Reflect on your prototype. What were some strengths? What needs refinement?

The overall appearance of our prototype came out fairly like the blueprints—how we envisioned it in the planning stage. The peacock wings and tail indeed added more color to the design, making it more appealing and interesting to the user. Another strength would be our success on the construction of the main wooden structure of the design. Our decision on choosing the 3mm thick plywood pieces instead of the other two options (1.5mm and 5mm) was correct and successful as they were strong enough to hold together without breaking—for the whole time—and still as light-weighted as we were hoping it to be. Additionally, the prototype was also able to successfully demonstrate conversion of elastic potential energy to kinetic energy through the flapping movements of the wings, following the twisting and unwinding of the rubber band. However, the propeller and the connecting of the wings still needs refinement as it is sometimes difficult rotate with the small handle and sometimes only one side of the wing flaps. We also had to rip a bit of the wing to enable it to move freely, which affected its appearance.

Feedback from Peers:

Positive Feedback–

• “I like how your design looks like a peacock. I think it is really colorful and attracts young people.”
• “I think the design is really creative.”
• “The envision is great and the idea is pretty solid.”
• “I like how you guys used duct tape to wrap around the pointy end of the stick.”

Constructive feedback & possible changes–

• One of the feedback items was that the combination of the glue and strings that were used to connect the bended wire with the wood piece, which created a big lump, did not look aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, in order to align with the purpose of our product—which partly is to bring entertainment to the user—and the interests of the targeted audience—the children—who are likely to be more attracted by beautiful things, we will change the strings to thinner threads and apply less glue, while making sure that the parts are still tightly fastened together. The thinner thread will not only look cleaner but could also be a better alternative for assembling the pieces together, as it is easier to wrap around stick tightly and be fixed in place with glue.
• We were also encouraged to try to find ways to enable both wings to be able to move simultaneously. First, we were suggested to reconsider the materials that we use and think about whether some of the components of the product were too heavily, which could’ve put an excessive amount of burden on the wings, causing it to either not move at all or move at a low frequency. In response to this suggestion, I think we could use a thinner type of paper that we found in the supply office to replace the normal A4 paper that we used for the wings. This could make the wings lighter while abiding to the sustainable goal of our product by eliminating the plastic options. Apart from that, we were also given the recommendation to reshape the curves of the propeller so that both sticks attached to either side of the wing could move at the same time. We plan on bending one of the straight sections of the propeller, where the side of the wing that doesn’t move is attached to, sideways, to creating a V-shape from the front perspective. This could possibly ensure that the stick is not just turning in the same place with the wire, when the rubber band unwinds, but is actually rotating in a full circular path like the stick connected to other side of the wing. The rotating movement should allow that side of the wing to move up and down like the other one.

Photos of our current prototype: