Energy Transformation Project—Reflect and Share
An overview of our complete design process:
Left: diagram found online of Heron’s fountain; right: our initial sketch used to visualize the product in the form of our materials.
We settled on this idea after considering many others (paper plane, car, an already-designed version of the fountain). We thought it was the most straightforward/simplistic in its presentation of an energy transformation (gravitational potential —> kinetic), and we also recognized that it allowed space for originality, as it was previously only a diagram that we were able to transform into a structure built out of bottles and straws.
After settling on this idea, we decided that the product would be used for educational purposes for students in lower grade levels. This implied that it should be neat and understandable, and also safe to use. The structure needed to be relatively stable, and there shouldn’t be too many sharp corners that had the potential to hurt someone. We also included a note that this product should utilize recycled materials, as it would become a single-use tool in the classroom.
Detailed model with dimensions during the developing stage; the cardboard covering was planned as an extra accessory but was later abandoned.
After creating an initial sketch, we started adding details and practical aspects to our design. We made sure to follow the instruction on the diagram (the heights of the parts, h and <h) and put in actual measurements of the materials we were going to use. We specified in the model where the water level should be in order for the fountain to function.
In addition to the basic structure we also included an extra part of decoration/interaction because of considerations of the time (we were worried there would be too much time left). This was not adopted later on.
Clay covering; this version did not work because the clay became soggy and failed in stopping air from escaping.
This was the version that we completed after the second-to-last creating period. We realized at this point that we did not consider the covering for the top section, where the water would be initially put and the air pressure would built, pushing water out in a fountain-like way. Thus, we improvised at the end of class and used a round bottle cap and some air-dry clay to seal the top. We believed this design would both be convenient for the user and effective in preventing air from escaping. However, the clay proved to be unsuitable as it melted immediately after it came into contact with water. We concluded that the clay must have allowed air to leave the bottle, which would have impeded upon the function of the product.
Final prototype; we made adjustments with the straws, the glue on the bottles, and the seal on top.
This was the final version of our product. First of all, we exchanged the clay sealing with a strong duct tape, and we made sure to seal any gaps between the tape and the sides of the top section so as to trap all the air inside. Afterwards, we did receive critique for this choice; a classmate mentioned in her feedback that the tape sealing might be too inconvenient.
Apart from the sealing, we also enforced the paper straws (which we selected for their hardness and stability) by wrapping the same duct tape around it to stop water from soaking out. We went around the bottle on the left again with hot glue, to prevent any leakage that was previously present. We tested that there were no points where water/air could’ve escaped by blowing air into the top, bowl-shaped section and feeling for airflow at the end of the straw, where the water should come out. After all was set, we did 3 trials to see if the product would work as planned, making adjustments each of the first two times. Despite this, however, the fountain didn’t work.
Original success criteria:
According to feedback (and objective observation)
- The structure can stand on its own/is stable —> ✅
- The fountain actually functions —> ❌
- The product is created methodically and looks neat—> ✅
Strengths:
- The structure was actually more stabilized than we first expected, during the first day of construction. In the end, many adjustments and improvisation ensured that the product could stand during the experiment, with the pressure of water.
- There was consensus amongst classmates that the product looked appealing and colorful, which fulfills our audience group of elementary students.
- Even though the product is not able to produce the final step of the experiment, there is still the depiction from the water flow of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy; both the movement of the water downwards in the first bottle and leftward into the second bottle are examples of this.
Weaknesses:
- The fountain doesn’t function as we expected it to…
- Apart from this (assuming it did work), we suppose there are other points of inconvenience in the design that might make it undesirable to be used in a classroom.
What we learned:
- To start, we gained a lot of experience in the design center. During the project we were able to become familiar with a lot of tools in the center (especially an assortment of drills), and we conversed with many teachers there as well.
- Surrounding the project itself, we learned the importance of thinking through multiple aspects of our design before we start constructing. For example, we reflected that if we were to do the project again, we should probably ask ourselves more questions in the developing process. For example: Do the proportions of our design match the proportions of the original diagram? What is the most effective way of piecing together the abundance of parts we have in our prototype? What type of straws can withstand water but also hot glue? Many details in the creating process proved to be problems we needed to overcome because we didn’t previously ask these questions.
Overall, we are proud of this project, especially in how well we collaborated and problem-solved (even though the biggest problem was still left unsolved…). I feel that we accomplished and learned much throughout the whole design process.