Category: Projects
SCIENCE PASTA PROJECT – Engineering Project
In Year 9 Term 4, we have been studying earthquakes and the types of waves they produce, our final project for this year was to construct a building that would withstand a earthquake. We were put into groups of 4 or 5 people and were told to construct a building made out of pasta and blutack which would have to survive different types of earthquakes that the teachers would simulate by using a earthquake shaker. The teachers told us that our budget would be only hypothetically $60 and that a stick of spaghetti and blutack would cost $1 each.
The Criteria of the project :
- is quick and easy to assemble
- has a minimum height of 60 cm
- has a maximum base of 30 cm x 30 cm
- has a flat platform on the top level of at least 5 cm x 5 cm (this will be supplied to you)
- remains standing after an earthquake, as simulated by shaking a table for 10 seconds. This will include the motion of both primary (p) and secondary (s) waves
- is constructed from the materials supplied by your teacher
- costs less than $60 to build, given the material costs listed below
My Group Roles:
- Project manager: makes sure that everyone understands the challenge and keeps the team on track – Dylan
- Assistant manager: Helps the project manager with any problems they have or and if the project manager needs help : Andy
- Equipment manager: makes sure that the materials needed for the task are available and that everyone cleans up after each session- Eva
- Speaker: seeks help from the teacher, other class members or outside experts- Xiang
- Reporter: makes sure that the final presentation is ready by the deadline- Alicia
What I learned from this project:
This project gave me an understanding of how dangerous earthquakes can be. It also gave me real world experience of building a building in a earthquake zone/area. It also gives you an understanding of how much effort you have to put into creating/making one building because you have to think of different factors during the process. This group project helped me with my communication and collaboration skills because I needed to communicate with my group a lot especially during the design and create process. This project also helped me to express my ideas and I had to get out of my comfort zone, we also had a look at the design process.
Define
Earthquakes, while they are not a solvable problem, there are ways to mitigate the damage they can cause on infrastructure, buildings and the livelihood of people. A fantastic way to reduce these horrific consequences is the use of earthquake proof buildings. These are engineered and structural sound buildings which employ various mechanisms and structural techniques to resist a shock. These include: Counter weights, moving bases, triangular frames, deep foundations, support beams and pistons which move the building in an opposite direction to the direction of the wave. In a scale-model, we can use some of these concepts even if they are only made from Pasta. Our problem is earthquakes and our solution is creating a building that can withstand them.
Brainstorm:
SOME IDEAS WE THOUGHT ABOUT :
Triangles.
- Our response was to try to avoid adding too much blue tack to one particular area of the construction because doing so will lead it to collapse more quickly due to the added weight. Instead, we should increase the number of support sticks on the angles. Simply so that the structure’s weaker areas would receive additional support and not fall as quickly.
- Sheer walls and cross braces to transfer the movement away from the ground (foundation)
- Horizontal frames to enforce the columns and walls
- Flexible pads, building a platform for the building. Only the platform will move and the building won’t
Research:
Spreading the blue tak equally on each connecting area, just so there structure wont have unequal parts
Some things we made sure was part of our design:
- Triangles are the strongest shapes so we need to include triangles
- Shear walls and cross braces transfer movement away to the foundation
- Horizontal frames distributes forces into the columns and walls
- Strong bases are needed and specifically made so seismic energy can flow through them onto the ground.
Design:
For our initial design we wanted to include triangles as they are the strongest shape. Then try and make cross frames upwards, we would then have to put a 30cm by 30cm base on top. This is shown in the simple design. We then realised that the 30cm by 30cm base was to big and that it was uneven. So we had to change that idea to make it flat and the right measurements. We also put in the measurements to make sure it would work. This is shown in our final design above.
Create, Test and Evaluate:
Create, Test and evaluate is our last step in the design process, this step was were we go to work as a team. We had to test our building on the shake table and our building would have to survive S waves and P waves of high magnitude. Overall our building end up being quite sturdy and did fall of. We as a team were very happy with our results. Here are some videos of the tests below.
