-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:03:06 -0500
From: kj10re 

Our group did many things well but there are still some improvements  
that could of been made. We started off at the table where rob took  
the leading role in making sure everyones voice was heard. Dennis went  
straight to the point and names off the three objectives of this PBT,  
Once all the ideas were discussed I split up the team into three  
groups based on everyones strengths, Ian and Dennis covered the  
mathematical, Rob and Alex took the experimental and Katie, Michelle  
and I took the theoretical. As we worked away in all three groups me  
and Michelle bounced around seeing what ideas each group came to and  
passed these findings on to the others for them to try.  Dennis and  
Ian were the first to come to a solution but we had trouble  
transferring this over experimental and theoretically. Specifically we  
had trouble setting the variable to the correct value and we had  
trouble with the bode plotter online.  Overall this PBT went a lot  
smoother then the last one there was a lot more collaboration amongst  
the group, less time was wasted by focusing on one idea at a time and  
we used plenty of resources. One thing we can improve on is keeping a  
level head when working as a team and not allowing our emotions to get  
the better of us, also better communication amongst group members  
because communication is a key aspect of teamwork.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:55:17 -0500
From: dw11zk 

	When the group came together, each member presented what background  
information they had obtained. Based on what everyone had brought, we  
broke up into smaller groups. Andrew and Matt worked on the circuits  
they had made on Electronics Workbench; while Derek, Felicia, Jon, and  
myself calculated a value for a capacitor to use in the circuit, based  
off the range of appropriate frequencies and the inductor we had  
obtained. The group then met up again, shared what knowledge was  
found, and broke up once more. Derek and Matt tried to produce the  
circuit with variable capacitors; while Andrew, Felicia, Jon, and  
myself worked towards finding the Q factor of the circuit on  
Electronics Workbench. When the group met up once more, the value of  
the inductor was changed, at the insistence of the instructor. The  
group then separated once more. This time Derek, Felicia, Jon and Matt  
changed the circuit on Electronics Workbench to find the resonant  
frequency and Q factor; while Andrew and myself made a notch filter in  
hopes of finding the value of a capacitor which would allow for the  
group to reproduce the circuit on a breadboard to experimentally prove  
the values obtained on Electronics Workbench. As time ran out, the  
instructor helped to make the physical circuit, and experimentally  
prove the theoretical values found.

	I felt the group worked towards solving the problem much better in  
this problem-based tutorial, than in the previous one. Breaking up  
into smaller groups allowed for everyone to make significant  
contributions throughout the tutorial. Although no one took one a  
leadership role, I felt that everyone had their moments in which they  
?stepped up? and resolved an issue troubling the group. Once again,  
the problem took longer to solve than the time allotted. In the  
future, our group can work towards becoming more efficient, so that we  
may solve the problem on time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:35:06 -0500
From: ar11dy 

	The problem in this tutorial was to build and analyze an NMR circuit  
including its resonant frequency and quality factor, Q. At the end of  
the tutorial our group did not arrive at a solution as our circuit did  
not have resonance at the frequency that was calculated theoretically  
and our value for Q was only 4.2. There were several ways in which our  
group improved upon last tutorials performance, but there were also  
areas that needed improvement.  The main problem that our group had  
was that we lacked direction. That is, while our collective ability to  
diagnose and solve problems as they were presented was good, in  
general we had a hard time staying on track and focused on our task of  
building an NMR circuit. This problem could be fixed in future  
tutorials by first outlining what type of solution the problem is  
asking for before we start working at a solution. Even though our  
every member of our group prepared well, more preparation might be  
needed next time in order to have a deeper understanding of the  
material and a better idea of where we were heading. It would have  
also helped us stay on track if our instructor offered a little more  
guidance when we stopped making progress, or if our instructor would  
tell us if our current way of thinking would lead to a dead end.
	One area in which our group improved upon from last tutorial was that  
we consistently formed subgroups in order to get more work done and to  
approach problems from different perspectives. An example of this was  
when Matt and I worked on getting a working NMR circuit and transfer  
function on electronics workbench while the other members of the group  
considered the values that would be needed for our other capacitors  
and Felicia calculated our theoretical inductance. Our group then  
split up again as Jon and Felicia worked on finding the width of our  
resonance peak on electronics workbench, Derek and Matt worked on  
engineering the electrical circuit, and Devin and myself built an RCL  
notch filter in order to calculate the experimental inductance we  
would need for our circuit to operate like the one that was built on  
electronics workbench. Overall, our group worked very well together at  
diagnosing and solving problems, but we never had a breakthrough that  
would lead to the solution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:39:20 -0500
From: zs06yl 

