Week 6: K'NEX Build Process

      Unfortunately, due to personal health issues and concerns, I was unable to participate in last week’s lab. Melissa, Kelsey and I met and filled me in on last week’s instructions. From what I understand, both of them built individual, full-scale bridges, while keeping in mind the final objective of the most successful cost to weight ratio.  Although I was unable to participate in this lab, I collaborated with Melissa over the week to enhance her bridge. Through trial and error, we discovered that the angle in which the gussets are arranged provided a more stable product. Our meticulousness in this effort also promoted symmetry throughout our entire design. In testing, I believe this change was able to add three more pounds to its stable condition without adding any more components.

      My opinions about WPBD compared to K’NEX remain the same. Both provide very different methods of construction. WPBD provides a virtual experience, whereas K’NEX is completely tangible. WPBD operates in a way that uses proposed materials and beam sizes to appear as realistic as possible. The results from testing have induced accuracy within the force/compression readings, which, upon careful analysis, can be used to further success in future designs. K’NEX, on the other hand, is limited in its materials but can be physically tested to its limit and thus analyzed from its breaking point. Also, one major difference in provided materials is that WPBD lacks gusset plates. Gusset plates are essential to a bridge’s construction as they join members of a bridge together yielding stability. 

Chelsea Moss