--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:44:50 -0400
From: ms10mf

What I did right:

I prepared for the PBT by reading up on the topic ahead of time and  
searching for information and solutions online.

What I could have done better:
I could have prepared better ahead of time and clearly written out  
possible entire solutions, in stead of only thinking of ideas. As a  
group, we could have managed our time better and split off into  
smaller groups and worked on things separately, in stead of working on  
everything at the same time. Our main problem was that we did not  
manage our time as well as we could have, which we will definitely all  
keep in mind for the next PBT.

Group members:

Kathryn M was well prepared and had good ideas. She can improve by  
being more confident in her ideas and speaking up, and taking more of  
a leadership role next time. She made very helpful suggestions  
throughout the task.

Kurt J came to the PBT with many ideas and suggestions, and took a  
leadership role within the group. He was helpful with the assembly of  
the bread board and

Robert S took a leadership role and had many helpful ideas. He moved  
the group along significantly by providing helpful feedback to all of  
our ideas, and made an effort to include everybody.

Denis N was very well prepared and was very helpful. He drew many  
helpful diagrams and put a lot of thought into what he did.

Ian J had very many good ideas and was very well prepared for the  
task. I felt that he had a very good understanding of what we needed  
to do and how to solve the problem. He provided many helpful  
suggestions throughout the task.

Alex was very helpful in the assembling of the bread board and had  
many insightful ideas regarding how to solve the problem. He came very  
well prepared with a list of several ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:34:02 -0400
From: kj10re

There are many things our group did well and there is also a lot of  
room for improvement. We each had similar ideas, Katie, Michelle and I  
shared the idea of using inductors as protection from higher currents.  
Rob, Alex, Ian & Denis wanted to put some component either a resistor,  
capacitor or diode in parallel with the relay. We were all kind of  
saying our ideas but not really listening to another. A way we could  
of dealt with the better is by writing down everyones ideas first  
before trying them on the breadboard, It would of conserved a lot of  
time and frustration. It would also ensure we wouldn?t do the same  
idea twice! Another improvement is to have a better understanding of  
the basic functions of the various components we could of used. Alex,  
Rob & Denis for sure had the most ideas of the group, the rest of us  
tried to aid them by providing the resources they needed to complete  
their idea. A good thing we did do as a group is transferring our  
ideas on paper to the circuit board. Lastly we worked as a team for  
the most part but we could work on sharing the leadership role better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:46:02 -0400
From: dv11yh

The most significant issues that our group developed stemmed from time  
management, taking leadership and dividing the workload. The PBT ran  
about 15 minutes too long over the projected deadline. Each member of  
our group focused on one possible solution or idea all at once, which  
caused us significant slowing in the pace of our work. Despite all  
focusing on a specific idea, no single person in the group was willing  
to take "the spotlight" to control our group efforts. Our group did  
not "think outside the box" and was hindered by the differences  
between the example given online and the real world circuit. There was  
also confusion as to which circuit elements could be incorporated into  
the circuit, due to the mindset caused by the online example. Matthew  
P. was the first to put forward the idea of switching the circuit so  
that the load no longer received current. Felicia worked on the  
mechanism for rerouting the current and decided to lead it to ground.  
Andrew, Devin and I (Derek V.) decided to use a capacitor to  
temporarily hold voltage after charging, and recalling what Jon has  
said about connecting components in parallel, I suggested connecting  
the capacitor in parallel with the relay. Through experimentation with  
the breadboard, we declared our "owner's manual" to say that once the  
relay had opened the circuit and grounded the current, the short  
circuit should be fixed and the voltage source reset. That was the  
solution our group engineered. In future problem based tutorials, our  
group would benefit from assigning specific ideas to specific members  
so that the workload would be divided, and regularly checking on  
progress in each idea in order to better use our allotted time. A  
volunteer or "voluntold" group leader could encourage innovation and  
to "connect the dots" between ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:15:52 -0400
From: mp11rq