To prepare for this PBT, I read through the class notes and searched  
online for information pertaining to resonance circuits and NMR  
probes.  I attempted to create a simulation circuit on Electronics  
Workbench (EWB) to bring to the PBT.  However when it came time to  
start the PBT it became painfully clear that the simulation circuit  
that I had created was done incorrectly.  The entire preparation  
process now seemed to be largely a waste of time.  Actually several of  
the members of our group worked on creating simulation circuits all  
day and each one failed to create a proper simulation.  I would say  
that the failure to adequately understand how to create the circuit  
was our biggest problem.  The second biggest problem was that no one  
knew exactly what the end goal was.  No one bothered to ask, either  
due to shyness, embarrassment or obtuseness.  I place myself firmly in  
the latter category.

Everyone was able to share their ideas and work together amicably, to  
a fault.  The fact that everyone worked en masse on one problem turned  
out to be a huge flaw in our process.  This exhausted a large amount  
of time.  The group would have benefited by fragmenting and working on  
different problems simultaneously.  Perhaps the lack of strong leader  
was the root cause.  I should have assumed this role since my  
preparation was essentially worthless.  Iskander and Jordan could have  
expressed themselves more.  Juan made calculations but could have  
asked more questions.  Alexander could have taken more initiative and  
Eric could have better communicated about what he was working on.

Three step plan for future success:  Ask and understand what the goal  
is.  Have a leader to guide the group.  Simultaneously work on  
different parts of the problem in smaller groups.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:31:05 -0500
From: rs12ve 

I prepared got the PBT by researching proper tank circuit techniques  
for the NMR. I prepared a circuit on EWB and attempted a solution for  
the values of the inductor, matching capacitor, and tuning capacitor.  
Throughout the tutorial I attempted solutions on the breadboard. This  
tutorial has taught me better techniques for breadboard techniques and  
valuable hands-on experience with a oscilloscope. One problem I faced  
was communicating (relaying) information between the sub-groups. Next  
tutorial I will ensure this is not an issue.

Ian and Denis provided a well prepared lay-out of equations and  
calculations to the group, which came to be essential for the desired  
goals. Denis set an example by organizing his initial research on the  
problem. Kurt and Michelle provided valuable information from  
continued research through the means of the internet and properly  
calibrated capacitors when needed for the circuit on the breadboard.  
Katie and Alex provided EWB simulations and feedback on what  
theoretically did and did not work.

Our group initially compiled quite an amount of the individuals  
researched data. The group split off in to appropriate sub-groups. Ian  
and Denis did calculations. Alex and Katie did EWB simulations.  
Michele and Kurt provided more knowledgeable research. Alex and myself  
attempted to solve the problem at the breadboard. EWB provided a  
theoretical goal when we obtained a 1MHz optimal frequency, however we  
were unable to obtain real capacitor values, that were small enough to  
match our calculations and EWB simulations. This was a major problem  
we faced and caused us not to obtain the experimental data needed. Our  
group as a whole improved from last time in efficiency. However, we  
need to improve on professionalism within our group setting to achieve  
proper focus, orientation, team work. Overall good job.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:37:01 -0500
From: mp11rq 

     In preparation for This PBT(2), I attempted derivations for the  
impedance of the probe circuit. I assembled a simulation circuit to  
determine how the circuit's behavior would appear, as well as further  
my understanding of the circuit and for  use during the lab.

     The group (Jon H, Felicia G, Andrew R, Devin W, Derek V and  
myself[Mathew P]) discussed possible techniques to determine a  
solution before splitting into smaller groups to deal with  
theoretical, experimental and simulations ideas.

     I noticed that all members of the group were not sure on what  
question we were actually trying to find a solution to, which  
ultimately wasted time. We also lacked in the ability to problem  
solve. However, I think the group as a whole communicated well and  
managed our time and resources as well as possible.

     In the future, I think establishing communication with the  
instructor would be beneficial; to determine if our current path  is  
fruitful and to aid in problem solving, among other things.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:42:58 -0500
From: dv11yh 

Before the problem based tutorial I ensured that I knew all I could  
about NMR. I researched the topic to help myself understand common  
conventions for achieving specific values in an NMR circuit. I also  
shared my sources with my group so that their understanding would  
increase and they could glean any information that I had missed.

