So as simple as it sounds, Scenario Thinking is just thinking about scenarios. The only twist is that the scenarios that you think about are about the future and to completely simplify it, it is almost just thinking about cause and effects. Scenario planners discover different trends that occur over time and predict how trends will be in the future in order for businesses to make "flexible long-term plans" as put by Wikipedia. Designers use the idea of scenario thinking/planning in order to decide what people will be interested in over the next few years to prevent creating designs that have very short lifespans and are only relevant to today's society. Disregarding previous posts about the idea of "design" I am going to separate specific designers from others such as artists, musicians, and movie makers. Most people will not actual phrase this process as "scenario thinking" but will use it quite a lot. As hinted at above, occupations such as musicians, artists, and movie-makers, whether or not they portray it as "Scenario thinking", are always aware that their products will be better and/or profit more if they design them to be relevant in the future. Hence, they all use scenario thinking to influence their plans and adjust them accordingly to make future trends. In reality, anyone that creates something, especially in today's society, tend to use scenario thinking but often times they do it subconsciously.
Going back to musicians using scenario thinking, I guess I will change it to most musicians have this mindset. (I am bi-partial towards rock music so if my opinions plays a part in my next sentence I apologize but I think it is relevant.) I changed this statement due to thinking about several rap and pop musicians that I do not believe think about their music in the future at all and it shows since their music stays around for a very short time. On the other hand, it might just be their audience, but it seems as though rock musicians tend to create their music in a way that most people will still be listening to it years after its release date. Movie-makers, directors, script writers, or whatever you might believe is responsible for the creation of movies realize that the movie will take time to make and will most likely create the movie for the trends that are projected to be current during the actual release date.
An uncommon thought of someone using scenario thinking is today's car designers. Car designers are constantly predicted what their consumers will want to buy in the future and constantly adjust their car blueprints accordingly. It seems logical to think that some of the newer car designs are really created in thought of the future. The designers for car companies realize that people are growing more accepting of greener cars and I think it is BMW that just came out with an "engine-less" car that is completely electric. I am not sure how well the car will go over in today's society but I do believe that by making that car, BMW will be able to perfect it by the time more people want an all electric car and will be ahead of the game. Or another car idea that is growing is a self-driven car, which I am almost sure that several companies already have prototypes of but haven't released any. But when the the first "self-parallel parking" car came out, companies saw how people reacted and continued to improve the idea into a full self-driving car. I'm sure that car companies understand the fact that these cars are not really practical and/or safe for real world use yet but it is a prime example of them thinking of how future cars and trends will be. As a made up scenario to help simplify it even more, imagine that human kind is going to keep using so much paper and build so many houses that the earth will run out of trees resulting in a lack of oxygen. Or a more positive outlook is that more people will use more electronic options of mailing, taking notes, etc... and start building houses out of different materials which would preserve more trees and result in more and possibly cleaner oxygen.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Other Thoughts Considering "Design"
In an earlier post I was presenting my thoughts about what I believed the term "Design" meant. Given that this blog is partially dedicated to my first year seminar in engineering design at Penn State, several of my classmates also gave their ideas about "Design" in their own blogs. After reading other viewpoints about this topic, I have realized that everyone has their own definitions and thoughts about what "Design" is, whether their thoughts compare to and/or differ from mine. I will also be sharing the links to their blogs in order of review at the end.
To Shantanu Bhardwaj,"Design is the study of artificial or naturally derived objects or things and improving them in terms of efficiency and aesthetics or both". Looking at Shantanu's definition, I would have to disagree with the thought of design being a "study of artificial or naturally derived objects" due to the fact that in my previous post I had mentioned "Designs consisting of anything that does not exist naturally in nature". But to go on, I do agree with Shantanu's thought about "improving (said objects) in terms of efficiency or aesthetic appeals". To elaborate, I agree with this thought since most "designs" are usually focused on improving something, whether it be towards efficiency or aesthetic appeals, or creating to be efficient and appealing.
