_____________________________________________________________________
Logbook
March 2013
_____________________________________________________________________
By Ian and Matthew
Page 2 of 25
Note:
This notebook was maintained throughout the project in electronic format. No handwritten materials were used. Upon project completion it was transferred into this, its
current template.
Page 3 of 25
Purpose:
The purpose of this logbook is to assist in organizing information in preparation for the science
fair. Through the completion of all activities, and by recording data obtained throughout the
project, the researchers will have an effective source to start creating a written report and display
board.
Good Science Fair Project:
The following characteristics are vital for forming an engaging project to display:
 Experiment/study/innovation addressing a particular problem prominent in society
 Use of background research and data to support the significance/hypothesis of the project
 Data collection/testing to diagnose the impact of the idea
 Progressive designs/modifications/tests to improve the presentation of a concept
 Applications to real life circumstances
 Intriguing information that uses inferences to provide new perspectives about a particular
topic
Types of Projects:
There are three different types of science projects that form the basis for success:
 Experiment: the use of scientific knowledge and inquiry to divulge deeper into a particular
idea (it is important to diagnose and monitor the variables).
 Study: the observation and analysis of a concept that is currently present in today’s
society to discover new reasoning behind a set of results (it is important compare the
information presented from a variety of sources).
 Innovation: the design of a new product (perhaps with components from existing studies
and technology) in order to resolve an issue (it is important to make and record
modifications to the original prototype).
Activity 1 (Award Winning Projects):
The goal of this task is to find and describe an example of each type of project:



Experiment: Corresponding with the Brain (By: Kaushar Mahetaji) used questionnaires to
observe, record, and analyze data related to the effects the brain has on learning styles
and multiple intelligences.
Study: The dichotomy of the humble chip: Are there healthy options? (By: Jasper Hanlon)
compared the nutritional value and effects posed by different brands of chips.
Innovation: A Novel Rooftop Wind Turbine for Convenient Residential Use (By: Alex and Erik
Bercik) constructed a wind turbine that could be placed on a typical residential roof to
generate electricity.
In each project, the researchers addressed a common problem/aspect of society and used tests,
the comparison of sources, or common materials to positively impact/develop an idea.
Page 4 of 25
Project Stages Overview:
The following table illustrates the different stages that are integral for producing different types
of science projects. The use of originality, creativity, and insight is important for success.
Experiment
Study
Innovation
Ask a question
Ask a question
Identify a problem
Form a hypothesis
Form a hypothesis
Select the best alternative
Plan the experiment
Plan the study
Plan the prototype
Perform the experiment
Carry out the study
Build the prototype
Observe/record data
Observe/record data
Test/evaluate the prototype
Organize/analyze results
Organize/analyze results
Organize/analyze results
Present results
Present results
Present results
Selecting a Topic:
Activity 2:
 The researchers are really interested in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and engineering,
sports, and Lego.
 The particular area that the researchers studied that was really enjoyable was the physics
component (optics, electricity) of the grade 9 and 10 science course.
 The researchers have read about/seen/wondered about the technology supporting the
productivity of simple machines.
 A problem that the researchers can think of that has no obvious solution is how time can
be reduced/minimized in relation to performing many simple daily tasks (ex: making
meals, cleaning, sleeping, and preparing for the day are time consuming tasks that use up
alot of energy that could be devoted to other tasks).
Topic Ideas:
 Lego Robotics (the application of simple machines)
 Sports Medicine/Injuries (causes and effects)
 Automatic Cereal Dispenser (the use of technology to accomplish simple daily tasks)
 Kingdoms of organisms (the impact and interaction of various aspects of our planet)
 Optical device (production of a telescope/microscope)
Final Selection: Automatic Cereal Dispenser (Innovation)
Probing the Correct Question:
For most innovation and technology projects, the question “in what way could __________ affect
the performance of ___________?” is used.
Activity 3:
The following questions refer to ideas that the researchers/others would want to know about:
 What materials/technology would be needed to produce a machine that does not require
human interaction?
 How much time could the machine save daily/yearly/in a lifetime?
 How much of an impact could the device have if used by an entire family/city/country?
Page 5 of 25
 What would the cost for production, maintenance, and repair be for the device?
Tracking Resources Used:
In order to have a strong knowledge about a particular subject area, it is important to conduct
background research. To ensure consistency and to interpret the overall concept needed to
support an idea, a variety of different types of resources (books, websites, magazines,
newspapers, movies) must be used. People with a background, particular designation, or
experience in a specific type of occupation can also be useful. All information obtained from work
produced by others must be paraphrased and referenced in the bibliography.
