Some strengths were that it is challenging so it is engaging to people, for example, when people were giving feedback on our project, many people were engaged in trying to get the ball inside the plinko game since we added a plastic barrier to the plinko game as the ping pong ball kept bouncing out when going through the Plinko obstacles. Another factor that meets our success criteria was the ability to operate and function efficiently, when people were trying out our game, they could understand the operation of the catapult easily and the game was functioning well and in a way that we wanted it to which was to launch the ping pong ball in a high trajectory and landing on the Plinko board and falling down smoothly, with exceptions to the challenge of getting the ping pong ball inside the plastic barrier. It was also very durable, as the ping pong ball didn’t break or indent any pieces of cardboard on the Plinko board, the catapult also remained intact after people tried playing our game. It also met the criteria of the fewest possible safety hazards as the ball wasn’t small enough for children to eat, and the ball would not have enough force to injure children when shot off the catapult. It was also environmentally friendly as we made this project from recycled cardboard boxes, bottle caps, and popsicle sticks. Many of the materials used were also reusable, such as rubber bands, popsicle sticks, and the ping pong ball. Most importantly, the energy conversion shown through this project was satisfactory, the catapult created a clear trajectory, and the plastic board and Plinko obstacles slowed down the ball this also made the conversion of gravitational force to kinetic force clearer by slowly and clearly showing how it fell from a higher altitude. Some weaknessesthat didn’t quite meet our success criteria were the easiness of the operation of the game, although we added a plastic board to prevent the ball from bouncing, it was a challenge to get the ball inside the plastic board without it shooting over the Plinko board, or not getting high enough to reach the board when people were trying out a game, many also experienced this difficulty. There was also a safety hazard found, due to time constraints, we cut the plastic barrier so that the sides were very rough, when reaching to retrieve the ping pong ball from the scoring area, it would be possible for people to get cuts from the plastic barrier. The final major thing that needed refinement was to be even more environmentally friendly, as wood glue didn’t work out when assembling cardboard pieces, we used hot glue instead, which wasn’t as eco-friendly as wood glue. Other than the eco-friendliness of our project, the cardboard pieces and plastic barrier can’t be reused due to the use of hot glue.
In the feedback given to us, many were praising how our game was fun, interesting and engaging while being simple and clear and showing energy conversions. Some constructive feedback that was given was making our project easier to operate, especially for the ping pong ball to get inside the plastic barrier. S0me changes that could be made to prevent to ping pong ball from bouncing over the Plinko board was to add an extension to the second degree on top of the board by 10-20 cm so that, even with large amounts of energy used to shoot the ball, the ball wouldn’t bounce over the Plinko board. It also has been considered to make the opening of the plastic board larger so it would be easier for the ping pong ball to get in, we also wanted to add a board stretching horizontally from the top of the plastic board with an angle tilted towards the opening of the Plinko board so it would also increase the chance of the ball falling into the Plinko board. There was also a safety concern identified at the bottom of the plastic barrier, as the cutting there wasn’t detailed and caused the side to become rough, it would be easy to cut elementary schoolers’ hands when reaching to retrieve the ball, some changes that I would like to make was to cover and decorate that part with felt so it would be softer and less likely to get cut.
Prototype & Feedback”
