Difference between revisions of "Project 2, Team C3"
(→Synopsis of bridge scores) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===α Squad=== | ===α Squad=== | ||
[[Image:α squad.jpg]] | [[Image:α squad.jpg]] | ||
| − | + | First and foremost, we wanted to use as little material possible. From studying the mickey mouse bridge, we saw that the center of the bridge, where all the material was cut out was very weak. We decided that we would try the opposite approach by filling in this center portion. However, we came to realize due to how the load was being applied and where the bridge was clamped down, the base of the bridge offered very little support. Thus, when we moved on to meet with our *&Omega cohorts, we easily agreed on a number of aspects of our joint bridge. | |
===Ω Squad=== | ===Ω Squad=== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Thinking Process == | == Thinking Process == | ||
| − | We had a lot of preliminary designs and discussed some possible techniques for the bridge. At first, we had thought of tweaking the mickey mouse bridge, but since that design didn't go so well, we decided to work on an entirely new approach. Instead, we had concentrated most the material in the middle and the bottom of the bridge. This had produced a design that was both efficient and sturdy. | + | We had a lot of preliminary designs and discussed some possible techniques for the bridge. At first, we had thought of tweaking the mickey mouse bridge, but since that design didn't go so well, we decided to work on an entirely new approach. Instead, we had concentrated most the material in the middle and the bottom of the bridge. This had produced a design that was both efficient and sturdy. |
===Design Process=== | ===Design Process=== | ||
| − | We used an iterative design process where we would make a change based on | + | We used an iterative design process where we would make a change based on what we saw as a weak point in our design, retest the bridge, compare the old design with the new, and repeat. We also started with a few very different designs to look at which started off from the best position. We used some principles in our design such as avoiding sharp edges and not using excess material to support bad designs. As a group, we eventually decided on making the base of the bridge nothing more than a think strip of material in order to really decrease the surface area and increase our score. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
[[Bridge_Section | ← Back to Bridge Section project page ←]] | [[Bridge_Section | ← Back to Bridge Section project page ←]] | ||
Revision as of 12:16, 9 October 2008
← Back to Bridge Section project page ←
Contents
Synopsis of bridge scores
- α squad score: = 2.859156e-5
- Ω squad score: = 3.750486e-6
- Current best team score: 1.534912e-6
Team members
* Pollen, Travis (α squad) * Rutherford, Shari (α squad) * Stromme, Andrew (Ω squad) * Weinhold, Darren (Ω squad)
Report
α Squad
First and foremost, we wanted to use as little material possible. From studying the mickey mouse bridge, we saw that the center of the bridge, where all the material was cut out was very weak. We decided that we would try the opposite approach by filling in this center portion. However, we came to realize due to how the load was being applied and where the bridge was clamped down, the base of the bridge offered very little support. Thus, when we moved on to meet with our *&Omega cohorts, we easily agreed on a number of aspects of our joint bridge.
Ω Squad
Thinking Process
We had a lot of preliminary designs and discussed some possible techniques for the bridge. At first, we had thought of tweaking the mickey mouse bridge, but since that design didn't go so well, we decided to work on an entirely new approach. Instead, we had concentrated most the material in the middle and the bottom of the bridge. This had produced a design that was both efficient and sturdy.
Design Process
We used an iterative design process where we would make a change based on what we saw as a weak point in our design, retest the bridge, compare the old design with the new, and repeat. We also started with a few very different designs to look at which started off from the best position. We used some principles in our design such as avoiding sharp edges and not using excess material to support bad designs. As a group, we eventually decided on making the base of the bridge nothing more than a think strip of material in order to really decrease the surface area and increase our score.