Activity 4:
The following chart indicates the resources that have been reviewed in preparation for writing the
written report, preparing the display board, and constructing the prototype:
Type of
Author
Title
Date/City of Publication
Publisher
Source
or Website Link
Textbook
C. Barker
Science Perspectives 9 Toronto (2010)
Nelson
Education
Textbook
C. Carr
Science Perspectives 10 Toronto (2010)
Nelson
Education
Textbook
M.
Nelson Physics 11:
Toronto (2011)
Nelson
DiGiuseppe University Preparation
Education
Book
G. Ferrari
Building Robots with
USA (2002)
Syngress
M. Ferrari
Lego Mindstorms
Publishing
R. Hempel
Inc.
Website
Stats
Statistics Canada
http://www.statcan.
Statistics
Canada/
gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html
Canada
Government
of Canada
Pamphlet Health
Eating Well With
Ottawa (2011)
HC
Canada
Canada’s Food Guide
Publishing
Website
Egg Farmers Egg Farmers of Ontario http://www.getcracki
Egg
of Ontario
ng.ca/dozenreasons
Farmers of
Ontario
Website
Intel ISEF
Society for Science and http://www.societyforscien
ISEF
(database)
the Public
ce.org/isef/rulesandguidel
Rules/
ines
Guidelines
Book
Ontario
Ministry of
Education
and Training
The Ontario Toronto (2008)
curriculum,
grade 9-10:
Science
Queen’s
Printer for
Ontario
Book
Ontario
Ministry of
Education
The Ontario
curriculum,
Toronto (2009)
Queen’s
Printer for
Ontario
Page 6 of 25
and Training
grade 9-10:
Technology
Website
Science
Canada
Participatio http://www.youthscience.ca
n of Humans /policy/participationin Research humans-research-low-risk
Youth
Science
Canada
Book
I. Yoshihto
Lego
Technic
Tora No
Maki
Japan (2007)
Igosawa
Studios
Inc.
Modifying the Question:
Activity 5:
After investigating the idea of automation and conducting detailed research, it is important to
determine whether the questions created in activity three require resource research (labelled
“Research”) or an innovation (labelled “Project”) to resolve.
 What materials/technology would be needed to produce a machine that does not require
human interaction? (Research)
 How much time could the machine save daily/yearly/in a lifetime? (Project: Innovation)
 How much of an impact could the device have if used by an entire family/city/country?
(Project: Innovation)
 What would the cost for production, maintenance, and repair be for the device?
(Research)
As there is a balance between the need to produce an innovation and to investigate related
resources regarding the questions the researchers proposed, the question for the project will be:
In what way could automation affect the performance of breakfast?
The modified question:
 Is distinct enough to base a project (study/experiment/innovation) upon.
 Can be completed in the time line presented (three months).
 Gives enough time to receive all required approvals before the fair.
 Gives people I know the opportunity to offer the researchers their knowledge.
 Can be completed with the materials and resources that the researchers have.
 Allows the innovation to be constructed at home and at school.
Creating a Hypothesis:
The hypothesis is an educated prediction about the expected results of the project (clearly stating
what will be supported or disproved). This prediction allows the researchers to propose an
innovation that could provide a solution. The hypothesis statement does not have to be correct as
an incorrect prediction can lead to the discovery a variable that had a great effect on the
outcome.
Page 7 of 25
Activity 6:
The hypothesis that the researchers have created for the innovation states:
We hypothesize that the use of technology, automation, and engineering will make the production
of breakfast a process that will require minimal human interaction, and save over one week of time
in the life of the user.
Safety and Ethics Requirements:
If human participants, vertebrate animals, micro-organisms, DNA, or organism tissues are
incorporated throughout the project, ethics committee approval must be obtained before any
documentation has started.
Activity 7:
The innovation includes human participants as the breakfast routines of a group of people will be
tracked for seven consecutive days. The human subjects will complete a questionnaire, record
what they have eaten, and track how long it takes in order to prepare their breakfast meals. This
information will allow the researchers to calculate how much time the innovation will save for the
average person if used daily.
Important information to note about the regulations of humans participating in research include
(according to Youth Science Canada’s category four discussing ethics and safety):
 Participation of Humans-Low Risk (Form 4.1A) must be completed with all required
signatures before documentation begins.
 The Low Risk project must involve conditions that have risks that are not greater than the
conditions experienced on a daily basis.
 Participants must not risk their physical or emotional health (participants must be
informed/ask questions to minimize risks)
 All information must be kept confidential and surveys submitted should be anonymous.
 An Informed Consent form must be signed and dated by each participant.
 A Letter of Information detailing benefits, risks, commitments, information about the
researchers, the purpose, and procedures must be presented to/discussed with each
participant.
Preparing a Logbook/Journal:
The use of a scientific logbook/journal allows scientists to record, observe, and analyse data
throughout the course of the project. An extensive set of notes (perhaps in sticky note, chart, or
graph form) can create a great foundation for the written report.