At the beginning of the tutorial our group presented the information  
we believed would be important for the solution. Many formulas for  
resonant frequency and inductance were presented by members of the  
group. Claiming a starting inductor, we broke into smaller teams. One  
team (Jon, Andrew, Matthew) worked with Electronics Workbench using a  
theoretical setup of the circuit with a Bode plotter to find values  
for capacitance with our starting inductance in order to create a  
resonant peak at several MegaHertz. Another team (Felicia, Dennis,  
Andrew) worked theoretically to determine the inductance of our  
inductor with formulae from first year textbooks, and to predict good  
capacitances. The third team (Matthew and I) looked for proper  
capacitors from the supplies. All teams worked quite well in  
communicating restraints on the EWB circuit given the real capacitors  
and the theoretical inductance.

The issues our group had were those of Bode plotter resolution,  
obtaining a Q of 100 and measuring the variable capacitors. We also  
worried too much over little details which resulted in the PBT going  
15 minutes long.

In the end, our assembled breadboard circuit had a resonant peak of  
only 600 kHz. There was confusion as to whether we used the correct  
components. In the future our group would benefit from being more  
clear and concise with our project goals and personal ideas, which  
will help us move more steadily towards a solution within the allotted  
time. Overall our group and smaller teams worked very well together.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:43:34 -0500
From: jf11rt 

The PBT group consisted of Alexander, Eric , Iskander, Juan, Zack, and  
myself. Our group was unable to complete the PBT task, and there are  
areas which have improved from the last PBT as well as areas in which  
our group needs to improve.

Our group communicated with each other better than during the last  
PBT, but many of us did not understand the objective of the tutorial,  
and none of our group asked each other or the instructor during the  
tutorial. There were no real individual specific issues, and the main  
problem was that of the entire group. The main problem was our  
tendency to horde around as an entire group throughout the entire  
tutorial. It was suggested that we split into groups, which it seems  
as though the group took into consideration, but due to simple lack of  
understanding of the problem at hand, we would all group up almost  
immediately in hopes that someone would know how to go about the  
problem, as opposed to splitting ourselves up into two or three  
subgroups working on different approaches to the problem so that when  
one runs into a dead end, another will not.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:44:21 -0500
From: ed11aq 

My group for the PBT was myself (Eric Davies), Jordan, Juan, Zack,  
Alexander and Iskander. There are improvements that need to be made  
for all of us to work better in the future as a group. When preparing  
for a PBT, working together beforehand is not the best idea because we  
all come into the PBT with the same or similar ideas/plans, it would  
be better if we worked separately beforehand and came to the drawing  
board with a variety of ideas/plans. Also, being clear on the goals of  
the group would be an improvement because when one of us had an idea  
we all be gathered to work on that one thing instead of having another  
part of the group working on a different idea and then coming back to  
discuss the results and add our own input to each others findings.  
Personally, I was stuck finding where on the bode plotter the 3dB drop  
from the max was to find the frequencies and calculate the quality  
factor. Since I was dead set on this I did not think of any other ways  
I could find them and it became a problem because the bode plotter  
could not give me these exact points. When Dr.Sternin told me to  
gather points on the curve and draw it to approximate the frequencies  
at the 3dB drop I had no idea how to do that, but I did not ask how we  
could do that either, so that also hindered myself and the group. Some  
improvements form last time is that we were all passing back and forth  
ideas without being shy. Also we were all comfortable with leading the  
group in a direction that could lead to a solution.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:52:49 -0500
From: jb13pa 

Before the PBT, I tried to gather as much information on the subject  
as I could. I did some preliminary calculations and run a simulation  
on EWB.  Most of the members of our group met before the exercise and  
shared ideas on how to possibly solve the problem. We compared our  
calculations and thought we were well prepared.

During the exercise, we shared our ideas and started working on the  
problem. From our calculations we found a fairly good approximation to  
the values of the circuit elements. Alexander contributed with  
calculations to build the proper inductor and with measurements of the  
capacitors. Eric and Jordan calculated the theoretical resonant  
frequency and tested different circuit elements. Zack did a good setup  
of a simulated circuit in EWB and tested different frequency values.  
Iskander formulated good questions to help us get a better  
understanding of the circuit setup.

We got stuck because we did not know how to get the Q  from the data  
that we had in spite of the suggestion from the instructor on how to  
possibly obtain it. It became evident that we did not fully understand  
the actual problem. All of us were trying to follow anybody who would  
take the lead, and none of us took the lead. We run out of time and  
were not able to successfully complete the exercise.

