I learned that the design process is far more iterative and assumption-driven than I initially expected. At the start of the project, we believed that selecting the correct sensing method would be the primary challenge. However, once we began building and testing, integration issues such as air bubbles, inconsistent flow, and sensor instability became the dominant problems. These challenges revealed that our early assumptions about system behavior were incomplete.

As a result, our approach shifted from trying to get the perfect solution to continuously testing and refining the design. Each iteration of the P-trap and sensing system was informed directly by observed failures, which helped us better understand the interaction between mechanical design, fluid behavior, and electrical sensing. This experience showed me that engineering design is not linear, but a process of refining assumptions through testing and evidence.

Through this project, I saw that adaptability, problem-solving, and communication are critical attributes of an engineer, but more importantly, they must be applied in a practical context. Adaptability was essential when our initial designs failed, requiring us to quickly revise our approach and explore alternative solutions. Problem-solving was necessary to break down complex system issues, such as separating mechanical flow problems from sensor noise and control issues.

Communication was equally important, especially in a multidisciplinary team. Coordinating between hardware, software, and testing ensured that issues were identified and addressed efficiently. I realized that strong technical skills alone are not enough; the ability to communicate ideas clearly and give feedback is what allows a project to progress effectively.

This project reinforced that engineers have a responsibility that extends beyond technical performance. Engineering decisions directly impact safety, public welfare, and user trust. In our case, the system addressed the risks associated with methanol exposure, where failure to detect unsafe conditions could lead to serious harm. This highlighted the importance of designing systems that prioritize safety and reliability, even under constraints such as cost and limited testing conditions.

It also showed me that engineers must make decisions based on trade-offs. We chose an indirect sensing method because it was more affordable and practical, even though it was less precise than laboratory-grade techniques. This experience emphasized that engineering is about making informed decisions within constraints, while still maintaining ethical responsibility and prioritizing user safety.

One of my key strengths is persistence in problem-solving, particularly when working through complex system-level issues. I remained engaged through multiple iterations and contributed to improving both the design and implementation. I also bring strong analytical thinking when interpreting test data and identifying patterns that guide design decisions. In addition, I am highly adaptable and able to quickly learn new tools and skills when required. For example, I independently learned LaTeX to write technical reports and became proficient in acquiring sensor readings and converting raw data into meaningful, readable outputs.

However, I recognize that I need to improve my communication, particularly in team settings. Earlier in the project, I was more reserved during meetings and contributed less during ideation discussions. Over time, I made a conscious effort to become more engaged, and my team also adapted to my communication style, allowing me to share feedback and ideas more effectively. Moving forward, I aim to continue developing my confidence in collaborative discussions so I can contribute more actively from the outset.