Final reflections on WA2

Although there are some improvements in my WA2 compared to WA1, there are still certain common errors.

Firstly, both essays lacked a title. Without a title, it would take readers some time before they might get a gist of what the essay is about.
Secondly, there are certain areas in my essay that needed to be checked for plagiarism. In my opinion, the topic that was chosen for this essay is a rather technical one. As I did not fully comprehend how a nuclear reactor operates, it was rather difficult to paraphrase the information obtained from my research. As such, there were areas in my essay that was largely similar to the sources that I used.

Thirdly, there was a segment of my essay that was contradicted my view on the issue. I had mentioned that the Generation IV reactor concepts were theoretically meltdown-proof but eventually I did compare the effects the different coolants would have in the case of a meltdown. Perhaps I should have emphasised that the chances of a meltdown are next to zero. Contradiction is quite a serious issue as it would mislead the reader, especially when the thesis statement is not clearly stated.

Lastly, there are also various parallelism errors in my essay. I should have been more careful when I was reading through my essay. This would then reduce the amount of language errors in my essay.

In conclusion, both assignments have helped me to spot the areas which I am weak in and they would allow me to prevent making such errors in future essays.

WA2 Reflection

The errors that I made in WA2 included the lack of a title, incorrect usage of articles, logical gaps and incorrect citations.

Firstly, the lack of a title was pointed out only after my WA2 was marked and returned to me. Having a title for my essays is important because it will let readers know what my essay is about at first glance. This will allow them to decide if it is worth spending the time to read my essay.

Secondly, I still make mistakes when using articles. This may not be acceptable giving the large amount of time we spent on that topic. One way that may allow me to reduce the amount of such mistakes may be to check the essay specifically for these mistakes in future.

Thirdly, I made several logical mistakes such as not explaining why the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) were chosen out of the 6reactors. I should have explained that both reactors were chosen due to these reactors being better at addressing concerns regarding nuclear power due to their properties. I also argued that the VHTR is more effective than the MSR at producing hydrogen even though both are high temperature reactors. The lack of an explanation to support this argument may confuse the reader. This area can be improved by adding explanations and citations to support the topic sentence.

Finally, I made some errors in citations by not using the APA format and citing a blog. Using an incorrect format of citation may cause my essay to seem less credible. This error can be corrected by manually citing instead of using the Microsoft Word citation function. The use of a blog as a source is also wrong as a blog is not a credible source. Even though the blog may be from Princeton and cites other sources that are credible, I should not have used the blog as a source. Instead, I should just use the sources that were cited in the blog.

In conclusion, I feel that making these errors when writing WA2 has helped me highlight the weak parts of my writing and allow me to be more careful of making such errors in future. The purpose of this module is to help me learn to write better and writing the WA2 has achieved that.

The final reflection on WA2

After the WA2 assignment papers were returned to us, I saw the various improvements that I have made since the start of EG1471. So below will contain two things that I have learnt and which I thought they will be useful for me in the future.

First, one has to be clear about what he or she is writing. At the start of this module, I did not have a clear idea about writing. All I thought was simply given a question or topic, think for a while and start writing. However, one has to think of the topic thoroughly, come out with a short thesis, which will guide the writer in his or her writing. Personally, I feel that having a short thesis is important as it can guide me during the process of writing. For example, I can know beforehand what will be the next item I am going to write about. This can also show the reader that I have a clear idea about what I am writing. At the end, I could write clearly and concisely and at the same time gained a better understanding about writing.

Second, one has to have a solid argument and not weaken that argument near the end for others to counter-argue. This is a mistake I have made in my writing assignment. I have nicely built up my argument about why a VHTR nuclear reactor should be a better candidate for further research than a SCWR nuclear reactor. However in my conclusion, I did not give a solid support to why the VHTR nuclear reactor should be given further research and instead, gave an impression that the VHTR and SCWR were both potential candidates. Thus, in the future, I have to make sure when I write a conclusion, it must be in tandem with my argument.

In conclusion, the WA2 assignment have allowed me to gained a better understanding about writing and especially for an argumentative essay.