We could have prepared better by asking the right questions. In my  
opinion, the most important improvements we could make as a group are:  
to learn how to set a specific goal at the beginning of the exercise,  
to outline the objectives, to take leadership, and to assign  
particular manageable tasks to each member.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:58:50 -0500
From: km11ad 

In preparation for the PBT, I used EWB to determine a viable range of  
values for the capacitors and the inductor in order for the probe to  
run in the 50-300 kHz range. I also came up with a number of formulas  
in order to calculate the Q factor, and an estimation for the Q factor  
as well. I shared all initial ideas with my group and helped to  
delegate tasks between group members.
One problem that I had during the PBT was that I had a difficult time  
about articulating my ideas without interruption from other group  
members. I found that some members would interject and give their  
ideas, without letting me fully express my own. In the future I plan  
to present my ideas more assertively in order to aid the group in  
finding a solution.
During this PBT, my group immediately delegated parts of the task to  
smaller groups in order to more effectively solve the problem. Smaller  
groups were more effective in determining the solution, and the groups  
often met to discuss each others findings. Overall, the group worked  
efficiently and overall organization was much improved from the last  
PBT.
The only flaw within my group was that professionalism was lacking at  
times. Parts of the group were distracted at times, while others were  
frustrated with their lack of direction. In the future, time  
constraints should be taken more seriously by some group members,  
while others should better exercise patience in these cases.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:07:37 -0500
From: ak13ss 

My group consisted of Zack, Eric, Juan, Jordan, Iskander and me. The  
group members had some formulas prepared for the PBT (eg. resonance  
frequency), but the problem was that nobody had prepared a concept of  
how we should actually approach the problem. So we just started  
standing around the table, talking about how to solve create the  
circuit. While there were maybe 2-3 people actually doing something  
useful, the other ones were more or less just standing there. Doing  
this, a lot of time was wasted, which could be seen at the end of the  
PBT, where we ran out of time. Although we finally had a working  
resonant circuit, it was constructed by try and error (and with help  
of Prof. Sternin) instead of ideas based on theoretical calculations  
and/or simulations.
What could be done better:
We should have divided the group into 2-3 different parts, that each  
deal with other problems (simulation, theo. calculations, experimental  
approach). Such a concept could be prepared beforehand. This would  
safe a lot of time.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:14:21 -0500
From: ms10mf 

Overall, this PBT ran a lot smoother than the last one. Right at the  
beginning, we split up into smaller groups in order to work more  
efficiently. This was better than last time, when we all worked on the  
same thing at the same time, because everyone was given more of a  
chance to voice their opinions on the task that they were given.
I worked with Kurt and Katie building the circuit on Electronics  
Workbench, and testing different values for the capacitors and the  
inductor. Katie and Kurt both had many good ideas and came very well  
prepared, and used these to help us reach the solution to the problem.  
Ian and Denis came to the PBT very prepared with calculations already  
completed, and were comparing their calculations and using them to  
figure out possible values to test. They were extremely helpful in  
finding the necessary values we needed to complete the problem. Rob  
took on a leadership role, which was extremely important and helpful,  
and worked with the physical circuit, as well as helping the entire  
group share their ideas and come to meaningful conclusions. Alex also  
provided valuable input with the simulated circuit on Electronics  
Workbench.
I believe that I could have come more prepared, by doing my own  
calculations as well. However, I feel that overall, the group worked  
very well together and made good use of time and resources.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:59:40 -0500
From: fg11ac 

With the increase in challenge created by the second PBT, it can be  
said that our group both improved upon and fell short of our previous  
result. Whether this had to do with the actual question or not is a  
matter of personal opinion, but there were quite a few problems.
On the plus side, our brainstorming at the beginning of the problem  
was shorter, with quick decisions being made and courses of action  
being planned. Following this, we made an attempt to split up the  
workload between two smaller groups. This was for the most part  
successful, and the groups only began to merge again at the end of the  
allotted time when some of the members had to leave.
On the down side, we failed to actually answer the question. We also  
had a tendency to set values in the problem (notably capacitance) at  
values either too low or too high to be available within the lab. To  
add salt to this wound, the capacitors that we had planned to use did  
not work, and we never had time to get new ones of the same value, so  
we never achieved a physical resonance at the frequency we planned.
In order to improve further, we should be a little quicker when it  
comes to physically testing our physical devices, to prevent the  
mishap that threw us off right at the end. If possible, we should also  
split the work further, into three groups of two, assuming that does  
not hamper progress further.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:04:16 -0500
From: jh06ql 

There were several improvements that occurred in this PBT session  
compared to the first. One of the key things that improved was the  
proactiveness of all of the members of the group. From the beginning,  
every member showed an attitude that was more forthgoing. Every group  
member was eager to make progress in solving the problem. This will  
hopefully continue in the next PBT.