In his blog, Andrew Cavalieri thinks of "design" as "an idealistic form of art where one makes his own unique ideas become a reality". To be honest, I am not sure of what I actually think about his definition. For starters, I think that it is definitely a viable definition but at the same time it seems to be very vague which could be a good or a bad thing. What I mean is that his definition being very vague does not really form a complete thought on the idea or "design" but when thinking about it, the fact that his definition is vague allows it to incorporate every aspect of design; which is a relatively vague idea in itself that includes a wide variety of things. Apart from his actual definition of "design", I applaud his real life example of how "design" can incorporate from a single "designer" to a various number of "designers" to create a single "design".
Another classmate, Srikar, describes the term "design" as "a plan or blueprint needed to execute a larger project". I can not say that I agree with this definition but I can respect anyone having their own opinions about the term, considering that it what this post is dedicated to. I would consider plans and blueprints to be considered as "designs" but I believe that the term "design" is a much broader term that is not restricted to just the plans and blueprints since many "designs" are often created spontaneously.
I believe that Justin Nowosielski describes the term "design" (as a verb) very well by stating that to "design" includes "creating, improving, or envisioning a way to create or improve something". The idea of "designing" ideas in your head by envisioning them is a view on the term the I can see many people not taking into account, including myself. He then proceeds by saying "Everything is designed a specific way for a specific reason" which is a stated that seems to be very accurate and is able to include..well everything that is "design". The only thing that I would deem misleading is the word "everything" since I do not consider everything to be "designed", mainly referring to nature.
There are several other of my classmates that share their idea of "Design" in their own respective blogs but I think after awhile many of the definitions will be repeating one another to a point so I will stop at five. The fifth idea of design is given by Yupeng Li and is a tad long so I will just paraphrase it and leave it to you to visit his blog for the whole thing. His definition consists of "design" often being confused with creating when creating is actually "designing". I understand the idea that when you create something, it is considered a "design" but I believe that you can create something without actually "designing" although the said creation would most likely be considered a "design".
So yeah I will try to sum it all up as I assume it can be pretty confusing for most people reading, considering it was slightly confusing just for me to write. Despite Wiki-pedia, other websites, and the dictionary have a set definition, the term "design" really can't be contained to a single definition since every individual has their own idea of the term that usually reflects their lives and/or occupation the best but will most likely not reflect another person's idea as well. The individual, whether influenced through another's definition or not, must think of their own definition or idea of what a "design" is in a way that suits themselves the best. But apart from talking about this specific topic if I were to recommend a classmate's blog to be visited or to receive extra credit in the class, I would have to say Fermin Contreras does a respectable job throughout on the blog/posts. It seems like a couple assignments were missed but none-the-less the posts that were done are done well and it seems as though there was some effort put into the layout of the overall blog.
Andrew's http://andrewcavalieri.weebly.com/
Srikar's http://sites.psu.edu/srikar/
Justin's https://justinnowosielski.wordpress.com/page/2/
Yupeng's http://iamliguangming.blogspot.com/
Fermin's http://fermin2014.wix.com/fcontrerasquintana#!blog/c1wy0
To Shantanu Bhardwaj,"Design is the study of artificial or naturally derived objects or things and improving them in terms of efficiency and aesthetics or both". Looking at Shantanu's definition, I would have to disagree with the thought of design being a "study of artificial or naturally derived objects" due to the fact that in my previous post I had mentioned "Designs consisting of anything that does not exist naturally in nature". But to go on, I do agree with Shantanu's thought about "improving (said objects) in terms of efficiency or aesthetic appeals". To elaborate, I agree with this thought since most "designs" are usually focused on improving something, whether it be towards efficiency or aesthetic appeals, or creating to be efficient and appealing.
In his blog, Andrew Cavalieri thinks of "design" as "an idealistic form of art where one makes his own unique ideas become a reality". To be honest, I am not sure of what I actually think about his definition. For starters, I think that it is definitely a viable definition but at the same time it seems to be very vague which could be a good or a bad thing. What I mean is that his definition being very vague does not really form a complete thought on the idea or "design" but when thinking about it, the fact that his definition is vague allows it to incorporate every aspect of design; which is a relatively vague idea in itself that includes a wide variety of things. Apart from his actual definition of "design", I applaud his real life example of how "design" can incorporate from a single "designer" to a various number of "designers" to create a single "design".