The Second Reflection : Errors made in Writing of WA2

There were a few errors that I made in my writing on WA2 assignment, which includes a few instance of wrong tenses thorough the whole essay, the non-usage of articles, and last but not least the ambiguity of some statements as very few or no evidence has been presented in the writing of the essay.

Firstly, I have committed a few careless mistakes in the tenses of the subject. For example, in the first paragraph of my essay, I stated “Plants……it produces….” There is an obvious mistake as the world “Plants” is in the plural form; however I have written “produces”, which in the correct case should be singular “produce”. This type of mistakes can also be detected in the middle of the first paragraph. Again, “…plants produces…” is an issue of subject-verb agreement. These mistakes are as mentioned, careless mistakes committed by me, and therefore I will do extra checking for my future essay writings.

Secondly, articles have not been used when it is supposed to. For example, in my essay, I gave a general reference to the nuclear reactor “Very-high Temperature Reactor (VHTR)”. However, when I used the subject of VHTR in the later part of my essay, I did not make a specific reference to VHTR (i.e. starting of the sentence with “VHTR is a….”). The correct way of adding the specific reference is simply always adding the article “The” in front of the “VHTR” before continuing on with the sentence.

Lastly, the presence of ambiguity in my statements is due to the lack of sufficient sources to support my point. This, in my opinion, is due to the time constraints I experienced, as EG1471 have lots of assignments, tests, and blogs. I also need to juggle my time with other core modules. Thus, if we were not assigned so many tasks to complete for this module, I can confidently say that these ambiguities in the statements of my essay can be mostly cleared as more time is made possible for a more detailed research and better presentation of my essay.

However, most importantly, the knowledge gained on the skill on writing a better essay is in fact quite effectively imparted to us through this module. I am therefore convinced that it was not a fruit-less learning process after all.

Reflection on WA2

The process of writing WA2 was quite a tedious one. Not only was the topic something that most of us are not familiar with, it is filled with quite a lot of technical details. Although we were provided with Butler’s “Nuclear power’s new dawn”, we were also required to use other relevant and recent sources to support our argument.

Personally, a lot of time was spent on researching the advantages and disadvantages of the different Generation IV reactor concepts. As we were required to present a roundtable discussion in front of the whole class, my group decided that we would present the VHTR as our choice of reactor. It was from the roundtable discussion that made us realise that we approached the question in a wrong manner. We presented the advantages of the VHTR but did not compare it to the other Generation IV concepts. After listening the other group which was attempting the same question present, we realised the importance of comparing our choice to other concepts.

Determined to avoid the same mistake in the WA2, I had to do further research into the other types of concepts. Once that was done, I was left with the task of writing the essay. In a way, it was largely similar to the General Paper essays that were required of us during the ‘A’ levels. Each paragraph is usually structured in the same way; topic sentence, supporting evidence and finally a conclusion. Through writing WA2, I have also learnt to do proper referencing to the sources I have used in the essay.

Lastly, I feel that having peer reviews can be quite helpful. Not only can we help our peers spot mistakes that they might have overlooked, it also allows for a swap of ideas which might provide us new insights into how we could improve our own essays.

Reflection on writing WA2

Writing the Writing Assignment 2 (WA2) was an important learning process that helped me practice the various academic writing techniques that I learnt earlier on in the module. I was also able to identify and correct many mistakes that I usually make when writing essays.

The topic for my WA2 was to write an argumentative essay supporting the use of a particular generation IV reactor, the Very High Temperature Reactor(VHTR). The learning points included comparing the chosen reactor to other reactors, comparing using the various aspects of the reactors and using sources to support my arguments.

Firstly, I learnt that it is important to compare the VHTR to other reactors instead of only listing out the advantages and disadvantages of the VHTR. This will enable me to further illustrate why I chose the VHTR and show that other reactors were also examined before I came to a conclusion.

Secondly, I learnt that various aspects such as the security, performance and cost aspects of the reactor have to be examined instead of being limited to only examining the performance of the reactor. This will give a more comprehensive comparison on the different pros and cons of the VHTR.

