if engine output is supposed to stay the same. Felix Horch from the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials explains: "Thanks to this new production technology, we can substantially reduce the installation space, weight and price for coils."

     Incidentally, Fraunhofer scientists were not the only ones to use the Frecc0 as a test platform. In the future, automobile manufacturers and suppliers will be able to use Frecc0 together with the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials for testing or advancing new components.

• Laser Ion Source will Produce a New Generation of Semiconductors

For ion implantation, that is 'hammering' ions into the surface layer of the material, conventional ion accelerators are commonly used. Laser ion sources are much simpler, cheaper and more universal. However, they emit wide energy ions usually accompanied by some admixtures. In the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion in Warsaw a unique laser ion source has been built which is equipped with a special system for accelerating ions to a chosen energy and for eliminating admixtures. This device has already been used to produce samples of a new generation of semiconductors: a layer of silica (SiO₂) in which germanium nanocrystals have been formed.

     Laser Ion Sources (LIS) are simple devices that produce ions in interaction of a focused laser beam with the target placed in a vacuum vessel. Admixtures that happen to be in the target often cause problems -- together with the proper ions, they can modify the sample. Moreover, the laser pulse also pulls out atoms and debris from the target which are deposited on the irradiated sample and modify its surface. "To prevent such effects, we have designed and built a device for ion implantation with a unique electric system for ion acceleration," says Marcin Rosiński, a PhD student from the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion (IPPLM) in Warsaw.

     Ion implementation is the process of embedding ions into the surface layer of the sample in order to change some properties of the material, mechanical or electrical. Currently, ion accelerators are routinely used for this purpose. Laser ion sources have a chance to excel those devices: they are smaller, simpler and can produce ions from high-melting materials such as tantalum or tungsten. What is more, the ion beam can easily be modified by the change of parameters and the geometry of the laser-target-sample system. The released ions can well be accelerated in the external electric field.

     However, to be able to use the LIS type sources in industry, some requirements must be fulfilled: the beam of ions cannot possess impurities and the ions should have almost the same specific energy. To meet both requirements the laser ion source with special electrostatic system must be applied.

     In the device built at the IPPLM the low-energy laser pulse lasts 3.5 nanoseconds. The laser pulse energy, in the first phase of laser-matter interaction, is transferred to free electrons which subsequently ionise atoms of target material and admixtures. The main part of the laser pulse energy directly heats ionised matter (plasma) causing its quick expansion. A broad energy distribution of the ions expanding from plasma results from the nature of the process of plasma generation.

     Some particles and debris extracted from the target by the laser pulse are electrically neutral, which is why they expand without deflection in the electric field and go straight onto the screen that is placed exactly on the axis of the system, to shield the sample. At the same time, laser-produced ions which avoid the screen are accelerated and focused by the electric field on the sample located on the axis behind the screen. "We have selected the parameters of the field in such a way that only the chosen ions of the target reach the sample.

     The spot of the focused beam is 1 mm in diameter," explains Rosiński.

     The low-energy laser used in the experiment does not heat itself and is capable of generating 10 thousand or more laser pulses within some ten minutes. Those advantages make it possible for scientists to control precisely the number of ions that reach the sample.

     The solution proposed by the scientists from the IPPLM has successfully been used to explore the process of germanium ion implantation in silica (SiO₂) layer with a view to fabricate germanium nanocrystals within it.

     Thus, a modified semiconductor has been created whose prospective implementation in electronics is widely anticipated, for example in miniaturisation of some memory chips or in elements for light emission.

     To obtain germanium nanocrystals from the laser-produced ions, the implanted sample should be heated in the temperature of 600 to 1200 Celsius degrees. In this process some germanium crystals, ranging in size from a few to 20 nanometres (billionth of a metre) are created. "Our implanted samples, after heating, are examined with the use of various sophisticated, currently available measuring methods in the specialised laboratories, mainly at the Universities in Messina and Catania in Sicily. We have analysed both the results of ion implantation and the formation of nanocrystal structures in the samples," says Rosiński.

     Laser ion source built and tested at the IPPLM is a prototype device expected to find applications in industry. "In two years, we will have finished the work connected with optimization of our device regarding industrial usage but we have already started looking for enterprises that are interested in implementing this technology," summarises Prof. Jerzy Wołowski, the Head of Laser Plasma Division at the IPPLM.
The construction of the device for laser induced implantation was started at the IPPLM a few years ago within the framework of European SEMINANO project.