Page 8 of 25
Activity 8:
The activities in the Science Student Success Workbook, observations, calculations, brainstorming,
and other information about the project have been included in the journal.
Activity 9: Project Summary Sheet
My science fair topic is: How the use of technology and engineering can produce a simple
machine to complete the simple daily task of making breakfast
(Automatic Cereal Dispenser).
My question is: In what way can the use of automation improve the performance of breakfast?
My project will be an: Innovation
Books I have read:
1. Science Perspectives 9 (By: C. Barker)
2. Science Perspectives 10 (By: C. Carr)
3. Nelson Physics 11: University Preparation (By: M. DiGiuseppe)
4. Eating Well With Canada's Food Guide (By: Health Canada)
5. The Ontario curriculum, Grade 9-10: Science (By: Ontario Ministry of Education and
Training)
6. The Ontario curriculum, Grade 9-10: Technology (By: Ontario Ministry of Education and
Training)
7. Science Student: Success Workbook (By: N. Simmons)
8. Lego Technic Tora No Maki (By: I. Yoshihto)
9. Building Robots With Lego Mindstorms (By: G. Ferrari, M. Ferrari, R. Hempel)
Websites I have visited:
1. BASEF Project Resources (http://basef.ca/resources)
2. Statistics Canada (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html)
3. Egg Farmers of Ontario (http://www.getcracking.ca/dozenreasons)
4. Intel ISEF - Rules & Guidelines (http://www.societyforscience.org/isef/rulesandguidelines)
5. Youth Science Canada. (http://www.youthscience.ca/policy/participation-humansresearch-low-risk)
Experts I have spoken to:
1. Elizabeth Dunne-Samsworth (grade 9 and 10 science teacher, grade 11 biology teacher)
2. Joe Ionico (grade 9 and 10 science teacher, grade 11 physics teacher)
3. Pedro [name blanked] (background in scientific inquiry and technology)
Our hypothesis is:
We hypothesize that the use of technology, automation, and engineering will make the production
of breakfast a process that will require minimal human interaction, and save over one week of time
in the life of the user.
Page 9 of 25
Interesting things I found in my resource research:
 The 2011 Canadian life expectancy was recorded at 80.8 years.
 250 mL of milk and 30 grams of cereal is equal to one dairy and grains serving.
 Wind-up alarm clocks were used instead of digital alarm clocks just over half a century ago
(technology developments like televisions, cell phones, and machines have occurred
during that time period).
 The various applications, uses, and combinations of LEGO materials.
Safety regulations and ethics guidelines for my project are:
As human participants are involved, the Participation of Humans-Low Risk (Form 4.1A) document
must be completed. Each participant must fill out Letter of Information and an Informed Consent
Form prior to participating in the project.
Project Timelines and Goals:
By setting deadlines for each stage of the scientific process, the project will progress consistently
towards the final product. It is important to allot a large amount of time at the end in case there
are significant modifications or time consuming tests that need to be made.
Activity 10:
The timelines that the researchers have set for this project are:
Project Checkpoint
Time Allotted
Deadline Set
Topic Selection
2 weeks
January 4th, 2013
Question/Problem Statement
0.5 weeks
January 7th, 2013
Background Research
1 week
January 14th, 2013
Hypothesis
0.5 weeks
January 17st, 2013
Procedure/Materials List
2 weeks
January 31st, 2013
Innovation Prototype
3 weeks
February 21st, 2013
Observations/Data Collected
Written Report Rough Draft
3 weeks
February 21st, 2013
Graphs/Photographs
0.5 weeks
February 25th, 2013
Final Written Report
2 weeks
March 12th, 2013
Important Terms:
Subject: a person or object that will be investigated/observed throughout the course of the
project.
Page 10 of 25
Independent Variable: an aspect of the project that can be changed to alter the final results (can
be referred to as the cause).
Dependent Variable: a modification in the outcome that is caused due to alterations of the
independent variables (can be referred to as the result).
Controls: circumstances that will be kept identical throughout the entire project.
Control Group: a group of objects/people that will not change at all throughout the project (this
group can be observed/tested to collect data).
Sample Size: the amount of participants that are involved to obtain data/research (larger sample
sizes provide more accurate/consistent results).
Activity 11:
Question: You have 3 friends who each buy a lottery ticket on the same day, at the same store,
and each of the 3 wins $5.00. Does this prove that everyone who bought a ticket at
that store that day will win $5.00? Why not? How would you design an investigation
to answer this question? Will your investigation be a study or an experiment? Why?
In this scenario, the independent variable is the location (everyone purchased tickets at the same
store) while the dependent variable is that each person won five dollars. This result does not
prove that everyone who purchased a ticket there that day would have won five dollars because
the sample size was very small. It could be merely coincidental that all three people won, as the
next few people could have all won nothing (in a lottery, some people must win and some must
lose). To reinforce this point, I could create an investigation by asking every single person who
purchased a ticket at the store that day (or by checking the store’s records) whether they won five
dollars. As a result, I would have a larger sample size to make a conclusion. This investigation is an
experiment as the data and variables related to a real life situation are analysed (as opposed to
the comparing of sources in a study).