My PBT group consisted of myself (Mathew P.), Felicia G, Jon G,  
Andrew R, Derek V, and Devin W. Everyone came to the PBT prepared;  
with ideas already formulated and ready to be tested. Eventually, with  
aid from the instructor, we arrived at a solution. This solution  
circuit contained a method to overcome faulty components as well as  
allow the relay to function properly. Two main ideas were used to  
solve the problem; to create a secondary circuit that would allow  
current flow(simply a grounded circuit) on the N0 contact(myself), and  
to use a capacitor to power the relay in the transition state(I  
believe this idea was presented by Derek V). The group then  
collaborated to engineer the circuit, with aid from the instructor, to  
arrive at a final solution. Pros: We solved the problem with some  
guidance from the instructor, we were able to collaborate to solve  
problems. Cons: no one took leadership, the majority of the time  
everyone worked on one problem instead of branching out.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:32:25 -0400
From: ed11aq

My group for the PBT was me(Eric D.), Jordan, Juan, Alexander,  
Zach and Iskander. Our group did great, everyone was contributing good  
ideas(Iskander was quiet, he could be a bit more active), listening,  
participating actively, making sure everyone was following their ideas  
and ensuring everyone understood what we were doing. For the next  
time. One thing that everyone of us should improve on is how to look  
at a schematic and create that on a breadboard. Phil took everything  
apart and we had to rewire our circuit from scratch. It helped us  
understand what was happening but it took us a while because we were  
not 100% confident in where to place the wires and we didn't want to  
be the one to wire it wrong and seem like we didn't know how to wire a  
circuit. Generally, a better understanding of the breadboard would be  
the main area to improve on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:57:49 -0400
From: jf11rt

Overall, the PBT went quite smoothly, and the problem was solved  
without many problems.

Everyone seemed to come prepared, and it was the modification of  
the circuit that Eric and myself came to the PBT with that the group  
built upon to solve the problem. At first, the group as a whole  
had trouble understanding and communicating the physical set-up of our  
circuit on the breadboard, however after a few minutes, and rebuilding  
the circuit completely, things ran more smoothly. Each member of the  
group had some input or ideas on how to solve the problem, either  
regarding the physical circuit set-up or the theoretical set-up and  
operation.

With regards to improving our performance next time, the group should  
work on more clearly explaining their input on problem solving  
strategies or solutions. A deeper understanding of the physical  
operation of the breadboard and components would have been  
beneficial to the entire group, which I think was at least in  
part attained in reconstructing, modifying, and operating the problem  
circuit, related components and instruments. Commenting on each group  
member individually:

Alexander was good at working with a group, and provided a good amount  
of the theory that went into our circuit.

Eric worked very well, came prepared, and helped other group members  
understand the circuit's physical set-up.

Iskander had good ideas about the theoretical operation of the circuit  
and the theoretical circuit diagram when communicated, but it seems as  
though he could have communicated his ideas to the group more.

Juan had significant input on modifications to the circuit schematic.

Zack had multiple ideas about the theoretical operation of the circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:04:44 -0400
From: rs12ve

Ian J, provided valuable input in all the group discussions which took  
place, his ideas contributed to our initial and almost final success.  
Ian provided good ideas which attempted new measures in the almost  
complete circuit we had created. Good job Ian.

Kurt J, provided great ideas which contributed to the overall success  
of the group, allowing for focused thought and new ideas when stuck.  
Provided support to ideas that brought very close success towards our  
desired goal. Keep up the good work.

Kathyrn M, has great ideas to solutions, came prepared and had similar  
ways to provide routes to our desired goal for the circuit. Kathryn  
always had pen to paper attempting solutions for our group. Good Job.

Denis M, provided excellent support and included a great problem  
solving role for the group. Attempting new circuit diagrams on paper  
provided better insight for better solutions. Your preparedness was of  
great help. Great job.

Michelle S, provided a good job writing down ideas provided and  
valuable input to the presented problem. Her ideas and opinion to the  
solutions provided a more clear route to the solution. Good job.