Thirdly, I learnt how to find and use relevant sources to support my argument. This was an important point as many sources are available on the internet and I had to organise the information from these sources before using the information to support my arguments.

Overall, I learnt that it is important to select valid objects to compare to each other in an argumentative essay. I also learnt how to cite and select various sources in an organized manner so that the sources are able to support my arguments.

Reflection on writing WA2

WA2 was an argumentative essay that I have to write as part of the module. The writing assignment was useful as I was able to understand and learn about academic writing. In university, when one person writes an article, it serves to provide information on a certain topic and at the same time, provide an argument on why it should or should not be supported.

For my writing assignment, it is about nuclear energy being the future source of cheap electricity generation. In the process of writing, I need to read through several articles written by experts who are currently conducting research into various next generation of nuclear reactors. By reading through these articles, I also got to know how an academic writing would be structured and the way it was written. These have helped me in my writing assignment.

Finally, the most important of all is to cite the sources which you have obtained your information from. This is especially important as writing an academic piece is all about sharing information with other people. More importantly, it is to acknowledged the work of others.

In conclusion, WA2 has helped understand and at least prepare myself when the time come where I need to write an article about another topic in the future.

Reflection on writing WA2

The process of writing of WA2 is not easy due to some reasons. The reasons are the convincingness of my argument to support my thesis statement; the requirement of using very recently published sources as references for writing the essay; and most importantly the grammatical and sentence structuring issues.

Firstly, since I was writing on the promotion of very-high-temperature-reactor (VHTR) as the next generation nuclear reactor, I was not totally sure whether the readers will be totally convinced by my argument and support using the VHTR. This is because, as writers are unable to lift whole sentences exactly from any source, the actual fundamental explanation from the source may be lost through the explanation by their own words. Also, I may not have rebutted the counter-arguments as sufficiently due to time constraints and the rarity of matching sources to use.

Secondly, the requirement of using very recently published sources as references for writing the essay greatly reduces the quantity of matching sources to use. Although some sources may be dated five or six years ago, like the article “Nuclear power’s new dawn” by Delcan Butler, some information in it may be still useful up to the present time. However, the fact of being a year 2004 article, writing the essay based on those information may still raise doubts on whether it is really up-to-date. To reduce the doubts, I encouraged myself not to use too much of information from these article greatly.

Last but not least, I have carelessly made some grammatical mistakes occasionally throughout the whole essay and my drafts consist of lots of run-on sentences and issues on subject-verb agreement and parallelism as well. However with the help of my module tutor, I am able to reduce such errors to the minimum for my final WA2 essay.

Letter Regarding NUS FSAE sucess

First of all, congratulations to the team behind Centennial V. The team of 16 NUS students are the most sucessful team since NUS started participating in the FSAE competition, held yearly in Michigan. They managed a reputable 19th position out of 119 entries and also emerged as the top entry from Asia.

While the Nus FSAE team might have a history of 8 years, their first chance to race came only in 2004. Prior to that, a lack of funding restricted the team from participating in the yearly race. Since their first race, the team has improved with each race. It is not an easy feat for the students behind the car. Each year, the team builds a new car. The parts used in their car other than the engine are not commercially sourced but rather designed and built by the students themselves. As mentioned by Prof Seah in an interview given in 2005, the reason behind it was to allow the students to fully understand the mechanisms of the car.

The car was built at an estimated cost of a hundred thousand dollars. Although it cost more than an average saloon car in Singapore, let us not forget the amount of technology that went behind it. The team produced their own paddle-type gear shifter, often found only in cars with racing pedigree. It took team member Mazher Anwar four months to develope and perfect the design. The paddle gear shifter allows the driver to keep his hands on the steering wheel while changing gears, which happen within a hundred milliseconds.

The journey has not been all smooth sailing. When the team initially started our, the faced many problems. A lack of race car engineering resulted in a slow start. When their design was finalized, there was no place for them to test it as it was not road legal. Only with determination and passion, the team laboured on and eventually achieved results.