Another classmate, Srikar, describes the term "design" as "a plan or blueprint needed to execute a larger project". I can not say that I agree with this definition but I can respect anyone having their own opinions about the term, considering that it what this post is dedicated to. I would consider plans and blueprints to be considered as "designs" but I believe that the term "design" is a much broader term that is not restricted to just the plans and blueprints since many "designs" are often created spontaneously.
I believe that Justin Nowosielski describes the term "design" (as a verb) very well by stating that to "design" includes "creating, improving, or envisioning a way to create or improve something". The idea of "designing" ideas in your head by envisioning them is a view on the term the I can see many people not taking into account, including myself. He then proceeds by saying "Everything is designed a specific way for a specific reason" which is a stated that seems to be very accurate and is able to include..well everything that is "design". The only thing that I would deem misleading is the word "everything" since I do not consider everything to be "designed", mainly referring to nature.
There are several other of my classmates that share their idea of "Design" in their own respective blogs but I think after awhile many of the definitions will be repeating one another to a point so I will stop at five. The fifth idea of design is given by Yupeng Li and is a tad long so I will just paraphrase it and leave it to you to visit his blog for the whole thing. His definition consists of "design" often being confused with creating when creating is actually "designing". I understand the idea that when you create something, it is considered a "design" but I believe that you can create something without actually "designing" although the said creation would most likely be considered a "design".
So yeah I will try to sum it all up as I assume it can be pretty confusing for most people reading, considering it was slightly confusing just for me to write. Despite Wiki-pedia, other websites, and the dictionary have a set definition, the term "design" really can't be contained to a single definition since every individual has their own idea of the term that usually reflects their lives and/or occupation the best but will most likely not reflect another person's idea as well. The individual, whether influenced through another's definition or not, must think of their own definition or idea of what a "design" is in a way that suits themselves the best. But apart from talking about this specific topic if I were to recommend a classmate's blog to be visited or to receive extra credit in the class, I would have to say Fermin Contreras does a respectable job throughout on the blog/posts. It seems like a couple assignments were missed but none-the-less the posts that were done are done well and it seems as though there was some effort put into the layout of the overall blog.
Blog Links...in order
Shantanu's http://sbhardwaj10.tumblr.com/Andrew's http://andrewcavalieri.weebly.com/
Srikar's http://sites.psu.edu/srikar/
Justin's https://justinnowosielski.wordpress.com/page/2/
Yupeng's http://iamliguangming.blogspot.com/
Fermin's http://fermin2014.wix.com/fcontrerasquintana#!blog/c1wy0
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Technological Disobedience?
"Technological Disobedience" is not a very common term to come across in everyday life, especially if you are not in an engineering or design profession, so what is it? Technological Disobedience is the act of transforming a product, of any type, into a new design to be used for a completely new purpose in which the original product was never designed to be used for. This might include changing a single product into a new apparatus or changing multiple products into a single new contraption. Despite the name, Technological disobedience is not illegal or anything to that extent, in fact, it is appreciated as a positive thing in different cultures. It is not commonly seen in the United States but is extremely common in Cuba especially in the 1990's with Ernesto Oroza writing the book and dubbing the name "Technological Disobedience".
The relationship between "Design" and "Technological Disobedience" can be slightly confusing. Technological Disobedience is taking a design or multiple designs and turning them into a new contraption to be used for a new purpose that the designs were not made to be used as. But in the process of creating the new contraption, the contraption actually becomes a design. So in theory Technological Disobedience is just taking an existing design of something and turning it into a new or different design.
In America's culture there is not too much use of Technological Disobedience, so I have only really come across "hacks". A "hack" is usually performed by a person called a "hacker" and can be illegal depending on what it is. Many "hacks" consist of manipulating the software or programming of electronics, most commonly seen as "jail-breaking" an Ipod in recent years. I am not sure where the term "jail-breaking" came from but it is usually done in order to get apps and music, that are usually paid for, for free on different devices. In reality it was pretty much stealing from Itunes, but some people also used it to change the device's layout without the intent to download anything for free. People can also "hack game systems to play different games or laptops to perform different functions.
You may also like to watch the videos shown below for an even better understanding:
The relationship between "Design" and "Technological Disobedience" can be slightly confusing. Technological Disobedience is taking a design or multiple designs and turning them into a new contraption to be used for a new purpose that the designs were not made to be used as. But in the process of creating the new contraption, the contraption actually becomes a design. So in theory Technological Disobedience is just taking an existing design of something and turning it into a new or different design.