Alex S, provided expertise knowledge of bread-boarding to our group.  
Your eagerness to get a solution quickly, decisively and leadership  
helped lead the group to solutions which provided great insight in  
what did and did not work for the circuit. You were well prepared for  
the PBT, great job.

As a group: Being prepared the task we jumped off the gate with  
several fantastic ideas that led to a great start for our group. A  
perfect start however, led us to a long delay trying to figure out  
what to do next when we were stuck. We were a fraction from being  
completed this PBT in great time and manner. I propose to properly go  
through on paper and discuss for a fraction longer possible solutions  
to the problem. We could definitely spread our resources out and have  
two persons at the breadboard station, two on a computer in EWB and  
the other two brainstorming ideas on paper to provide clues for the  
wiring to the breadboard circuit. Overall we did a great job, give  
yourself a pat on the back. Cheers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:14:41 -0400
From: km11ad

In preparation for the PBT, I ensured I knew as much information as I  
could about relays and their role in the protection of circuits. I  
also read through the class notes in order to find any pertinent  
information on DC circuits and their components. I shared my initial  
ideas with the group and worked with them to form a viable solution to  
the problem.
One problem I had during the PBT was that I over thought the problem,  
making it more complicated than it needed to be. I found that in  
working in a large group, I tended to get caught up in other people's  
ideas for a solution, and had some trouble expressing my own. In the  
future I will be more vocal in expressing my ideas.

Initially, my group shared their ideas for solutions, but I found Rob,  
Denis, Kurt and Alex were most vocal in expressing their opinions. All  
group members were given the chance to express their opinions, but the  
most viable ideas came from Rob, Alex and Denis, and with their help  
the group was able to form a basis for a solution. Alex volunteered to  
work with the bread board, and was open to suggestions about the  
composition of the circuit. At times, Alex would attempt a different  
solution on the bread board without discussing it with the group. In  
the future, I hope Alex will share and discuss his ideas with the  
group as a whole, instead of coming up with individual solutions.  
Michelle volunteered to keep a record of the ideas presented, but in  
the future, her and Ian should express their ideas more openly, as  
they seemed hesitant to share their ideas with the group throughout  
the process.

The main flaw in our group was that we all focused our efforts on the  
same task at the same time, which is what set us behind. In the  
future, the group as a whole should work on time management; the group  
could break into smaller groups and tasks should be delegated to  
different people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:31:01 -0400
From: dw11zk

We began by everyone in the group presenting their prepared solution  
on how to correct the buzzing noise. After performing a critical  
analysis of each solution, it was Matt?s solution that we decided to  
work off of. This solution consisted of connecting a resistor to the  
normally open contact, which would bypass the load resistor. At the  
insistence of the instructor, the initial circuit was taken apart and  
a new circuit was made based off Matt?s idea, with a wire taking the  
place of the resistor. When the circuit was turned on, the relay still  
buzzed. While the instructor, Matt, and Jon corrected the faulty  
contacts, Andrew, Derek, Felicia, and myself questioned why there was  
a capacitor in the original circuit. Bringing this observation to the  
rest of the group, we determined that the capacitor must be placed in  
the circuit. At Derek?s suggestion, the capacitor was in parallel with  
the relay. This stopped the relay from buzzing, solving the problem.  
However, the current had to be lowered and the power had to be turned  
off to reset the circuit.
This circuit could be improved in the future by adding a shunt in  
parallel with the relay, as well as including another set of contact  
switches to lower the current through the relay. A reset button could  
also be added after the normally open contact, to avoid having to turn  
the power off. Our group could improve for next time by everyone  
(myself more than anyone) being more proactive, and sharing our ideas  
faster. This could allow us to finish on time for succeeding  
problem-based tutorials.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:39:16 -0400
From: fg11ac

