Spark & Anvil Privacy

Teach & case

Help a near-peer reason through the idea — when you explain it, you understand it best — then read the real decision it comes from.

A case · you decide

Sy and the bracket that wins on paper

Sy — a student in a design competition where the best strength-to-weight score wins — but any part over the stress limit is disqualified

The idea in play: feasibility first — screen out designs that break a hard constraint BEFORE ranking by the objective.

Sy's bracket has the best strength-to-weight score of every design on the team. It looks like the clear winner. But the rules have a hard line: any part whose peak stress exceeds the material limit is disqualified — and Sy hasn't checked that yet.

A hard constraint is pass/fail, not a score you can trade against. A design that violates it is INFEASIBLE — it doesn't matter how good its objective score is, because it isn't allowed to exist.

So the order matters: first SCREEN every candidate for the hard constraints (does it stay under the stress limit? under the mass cap?), then RANK the survivors by the objective. Optimizing first and checking later can crown a design that was never eligible.

Sy's top-scoring bracket turns out to exceed the max stress at one joint. Should Sy still submit it because it has the best score?

A second design comes in 2% over the mass cap but scores brilliantly. A teammate says "round the mass down, it's basically at the cap." Feasibility-first?

Screen and optimize a design yourself →

When two ideas meet: 2 cases with two people

A case · you decide

Tori and Mala: the cheapest material that passes

Tori & Mala — a designer balancing cost and strength, and a friend who reads material specifications

The idea in play: a requirement is a threshold, not a target; once a material meets it, extra strength costs money without adding value.

A shelf bracket must hold 50 N. Mala lists three materials: pine holds 40 N for $2, plywood holds 70 N for $3, and aluminium holds 200 N for $9.

Tori wants the best bracket for the budget. Mala asks what "best" has to mean here.

Which material should they choose?

Open the Design Bench →

A case · you decide

Bex and Dagny: break it, then read the break

Bex & Dagny — a builder who tests prototypes until they fail, and a friend who studies how they failed

The idea in play: testing to failure only helps if you read where and how it failed, then fix that weakness rather than everything.

Bex's cardboard bridge collapses at 30 N. The target is 45 N.

Dagny looks at the wreck. The deck is intact. It tore away where it was glued to the supports.

What should the next prototype change?

Open the Design Bench →