In America's culture there is not too much use of Technological Disobedience, so I have only really come across "hacks". A "hack" is usually performed by a person called a "hacker" and can be illegal depending on what it is. Many "hacks" consist of manipulating the software or programming of electronics, most commonly seen as "jail-breaking" an Ipod in recent years. I am not sure where the term "jail-breaking" came from but it is usually done in order to get apps and music, that are usually paid for, for free on different devices. In reality it was pretty much stealing from Itunes, but some people also used it to change the device's layout without the intent to download anything for free. People can also "hack game systems to play different games or laptops to perform different functions.
You may also like to watch the videos shown below for an even better understanding:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-XS4aueDUg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQ6196Tfds
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBy5Hb3PWdQ
What is "Design"
I do not believe that there is a single definition for design that is able to cover all of the aspects and all of the different ways that it is used. In order to make a definition of my own I am going to start by finding some already existing definitions in an attempt to make one that will incorporate all of them into one.
As given on Wikipedia:
As for my design background I've designed:
As given on Wikipedia:
- The creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system
- Direct construction of an object
- A specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints
- To plan or make decisions about something to be made
- To plan or make for a specific use or purpose
- To think of or plan something in your mind
- Anything that has been planned by a person or group of people in order to create something that does not yet exist whether it is an artist painting, a seamstress making clothes, or an engineer created a new invention or way to do something. As a verb, my definition for design would be relatively the same except including "to plan out or create something" instead of "Anything....something".
As for my design background I've designed:
- Several Art projects such as paintings, sculptures, and fabrics
- Word-working projects such as tables, chairs, and other things you might find in a "Man-Cave"
- Structural designs including sheds,garages, and portions of houses
- Theoretical designs for post-disaster shelters
- A theoretical design for a new refrigerant and HVAC system to make cars greener
- My ongoing design of the Rube Goldberg Machine that several of my posts are about
*With the structural designs there was not too much room for prototypes or second attempts. There was a much larger focus on meticulously planning out the structural designs since if a design did not work then it could cause a very dangerous situations.
Wikipedia source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
Merriam-Webster source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
Wikipedia source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
Merriam-Webster source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
Friday, February 6, 2015
Rube Goldberg Progress: Part 1
Sorry about the delay in an update about the Rube Goldberg machine that I have been mentioning, I have been busy but I am finally able to give an update. I will try my best to focus on explaining each step and how they work. Just so that you have a visual to follow along with, here are some pictures and a very quick moving video.
As seen in the video, our several hours of planning and hard work have helped us to accomplish a chain reaction that somehow only takes about 8 seconds to complete. I believe that so far there should be 6 different "steps" to the machine so far, depending on the judge. As of right now the contraption is not the prettiest but it made more sense to wait until we are completely finished building to paint in order to save paint.
