The Engineering challenges
On the 28th of October 2021, me and my peers were positioned to complete a rather unique science assignment. This particular assignment in the beginning required the decision making to pick a cohesive team of three in which I happily worked on behalf of 3 all-saint lab peers consisting of Marcus, Zaid and Ayush. Our group involving others were brought to learn through the task of the Engineering challenge. The engineering challenge (according to teachers and general introductions of this task) was a challenge for student to create modified spaghetti structures (with a base of 30 cm by 30 cm at a 60 cm height at least) resembling architectures to test if they could withstand an un-measurable force of a table shaking for 10 seconds or more that resembles/simulates the idea of a rough estimate of a 3.5 earthquake magnitude. The whole engineering challenge presents the idea for students to study a rectifiable method to reduce/ limit the mass destruction of natural disasters affecting the buildings/ architectures that occur at a particular daily basis. Students were to study the principles of stabilized features of buildings in which they were to comply their knowledge to their modified spaghetti structure. The equipment’s we could only acquire are scissors/retractable craft knife, spaghetti noodles, blue-tack, and a ruler between 30-60 cm. There were also some basic rules we had to follow which is a particular reason why this is proclaimed as an engineering challenge. The rules consist of:
- Each 10 cm of spaghetti noodle string is equivalent to 1 dollar. So, if we invest in a 30 cm spaghetti string, the prices of that would be $3.
- Each gram of blue tack is equivalent to 1 dollar. (Same idea complies with the spaghetti string).
- Students are to use the resources provided by their teachers. (This may be a challenge considering that we are not to use resources such as tape to make this engineering challenge much simpler for us).
- GRAND RULE: Student’s spaghetti modified structure must not add up to more than $60 above. (In other words, the spaghetti structure has a budget below $60).
As we complied these rules into the making of our first modified spaghetti structure, we were pleased with the overall outcome considering that our model has withstand the whole purpose and the challenge of the engineering challenge and that is nevertheless withstanding the intense shaking of the table resembling the idea of an earthquake in the real world. However, as to how satisfied we are to these overall results from all the dedicated research and learning that was complied, we simply must accept that one prototype of a modified spaghetti structure is not 100 percent perfect in its ways to perform stabilization. (See below for design 1)
In reference to this opinion, me and my peers have cohesively discussed the potential threats and downsides of the prototype we can alter and rectify to expect higher satisfaction in the future starting of with fixing the equal lengths of the spaghetti along with the non-aesthetic look of the antenna moving in motion flawlessly. We as a group believe that the changes, we make to this principle will not only help create substantial improvements to our second modified structure, but it proposes the idea of potential changes complied against the engineering process that results in improved outcomes. In this case, for our second modified prototype, we have insured that our antenna has successfully followed our improved requirements by remaining still while the shaking of the table was in progress.
As previously mentioned on the changes we made to the engineering challenge, I believe that these changes resulting in further success would not have taken place without our cohesive team collaboration that was taken place during the creation of our second spaghetti prototype. Previously, during the making of our first modified spaghetti structure, me and my peers collaborated in a rather un-sophisticated way. Our group rather found it comfortable and efficient to work individually in-terms of studying, learning, and designing our first prototype that involved questions from Stile. We were focused on individual questions in which at the end we would share these references through a contactable platform in which in the end, we would have to learn and study what each individual group member has sent due to the fact that no-one was sharing the messages and ideas during our study time from face-to-face. As a result, we somehow succeeded the engineering challenge but with improvements and results that we had to look more forward to that required actual cohesive team assistance/collaboration. Towards the making of our second prototype of the spaghetti structure, we changed the collaborating system into more social conditions where my peers and I were helping, guiding, and assisting each other throughout our tasks making our jobs much simpler. The changes we made towards the slow growing relationship of our team collaboration resulted in our spaghetti prototype to reach a level of substantial improvement towards one principle of a change we were aiming to expect for our second prototype (In this case, it was the antenna). However, referring to the image below (second prototype), our group has unfortunately conducted a significant worsening to even the spaghetti lengths of our spaghetti structure as we can see that most sides are all leaned against to one side making the proportions all un-even. However, I don’t consider this matter a down-grade towards the engineering challenge.
The reason is because I can accept that during the making of our second prototype, our group has intended to comply the use of cohesive team collaboration. For example, my peers gradually shared ideas and guided/assisted me towards the troubles I encountered with drawing a new design for our second prototype. As mentioned previously, these changes resulted in different obstacles leading to success and significant worsening. However, I believe that these changes were a major success that solved one of our problems to this engineering challenge overall (The most bothersome one in fact).
As previously mentioned, during the making of our first spaghetti prototype, me and my peers found that our team collaboration was un-sophisticated and rather un-acceptable. However, considering that overall, our spaghetti structure withstands the shaking of the table (resembling the earthquake), we as a group had our individual strength contributions to the team that results in the success we can accept.
Ayush – The strengths this student has complied was extraordinary. Ayush is well known as the designer for our group. Ayush was my partner in designing our first prototype structure in which shockingly, he has sketched 3 amazing designs that were all based on perfect stabilization along with detailed measurements of the whole image involving the overall cost of each of those three prototypes. Ayush specializes in his behaviour to follow dedication in his work throughout the engineering challenge which is why I believe that Ayush has his strengths against contributing to our group.
Zaid – Zaid specialized throughout his dedication of researching and planning the whole representations of our spaghetti structure. During our small face-to-face working time, Zaid would avoid major distractions affecting him as he was quiet and very productive towards the group work. In the end, Zaid will always forward his work to the group giving a small explanation of what he has done. Furthermore, Zaid strength towards the group was very effective and productive for he was a big portion for the reason why our spaghetti structure has succeeded the earthquake.
Marcus – Marcus contribution towards the team was rather observed as a member who is willing to assist and help when his work his done. However, Marcus major strengths towards the group was all specialized through out creating the 3d model of the spaghetti design. The reason for this proclaimed major strength I believe Marcus acquires is because Marcus built 90 percent of our spaghetti design ensuring that there are no loose pieces found. Of course, me and my other peers were amazed to his dedication which is why I believe that this is Marcus’s major strength towards contributing towards the team.
As mentioned previously, the engineering challenge was a rather unique science assignment. Me and my peers have experienced major challenges such as keeping the spaghetti structure in budget along with constructing the overall two prototypes in its 3D figure. I believe that the prototypes we have constructed is an overall success to the requirements and the expectations of the engineering challenge. The challenges and minor mistakes we made resulted in the guide way to follow through changes and substantial improvements we look more forward to which potentially resulted in our success criteria of constructing a stable spaghetti structure resembling the overall buildings and architectures. Considering that the buildings can withstand the un-measurable shakes of the table resembling a 3-5 earthquake magnitude, I therefore believe that our group has constructed a representation of a building to limit the mass destruction of earthquakes affecting the homes of the society we know of it today