Once again, I would like to commend the team for their effect in the FSAE competition and may the team achieve even better results in the next competition.

Review - NUS Formula SAE Race Car

This post will be regarding the review of an article about the FSAE race car which was published in STREATS on Tuesday, September 7, 2004. The contents included the results of the NUS Formula Society of Automotive Engineers (FSAE) car's particpation in the 2004 FSAE meet, the design processes of the car and inclueded quotes from an interview with one of the team members.

The article was very informative and provided information regarding the FSAE race in a manner which makes it easily understandable. The information provided included the number of participants, the position of the car and the limitations that were imposed and had to be followed in designing the car. Actual satistics were used to back up the statements, such as stating that the NUS FSAE car came in 58th out of 140 cars and that there was a US$25,000 budget for making the car. Also, the use of technical terms was limited so that the article can be easily understood by the average reader who lacks specialised knowledge concerning race cars.

However, the few technical terms used did not have explanations of what these terms mean. This makes it more difficult for readers without prior knowledge to understand what the author wants to convey. For example, readers who do not know much about cars will not know what the 20mm limitation imposed on the air intake is for. In addition, an interview conducted with one of the team members was inserted, but an interview with the teacher-in-charge was not inserted. Quoting from interviews with both the teacher-in-charge and the team member would have provided more balanced insights and answer questions like the reason for spending so much money on a team of so little students when the money could have been spent in other ways.

Overall, the article was very informative and provided readers with information regarding the FSAE car. Moreover, the information was presented in a way that makes it easy for everyone to understand.

[i] Article URL: http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/fsae/oldsite/image/Motorshow%20-%20-Streats%20-%207%20September.pdf

Feature - NUS Formula SAE Race Car Project!

Have you ever aspired to design and construct your own race car and compete with the rest of the racing world, Formula One style? Your chance is here! Join the NUS’ very own race car project to fulfill your potential! The NUS Formula SAE race car project gives undergraduates to the opportunity to create their own dream race car and to compete among top-notch engineers from universities around the globe in this annual prestigious inter-varsity design competition held in Michigan International Speedway, USA.

The Formula Society of Automotive Engineers, or FSAE in short, always is a advocate of this competition as they always regarded formula racing being the apex of automotive engineering. This competition not only involves designed-centered and practical engineering, it will also be a priceless educational experience for the undergraduate participants which will surely add gloss to their future job prospects.

The NUS FSAE race car project is established in 2001, and the main team of the project consists of undergraduates from the second year onwards, with the seniors being in their final year, contributing to the cause with their expert and precious knowledge critical to the success of this competition. Although with their short history of barely a decade in their belts, this year would be the seventh car the team has competed in this competition. The ‘Centennial V’ competed in this huge event in the USA this year and beat all odds to obtain and overall ranking of 19th out of 119 teams, a remarkable feat considering it is the best entry from Asia for the last four years, and the NUS team best performance ever recorded. The NUS team has undoubtedly overcome Singapore’s limited knowledge on race car engineering to be part of the global aristocrats.

However, the NUS team’s believes that their full potential has yet to be realized and there is certainly further room for improvement. We need you to be along us to achieve this ultimate goal!

Commentary - Motorsport Culture in Singapore

Brief history
I recently attended a lecture given by Associate Professor Seah Kah Heng who is the head of National University of Singapore’s (NUS) very own ‘F1-style’ team, the Formula Society of Automotive Engineers (FSAE). FSAE started without much fanfare in NUS back in 2001. The team members creates its own racing car each year of which their latest car, 'The Centennial V', helped the team clinched their best ever result in a race held in the United States. The team was placed 19th out of a total of 119 teams!

Assoc/P Seah laments
In his lecture, he described some points about the difficulty they faced when competing annually, and one point that struck me was the lack of motorsport culture in Singapore. So I thought did Singapore ever have a motorsport fraternity back in the olden days? Did Singaporeans have any motor-sporting culture at all?

