Catapult Project Reflection
1. What was the project about? Why did we do this project? What mathematics (Ms. Vee’s class) and design (Mr. Sevilla’s class) concepts were applied?
This project was probably originally created as a math project, since projectile motion may be one of the best real-world applications for quadratics that one could base a project off of. I would guess that art class was brought in after the project was already created, since it would be appropriate to art class, particularly the first project in art class, if we were to create something tangible. Of course, there were excellent art concepts involved in this project as well, including design thinking, perspective drawing, and a general introduction to power tools for those who hadn't used them before.
2. Describe the prototyping process. Does your final catapult resemble the prototype? Why or why not?
The firing mechanism from our final catapult resembles the firing mechanism from our mangonel prototype exactly. Actually, we took the launch arm from our prototype, made a few minimal changes, and put it directly onto our final catapult, since our prototypes were full-scale. In terms of construction, our final catapult is completely different from our prototype; whereas our prototype was merely two posts held upright and parallel by a piece of plywood, our final catapult was a sturdy, stand-alone structure. Our prototypes were intended to be constructible within a couple of days so that we could experiment with them and find out which design was more effective. They were full-scale, as we thought that a full-scale proof-of-concept would do its job better than a miniature model, but haphazardly constructed and not intended to be extremely effective. Once we knew which mechanism was more effective, though, we were finished designing the mechanism, and our concept sketches were all focused on designing the body of the catapult.
3. What were some last minute adjustments you had to make to your catapults prior to LAUNCH DAY?
The most important last-minute adjustment was determining whether the 3D-printed cup or the funnel - which had shown itself to be surprisingly effective - would work better. From a few last-minute tests, it appeared that the funnel was the more effective baseball holder. The 3D-printed cup did a much better job of firing the baseball along the intended path, but for an unknown reason, the deviation from the intended path caused by the funnel actually propelled the baseball farther.
4. This question is pertaining to your group research: when making calculations, what were some of your limitations? What were some things you “ignored” for the sake of simplicity?
We completely ignored air resistance; since it is a fairly negligible force at relatively low speeds such as the ones involved with the launch, we did not include it in our graphs or calculations. In addition to this, while we had the tools to actually graph a flight path for our baseball before the launch, we could not do so, as that would have required calculating the force of the elastic tubing, and we did not know how to do so. Fortunately, graphing a flight path was not required.
5. What were some of successes you experienced while working on this project?
I was pleased that our building went about as smoothly as one could hope for. Save for the two minor problems outlined in the third paragraph, we built the catapult quickly and efficiently, with minimal wasted material or effort. In addition, the feeling we all felt when we tried the funnel, not expecting any particular result, and saw it go at least twice as far as it had ever launched before, was somewhere close to ecstatic; this is the most prominent success that I can think of.
6. What were some challenges you experienced while working on this project?
The largest challenge that I can think of was finding/making an effective baseball holder. Prototyping was tricky, but I had two years' worth of Robotics experience to draw from in that regard, and it didn't prove too much of a challenge.
This project was probably originally created as a math project, since projectile motion may be one of the best real-world applications for quadratics that one could base a project off of. I would guess that art class was brought in after the project was already created, since it would be appropriate to art class, particularly the first project in art class, if we were to create something tangible. Of course, there were excellent art concepts involved in this project as well, including design thinking, perspective drawing, and a general introduction to power tools for those who hadn't used them before.
2. Describe the prototyping process. Does your final catapult resemble the prototype? Why or why not?
The firing mechanism from our final catapult resembles the firing mechanism from our mangonel prototype exactly. Actually, we took the launch arm from our prototype, made a few minimal changes, and put it directly onto our final catapult, since our prototypes were full-scale. In terms of construction, our final catapult is completely different from our prototype; whereas our prototype was merely two posts held upright and parallel by a piece of plywood, our final catapult was a sturdy, stand-alone structure. Our prototypes were intended to be constructible within a couple of days so that we could experiment with them and find out which design was more effective. They were full-scale, as we thought that a full-scale proof-of-concept would do its job better than a miniature model, but haphazardly constructed and not intended to be extremely effective. Once we knew which mechanism was more effective, though, we were finished designing the mechanism, and our concept sketches were all focused on designing the body of the catapult.
3. What were some last minute adjustments you had to make to your catapults prior to LAUNCH DAY?
The most important last-minute adjustment was determining whether the 3D-printed cup or the funnel - which had shown itself to be surprisingly effective - would work better. From a few last-minute tests, it appeared that the funnel was the more effective baseball holder. The 3D-printed cup did a much better job of firing the baseball along the intended path, but for an unknown reason, the deviation from the intended path caused by the funnel actually propelled the baseball farther.
4. This question is pertaining to your group research: when making calculations, what were some of your limitations? What were some things you “ignored” for the sake of simplicity?
We completely ignored air resistance; since it is a fairly negligible force at relatively low speeds such as the ones involved with the launch, we did not include it in our graphs or calculations. In addition to this, while we had the tools to actually graph a flight path for our baseball before the launch, we could not do so, as that would have required calculating the force of the elastic tubing, and we did not know how to do so. Fortunately, graphing a flight path was not required.
5. What were some of successes you experienced while working on this project?
I was pleased that our building went about as smoothly as one could hope for. Save for the two minor problems outlined in the third paragraph, we built the catapult quickly and efficiently, with minimal wasted material or effort. In addition, the feeling we all felt when we tried the funnel, not expecting any particular result, and saw it go at least twice as far as it had ever launched before, was somewhere close to ecstatic; this is the most prominent success that I can think of.
6. What were some challenges you experienced while working on this project?
The largest challenge that I can think of was finding/making an effective baseball holder. Prototyping was tricky, but I had two years' worth of Robotics experience to draw from in that regard, and it didn't prove too much of a challenge.