Conclusion Reflection
Conclusion
In the workshop, we are going to design a beam that will rupture when a load of 20 kg is placed at its mid-span region. We have made much consideration and preparation before the testing. At the beginning, we considered to use wood or plastic to make the beam. After observation and research, we find out that wood is more suitable for making a beam and more possible to rupture at 20 kg weight. With several trials, we discovered that the shape, length, width and thickness of the wooden board and the distance between two stands are all very important in contributing the result. Any changes of these features may influence the result and make greatly different consequence. For example, the beam will be easier to rupture if the board is thinner, longer, and narrower or the distance of two stands is longer. We have chosen to use a wooden board that has 10 cm width, 45 cm length and 0.5 cm thickness. Therefore, we decided to adjust the distance between two stands in order to generate a required result and remain the properties of the beam instead of changing the properties of the beam. It can reduce our effort to make modifications of the shape of beam and be more effective and efficient. By adjusting the distance between two stands, we succeeded at the distance of 37 cm and the mid–span of at 18.5 cm. The beam finally ruptured at 21 kg which is the nearest result to preferred weight.
Reflection
During the workshop, we know more about the properties of different material and how these properties may affect the result. For wood, it is quite hard and can afford more than 20 kg in different shapes. Not only does wood can afford heavy weight, a thin fishing line can even afford more 20 kg. It actually surprises us and changes our mind towards different materials. In spite of the thinner shape, different materials can afford different weights.
Besides, we have learnt how the properties of the material may affect the affordable load and how we can carry out an
In the workshop, we are going to design a beam that will rupture when a load of 20 kg is placed at its mid-span region. We have made much consideration and preparation before the testing. At the beginning, we considered to use wood or plastic to make the beam. After observation and research, we find out that wood is more suitable for making a beam and more possible to rupture at 20 kg weight. With several trials, we discovered that the shape, length, width and thickness of the wooden board and the distance between two stands are all very important in contributing the result. Any changes of these features may influence the result and make greatly different consequence. For example, the beam will be easier to rupture if the board is thinner, longer, and narrower or the distance of two stands is longer. We have chosen to use a wooden board that has 10 cm width, 45 cm length and 0.5 cm thickness. Therefore, we decided to adjust the distance between two stands in order to generate a required result and remain the properties of the beam instead of changing the properties of the beam. It can reduce our effort to make modifications of the shape of beam and be more effective and efficient. By adjusting the distance between two stands, we succeeded at the distance of 37 cm and the mid–span of at 18.5 cm. The beam finally ruptured at 21 kg which is the nearest result to preferred weight.
Reflection
During the workshop, we know more about the properties of different material and how these properties may affect the result. For wood, it is quite hard and can afford more than 20 kg in different shapes. Not only does wood can afford heavy weight, a thin fishing line can even afford more 20 kg. It actually surprises us and changes our mind towards different materials. In spite of the thinner shape, different materials can afford different weights.
Besides, we have learnt how the properties of the material may affect the affordable load and how we can carry out an