Improvements and Reflection
Overall I was pretty happy with the out come of the project and the results. And it gave a good real world experience of earthquakes and how much effects they have on buildings. Next time I would try and use a slightly more efficient design which can be taller, using short (cut) pieces of pasta and cross braces. Another group tried this and it worked well. I also think that our group could of been more organised because we were a bit slower in the brainstorming stage because we weren’t sure of what the base would be. But while we did the test our building was very strong and didn’t seem like it was going to fall which is good. One of my challenges was working in my group because I didn’t know some of the people in my group so I had to use my collaboration skills to get to know my group better. One the collage capabilities I used was problem solving because at the start our building wan’t tall enough and we had to change the whole design so it could reach the requirements. Another collage capability I used was effective communication and leadership. I really enjoyed this project because it was a hands on experience and we got to work with people we didn’t know as well as our friends. Can’t wait to do another project again!
The Mickelbergs Court Case
INTRODUCTION
In HASS we have been learning about the principles of justice and how it is upheld in the Australian legal system. We also got assigned to pick a case. I studied the Mickelbergs court case and analysed how the principals of justice effect my case. We also had to do a research table where we had to explain each principle of justice then we had to discuss whether it was supported or compromised in our case. Then we started constructing an essay about our case and the principles of justice and how they supported or compromised the case. We had to construct 3 paragraphs about our case.
What is the Mickelberg Case?
On the 22 of June 1983, the Perth Mint was robbed. 49 bars of Gold were stolen. Now before this case Brian, Raymond and Peter Mickelberg had already been accused of defrauding millionaire Alan Bond by giving him a phony gold nugget. So, when the Perth Mint was robbed the Mickelbergs were the police’s prime suspects. Then the 3 went to trial and were found guilty because apparently the police found cheques that the bothers stole and fooled the Perth mint into accepting these cheques in exchange for gold. In 1983 the 3 were sentenced to jail for 20, 16 and 12 years. Then in 1989 Brain Mickelberg died in a helicopter accident at the age of 39yr. Raymond and Peter then made 8 appeals and 5 attempts to have their convictions overturned – 3 appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, at which Mr Lewandowski and Mr Hancock testified, and an appeal to the High Court. Also, in 1989 55kg of gold pellets were found outside the channel 7 gates with a note saying the Mickelbergs were innocent. Then In 2004 finally the police confessed that the evidence was fabricated by the police, and that the police physically abused the Mickelbergs into confessing a crime they didn’t commit. This was due to the act of police corruption. In 2004 their appeal was upheld and their convictions were quashed, and they were set free. The Perth mint swindle case is still unsolved till this very day. And now the Mickelbergs are still trying to sue the government for money they lost whilst in jail.
What Are The Principles of Justice?
The principles of justice are several key principles or beliefs, that are designed to help protect the rights of all Australian Citizens. There are a number of principles that are designed for people to be treated equality, protected and that our Australian legal system is fair and unbiased. Our Australian Legal system is based on key principles which helps our legal system to be fair for everyone. The key principles of justice are; All individuals are equal before the law, Individuals have the right to a fair hearing, The Judiciary (the court system) is independent and impartial, Individuals have the right to a reasonable appeal, Individuals have the right to remain silent when questioned, the presumption of innocence when walking into the court unless proven guilty and there must be high Quality evidence. This means that in court people must be treated equally regardless of their culture, income level etc. the court must hear arguments from both sides of an issue. When presented in the court there must be relevant and reliable evidence and the victim must be treated as if they are innocent until proven guilty. And nobody not even the government is above the law. These principles are important because without them we wouldn’t have a proper Australian legal system.
Right to Appeal
The Mickelbergs had the right to appeal, and they did 7 times until the police confessed that the evidence was fabricated. So, an example like this is important because without the principles of justice declaring that they had a right to appeal the Mickelbergs would’ve had to go back to jail for another 10 years. These principles demonstrates that without them people would have an unfair experience with the court and that people wouldn’t be able to solve their problems whether it’s a civil matter or just a local problem. Through an investigation of the Mickelbergs case, it was shown that without the principles of justice the Mickelbergs would have gone back to jail for a crime they didn’t do.