Materials List:
Each material used throughout every aspect of the project must be recorded in order to identify
the variables/controls for the final design. The quantity, size, temperature, and brand of each
material should be stated (or a picture should be incorporated to provide a visual picture). As the
project uses human subjects, their ages, gender, and other data related to the topic (job, how
often breakfast/cereal is eaten, location eaten) must be provided.
Activity 12:
Recipe B is more precise as it includes quantitative and qualitative properties for each substance
that is used. Colours, units of measure, amounts, temperatures, sizes, and brands are listed (in
Page 11 of 25
addition to how the materials are combined together). This materials list ensures that if someone
wanted to make the batch of brownies, they would have specific guidelines that would allow
them to produce a nearly identical batch to the one that the original chef created (the materials
are a foundation in reaching the same end product as another person).
Preparing the Procedure/Constructing the Prototype:
Procedures provide step by step instructions in order for another person to replicate your work
exactly. In terms of an innovation, it is important to include all changes made in order to improve
each design. In addition, the results must be reliable (consistent) and valid (accurate).
Activity 13:
For the Automatic Cereal Dispenser innovation, the researchers have formed a procedure and
materials list required to produce the device prototype. The detailed description provides an
exact step by step set of instructions to complete the project in an identical manner, using the
same type of material components.
Materials List:
 1 plastic bowl and metal spoon
 1 cereal box (Corn Bran Squares)
 300 mL white milk
 300 grams cereal
 300 mL milk container
 5 pencils, erasers, blue pens, and red pens
 100 sheets of blank and lined paper (21 cm x 28 cm)
 1 computer (programs: Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, LEGO Digital Designer)
 1 display board (120 cm x 90 cm)
 1 colour/black and white printer
 1 100 cm measuring tape
 1 scientific calculator
 10 human subjects (five male and five female)
 1 USB refrigerator (8cm x 18cm)
 Approx. 1500 LEGO components:
o 1 Sound senor
o 1 Light sensor
o 1 NXT
o Lego pneumatics
o Electronic power functions
o Technic angles/axles/bricks/chains/gears/pins
o Baseplates and bricks
Page 12 of 25
Procedure:
1. Use LEGO Digital Designer software to develop a prototype design for the Automatic
Cereal Dispenser (determining the number of each part required to construct each module
of the machine).
2. Collect all required LEGO and other working materials to begin constructing the
innovation.
3. Following the directions created on the computer, start building the synchro dive,
conveyor belt, cereal dispenser, milk dispenser, and spoon dispenser in separate portions.
4. After completing each section of the machine, assemble all of the portions together in
order to form a cohesive unit that functions to make breakfast (this would require minor
modifications to some material parts and structures).
5. After meeting with a group of 10 human subjects (equal number of five male and five
female participants), hand out a breakfast questionnaire that asks the participants
questions about their breakfast habits and allows them to track the time required to make
the meal every day for one consecutive week.
6. After analysing the data from the human breakfast survey and the tests conducted to
determine how long the Automatic Cereal Dispenser innovation requires to make
breakfast, determine how much time could be saved over a week, year, and lifetime
(based on the Canadian life expectancy) if used daily.
7. Organize all of the recorded information as a written report stating a hypothesis,
background research, references, and observations throughout the course of the project.
8. Create a display board to showcase the most important and useful aspects that can be
applied from the knowledge learned about the use of the Automatic Cereal Dispenser.
9. Present all of the work and the final innovation at the Bay Area Science and Engineering
Fair.
Constructing the Innovation:
After completing the initial procedure, note all of the changes to any steps and materials required
in order to ensure the innovation functions to a high standard. It is important to explain the
purpose behind each modification and to include pictures for clarity in the final report.
Throughout the observation period, record any and all details (no matter what their impact seems
to have at that moment).
Activity 14:
The following tracking sheets have been designed to best manage information throughout the
course of the observation period (tests/changes conducted on the Automatic Cereal Dispenser).
Page 13 of 25
Project Tracking Forms:
The following chart is used to record modifications made to the procedure and materials.
Date and Module
Description of Change
Purpose of Change
Experiment/Test Summaries for the ACD:
Throughout the production stage of the Automatic Cereal Dispenser, the researchers
constructed the innovation in five separate modules. At the start, the cereal dispenser, spoon
dispenser, milk dispenser, conveyor belt, and synchro drive were formed. Upon completion of
each individual segment, the parts were assembled altogether and programming was completed.
The categories in the table indicate what area of the project was altered, in addition to the
reasoning and description of the change.
