Boxes Wrap-up 4/2

   On Monday we finished our boxes by presenting them to the class and discussing the merits of each others boxes. Before we started our professor talked to us again about the engineering design process. I must have misrepresented myself in my last post. My professor thought that I had strong objections to the engineering design process, when really I do not. I am not at all incredulous that it is important to formally write out your process, especially when when you are working with groups or designing a more complicated object. I even understand the importance of using the design process for our boxes so that we could learn how to use it. I think I was just trying to express my frustration with trying to actually write it our coherently. I was more frustrated that it was difficult to write than that I had to write it. I know that it is good practice, and the more I do it the easier it will be. I will have to watch my tone in the future posts to make sure that I am sending the right message. I am learning as much about blogging as I am about engineering in this class, and I really think that this class should count for writing 125 credit.
     After out discussion, we began evaluating each others boxes. As usual I was very impressed by my classmate’s boxes- typical Wellesley- and I was surprised by range of approaches that everyone took, and how different each person's box was. Evaluating each other’s boxes was exactly like doing a critique in a studio art class. But, instead of judging composition, tone, line and form, we were judging performance, manufacturing and aesthetic. Our ratings were pretty arbitrary, since we each had different definitions of what these categories meant. For example, Erin seemed to be judging manufacturing based upon how difficult the box was to design, whereas I judged based on the difficulty of assembling the box once it was already designed. At least in an art class there is a clear definition of what makes a dynamic balanced composition, our ratings of our boxes seemed much more subjective. 
    We started by judging Erin’s box. Her box was really cool because of the way it folded open and close, but we all agreed that aesthetically we did not like the black contact paper joining her sides. Cailey’s box looked super durable, and I really liked how it slid together and apart. Maria’s box was very aesthetically pleasing, and functional. France’s box was awesome because it was made of three pieces that were all the same, except they were each oriented differently. I was very impressed by Hannah’s ambition in making a box that was an octahedron, and her box was very pretty. I loved how hers closed with a magnet. Essie’s box was cool because she stuck with using wood, which I thought would have been too hard. Her box had lots of interesting details, and I admire her tenacity or getting the living hinge to work with wood.
    I was pretty happy with how my box turned out....except for the fact that I did not find a way to make the spring hinges stay closed. If you want to cut it out, on your own, the files are available on the class website.

  But you have to cut it out at exactly the same scale on 1/8” delrin...or else you will have to adjust some measurements, and then you’re on your own. I liked this project. I felt like I was actually engineering something. In contrast, when we were building circuits I felt like we were just plugging stuff in. But I’m sure this will come in handy, because our next project is lanterns! My fingers are still crossed that we will get to use the 3D printer....
    On a final note, I am pretty excited about this article that I read about fabric with conductive yarn that charges electronics for soldiers uniforms. I also read about it in Gizmodo, and they brought up the possibility that this technology could be available to consumers someday. I would like to learn more about textile engineering, it sounds pretty cool!