“With funding from the Engineering Professors’ Council, I’ve made some films to share the genius of Engineering featuring engineering researchers, lecturers, students and apprentices on film talking about their particular area of engineering and explaining some of the science behind it. The films are aimed at children aged around 9 – 13 but adults may learn something too :-)“
The whole collection can be viewed by clicking this link.
Basics of 3D printing – this video from Ultimaker provides a nice clear illustration of how the consumer 3D printer works. And this video gives a summary of the main opportunities and challenges of 3D printing. The latest new technology that delivers a kind of rapid 3D printing is Carbon3D and a video of their extraordinary “Terminator 2-ish” technology can be seen here.
The wonderful Dovetailed company’s video on 3D printed food can be accessed here.
Crossrail is the truly jaw-dropping project to build a new East-West underground line for London. There are lots of resources relating to this project here.
To learn more about how jet engines are built, Rolls-Royce has some videos on their main video website.
There are also powerful and embarrassing ‘failure’ stories that can be used to show that engineers do make some cringeworthy comical errors. Two great illustrations are the Genesis spacecraft (where a single accelerometer inserted up-side down resulted in the loss of a >$260m probe as it returned to earth) and the Mars Climate Orbiter (a confusion between metric and imperial units led to the destruction of a >$300m spacecraft as it entered Mars orbit).
So, if anyone has suggestions for videos, cartoons (and, yes, I know that there is a whole website of Dilbert-related engineer-specific cartoons!) or situations that show engineering in a self-deprecating light, please add a comment. But please no more ‘Jokes that only engineers would understand'; we want examples of humour that are inclusive, not ‘in-jokes’ .. funny though many of those are.
Danielle George’s excellent Royal Institution Christmas Lectures highlighted one aspect of a cultural, social and economic shift that could transform many aspects of our lives; a trend towards hacking and a return to making things. This shift is driven by a combination of a rather unfocused rage against the intangible world of finance, a feeling that a more ‘balanced’ economy would be a better economy, and a natural desire to “cling to the real world” while still benefiting from the convenience of the virtual. This shift can be seen in the emergence of the ‘maker’ movement (evidenced by the huge numbers attending Maker Faires and growth in the number of FabLabs worldwide), the increased interest of governments in manufacturing (especially the appealing sounding but ill-defined ‘high value’ type), and the over-hyping of 3D printing as a technology to transform, in the words of Barack Obama, “the way we make almost everything“.
This last point is particularly relevant now – the market for 3D printers is consistently predicted to be huge, and governments around the world are scrambling to come up with national strategies to respond to this opportunity. 3D printing ticks all sorts of boxes. It sounds wonderfully futuristic yet reassuringly familiar (the use of ‘3D printing’ rather than the more accurate ‘Additive Layer Manufacturing’ was a stroke of marketing genius). It is a technology that almost writes its own headlines thanks to the printing of guns, mini-me, and replacement body parts. It also spans the virtual-physical divide in a way that is really appealing to those who worry about children only able to interact with shiny glass screens (these barriers disappear before your eyes if you hand a small child a tablet running super friendly software such as Doodle3D and connect it to a 3D printer).
Much is made of the ‘design freedom’ that 3D printing enables. But it also teaches through disappointment as pupils learn that freedom still comes with some constraints. An inappropriate choice of design and material can lead to some spectacular fails. 3D printing can also break down some of the barriers between subjects, as printers can used to support learning in biology and geography. There is also the ‘Wow factor’ when stories such as those about 3D printing in space stimulate discussion of what else might be possible, and the role of scientists and engineers in making them real.
The problem is, whenever a technology such as 3D printing comes along, no one really has a clue about its real impact (it is well worth a look at the wonderful BBC Tomorrow’s World archive on YouTube –particular favourites are the clips about the first home computer, mobile phones and digital camera). So is the emergence of 3D printing a golden opportunity to prepare the next generation for a maker-based future? Should we spend taxpayers’ money placing 3D printers in schools as the UK did with PCs in the late 80s and early 90s with its ‘Microelectronics Education Programme’? Would providing ready access to 3D printers provide the next generation a chance to enter the workforce with essential skills for the 2020s and beyond? Possibly, but what would those skills actually be, and is using a 3D printer the best way to develop them?
Danielle George’s message is absolutely right – encouraging children to take an interest in how things work, and fiddling and experimenting with stuff develops really useful skills for life. And while you don’t need a 3D printer to do that, the arrival of a technology that makes making seem accessible, futuristic and fun rather than complicated, old-fashioned and boring is probably only a good thing.
You would need to have been on another planet not to be aware that ‘3D printing’ has become a much-hyped technology: just type it in to Google and be staggered by the mind-boggling scale and diversity of results you get. Underpinning this frenzy of interest is a technology that was developed 30 years ago. The label 3D printing is now used to describe several different technologies applied in a wide range of areas (for a summary of what 3D printing encompasses, this podcast may be useful).
But it is good to imprint powerful, tangible examples in our visitor’s minds. I find that showing them a few videos relating to one theme – 3D printing applied now in healthcare – usually do the trick:
Project Daniel – using low-end 3D printers to support local communities in South Sudan in making low-cost upper-body prostheses.
3D printed vertebrae – a 12-year-old boy suffering from bone cancer became the first recipient of 3D printed artificial vertebra replacement.
However, looking beyond sector and product application areas, one of the most interesting issues is the potential impact that 3D printing may have on education, in terms of what skills are needed for the future, changing the way in which we learn, and transforming our perceptions of what engineering actually is. This will be the subject of the next post on this blog. In the meantime, if you’d like to keep up with trends in 3D printing, follow twitter.com/dfab_info.
The chart below was posted last week as part of an NPR article by Steve Henn on gender balance among coders and computer scientists. This is one of the starkest charts I’ve seen on a gender-related STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) issue. What’s particularly jaw-dropping is that you can almost pinpoint the moment it happened and the technology that caused this profound change.
The article also highlights the distorting role of unconscious biases, and the way in which parents can unintentionally fix children on set pathways from which it is very hard to deviate as they get older. This was discussed recently in a great BBC Horizon programme entitled Is Your Brain Male or Female? One part of this programme focused on the ‘pink-blue’ toy debate, and showed how parents and carers unconsciously encourage children to play with ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ toys. The programme interestingly also explored whether this is entirely a nurture rather than a nature thing by getting monkeys to choose which type toys they preferred – watch the programme to see the surprising results.
Steve Henn’s article is yet other illustration of the importance of getting the message about STEM right at the earliest ages, how easy it is to unintentionally distort the message, and the impact that can result from not making the message clear. This has been recognised for a long time, but clearly we need to ensure that clear, accurate, unbiased information about what STEM is (and isn’t) is widely disseminated. It is therefore great to see a new attempt being made to help define one part of STEM – the role of engineers and engineering – in a new report from the Royal Academy of Engineering. But there’s a way to go before we overcome some of our deep-seated biases, such as those beautifully summed up in this video.