There were a total of four different designs that were produced, tested, observed, and modified
throughout the duration of the project:
 Design A (Original) : Digital Prototype (Friday February 1st, 2013)
 Design B: Simple Individual Modules Built/Altered (Friday February 8th, 2013)
 Design C: Simple Individual Modules Incorporated (Friday February 15th, 2013)
 Design D (Final): Complex Individual Modules Built/Incorporated (Tuesday March 12th,
2013)
Design A Modifications (Design B Model):
Category
Change Description
Purpose
Cereal Dispenser
Change in dimensions of
supporting box
To accommodate cereal box
Change in structure of
supporting legs
To save materials, to make sturdier,
and to better fit the rotation sensor
Page 14 of 25
Design B Modifications (Design C Model):
Category
Change Description
Purpose
Cereal Dispenser
Addition of cereal box vibrators
Tilt of box was insufficient to
dispense cereal at a quick rate
Spoon Dispenser
Structure was redesigned
however same principles were
used (use of magnets and
motors to transport spoon)
Due to lack of materials and to
transport only one spoon
Conveyor Belt
Change in the design of the end
of conveyor belt bowl detector
To improve reliability/increase cutoff speed
.
Design C Modifications (Design D Model):
Category
Change Description
Purpose
Cereal Dispenser
Add in cereal chute (ramp and
side walls)
To control flow of cereal
Add in of touch sensor to signal
when the box reaches the
lowest position
To prevent damage in the case of
failure of the rotation sensor
Hole cut on top side of cereal
box
To facilitate reloading of cereal for
testing and practical purposes
Plastic funnel formed to reload
cereal into cereal box
To replace flimsy paper funnel (aid
in testing purposes)
Removal of center tracks
Unnecessary due to the power of
the outer tracks and caused
unnecessary friction
Removal of elastic based touch
sensor
More reliable design implemented
Conveyor Belt
Page 15 of 25
Milk Dispenser
Programming
Synchro Drive
Shortened conveyor belt
To reduce friction
Addition of a worm gear
Motor was too weak to move belt
as a direct drive, conveyor moved
too quickly for the direct drive
Addition of markers at end of
conveyor belt
To position ceramic bowl correctly
and to ensure reliable results on the
balance (used to measure weight)
Complete redesign (changed
from a pouring, wheel based
system to a compressed air
displacement system)
To limit messiness, simpler, less
moving parts, and more efficient
Addition of a lever, light based
sensor measuring system
Position of lever affects light
reading (notifying RCX when bowl is
full)
Lubrication of lever in light
based system
To ensure more consistent results
by limiting friction
NXT replaced by RCX
To provide larger read out numbers,
to avoid using NXT software (not as
user friendly)
Constructed frame to support
RCX
To angle temperature reading of
fridge (easier for display)
Addition of start up button
To make the system user friendly
Decreased weight requirement
for the cereal dispenser
To increased production reliability
Increased bounce time of cereal
dispenser (cereal box)
To prevent sensor from being kept
under too much pressure
(preventing damage)
Change of battery position in
synchro drive
To hold bowl firmly
Plastic curve added to synchro
drive (pressing against chain)
To keep chain taught (maximize
functioning)
Page 16 of 25
During the final analysis of the machine, the independent and dependent variables discovered to
impact the final outcome of the project included:
Independent Variables:
Dependent Variables:
Time vibrating cereal box
Amount of cereal in bowl
Time pouring cereal into bowl
Amount of cereal in bowl
Time transporting bowl along conveyor belt
Positioning of cereal bowl
Time pump is working (milk dispenser)
Amount of milk added to bowl
Whether RCX 1 (in charge of cereal dispensing)
Whether RCX 2 (in charge of milk dispenser) starts
completes sequence
Amount of cereal in bowl (weight)
Light reading (weight sensor)
Time polarity switch controlling pump is on
Time pump is functioning
*These variables should be considered if another cereal dispenser is developed in the future.
The following table is used to track any observations during the human breakfast survey and for
any tests conducted on the innovation upon its completion.
Category
Observations
Daily wake-up time
(Human Breakfast Survey)
Daily time required to make breakfast by the
average human (Human Breakfast Survey)
Occurrences, locations, and descriptions of
components for human breakfast (Human
Breakfast Survey)
Daily time required by Automatic Cereal
Dispenser to produce breakfast
Collected Data Summary
Completed Forms are available upon demand.
Human Breakfast Survey: the breakfast habits and routines of the subject group were tracked for
seven consecutive days (one week). At the conclusion of the week, a questionnaire was also
completed by each participant to collect responses regarding other related breakfast information.
The experiment/survey was conducted between the dates: Sunday February 10th, 2013 and
Saturday February 23rd, 2013.