6. Sources

• Department of Energy Information
• What is Energy?
• Electricity Information
• More Electricity Information
• Even More Elecricity Information

Personal Reflection

1. Describe one thing that surprised you about the energy source that you researched and presented.

One thing that surprised me about the energy source that I researched and presented was that it could be made from every single other energy source on the planet. Additionally, the numerous amount of ways that electricity was utilized was not clear until I researched it, and my preconceived notions of it were surprisingly different than the real world uses. Other than that, the recent developments were pretty cool and could really give us a new direction in the future when we are probably out of all those non-renewable energy sources that we simply can't afford to lose.

2. Describe one thing that surprised you about an energy source that another team presented.

I was surprised the most about nuclear energy and the waste. We had done a smaller short-term research project in middle school about nuclear energy to see how it worked, but I was only able to hit the highlights in a sense. When I saw the power point portion of that energy source, it really brought some interesting issues to the light, and I understood the process a little bit better. (Not to mention the blog post about safer nukes that really caught my attention by the person researching the energy source.)

3. Describe and defend what you believe to be the most important technological need regarding energy.

In terms of dividing up energy to create other energy sources to be more compatible with systems that they are "fuelling," efficiency economically needs to be looked at. Rather than wasting time and energy (both human energy and energy sources) to create new energy, shouldn't we be changing the outlet types and system functions to be more compatible with the needs of the technology? Electricity is great and easily accessible, but we take the fact for granted that eletricity is made for other energy sources rather than just using those sources instead of eletricity. Don't get me wrong, we do need it - it powers the 21st Century in more ways than you can imagine. But the economic side of things shows that some of the resources we have relied on for years and years aren't going to be around for much longer, and a solution is needed.

Take solar power for example. It may be green, and it may be efficient for your home. Okay. What about the cost of putting it up? How about getting it fixed? Initial Set-up costs anyone? Somehow people seem to sidestep this conclusion, even though it has a major impact on the way things work today. There is absolutely no energy source that doesn't cost a lot of money and time to convert to electricity, and if you can think of one, feel free to post it below.

7 Billion Chances to Make a Difference!

As you move forward in your life, what are some of the challenges listed in the following video that you could participate in solving?

Some of the challenges I could participate in solving is the sanitation for 38% who don't have it. I could work on energy consumption and different sources of renewable and inexhaustible energy. I could even work on finding a way to make more space for the possible 9 billion people that we be on this planet in the years to come. I could even work on a robotic solution, such as using them to navigate the space around this planet and seeking other places to live and inhabit for the future (crazy as that sounds).

7 Billion is a huge number. How can we conceptualize that many people? How many people live in San Diego? How many San Diegos is 7 Billion?

If each continent on this planet (there are 7) was the exact same size, they would all contain 1 Billion citizens (that's the best way for me to conceptualize it). Getting more in depth, if you made equal sized territories in each of those continents and divided up the population into 100 different portions, they would each contain 1 million people.

The number of people living in San Diego as of 2008 was 3,001,072 people.

About 2332500 San Diegos make up 7 Billion people.



Happy Halloween

Here is my digital art in the making:

Here is the finalized version:



HAPPY HALLOWEEN!



Extra Credit

The Question and set of Answers for the extra credit assignment was:

If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

A) 25%
B) 50%
C) 60%
D) 25%

My Answer:

If you were to choose an answer to this question at random, then you would have a 1 in 4 chance of being correct, so the answer would be 25%. However, since there are two choices that the answer to the question in 25% probability, then you would have a 2 in 4 chance of being correct, making your choice B. Yet, if you can only choose one answer and that answer has to be correct, then the odds are back down to 25% since there is only a 1 in 4 chance that you will geuss 50% is the correct answer, so then it would be 25%, right? Well, nothing has changed, so the correct answer is 50%, but then the answer is also 25% since there is only a 25% chance that you can pick 50%. So there's the dilemma - trick question (note: C) 60% is completely irrelevant)

Safer Nukes?