History of Singapore’s motorsport
Looking back, Singapore did indeed have a motorsport fraternity, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. It would be surprising to know that Singapore did host a similar Grand Prix back in the 1960s. It was known then as the Singapore Grand Prix (1961 – 1973). Its route was along old Thomson Road and like the Marina Bay circuit that has names for those nerve-defying turns, there were the ‘devil’s bend’, ‘the Rothmans’s corner’ and the ‘the nee soon hairpin’[i]. Furthermore, like the present GP, the then Singapore GP attracted large crowds; there were no tall concrete-bottom fencing lining along the route preventing free-loaders from watching, just about everyone could stand at the side to catch the excitement. However, the race was over after 1973 when the government cited safety and funding issues that prevented them from organizing the race annually[ii].

The racers and spectators
The then Singapore GP not only attracted many racers, it was also a place where people came and spent the weekend soaking up the atmosphere. Like the current Singapore GP, there were also many foreign racers who came to Singapore to compete and their presence brought excitement to the race and spectators. The spectators’ support was also appreciated by the racers especially Graeme Lawrence, who scored a hat-trick when he was competing between 1969 and 1971. He remarked, “The atmosphere was absolutely electric: the enthusiasm, the people, all the rest – it was a credit to them. I fell in love with the Asian culture and to this day I still have a great admiration for what they do, the way they work…’ [iii]The thrills and frills of the then Singapore GP was also chronicled by author Eli Solomon, who wrote a book about the history of the GP in ‘Snakes & Devils’ (2008). Briefly, the book managed to trace the then Singapore GP through pictorials and extensive interviews with race drivers who took part[iv].

The demise and its continuity
The craze about motorsport among the locals died down after the last 1973 Singapore GP but it did not fade away. According to Singapore Motor Sport Association, the motorsport racing continued after 1973 but it had to seek alternative sites[v]. Those venues were located on industrial land in the western part of Singapore. Presently, many local motor-racing enthusiasts do go across the Causeway during the weekends to race in places like Sepang and Pasir Gudang.

The future
On the other hand, the government recently has re-focused its attention to the motor-sport culture. One of the reasons given was ‘… (The) government is keen to tap is the business potential of the motorsports industry’.[vi] Currently, there are three bidding consortiums who are vying to build Singapore’s first permanent track near Changi Coast Road. The project promises to bring back the motorsport culture of the yesteryears. As the president of Singapore Motor Sport Association, Mr. Tony Tan, who remarked in an article, “…This is something we can call our own. Fewer trips to Sepang and Pasir Gudang for us soon!”[vii]

So it remains to be seen whether the recent developments can bring back the motorsport culture in Singapore. However, in hindsight, we can look forward to one day having our very own NUS FSAE team designing and engineering a race car for the big names in the motorsport industry!

[i] Snakes, Devils and the Wisdom of Solomon, Sports Illustrated South Africa, http://www.sportsillustrated.co.za/features/article.php?article_id=667&related=multisport (Last viewed on 10-9-2009).
[ii] SSC Sports Museum, Singapore Sports Council, http://web.archive.org/web/20061229153633/http:/www.ssc.gov.sg/museum/ssm_cat_details.jsp?type=4&root=20&parent=20&cat=23 (Last viewed on 10-9-2009).
[iii] Snakes, Devils and the Wisdom of Solomon, Sports Illustrated South Africa, http://www.sportsillustrated.co.za/features/article.php?article_id=667&related=multisport (Last viewed on 10-9-2009).
[iv] Snakes & Devils, a history of Singapore Grand Prix, http://www.rotikok.com/index.html (Last viewed on 11-9-2009).
[v] Singapore Motor Sport Association, http://www.smsa.org.sg/ (Last viewed on 11-9-2009).
[vi] Motorsports to get permanent Changi race track, The Straits Times, 27 October 2007.
[vii] Motorsports to get permanent Changi race track, The Straits Times, 27 October 2007.

Hello! From E23 NUS Race Car

Hello!
If you happened to see this, please note that we are not the official website about our school's race car.

This blog was set up as part of our EG1471 assignment. One of us will make a post (feature, review, letter and commentary) in this blog in the next few weeks. So if you are interested, do bookmark this blog!