Our first attempt at a PBT was quite far from the best that it could  
have been. While each member contributed at least one thing to either  
the preceding discussion or the eventual solution, there were quite a  
few problems. For the most part, all problems were tackled as a team,  
putting collective brain power towards one goal. Following this, we  
could only tackle one problem at a time, and ended up going over time  
to the point that I almost missed my bus. This should be avoided in  
the future by dividing up the workload between multiple smaller groups  
or individuals in order to simultaneously solve or at least tackle  
multiple parts of a problem at once. We were also lacking a little  
creativity, as we received an example diagram and initially made no  
attempt to really change it in a meaningful way, such as by adding the  
capacitor. We also relied quite heavily on the professor?s advice and  
hints, and it would be better to avoid this in the future.
This is not to say that nothing went right. I don?t recall Jon having  
a very large role in finding the solution (and if I?ve forgotten, I  
apologize) but he did start the discussion with a well thought out  
plan and essentially ?started the ball rolling.? Derek had quite a few  
good ideas, and did not hesitate to voice them, although the double  
relay was unusable. Mathew was the one doing most of the physical  
work, making and fixing the circuit. Andrew and Devin had the idea to  
use another resistor to help lower the current through the circuit,  
which eventually evolved into the shunt in the final answer, and  
Andrew and I came up with the idea for using a capacitor in parallel  
with the relay to maintain current.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:47:41 -0400
From: jb13pa

This message is in MIME format.

--=_5ykryscujkjx
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"
Content-Description: Plaintext Version of Message
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When we presented our schematics, we realized the the circuit=20=20
schematic that Jordan presented had the best possibility of being=20=20
successful; so we started to set that circuit. =A0Zack and Eric took the=20=
=20
leadership and started placing components on the breadboard. Since we=20=20
were not very familiar with the potentiometer, Iskander and I=20=20
consulted with Phil on how the device worked, and realized that it was=20=20
connected improperly; we shared our thoughts and the connection was=20=20
corrected. Phil helped us realized that the lower half of the=20=20
breadboard was not connected to the upper half and we proceeded to=20=20
place proper connections. =A0We tried different setups but the relay=20=20
kept buzzing. We then realized that the main problem was that the=20=20
relay did not have enough energy to switch completely so we needed a=20=20
way to maintain some energy in the system for a few milliseconds. We=20=20
initially tried setups with resistors and then inductors in parallel=20=20
with the coil to keep some current in the system but that did not=20=20
work. The breakthrough came when Alexander suggested to use a=20=20
capacitor so we could store some energy that could be released back in=20=20
the system while the switch was closing. We obtained a 220mF capacitor=20=20
and calculated a time constant (RC) of 30ms. We tried the new circuit=20=20
setup with the capacitor in parallel with the coil, and with a few=20=20
twitches it finally worked. I believe we all contributed what we knew=20=20
and were able to work as a team. Since we had some difficulty=20=20
recognizing the specific values for some circuit elements, =A0we could=20=20
have prepared better or have a table of values handy.

--=_5ykryscujkjx

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:48:39 -0400
From: zs06yl

Post PBT critical evaluation

This group for the PBT consisted of 6 members.  Juan B, Eric D, Jordan  
F, Alexander K, Iskander T, and myself, Zack S.

Each member prepared for the PBT by online search of the relay  
mechanism.  Early on there were difficulties understanding the circuit  
setup due to the potentiometer.  A lack of understanding its  
fundamental internal mechanism and its relevance to the circuit was a  
significant hurdle.  Once the circuit was properly understood by all  
members, the task of getting the relay to switch contacts was  
addressed.  This problem was eventually solved by connecting a large  
capacitor (2.20μF) in parallel with the relay coil.

In solving this problem Alexander was of great importance due to his  
suggestion of using a capacitor to  keep current in the circuit while  
the contact points of the relay, switch from the normally closed to  
normally open.

Jordan aided the group by drawing various schematic diagrams for all  
the ideas that were proposed.  This expedited the process by reducing  
the amount of time to reject erroneous solutions rather than altering  
the physical circuit for each idea.

Eric helped the group by taking on a leadership role.  He also  
suggested the inclusion of a resistor into the circuit to reduce the  
current.

Juan made calculations concerning the circuit to discover the  
magnitude of capacitance required to force the relay to switch  
contacts.  This greatly reduced time by simply connecting the correct  
capacitor rather than a trial and error method probably would have.

