Mechanical Engineering is a broad discipline with many different applications, and I believe this is shown with the two completely different directions Chris Murphy and I take our major and apply it to problems within Boston. While I looked more at the integration of mechanical, electrical and software for drone delivery applications, Chris focused on energy consumption and efficiency of Boston’s modes of transportation. I believe Chris had a more concentrated approach as he mentioned looking at the difference between electric and internal combustion engines in his problem statement, while my approach was slightly more broad. Outside of the problem statement, we both seemed to cite sources that mentioned a couple possible solutions for the problems we were discussing. My bibliography mentioned both land and airborne delivery drones as a solution for inefficient package delivery, while his mentioned electric buses and electric garbage trucks as a solution to inefficient public energy consumption. In terms of the XML source, we seemed to write in similar styles as we used the same element types. Specifically, we both switched between “author” and “source” for the background element, stuck with “general” for the summary element and mostly used “application” for the relevance element. One thing Chris has done which I have not is use different title levels for his citations. For the most part, this has reaffirmed how I wrote my annotated bibliography, since it is written in generally the same way. I would consider adding different title levels where appropriate and also being slightly more specific in my problem statement in terms of the insight my discipline provides to the problem.