While walking through the steps it may help to watch the video every so often in order to understand what is going on. I will also try to simplify talking about the motions by referring to each ball as a number in order to keep track of them. The chain reaction begins at the top of the wooden ramp in the top left corner. The reactions are initiated by placing a golf ball (Ball #1) on the top left corner on the ramp. The ramp ispositioned at an angle in order to make the ball roll down with a sufficient amount of speed. The golf ball rolls down and off the ramp while hitting another, wooden, ball (Ball #2) that is placed at the bottom of the ramp and is attached to a string which is screwed into the board. Ball #2 acts as a pendulum once knocked off the ramp by Ball #1 and swings over to a contraption that is based off of a windmill. On top of this "windmill" contraption is another, metal, ball (Ball #3) that has its weight balanced out on the windmill by the orange arm on the bottom and a third arm of the windmill attached on the right. When Ball #2 swings over it hits the bottom (orange) arm of the windmill which causes the windmill to spin slightly and release Ball #3. Ball #3, accelerated by gravity, falls straight down in the black funnel below. The funnel is then connected to a ,for lack of better wording, wooden box of random movements. Throughout this box, Ball #3 bounces back and forth repeatedly before rolling down the ramp into the next part. After going through the wooden box, Ball #3 enters a somewhat S-shaped tunnel when it ends its journey by falling out, for now. Now for the confusing part. Going back to the top, When Ball #1 falls from the starting ramp, after hitting ball #2, it lands on another ramp that changes its direction to going left as it rolls down. At the end the second ramp, Ball #1 falls into a Styrofoam pocket-like holder that is attached to the end of a mounted cup, which technically ends its journey. The cup is mounted on a tube which allows it to spin freely, The cup/Styrofoam thing is then attached in a slight-left, vertical position by a small piece of Velcro. When Ball #1 falls into the Styrofoam, it hits with enough force to detach the cup/Styrofoam contraption from the Velcro and fall to its ending, horizontal position. As seen in the video (unfortunately was not on for the pictures yet) there is a fake bird on the left end of the cup/Styrofoam thing that has a small pin hidden in its beak. There is also another funnel with a balloon resting inside of it. Inside of the balloon there is a small, metal ball (Ball #4). So when Ball #1 falls and causes the cup/Styrofoam to fall, the bird at the end falls into the balloon which causes the hidden pin to pop the balloon. Once the balloon is popped by the falling bird, Ball #4 is released from the balloon and proceeds to fall into the funnel where it follows the black tube until it falls out, ending Ball #4's journey for now. Backtracking to the plastic cup's motion, the cup starts out at an inclined position which allows for another small, metal ball (Ball #5) to rest inside of the cup at the bottom. As the cup tips and and falls to its ending position after being hit by Ball#1, forces act on Ball #5 that cause it to shift in the cup and roll towards the left of the cup (in the cup's horizontal position). As Ball #5 reaches its leftmost position in the cup, there is a small hole cut into the cup that allows Ball #5 to fall out of the cup, which an undetermined destination,for now.So at the end of the currently built portion of our Rub Goldberg Machine, Ball #1 has ended its journey in its Styrofoam holder and Ball #2 stays attached to the string where it swings back in forth like a pendulum until it slows to a stop where it sits at its lowest point. Ball #3 and Ball #4 are still continuing their journeys and are waiting for their next step and Ball #5 has just started its journey and is waiting for its first job.
As seen in the video, our several hours of planning and hard work have helped us to accomplish a chain reaction that somehow only takes about 8 seconds to complete. I believe that so far there should be 6 different "steps" to the machine so far, depending on the judge. As of right now the contraption is not the prettiest but it made more sense to wait until we are completely finished building to paint in order to save paint.
While walking through the steps it may help to watch the video every so often in order to understand what is going on. I will also try to simplify talking about the motions by referring to each ball as a number in order to keep track of them. The chain reaction begins at the top of the wooden ramp in the top left corner. The reactions are initiated by placing a golf ball (Ball #1) on the top left corner on the ramp. The ramp ispositioned at an angle in order to make the ball roll down with a sufficient amount of speed. The golf ball rolls down and off the ramp while hitting another, wooden, ball (Ball #2) that is placed at the bottom of the ramp and is attached to a string which is screwed into the board. Ball #2 acts as a pendulum once knocked off the ramp by Ball #1 and swings over to a contraption that is based off of a windmill. On top of this "windmill" contraption is another, metal, ball (Ball #3) that has its weight balanced out on the windmill by the orange arm on the bottom and a third arm of the windmill attached on the right. When Ball #2 swings over it hits the bottom (orange) arm of the windmill which causes the windmill to spin slightly and release Ball #3. Ball #3, accelerated by gravity, falls straight down in the black funnel below. The funnel is then connected to a ,for lack of better wording, wooden box of random movements. Throughout this box, Ball #3 bounces back and forth repeatedly before rolling down the ramp into the next part. After going through the wooden box, Ball #3 enters a somewhat S-shaped