Iskander made headway for the group early on by analyzing the  
potentiometer and its role in the circuit.

I suggested using an inductor to impede the loss of current and helped  
with the physical circuit manipulation.

Although the problem was eventually solved, it took the entire  
allotted time.  Possible improvements would have been to designate a  
group leader and to write down all ideas in list format at the  
beginning.  Let the group work together to hash out each idea one at a  
time, crossing out any erroneous solutions.  Once a smaller group of  
potential solutions was achieved the most probable would likely become  
evident.  Proceeding from this point would be less time consuming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:03:07 -0400
From: ak13ss

Zack: As we started, he took the initiative and started working on the  
circuit. Already had ideas for a solution prepared (as most others  
also had).

Eric: Was from the beginning on very active in participating in the PBT

Juan: Participated actively in the PBT and contributed good ideas.  
Solved the problem with connecting the potentiometer in the right way,  
as it was wrong before.

Jordan: He also participated actively in the PBT and also had ideas  
for the solution prepared.

Iskander: Although he did take part in the discussion, he could have  
said a little bit more.

Overall I was very content with my PBT group. At the beginning,  
everyone was well prepared for the task. We were very fast on the  
right track and no one was excluded from discussion. Working as a  
group and thinking about the solution went actually very well so that  
(as far as I know) we were the first group to solve the problem.
In general I enjoyed the PBT and I am looking forward to having more of them.

What could have been better?
Sometimes we just threw in an idea, while the prior idea wasn't really  
thought to the end and so different group members were talking about  
different ideas, which is confusing. Maybe if someone would be like  
some kind of "leader", this could be avoided.

My evaluation is probably not very accurate, as I don't really  
remember who said what. The text written above is more like a  
subjective grading.

(I hope this is, how I was supposed to evaluate the PBT, never really  
evaluated something this way.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:06:47 -0400
From: ar11dy

The solution to the relay problem was arrived at only after our  
initial idea had been shown to not be correct. This was one of the  
problems that our group faced, after our initial solution to the  
problem, we seemed to narrow our search for the solution to only one  
"brand" of solutions. In the next tutorial this could be improved upon  
if our group keeps an open mind and considers all of the possible  
paths to the solution.

The idea of using a parallel circuit was first suggested by Jon at the  
start of the tutorial, after deliberation and guidance from Dr.  
Sternin, it was decided that the capacitor was an key part of the  
solution. Derek and Felicia put together the idea of attaching the  
capacitor in parallel with the relay and with some help from Dr.  
Sternin the answer to the problem was drawn out. In future tutorials I  
think that the group will be more productive if we get a little more  
of a push in the right direction by the TA. I also think that more  
guidance is needed in terms of the physical analyzing and engineering  
of the circuit, as many of the students do not have any hands-on  
experience with circuits.

Personally I was very impressed with how the group functioned.  
Everyone's ideas were listened to and considered and no one was set in  
their ways. The group cod have improved by dividing up the workload.  
For example, while some members of the group worked on one possible  
solution, the other members could have been looking for a different  
way to complete the problem. Again, the problem our group faced was  
not considering different solutions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:01:46 -0400
From: ij12kr

Going into the tutorial, there were a lot of ideas about how to  
reconfigure the relay circuit.  Most ideas included hooking up  
different circuit elements in parallel with the relay.  Other ideas  
were to create alternate paths for the current to go through the  
circuit.  The problem with those circuits was that though they  
prevented over current to the load, it also cut the load out of the  
circuit, and the relay would not switch back into the closed position.  