This method for converting nuclear energy works like this: a reactor begins filled with a estimated 400,000 pebbles. Cooled helium enters the reactor, and it is heated due to the build-up of energy from the pebbles on the inside of the reactor. The now heated helium leaves the reactor and is used to turn turbines, as depicted in the image on the website. When the pebbles reach the bottom of the reactor, they are cycled back to the top since they have the maximum amount of energy possible so the other pebbles continue to be reused for a longer period of time (efficiency bonus).

The safety portion of this all depends on a couple of factors. By the sound of the article, it seems like this is very automated without any humans looking after it (besides the couple of people who look after the reactors to make sure everything is in working order). But, seeing as it can't meltdown in the same way that other more dangerous reactors can, the human "fixer-uppers" won't be needed. As far as the reactions on the inside of the machine, it still uses nuclear fission (the splitting of atoms to produce more energy) to create more power for other tasks, exactly like other reactors have taken Uranium-235 and split those atoms to create their energy. The system itself has changed, but the method for the getting the energy has not. Therefore, this reactor is definitely safer than most.

Cardboard Canoe

Achievements

"Define the Problem" State the problem you are designing a solution for.

The team must construct a canoe made of cardboard and duct tape only to be able to not only float, but travel all the way across the length of the CHS swimming pool, and meet all the below criteria and constraints.

"Brainstorm Solutions" List at least 20 ideas you have regarding your solution.

1. lightest person in the boat.
2. have a shape that helps it flow easily through the water (not boxed, but like an actual canoes).
3. get other teammates in the pool to push the canoe forward.
4. have a rudder to help steer.
5. the person in the canoe can balance the boat out.
6. make the canoe longer so less rocking can occur.
7. the length of the canoe should only be as long as the person in it.
8. make the inside of the structure more stable for less bending to occur.
9. sides should be only tall enough to avoid taking on water.
10. outside should be completely covered with duct tape.
11. create handles/grips on back so it can be pushed in water.
12. use a long stick to push it through water (like gondola).
13. duct tape should be vertically placed on the canoe.
14. have two layers of cardboard and make the bottom dug out, but resilient to the water.
15. add a roll of duct tape to the inside of the boat - stop leaks from happenning.
16. make the walls of the canoe easy to go over for the paddler.
17. add a bucket or scoop to get water out of the boat.
18. use pieces of cardboard to span the width of the canoe with multiple strips to hold it together and keep the structure solid.
19. add two other sides to keep it stable - trimeran reference.
20. build a floatable substance to keep it afloat with air inside.
21. construct a "rope" out of duct tape to tie off the boat.
22. trimeran - be able to securely fasten the sides on without having to break them off through the door and on the way to the pool.
23. the design should be as lightweight as possible (bouyancy AND trip to pool)
24. make the ends and tips of the canoe higher than the others to keep the walls high.
25. make the bottom open up more and close at the top - like a v.
26. incorporate origami into it so we can fold it permanently into a good shape, and keep the structure in fair condition.
27. make the poles connecting the trimeran hulls to the canoe solid for additional floatation.
28. bring in a lot of extra cardboard for the additional parts and pieces.
29. be conservative about the usage of duct tape - use as little as possible to save for other items.
30. if we were to make a sail, use duct tape to catch the wind and cardboard as the mast.
31. if wind direction becomes an issue, make the sails easily removable.

"Big Brain" The individual student with the most brainstorms listed will earn a bonus achievement.

I could be eligible for this achievement. TBD. 

"Criteria" List the specified Criteria you are designing for. List at least one implied criteria.

There has to be at least one student in the canoe during the competition, and while they are inside, the "boat" must be able to float in and traverse the CHS swimming pool.

"Constraints" List the specified Constraints you are designing around. List at least three implied contsraints.

You can only use duct tape and cardboard on the canoe, and the substances (staples, other tape, stickers, etc.) must be removed from the cardboard before you use it. Trashing the pool will result in the cancelling of future events that may take place there. The cardboard must meet the standard provided by the instructor (any other cardboard may not be used). The canoes must have a (at minimum) 3 in. wall so that we can avoid a surfboard design. Canoes must be completely covered in duct tape, so as to minimize the amount of cardboard disintegration in the pool and be able to come back later this year. Each team will be given only one cardboard piece from the school, so any other cardboard you want to add will come from another source and meet the minimum criteria to avoid disqualification.

