How to Build a Better Burger

Most engineering students these days usually have at least one semester where they are required to design and build a device up to specifications and usually within a set of pre-determined parameters. This can vary from making the machine or device very simple or highly complex. I remember in high school we were required to build a catapult intended to launch a golf ball the farthest distance. It was a fairly easy process but my teammate and I went a little farther and through some trial and error came up with the optimum angle of release for the number of rubber bands that we had. We ended up launching our golf ball at least three or four times the distance of our nearest competitor. Still, the further one progresses, the harder such tasks are made and Purdue University proved that their team was best at accomplishing the problem set before them at this year's Rube Goldberg Machine Contest.

In a nutshell, the contest stipulated that the competitors were required to invent and build a machine which would be rated on it's complexity and inefficiency. In a minimum of 20 steps, the machine was required to make a hamburger which would have at least one meat patty, two vegetables and two condiments between two bun halves. Universities and engineering teams from all over the United States participated but Purdue's 156-step wonder was the machine that took the prize. The contest rules stated that once the process was started, that there could be no 'assistance' by anything or anyone. Only the machine could be set to the task. It's certainly a more humane contest rather than the traditional 'how to build a better mousetrap'. I think it's a unique concept as well though I'm sure Vegetarians and Vegans probably have some qualm over the fact that the main 'course' is a meat dish.

Still, I find it a little odd that prizes are being given based on complexity and inefficiencies of the machine design. I would think that a highly efficient machine would make more sense given that we are living in an environment where inefficiencies are frowned upon and compact is the way to go. I mean just a decade ago it would have been difficult to imagine carrying days worth of music on something the size of an audio cassette but now iPods are ubiquitous and so common that it isn't at all that uncommon to carry tons of music on something so small. Would Apple have done so well to store it on something the size of a dictionary? Probably not. Sure you may have tons more music but would it sell as much? I know the point of the contest is to make machines that would drive home inventors mad but still, I feel the mindset of some of our future minds should be focused on what will work for us in the future as opposed to something no one will want.

I remember a similar tasking I had in one of my engineering classes. We were to design a wind-powered device which would be capable of carrying over 200 pounds down the length of a wind tunnel and then we'd get bonus points for being able to return the weight against the wind. Our team managed to do the first part fairly easily since we just built a large sail meant to pull the car along. The second part was the difficult one and out of the twenty teams that took part in the contest, there was only one team that was able to accomplish it. Given the drive to go green these days, wouldn't such a device be viewed with more appreciation rather than a machine that makes a hamburger inefficiently? Go to some local fast food places and you'll find ample evidence of that. We don't need a machine to highlight it.