Have you done a similar type of writing in the past?
Yes, I’ve done similar technical and comparative writing in the past, especially in my engineering
coursework. These previous experiences included conducting experiments, gathering data, and
analyzing the results to draw conclusions regarding various engineering principles. This research
compares the load-bearing capacity of beam and suspension bridges in a similar format but digs
further into practical application and real-world applicability.
How much did you know about the subject before we started?
Before beginning this project, I had a basic understanding of the various bridge types and their
structural principles. I knew that suspension bridges employ cables to distribute load, while beam
bridges rely on support structures beneath them. However, prior to this project, I lacked a
thorough understanding of the precise load capacities and failure mechanisms of these bridges.
What problems did you encounter while you were working on this piece? How did you
solve them?
One big issue we discovered was the instability of our experimental setup because the chairs
utilized as supports lacked firm surfaces. This issue made it impossible for the bridges to stand
upright. We solved this problem by taping the bridges’ bases to books, which were then put on
the chairs to provide a sturdy surface. Furthermore, we encountered issues with the thread used
for the suspension bridge, which may not have been thick enough to withstand the weight of the
penny. To combat this, we distributed the weight as evenly as feasible and discussed any
potential constraints.
How was your experience writing as part of a team? Is it better than writing by yourself?
Any setbacks?
Writing as part of a team was a collaborative and rewarding process. It enabled us to divide the
workload based on each member’s abilities and supplied varied perspectives, so improving the
quality of our research and writing. Working in a team allowed for a more dynamic and complete
approach to the project than writing alone did. However, organizing timetables and incorporating
different writing styles presented occasional difficulties. These difficulties were addressed by
regular meetings and open communication.
Did you do your work the way other people did theirs? In what ways was your work or
process similar or different?
setting deadlines, we were distinct in our emphasis on practical application and real-world
applicability. Our research emphasized hands-on experimentation and the application of
theoretical knowledge, which was supplemented by extensive literature surveys and annotated
bibliographies. This technique ensured that our conclusions were both theoretically solid and
practically relevant.
What would you change if you had a chance to do this piece over again?
If I had the opportunity to redo this project, I would choose a more sturdy experimental setup
with better materials. For example, utilizing a thicker, more lasting thread for the suspension
bridge and making the supports more stable from the start might improve the dependability of
our findings. Furthermore, conducting more trials and altering the sorts of loads employed could
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the bridges’ performance under various
scenarios. Finally, using advanced modeling tools to predict the bridges’ behavior under load
could supplement our actual investigations and provide more precise information.