Relevant and Reliable Evidence
In the Mickelbergs case the principles of justice that were compromised related to the presentation in court of reliable evidence. High quality evidence means, people from both sides can only present relevant and reliable evidence to the court. So, the court case is based on appropriate and accurate information. Evidence also can’t be secondhand and inaccurate, otherwise it is untrustworthy to the court. For example, Past criminal record of the person did/didn’t do the crime is usually not to be raised as evidence because it could potentially bias that court case. In the Mickelbergs case the trustworthy evidence was compromised as the policed gave the court fabricated evidence which ended up putting the wrong people in jail. The evidence the Police gave was the fake cheques that the brothers apparently stole from the Perth building society then fooled the Perth mint into accepting those cheques into gold bullion. They proved this in court by showing that one of the brothers (Raymond) left fingerprints on the cheques which they fabricated because the head of police back then was corrupt. One of Raymond Mickelbergs hobbies was making hand models and statues and he also made one of his own hand models. This was how the police got the fabricated fingerprints. The court ended up believing this evidence and sending all three brothers to jail. Even though the high-quality evidence was fabricated by the police. The police also ended up physically abusing one of the brothers into admitting that he stole from the Perth mint. This coercion ended up leading to a forced confession. After that the three brothers were sent to jail. The police and the court should have listened to both sides of the argument, and they should have examined more closely, the fabricated evidence, and the policed should have admitted earlier about the evidence. Overall, the principle High quality evidence was compromised due to the fact the police fabricated the evidence and they forced and beat Raymond Mickelberg while questioning him and making him confess.
Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty
Another element that was compromised in the Mickelbergs case, of a principal justice, was the presumption of innocence until proven guilty when walking into the court. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the verdict must be treated as if the person is innocent until proven guilty from the moment, they are charged with a crime to their court hearing or trial. This includes having the right to be free to return home and live within the community unless the judge thinks that the criminal is dangerous to the community. In the Mickelbergs case the presumption of innocence until proven guilty was compromised. This was because when the police fabricated the evidence it was already clear that they believed the Mickelbergs were guilty, so the court acted like they were guilty and then sent them to jail. So, the judge assumed they were guilty because of the fabricated evidence from the police. This was unfair for the brothers and biased in the media, which did have an impact on the case as the media kept saying that the Mickelbergs did it before they even went to court and no other side of the case was looked at. This ended up being unfair to the Mickelberg Brothers as they shouldn’t have gone to jail. But the court did let the Mickelbergs go home while still deciding on the case, but they weren’t at home for long as the decision was very quick. So, the Court should have seen them as innocent when walking into the court until they were proven guilty. As well as they should have looked at both sides of the case. As the brothers kept saying that the police had faked the evidence and they didn’t do the crime. And they ended up being right and only got paid a little compensation for the wrong doings of the court. The court also shouldn’t have been influenced by the media. Overall, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty when walking in the court was compromised because the court already had made their decision before the Mickelbergs had walked into the court and they didn’t hear both sides of the case, as well as the media getting involved in a biased way.
Conclusion
In Conclusion I believe that all three principals of justice that I have presented were evident in my case of the Perth Mint Swindle and most of them were compromised throughout the case. By not following the principals of justice the Mickelbergs brother’s lives were destroyed by corrupt Police and a Court that didn’t do their job properly. This case is still being fought through the courts to this very day and it has been devastating for the Mickelbergs brothers.
In the Photo is Don Hancock who fabricated the evidence
Here is a website to one of the Mickelbergs Videos about the case
Job INTEREST
In Life skills we had to explore a Job that interested you. The Job that interested me was a special education teacher. A Special Education Teachers teach primary, middle or intermediate, and secondary school students with learning difficulties, hearing impairment and sight impairment, and promote students’ social, emotional, intellectual and physical development. The weekly pay of a Special education teacher is $1,914. The gender balance is 86% female and the growth potential is very strong which is good for the future. And the job openings over 5 years is 12%. Here is a video below more about being a Special Education Teacher.
https://collegegrad.com/careers/special-education-teachers |
Project Utopia
Utopia means a “perfect city”. The word Utopia can mean different things to different people. It could mean upholding the global goals, having an eco-friendly world, or looking after every single living creature on this planet. But what Utopia means to me, is not to have everything perfect, but to respect and look after this planet. It means that the economy is structured so that everyone has a job and that the global goals are met to the expectations of the people, that our world is eco-friendly, that the communities we live in have safety and stability and that everyone has a sense of belonging. A Utopia needs to have laws and rules, whilst also having a strong government. So instead of dwelling on the thought of a Utopia, we put that into action.