"Sketch Ideas" Draw 3 different sketches for possible designs. Label at least 3 key features for each sketch. Describe the feature's functionality so a viewer understands why the called out feature is important.

 "Prototype Ideas" Craft physical prototypes (models) of each of your three sketches. Use a notecard or post it note to call out at least one key feature on each model. Post the images to your blog and describe the key feature that you've pointed out on each.

My origami prototype.

"Build It!" Build your watercraft. Document it with a presentable photo.

Our seat after the race.

The canoe before the experimentation in the pool.

The boat preparation - start of the competition.

The float test.

"The Early Bird Gets the Achievement" Awarded to the team with the fastest build.

We finished first.

"V-Bottom" Earn this by building a non-flat bottom.

We built a V-bottom boat.

"The Longest" Awarded to the team with the watercraft that floats the longest (multiple teams may be awarded this achievement if multiple boats remain afloat at the end of our competition period).

We were able to remain afloat as long as the other teams, despite the fact that we had to improvise at the end after it got waterlogged early on.

"Videographer" Take video of the challenge and post to your blog.

(NOTE: VIDEO YET TO BE CONSTRUCTED - WORKING OUT TECHNICAL ISSUES!)

Competition (Part 01)

Competition (Part 02)

Water-logged (humor value only)

The Deep Dive

1. “From the buildings in which we live and work, to the cars we drive, or the knives and forks with which we eat, everything we use was designed to create some sort of marriage between form and function.”

2. The folks at IDEO state that they are not experts in any given area. But, they do claim to be experts on the iterative design process, which they apply to the innovation of consumer products.

3. After the team of designers is brought together, told the problem, and informed they have five days to “pull it off,” what phase of the design process do they immediately engage in?

The team of designers initiated the researching and brainstorming phase of the iterative design process, where they went out and gathered information regarding their problem and came back with a basic criteria and constraints, along with some things shopping carts are known to do that they should also strive to fix. They additionally, at the end of the day, tossed ideas around to each other and gathered feedback based on their conclusions and hypotheses.

4. Give two examples of what the team members did during this phase.

a. They went to the "four corners of the world and came back with the golden keys," meaning they were able to gather enough information from regular shoppers and get some ideas of problems and downsides of the average shopping cart.

b. The team also was able to brainstorm before the day was over, start building their prototype, and have an entire white board filled up with information about criteria, constraints, problems, solutions, and other basic ideas, skills, and strategies that could be implemented.

5. List five rules-of-thumb that IDEO employees follow when they share ideas during the brainstorming phase:

a. one conversation at a time
b. stay focused
c. encourage wild ideas
d. defer judgement
e. build on the ideas of others

6. Why should wild (and sometimes crazy) ideas be entertained during the brainstorming phase?

Wild ideas should be entertained during the brainstorming phase because there is always a good idea that gets put into designs that are considered, early on, irregular and crazy. Even if they weren't to implement an insane idea, they could modify it in some way to meet the needs of the project anyway, or use the original in the first place. Plus, there is no such thing as a bad idea, and the more there are the greater the design will be. Lastly, crazy ideas are the basis of more innovative solutions to really get a design going. Normal just isn't necessary.

7. After the brainstorming phase was over, the team narrowed down the hundreds of ideas by voting for those ideas that were not only “cool” but also doable in a short period of time. What phase of the design process is this called?

This process is called the feedback process, just in a different way than we do it in class.

8. IDEO believes that the ideas and efforts of a team and enlightened trial and error will always be more successful than the planning of a lone genius.

9. Once the ideas were narrowed down and divided into categories, the group was split into four smaller teams. What phase(s) of the design process was each of these groups responsible for?

As soon as the ideas were narrowed down, the group split to build prototypes of their ideas for the final shopping cart design, and they were all responsible for creating separate (but within the guidelines) shopping carts. These separate prototypes all focused on different categories: safety, shopping, check-out, and finding what you are looking for.

10. The leaders at IDEO believe that playful behavior and a fun environment are two important reasons why their employees are able to think quickly and creatively to produce innovative results.

11. Sometimes, people come up with great solutions that work by trying their ideas first, and asking for permission later.

12. Design is often a process of going too far and having to take a few steps back. What phase of the design process would the critique of the four mock-ups come under?

The phase of the design process with the critique of the four mock-ups would be another feedback process, where you receive information from clients and coworkers about your innovation, and improve it from their likes, dislikes, and ideas about it.