Page 17 of 25
Participant Data:
Category: (total, gender, job title)
Collected Information:
Sample Size
10 (all currently living in Ontario, Canada)
Number of male participants
5
Number of female participants
5
Number of student participants
3
Number of teacher participants
1
Number of post secondary student
1
participants (university/college)
Number of full-time working participants (not 4
including teachers or professors)
Number of retired/senior participants
1
Of the 10 participants, 50% were men and 50% were female (equal representation by gender). In
addition, 50% of the participants were involved in an education based lifestyle (teaching, post
secondary studies, and students) while 50% were either full time workers or retired. Therefore as
a diverse group of participants have participated in the survey, the average of the data collected
will demonstrate an accurate representation of the consistent breakfast habits performed by the
typical Canadian.
The group of participants
represent a large variety of
age groups from the
Canadian society. There is a
balance between the
amount of youth, young
adults, older adults, and
seniors in order to ensure
that an accurate set of data
is collected to represent the
average breakfast habits
and routines of a person in
Canada.
Daily Record Table:
Throughout the seven consecutive days, the daily wake up time and the time required to make
breakfast were recorded. The final results are displayed in the table below with the average for
each category presented in blue.
Page 18 of 25
Wake-up Time:
Participan
t
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1
9:00 AM
7:15 AM
8:00 AM
7:30 AM
7:15 AM
7:15 AM
8:15 AM
2
7:18 AM
7:40 AM
7:00 AM
6:56 AM
7:05 AM
7:16 AM
8:11 AM
3
10:15 AM
7:15 AM
7:20 AM
7:20 AM
7:15 AM
7:15 AM
10:00 AM
4
7:10 AM
8:45 AM
6:30 AM
6:30 AM
6:32 AM
6:45 AM
8:15 AM
5
8:45 AM
6:45 AM
6:30 AM
6:35 AM
6:45 AM
6:40 AM
9:25 AM
6
8:00 AM
7:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:00 AM
7:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
7
7:20 AM
6:40 AM
6:20 AM
6:05 AM
5:00 AM
6:25 AM
6:10 AM
8
10:40 AM
6:45 AM
7:40 AM
7:30 AM
8:00 AM
7:40 AM
8:00 AM
9
8:15 AM
6:50 AM
6:50 AM
6:50 AM
6:50 AM
6:50 AM
10:15 AM
10
7:30 AM
7:40 AM
7:15 AM
6:00 AM
6:35 AM
6:15 AM
8:30 AM
Average
Average
8:25 AM
7:20 AM
7:03 AM
6:50 AM
6:50 AM
6:56 AM
8:30 AM
7:25 AM
Time Making Breakfast: (recorded in minutes)
Participant
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Average
1
15
30
15
15
15
30
15
19
2
5
5
5
5
4
2
30
8
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
13
10
15
12
6
5
10
10
5
9
7
6
10
8
5
4
7
6
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
7
3
6
4
6
4
5
7
5
8
10
10
5
15
10
15
15
11
9
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
10
5
4
4
6
6
3
5
5
Total
7
9
7
8
7
8
10
8
Page 19 of 25
Using the data collected, it was simple to determine that each individual had a consistent routine
performed throughout the week. As a large group was surveyed, the final results gave the
researchers a more accurate representation. For the data collected, the average daily wake up
time throughout the week was 7:25 am. The tables also show that on weekends, the wake up
time was much later than during the week. The time required to make breakfast was fairly
consistent overall for each day of the week, with the overall average time as 8 minutes.
Breakfast Routine Questionnaire: the final element of the human study allowed the researchers
to determine the effectiveness of the innovation as long as common breakfast routines.
From the collected data, it
can be determined that 20%
of the participants eat
breakfast on the go/outside of
their house. However, 100%
of the participants make
breakfast in the kitchen and
eat breakfast every day.
Thus, it could be inferred that
nearly everyone eats
breakfast, and that the meal
is most often eaten in the
kitchen (at home).
From the data collected, the most common machines used while making breakfast include:
Machine/Appliance Name
Listed by Percentage of Participants
Toaster
80%
Kettle
60%
Microwave/Oven
40%
Refrigerator
30%
Coffee Maker
20%
The percentages would likely have increased for most machines (ex: refrigerator) had the choices
been listed (the question was posed as an open ended response). Through data analysis, it can be
determined that the toaster and kettle were the most used appliances.
Page 20 of 25
At the start of the experiment, only 30% of participants were interested in an automatic cereal
dispenser. However, when participants were told that the machine could save over 20 days worth
of time in their life, 90% were interested in an automatic cereal dispenser (demonstrating
consumer demand).
Automatic Cereal Dispenser: the average time for the innovation to dispense a spoon, cereal,
milk, and transport the bowl a small distance was calculated by recording the time needed by the
machine to perform these functions.