  A simple way to solve this is make the open position of the switch  
to lead to a capacitor which will allow current to pass at high rate  
once the switch has changed position, but eventually will act as an  
open circuit, thus making the switch move back to closed position.    
To improve the group working experience for next time we need to be  
more organized.  We had some great ideas and did a good job explaining  
how and why they might work with other group members.  The problem  
with the group was that we did not do a good job of establishing what  
we want to try and what has been tried and did not work.  It turned  
out that the solution we were looking for was a basic idea that people  
had already considered pre-lab.  The problem was communicating what  
has and hasn?t been done and connecting things on the breadboard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:11:39 -0400
From: jh06ql

This PBT involved using an electromechanical relay in order to protect  
a load from overcurrent. This goal was achieved in the end but not  
before the time allotted had expired. In part, this was due to faulty  
equipment as the contacts in the relay were not functioning correctly,  
but also to blame was a lack of work division in the group. Had tasks  
been assigned and divided between each member, they could have been  
performed simultaneously and cut down on the time that it took to  
solve the problem.

My own personal contribution suffered due a lack of an understanding  
of the device that we were working with. I misinterpreted the way that  
the relay worked and solved the problem according to my flawed  
understanding of it. I presented this erroneous solution first but it  
was followed up by better suggestions by the rest of the group. The  
design which became our starting point was by Matthew who, along with  
Andrew and Felicia, showed to be the ones with the most knack for the  
manipulation of the physical circuitry. Derek and Devin provided  
useful suggestions when it came to refining the preliminary circuit  
further, including the idea of using a capacitor in order to keep the  
current going during change in the switch, and that of providing a  
reset button in order to restart the system.

In order to work better within the time allowed in the next PBT, there  
needs to be more organization within the group and a division of  
tasks. The exercise would also benefit from a more proactive approach  
from the participants. There were times when we all simply sat back  
and no ideas were put forth and the instructor had to come in to keep  
the discussion going. I believe that the reason for this could be  
that, being the first PBT, we were not entirely sure of what to expect  
or how it was supposed to run. Now that we know what is expected, I am  
sure that the next session will run more smoothly and will keep moving  
along with less assistance from the instructor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:35:20 -0400
From: dn10qx

Denis N (Self)
I took time to prepare for the PBT, but do not feel that I came as  
prepared as some of the other members of the group. I also had some  
ideas that were key to solving the PBT, but didn't do a very good job  
of voicing those ideas. Next time, I should put in extra effort into  
my preparations and speak up more. I should try to become more active  
in the group discussion.

Michelle S
Michelle should try to become more active in the group discussion and  
in voicing her own ideas and thoughts.

Alex S
Alex came prepared with many ideas, and gave his input into many of  
our other ideas. Alex played a fundamental role in our group as he  
worked with and implemented our ideas onto actual  the breadboard  
circuit.

Robert S
Rob came prepared with ideas and actively contributed to the  
discussion. Rob tried to provide Alex assist with the breadboard, but  
stopped because he felt his knowledge on breadboards was inadequate.  
Perhaps Rob could broaden his knowledge of breadboards before the next  
PBT.

Kurt J
Kurt contributed some ideas, but should try to become more active in  
the group discussion.

Kathryn M
Katie had some good ideas, and could improve by becoming more active  
in the group discussion and in voicing out her own ideas.

Ian J
Ian could improve by becoming more active in the group discussion and  
in voicing out his own ideas.

Group
As a whole, I don't feel that we were very organized. No single member  
of our group took charge, and proper roles were not assigned. This  
resulted in a lot of time being wasted, since most of us ended up  
crowding around the one member who worked on the breadboard, when we  
could have been using our time more efficiently. Other group members  
were constantly feeding new ideas before older ideas could be properly  
examined and implemented. One of the key ideas to solving the PBT was  
nearly lost in the wave of new ideas coming in. We also wasted too  
much time in trying to apply complex answers and ended up missing many  
obvious points. I also noticed that nobody felt confident enough with  
breadbaords to provide Alex with help when he needed it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:23:09 -0400
From: as10zb

I like the effort that we put into it. Everybody came prepared,  
especially Michelle, Robert and Matt. And we all came to the same  
objective (eventually) that we had to get the relay to stay open in  
the event of an overload. The problem is, we all got stuck in the  
wrong mindset. Because I fiddled with the breadboard I got bumped into  
a de-facto leader position that I had no way of using, and I fear I  
pulled the group in the wrong direction. Denis was probably better  
suited, as he knew more than me.