13. Upon critique of the four teams’ models, it was obvious that none of the teams had developed an optimum solution. However, the people at IDEO believe that it is important to fail often in order to be successful sooner.

14. What percentage of the entire week’s time did it take to fabricate the final prototype?

It only took one day from the week's time to fabricate the final prototype.

15. Instead of showering his design team with a tremendous amount of praise, what did the boss require his employees to do with their new design?

The boss required that his design team go out into the field and speak with regular shoppers about their cart design and gather some feedback based on their responses to the cart's performance in their routine.

16. Of all the things that we are surrounded by every day, what has not been placed through the design process?

The only thing that has not been placed by the design process was nature - that can't be refined, and there is feedback, but what can you do? It's out of our hands.

Conclusion

1. What did you find to be the most impressive part of the team’s effort?

The most impressive part of the team's efforts was the fact that they all had a solid attitude about their work, and they were able to meet the deadline with some really good progress.

2. What advantages are there to having a design team with members that have non-engineering backgrounds?

The advantages included a variety of perspectives when it comes to the different ways of going about the solution to a difficult problem, and the many brainstorming solutions came together beautifully in the end with that convenient and amazing shopping cart.

3. There was a point in the process where a self-appointed group of adults stepped up, stopped the ideas, and redirected the group to break up into teams. Why was this done?

The iterative design process is a very messy one, because they could have sat there forever and talked about all the different ways you could go about fixing this until the end of time itself. They had a deadline, and (granted, they would have had a superb shopping cart in an eternity) they needed to meet their time constraints. The flow of ideas is limitless - refining the solutions can be quicker than anticipating them, at times.

4. At the end of the video, Dave Kelly states, “Look around. The only things that are not designed are the things we find in nature.” Can you think of anything that would contradict this statement?

The definition of nature is anything not man-made. EVERYTHING that is man made has gone through the process. So, no.

Mousetrap Race Cars

Achievements

"Brainiac" Brainstorm solutions for your design. Generate a list of at least 10 ideas/concepts.

1. Use no more than 30 parts/pieces.

2. Make the design compact and functional.

3. Use no more than 2 axles.

4. Take the power from the lever on the mousetrap and use it to turn the axles and wheels.
5. Build the design without the use of any tape.
6. Only use the twine to power the axles and wheels.
7. Make the structure stable.
8. Build without the use of heavy pieces.
9. Try and go for speed rather than distance.
10. Make the design compatible with the lever and the wheel/axle system.

"Visualize it" Create a sketch of the design and label key features.

Just in case it is not clear, this sketch is the version that we had in mind before we decided to lengthen the chassis. It is not to proportion, since we had not built it yet and hadn't gauged the pieces accordingly; but this was our initial image of the car. The duct tape was another unclear part of these images - it goes around the pencil and the arm of the mouse trap lever a couple of times, so that is what the cut off for those lines indicate in all the pictures. The mouse trap is hard to see as well, but it is actually lower than the axle for the wheels in the picture. The twine loops around the axle in the front of the design, and that is the explanation for all the smaller lines on the axle in the front there.

As far as the rear view goes, it is the same thing all over. The pencil is actually behind the lever arm on the rear view because of the amount of tension that we put on it during the competition, so that is why they pictures differ in that respect. The axle of the rear view doesn't have any twine attached to it because it was not needed at the time, so that is why it is blank.

By "top view," I mean bird's eye view. The front and the back view are labeled on the sides so that you can make the distinction. The car works where the pencil eraser begins over the wrapped twine on the front side of the chassis, and we wind it up more and more until the tension is adequate for the race. Once it is ready, you let the lever snap forward, slowly releasing the tension, rolling the car in the correct direction and getting some distance for the car on the course.

 "Build it" Build your design and document it with a photo.

Initial Design

"The Price of Glory" If each part you use costs $1, generate a total cost for your build (this information will be used to generate "cost" data to add a pricing element to the game next year).

Our (final) car pricing:
(x4) wheels
(x2) axles
(x6) yellow pieces
(x21) red pieces
(x3) twine
(x1) mousetrap
(x1) tape

TOTAL: 38 pieces, or $38.00
TOTAL: (w/out mousetrap) 37 pieces, or $37.00

"Competitor" Compete in the 2nd Annual Mousetrap Racecar Challenge.