Test Number
Time (seconds)
Test Number
Time (seconds)
1
90
7
84
2
80
8
92
3
96
9
86
4
78
10
84
5
82
Average Time
86 seconds
6
88
A series of 10 tests was performed on Sunday March 10 th, 2013 upon completion of the final
product. On average, the total time required for the Automatic Cereal Dispenser to prepare
breakfast daily is 86 seconds/1 minute and 26 seconds.
Time saved daily when making breakfast by using the Automatic Cereal Dispenser:
= Average daily time without innovation – Average daily time with innovation
= 480 seconds – 86 seconds
= 394 seconds (6 minutes and 34 seconds)
Thus, 6 minutes and 34 seconds is saved on average daily by using the Automatic Cereal
Dispenser to prepare breakfast instead of preparing the meal by hand.
Time Saved by the Innovation: using the data obtained from the human breakfast
survey/questionnaire and tests performed on the Automatic Cereal Dispenser, the amount of
time the machine will save in the life of the average Canadian can be calculated.
Page 21 of 25
Key Calculation Statistics:
 Average Canadian life expectancy (Stats Canada: 2011 Census) = 80.8 years-10 years (10
years old is a reasonable level of maturity to operate the machine) = 70.8 years
 Total Canadian population (Stats Canada: 2011 Census) = 33 476 685 people
 Average time saved daily by Automatic Cereal Dispenser (Human Breakfast
Survey/Automatic Cereal Dispenser testing) = 6 minutes and 34 seconds/394 seconds
 Weekly average for eating cereal at breakfast (Breakfast Routine Questionnaire) = 1-2
times
*Note: ACD refers to Automatic Cereal Dispenser
Average Time Saved in a Lifetime Calculation A (ACD used three times every two weeks):
Average time saved weekly= times ACD is used per week x average time saved daily
= 1.5 x 394 seconds
= 591 seconds (9 minutes and 51 seconds)
Average time saved yearly= number of weeks ACD used per year x average time saved weekly
= 52 x 591 seconds
= 30 732 seconds/512.2 minutes/8 hours and 32 minutes
Average time saved in a lifetime= average amount of years used x average time saved yearly
= 70.8 years x 512.2 minutes
= 36 263.8 minutes/604.4 hours/25.1 days
Therefore, the average time saved in the lifetime of the average Canadian (80.8 years) when the
Automatic Cereal Dispenser is used to make breakfast three times for every two week period is
25.1 days.
Average Time Saved in a Lifetime Calculation B (ACD used daily):
Average time saved weekly= times ACD is used per week x average time saved daily
= 7 x 394 seconds
= 2 758 seconds (45 minutes and 58 seconds)
Average time saved yearly= number of weeks ACD used per year x average time saved weekly
= 52 x 2 758 seconds
= 143 416 seconds/2 390 minutes/39 hours and 50 minutes
Average time saved in a lifetime= average amount of years used x average time saved yearly
= 70.8 years x 2 390 minutes
= 169 212 minutes/2820.2 hours/117.5 days
Assuming that the Automatic Cereal Dispenser was used on a daily basis throughout the entire
life of the average Canadian, 117.5 days worth of time would be saved.
Average Time Saved Nationally (ACD used once):
Page 22 of 25
To put the impact of the Automatic Cereal Dispenser into a national perspective, if the machine
was used by every single Canadian for one day only:
Average time saved nationally= Canadian population x average time saved daily per person
= 33 476 685 x 394 seconds
= 13 189 813 890 seconds/219 830 231.5 minutes/3 663 837.2
hours/152 659.9 days/418.2 years
Therefore, if every person in Canada (based on population at the time of the 2011 Canadian
census) used the Automatic Cereal Dispenser for one day, 418.2 years worth of time would be
saved. As a result, the significant amount of time saved could be dedicated to scientific research
and/or developing various aspects of Canadian industries and society.
Organizing/Analyzing the Information:
Through the use of graphs and tables, it is easier to determine and compare various trends within
the collected data.
Activity 15:
The following analysis responses helped the researchers to divulge deeper into the data obtained
from the Human Breakfast Survey and Automatic Cereal Dispenser innovation testing.
 The results mean that the Automatic Cereal Dispenser is an effective innovation that can
save more time when making breakfast than when the average human produces the meal.
 The data supports my hypothesis as over twenty hours worth of time was saved by the
user if the device was used daily. In fact, testing demonstrated that the machine could
actually save over 100 hours worth of time.
 Other explanations for what may have happened may be due to a smaller sample size of
10 (less consistent and accurate than a larger group, but required due to financial and time
limitations).
 If I had changed the sample size (used a larger amount and diverse group of participants),
the results may have changed how much time (more or less) that the device would save.
 The design that should come next would have to incorporate the principles and concepts
used for the LEGO version of the innovation, but could use other materials (to increase
marketing value).