Before we even understood what a Utopia was, we read and analysed a book called “The Giver”. The Giver was about a ‘perfect utopia’ where there was no colour, or animals, or individuality. We thought that this Utopia was not a perfect community at all, in fact a dystopia. We relialised that there was no such thing as a ‘perfect’ society. Then, in science, we focused on sustainability and we had to work in pairs to try and make a sustainable house (e.g like most of the houses had solar panels, chickens, water tanks, etc.). We had to make our house ‘perfect’ and eco-friendly.
Then we worked on Livability factors in HASS. Here we had to research about livability and what would the communities be like in our Utopia. In Livability we looked at the 5 major objective factors (Climate, Environmental quality, Infrastructure, Safety and sustainability, Access to health care and education.) We also looked at cities with good livability and found that Australia had some cities with top livability features. We also did some research, and I found the bio-bus from Sweden (it’s a bus powered by human and food waste) .
We also got to start looking at what our Utopia would look like as a bird’s eye view , by drawing a digital map of everything in our Utopia to see how it was unique and special. Then our tutor group teachers chose our project groups, I was put with Emily Ji and Paula Krause. After working on our individual Utopia’s. We had to start brainstorming and choosing what aspects we like about our Utopia to combine into one big Utopia. We had to discuss what the name and location would be, as well as think about what the pros and cons of our choices. For example, we chose to be near Norway because Paula’s and Emily’s individual Utopia was close to Norway, mine was near Hawaii. We chose near Norway because its cost less to get warmer by putting on jumpers and using heaters. In hotter places, like Hawaii, they use more electricity to keep cool. In the end our name was called “Lunina”.
Then in Digital ICT we worked on a website called ‘Co-Spaces’. We had to code a maze, this helped my group a lot because in the end to make our utopia we chose to use co-spaces. We also learnt ‘java script’. We wouldn’t be able to make our Utopia without these skills .
Then it was my favourite part… InnovatED. In InnovatED we started our design process. While we were making our utopia, important visitors came to see what our utopia would be like. Every session of InnovatED, important visitors came to look at our ideas they gave us information about the global goals that were handy for us. . We also had ‘accreditations’. This is where the utopia groups would go up to a teacher and tell them our group’s solutions for one of their global goals. If you didn’t have enough information about the global goals, then you would get sent back to find more solutions.
In my group achieved many accreditations: we got 13: Climate Action, 3: Good Health and Wellbeing, 15:Life on Land and 1: no poverty 1. By myself I managed to achieve- 4: Life Below Water and 5: Gender Equality. All these accreditations were very hard to accomplish. When Emily and Paula were working on the utopia I went and I got (by myself) 2 accreditations goal number 14 life below water and goal number 5 gender equality. I got sent back one with gender equality because I got mixed up with gender equality and quality education. But in the end, I got gender equality.
In InnovatED we got to choose either Co-spaces or modelling. My group chose Co-spaces because we thought it would be easier instead of modelling. This involved a lot of connections and communicating. Then in English in our groups we had to make a speech about liveability, the global goals and sustainability. We split the roles in the speech, so I did liveability and Emily did the global goals and Paula did sustainability. We all had to research and present some sections. I had to present about the community, the sense of belonging and safety & stability. Emily had to research about the accreditations and the global goals. Paula had to research about the Bio-bus and the environment. We had some difficulties because with our speech we didn’t split the jobs evenly which was a big problem. But in the end, we all finished our speech and when our class (7X) did a vote on which one had the most information, we were one of the groups that got picked. I think my group felt pretty proud.
