Mousetrap Challenge - 2.5: Iteration Two Written Debrief

With what has perhaps become a staple of my group, this project, like the one preceding it, was filled with turnarounds based on in-the-moment whims. Following the conclusion of iteration one, my group decided that our definition statement that "We need a way to propel a vehicle using a mouse trap’s centrifugal force for use as a form of short distance (~5m) delivery" was not followed literally enough. So, my group decided to in fact make our vehicle less capable of traveling far like it did during the iteration one test (~8m) to make it more maneuverable. Following our unmodified definition statement to the extreme became their definition of success. I felt that purposely sacrificing vehicle efficiency for a value on our definition statement even stated in brackets was incredibly ignorant and overly rigid; however, a vote was passed 2-1 without one group member as he was away to proceed on making a toy train as our vehicle for iteration two. My immediate concern then was originality as my group expressed interest in using a Thomas the Tank Engine set for our vehicle. To combat that they suggested 3D modeling to create a new train, but I felt hollow plastic was too light to gain any momentum and harness the rapid and overwhelming energy of the mousetrap. Nevertheless, the project proceeded so there is no use in regret.

Our failure was partially though not greatly attributed to lack of communication. I feel lack of communication was perhaps wrongly displayed in my first Iteration Two progress update post. The failure to clearly communicate our ideas that Mr. Crompton saw, as evident by his comment “It concerns me that you are unsure of what your groups plans are.” The cause was not a lack of communication: it was the forced progression on incompletely formulated ideas. The answers to “How will the ramp be made with pre-built wooden tracks? Where and how is the WD40 being applied, and why? What material are the axles for the train being built from? Why? Can you show me the train design? What, exactly, does your "sheath-like" system look like?” were unavailable because even the people responsible for the component couldn’t provide a comprehensible answer; and if they could it was quite possibly an extravagant solution that would most definitely be simplified by orders of magnitude.

Time was used effectively in the sense that there was little to no time spent off-task. What did occur however was the expenditure of time on dead-ends or overly-complicated ideas. An example of this besides the move away from iteration one is how two classes were spent on the drawing of a maglev train only to find the manipulation of meshes in Fusion 360 was beyond the grasp of any of us. The above example is by the way in no means meant to criticize the person responsible for the train, it was the responsibility of all of us.

Fusion and this project has improved my Fusion 360 and Inkscape abilities. However, software skills are obviously not the purpose of this project or Fusion. Perhaps the most valuable skill Fusion has taught me is how to collaborate. As a gold-type personality it is a given that I like to have control; however, I personally am in the habit of respecting the opinions of others by receding if the majority believes in it. Respect and the vote of the majority does not constitute that the proposal is a good/achievable one and from now on I will be more persistent in my attempts at persuasion against a proposal I feel will not succeed.

The math and science connections have increased the overall connectedness cohorts were designed to achieve. The degree of that connectedness however is somewhat lacking and probably below expectations even in the eyes of administration and faculty. The year started with extremely creative and impressive connections from the curriculum to the mouse trap vehicle project such as when the efficiency was measured with regards to the kinetic energy, lack of potential energy, and friction. I do however recognize the connectedness originally desired is frankly impossible as Fusion is predominantly physics oriented and Science 10 includes biology and chemistry in addition to physics. To go off-topic a bit, a possible though restrictive solution to this would be to have students take Science 10 during the summer with a Vancouver School Board course so the following Fusion year they could take Physics 11. Even if students were unavailable during the summer and Science 10 is a prerequisite for Physics 11, students could take Science 10 as an after-school course or a special elective because to paraphrase Mr. Kern, “All subjects are pretty much the same from grade 8 to 10 except for math which gets harder.”

I wish I could’ve written this under the veil of anonymity but I cannot again omit the thoughts this concluding paragraph contains without first knowing the reception they have. I know my use of “failure” when describing our project will raise objection due to the subjective definition of success however even by the laxest definition of success I cannot appraise this project as either a success nor true learning experience. I’m sure my honesty will once again be noted and perhaps appreciated; but if I seem too negative, objective, or nitpicky, then comment and I will dull my censorious thoughts however then I cannot assume the honesty I undertook to deliver in my foreword of this blog. As another colleague said in conversation about the success of the Fusion cohort, “I feel this program will only become what you make of it.” I share that sentiment and though he was primarily referring to independent projects utilizing the resources of Fusion, it is perhaps I who does not see the implications and learning from the ideation and construction of mouse-trap vehicles; nevertheless, I will strive to make the most of the opportunities this program presents.