Conclusion:
The conclusion is a reflection about the results in relation to the hypothesis originally posed by
the researchers. Although the hypothesis may not always be supported by the results (which does
not make the whole project a complete failure), it is important to discuss the possible reasoning
behind it in this case.
Page 23 of 25
Activity 16:
The researchers have developed the following conclusion in reflection to the final results:
The results of the project support the hypothesis as the use of the Automatic Cereal Dispenser on a
daily basis for 70.8 years (10 less than the average Canadian life expectancy) would save 117.5
days. This is greater than expected as the original prediction estimated that only about 20 hours of
time would be saved in total. This principle demonstrates that the device would have a large
impact throughout the life of the user. 90% of the participants in the Human Breakfast Survey
mentioned that if the machine saved over one week’s worth of time, they would be very interested
in using it more often. Thus, the idea that only 10% of the Human Breakfast Survey participants ate
breakfast daily would increase. Throughout the testing of the innovation upon construction
completion, it was determined that the impact that the device would have on society would make
the device technically viable (creating an extensive market).
Possible Applications (Discussing the Importance):
In order for an innovation to be successful, it must have possible methods in which it can be used
in real world experiences encountered in our daily lives.
The various applications for the Automatic Cereal Dispenser include:
 To assist people with manual dexterity (old age, Parkinson’s disease) by allowing them to
save energy and reduce the daily workload.
 To feed pets (dogs and cats) when the owner is away for an extended time period.
 To save time in the lives of any person working in any occupation.
The Written Report:
The final report booklet documents each step of the scientific inquiry in a clear, concise,
organized, and logical manner (allowing another person to repeat the project identically).
Activity 17:
The following checklist ensures all aspects of the Automatic Cereal Dispenser Final Report are
completed:
 Title Page (researcher names and project name)
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Question/Purpose/Hypothesis
 Background Information
 Procedure/Materials List
Page 24 of 25






Experiment/Test Summary
Data Summary (including: required approval forms and copies of questionnaires)
Conclusion
Possible Applications
Reference List
Acknowledgements
 Logbook/Summary Journal (submitted separately)
Abstract:
The abstract is a summary (less than 250 words) about the all of the work completed for the
project.
Activity 18:
The rough draft/brainstorming for the project abstract is displayed below:
 Title: Automatic Cereal Dispenser
 Problem: The improvement of technology in recent times could allow humans to
complete daily tasks with the use of machinery (no human interaction).
There
are many time consuming tasks that are often completed inefficiently by
humans, but with the use of automation, many more projects could be
completed (while a large period of time could be saved).
 Purpose: The objective is to construct a machine able to save time during the daily
breakfast routine of the typical human.
 Hypothesis: The use of the innovation on a daily basis throughout the life of the user
could save over one week’s worth of time.
 Procedure: To start, the use of LEGO Digital Designer software allowed the researchers
to produce a virtual prototype while recording the materials and steps
required to physically construct the device. During construction, the parts of
the machine were assembled separately before being combined into one
appliance. To determine how much time would be saved by the use of the
machine, 10 participants (five male and five female) were selected to
complete a survey about daily breakfast habits for seven consecutive days. As
a result, the survey provided enough data to determine the total time required
to produce breakfast by hand on average, and the amount of time saved by the average
Canadian (with an 80.8 year life expectancy) with the use of the machine.
 Conclusion: Upon completion of the construction and observation stages of the project,
the machine was able to dispense cereal into a bowl, move it over a
reasonable distance, add milk, and place a spoon into the bowl without any
help from humans. If the machine was used daily throughout the life of the
user, over 100 days’ worth of time could be saved.
Page 25 of 25
Reference List:
The reference list includes resources that were used to provide ideas and/or quotes throughout
the duration of the project (listed in alphabetical order).
Activity 19:
Reference List Format: American Psychological Association (APA)
Formatting:
 Book: Author last name, Author first name initial. (Year published). Title of book. City
published. Publisher name.
 Website: Author. (Year published). Website title. Date retrieved. URL.
Activity 20:
The following responses have helped the researchers prepare for any questions that could be
asked:
 The biggest surprise was how much time could be saved if the Automatic Cereal Dispenser
was used daily throughout the life of an average Canadian who live 80.8 years (over 100
days’ worth of time could be saved).
 Unexpectedly, we found out that by using automation to complete a simple, common task,
a large amount of time could be saved over a long period of time.
 If we had changed the sample size for the human breakfast survey, we think that the time
required for the average human to produce breakfast and the common breakfast habits
would have changed marginally (increasing accuracy).
 If we had more time, we would have produced the device with different materials to
compare the amount of time that could be saved.
 If we had done the project again, we would test out a different design for the Automatic
Cereal Dispenser.
 Something not obvious from the backboard is that over 100 hours worth of time was
devoted by each team member in accomplishing the project.