Then it was HASS: Civics and Citizenship. Firstly we did a facetime incursion with a tour guide in the parliament in Canberra. We did a virtual tour of the whole building and we learnt how our Australian government is run. Secondly, we read a story called the “Island”. We learnt about the types of governments (Constitutional Monarchy, Republic, Monarchy, Anarchy, Totalitarian state, Democracy, Dictatorship, Federal government and Local or regional government.) We also learnt how elections work and how to vote. It was a big decision for my group, but we chose Constitutional Monarchy for our ‘utopia’ because we quite liked the Australian government structure. Then we had to make a Constitution (a constitution is basically like a rule book of your utopia). In the process of making the Constitution we decided to again split the job. In our constitution it had to involve A Preamble, the Rights of all citizens, the Government Structure, the Responsibilities of elected officials, the Responsibility of the community members, the Participation, the Decision making process, Changing the constitution, the Pledge and the Conclusion.
We also had to design our flag. Our flag had a Moon in the middle and a reef connected to the moon with a leaf in the middle of the moon and the reef. The flag was designed by Paula. The Leaf means the environment, and the moon represents how our ancestors found the island, and the reef symbolises the connected community and having a sense of belonging.
Then it was InnovatED. we had to finish up our utopia and co-spaces, we made a lot of infographics and we also made 15 flyers for our visitors to look at what our utopia is like, and what features it has. In the making there was only one problem. The problem was co-spaces had a technical issue and we lost all of our coding. We couldn’t get it back but luckily we had already saved our co-spaces before the problem happened, so it didn’t affect my group. It did have a huge affect on people working on co-spaces. In the end we made our co-spaces, and it went well.
We presented for the parents, teachers, students, and visitors at the Project Utopia Showcase. At that moment I felt like I wasn’t nervous and I knew my information pretty well so I could answer questions. After the presentation, we were voted by the teachers to go to a conference called “It takes a spark”. My group now gets the opportunity to present our utopia to more and more people.
In the end, Paula, Emily and I all felt very proud of what we did. What went well for me was working in a group with Emily and Paula. Although we had small difficulties we worked well as a group. I also showed my teammates what I am good at ( getting the accreditation) and what I was having difficulty with (doing the constitution). What I think we could have done better was splitting the work evenly because in some areas Paula did more than I did. We could have done better at communicating with each other because when work was due some of us didn’t know and the rest of us didn’t communicate that there was work to do. We also needed to be clearer with each other.
What I could have done differently was to be more patient with my group members and also try to do more work. What aspects I found challenging were writing the constitution because some of the wording in the constitution I didn’t understand. When I had to write my bit of the constitution I found it really challenging. I also found challenging doing the public speaking in the English speech. I had to use public speaking a lot in the utopia project and I found that very hard to do especially when I was talking either by myself or talking to important people.
What part I enjoyed the most was being innovative and actually designing the utopia in co-spaces and doing the infographics. I also enjoyed being in a group with Emily and Paula. I know we had our ups and downs, but I think overall we were a great team. I also loved reading the Giver because I got to see the perspectives of what Jonas was feeling when he was living in a “utopia”. To him and to me it wasn’t a utopia. I have to admit I loved all of the process. There were some difficult aspects, but it was good.
In conclusion, Lunina to me was utopia. We had completed everything and we had some outstanding features and our government was structured. We used many of the ASC Capabilities: organisation: so we could be organized and finish all our jobs e.g. constitution or the geographical concepts (place, sustainability space, environment, change and interconnection).
Leadership: whenever we had a disagreement someone had to speak up and put the two ideas together.
Collaboration: we needed to work as a team to get things done. None of us could finish the work without the help of others.
Effective communication: we had to tell what we thought was best. We had to communicate to each other so we could improve our ideas.
Problem-solving: we always had an argument or a small disagreement we had to solve, so we could get over the problem. We had to think outside the box so we could complete the job.
Self-aware: we had to put a lot of effort in. We had to see what was happening around us so we could figure it out.
Resilience: we had to get over it even when sometimes we didn’t want to.
Inquisitive: we had to be curious about everything we had to find it out to make the ideas and to solve the problem.
This is how Project Utopia was made. It was a simple thought that has come to this. It is quite amazing after seeing how much effort my group and I did. And I am very proud. I am so glad this opportunity became Project Utopia
The global goals 
The constitution of Lunina and flag Logo
By Alicia Reynolds