There was also a better division of labour in the group. In the  
previous PBT, the entire group was engaged the entire time in pursuing  
the same solution but, this time, sub-groups were created that were  
charged with making measurements while another group ran computer  
simulations while yet another group did theoretical calculations.  
There was feedback back and forth between the sub-groups which  
influenced the work of each.

One of the problems encountered in this PBT was that the problem was  
not easily understood by any of the group members. It was a difficult  
problem and, though we each had our own ideas in the beginning, as the  
session progressed, it became difficult to follow them through as  
errors in reasoning began to creep up. This could be solved by more  
preparation from each group member.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:04:40 -0500
From: ij12kr 

To start the tutorial everyone quickly shared their thoughts on the  
problem.  Then we split off into small groups working on different  
aspects of the problem.  Dennis and I were looking at the math part of  
the problem and came up with some values for the capacitors and  
inductor that would produce a resonant frequency of 1 MHz.  Alex and  
Katie were working on preparing the circuits to be tested on EWB, and  
did a good job coming prepared with the circuit already set up ready  
to be adjusted pre-lab.  Rob, Michelle, and Kurt were working on  
setting up the actual circuit and working on obtaining the right  
circuit components to achieve the specified requirements.  I would say  
that the group effort was much better this time.  The organization and  
communication between group members was good.  The group was much more  
efficient because the work was divided up and not everyone was always  
looking at the same thing.  As one part of the group was testing  
something, another part was coming up with new ideas.  Multiple  
circuits were created on EWB that had a resonant frequency at around 1  
MHz.  Attempts were made to calculate the Q factor, but an exact value  
was not found due to the bode plotters lack of precision.  For the  
putting together of the actual circuit, I believe that the pieces were  
all there, but did not get confirmed physically because time ran out.   
Overall, it was solid effort from everyone in the group for coming  
prepared and working well as a team.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:14:55 -0500
From: dn10qx 

In preparation for the PBT, I chose to approach the problem as a  
purely calculational one. I brought my calculations with me to the  
PBT, and ended up working together with Ian (who had also prepared  
calculations) to compare our work and provide the group with the  
numbers and values they needed. I also made sure to outline to the  
group what our main objectives were, as this seemed to have been a  
problem in the last PBT.

This time, the group made sure to split off into groups with different  
tasks, to make better use of our resources. One problem that I had was  
that I did not know what to do when my assigned task was finished. I  
feel, despite having an assigned role in the group, that I could have  
provided additional help elsewhere. I should have made better use of  
my time to provide more contributions to the group.

At the start of the PBT, Rob took the initiative of taking command.  
Everyone shared the ideas they had brought with them, and were  
immediately then split off into groups with different, assigned tasks.  
Compared to the last PBT, our group had much more order, and made  
better use of our resources.

I think that the main problem with our group was that, once a person  
or group had finished with their assigned task, they were left with  
nothing to do. I noticed this was a problem for a few individuals in  
the group, including myself. We also had multiple people assigned to a  
similar task that could have been handled with less people. Although  
we made better use of our resources this time, I still think we could  
have done better. A possible solution to this is to have one person  
overlooking all the activities going on in the group, and constantly  
assigning new tasks whenever current ones have been finished.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:40:27 -0500
From: 	it09ff

[incorrectly sent to Phil]

My group consists of Juan, Eric, Jordan, Alexander, Zack and me  
(Iskander). First of all, I will give a credit to my group for coming  
prepared. They all derived the equations, tried some calculations and  
some build a circuit beforehand. Our PBT didn’t go as well as each one  
of us anticipated. I will try to explain what I think was wrong and  
how can we improve.

1) PBTs are designed not to test our math or computer skills, but to  
test our general understanding of the material and our ability to  
derive simple conclusions from complex problems. Knowing what exactly  
you need to do and deriving steps that will lead you to a solution are  
two crucial concepts. Before even starting to work on a problem we  
need to spend at least 5-10 minutes on a discussion. This discussion  
should include following steps – what exactly are we trying to find  
here? What steps should we take to reach a solution? Steps should be  
written on paper. And finally, who does what, managing our time and  
workforce is of great importance. Every person should know what he is  
doing at any given time and what he should do next.

2) Don’t be afraid to ask a question, even if you think it's stupid.  
If  members of your group don’t know the answer, instructors are there  
to help you. Don’t waste your and your group’s time. Success of a  
group depends on our individual efforts. I’m sure that every single  
student in this class has at least one thing he or she doesn’t  
understand. A good way to know if you really understand something or  
not is to try and explain it to yourself in 1-2 sentences. Just  
pretend you are a professor and student asks you this question, what  
would you say? Because no matter how complex the problem is, there is  
always a simple explanation.