We competed in the 2nd Annual Mousetrap Racecar Challenge.

"Feedback" Collect feedback (at least one each of +, change, ? and !) from yourself or your classmates.

+ The compacted-ness of the design was good - it really adds a level of speed to the overall progress of the car. It made the design more lightweight and gave it the ability to progress the course quickly. In that way, the chassis would not weigh itself down and make the friction a lot higher than the acceptable deviations we were initially aiming for.

^ Something to change would be the twine issue of the axle/wheel and lever system. The twine kept getting wound around itself because the release of tension was too quick, and the grip of the string was not great enough. Ironically enough, we could not tie the twine down, because the car would brake on it's own and be unable to finish the course. Try the slipknot or another method.

? Why use the little red pieces? Wouldn't that add to the total cost, despite their size? Why did you choose 5 as the quantity that you used?

! The initial design is good, but the problem is that a lot of the pieces kind of slip really easily. The chassis was mostly stable, but try to look for ways that would give less room for a disaster while on the course.

"Re-work" Change your build based on your experience with the race/feedback you collected. Document any changes.

Based on the experience and feedback  from Mr. Olsen and other classmates, we changed our design by adding a pencil to the arm of the lever to make the chassis functional. Every time we attempted to race, the twine would wind itself up and wasn't tight enough to get the car going, and we couldn't tie it off without causing it to brake on it's own - which would make the calculation for acceleration that much more difficult. It worked at first, but after experimentation, for some reason, it was no longer reproducible in the lab. So the solution was that we change the factor involving the arm of the lever, which was done by taping a pencil to one side and tying off a piece of twine at the top to make the distance greater. In light of that, we didn't realize that the pencil would not work without elongating the design to function with the lever properly. Knowing that, we increased the length of the chassis, and it worked like it was supposed to (though not as well as it did initially) and it was successful in making the minimum amount of distance to cover.

"Game Changer" Develop a new rule or change to the game that you feel would make the event better. Explain your concept.

A new rule that would change the game that would make the event better would be a rule that allows only a certain number of parts and pieces.

The concept of this rule would bring about the real world situations of the game. If you had to build something like this, chances are, you probably wouldn't have an unlimited amount of parts and pieces with which to build. Many people like to slap on as many pieces that they can to improve the design because they can. With the limitations of this rule, it would bring about some interesting and new designs that would have to be compatible with the rule that would really get people thinking about how realistic their design is or how they could change it for the better.

"Name it" Invent a name for an achievement that you think is better than what we have currently.

"The Price of Glory" could be changed to "You break it, you buy it." Also, the "Build it" challenge could be changed to "From the ground up."

"Leave It Cleaner Than You Found It" Did you leave your workspace cleaner than you found it? Explain.

Our workspace was definitely cleaner than we found it. There were a lot of loose pieces just laying around our space, and we usually come to class with it like that. So, we had to straighten it up before we began, and overall the table was clean and tidy by the time we left every single day after the event.

"Design/Build" What is a "Design/Build" process? How did your experience with this challenge relate to that? Why might you experience this in a career related to technical innovation?

The "Design/Build" process is the way of going about the construction of a chassis, building, or other project; in this case, the race car. The way we went about doing it was we brainstormed and came up with ideas before we started building, and then pointed out things we should focus on. By doing this, we were able to get the easy problems out of the way before they came into light on the design when it was finished. Once we built it, we were able to easily focus more and more on the increasingly difficult issues that did not corrolate with the ones we found in the first part of the process. We were able to revise, refine, and re-work the design to our advantage, and got it back into working order with all the documentation done and ready to post. The experience of the system in our small activity may relate to a career in technical innovation because it is the same basic process of going about the design/build of a chassis, building, or other project. I am sure that the documentation in a job or workplace is much more complicated than taking a few picture and posting them to a blog, but it is practically the same thing that we did over the course of these past couple days.

My First Blog Post

Hello, and welcome to my page. This is my very first blog post, so thanks for visiting.

Building Robots is something that I like to do with my free time, and I have competed against many other teams from other states. I am currently mentoring the robotics club at another school, and the aspects of their deadlines (building, programming, and designing) are made easy and fun with robotics kits like the NXT Mindstorms from the Lego company.