tunnel when it ends its journey by falling out, for now. Now for the confusing part. Going back to the top, When Ball #1 falls from the starting ramp, after hitting ball #2, it lands on another ramp that changes its direction to going left as it rolls down. At the end the second ramp, Ball #1 falls into a Styrofoam pocket-like holder that is attached to the end of a mounted cup, which technically ends its journey. The cup is mounted on a tube which allows it to spin freely, The cup/Styrofoam thing is then attached in a slight-left, vertical position by a small piece of Velcro. When Ball #1 falls into the Styrofoam, it hits with enough force to detach the cup/Styrofoam contraption from the Velcro and fall to its ending, horizontal position. As seen in the video (unfortunately was not on for the pictures yet) there is a fake bird on the left end of the cup/Styrofoam thing that has a small pin hidden in its beak. There is also another funnel with a balloon resting inside of it. Inside of the balloon there is a small, metal ball (Ball #4). So when Ball #1 falls and causes the cup/Styrofoam to fall, the bird at the end falls into the balloon which causes the hidden pin to pop the balloon. Once the balloon is popped by the falling bird, Ball #4 is released from the balloon and proceeds to fall into the funnel where it follows the black tube until it falls out, ending Ball #4's journey for now. Backtracking to the plastic cup's motion, the cup starts out at an inclined position which allows for another small, metal ball (Ball #5) to rest inside of the cup at the bottom. As the cup tips and and falls to its ending position after being hit by Ball#1, forces act on Ball #5 that cause it to shift in the cup and roll towards the left of the cup (in the cup's horizontal position). As Ball #5 reaches its leftmost position in the cup, there is a small hole cut into the cup that allows Ball #5 to fall out of the cup, which an undetermined destination,for now.So at the end of the currently built portion of our Rub Goldberg Machine, Ball #1 has ended its journey in its Styrofoam holder and Ball #2 stays attached to the string where it swings back in forth like a pendulum until it slows to a stop where it sits at its lowest point. Ball #3 and Ball #4 are still continuing their journeys and are waiting for their next step and Ball #5 has just started its journey and is waiting for its first job.Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Rube Goldberg Background
In my last blog I was talking about building a Rube Goldberg Machine with Penn State's chapter of the Society of Hispanic professional Engineers (SHPE) but while talking to multiple people I realized they did not know what i was talking about. This led me to the conclusion that while mostly everyone has seen a Rube Goldberg Project, only a small percentage of people knew what one actually was. So I decided to post this blog to enlighten people as to what a Rube Goldberg Machine actually is and the background of how they began. I will also periodically post a few links to some videos of Rube Goldberg Machines that I found impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvNrvfEQ-uw
To start at the beginning, Rube Garrett Lucius Goldberg lived from 1883-1970 and throughout his life he was an accomplished cartoonist, engineer, and inventor. Goldberg had a sense of humor in his cartoons usually consisting of unnecessarily complicated contraptions that were built to perform a simple, everyday task. Goldberg had also received a Pulitzer Prize for his Political cartoons as well as becoming the namesake for the Reuben award, that the National Cartoonists Society presents to the Cartoonist of the Year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkXE8l5KzK4
As previously stated, Rube Goldberg Machines consist of many complicated steps and chain reactions in order to perform very simple tasks that would have been easier to just do normally. There is not really any practical reason to create a Rube Goldberg machine for everyday use on easy tasks.These machines are usually only made for a comical reason or for contests and competitions. They are usually initiated by placing a ball at some point of the machine which can start the chain reaction of events in several different ways. Rube Goldberg Machine Competitions usually focus on the machines having a certain number of steps, how smoothly the steps are carried out, and in some cases if the contestants incorporated a central theme and if they made the apparatus aesthetically pleasing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vacNFcN0is
Information and pictures from:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RubeGoldbergDevice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/03/19/comic-book-legends-revealed-199/
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Rube Goldberg Machine
As apart of the Society of Hispanic Engineers (SHPE) here at Penn State, a few guys and I are creating a Rube Goldberg machine for a competition. We currently have five guys, including myself, who plan on working on this project. I will be posting updates of our contraption as we proceed to build it. Our main goal is to have the series of events end by a chalkboard being erased. At the moment I have yet to be informed of the specific size of the chalkboard but I assume that it can not be too large. Guidelines for the competition include; The apparatus needs to have at least 20 steps to it with the steps not consisting of ball to ball contact. As I was told "A step consists of any transfer of energy with the exception of ball-ball energy transfer." I will be posting pictures and explaining our apparatus throughout the process of building it. I will also be posting a background of Rube Goldberg projects later on for those reading this that may not be aware of what they exactly are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)