ENKÄTER
 

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Internal Combustion Engines, Advanced Course, 2010, MTF 225

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-06-14 - 2010-07-01
Antal svar: 16
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Petter Dahlander»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Course administration and information

1. Where the goals of the course clear after reading the course PM and the information on the course web page?

15 svarande

Not good»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»2 13%
Good»13 86%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

2. Did you find the course web page satisfactory?

15 svarande

Not good»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»1 6%
Good»12 80%
Very good»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

3. Was the course PM satisfactory?

15 svarande

Not good»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»2 13%
Good»11 73%
Very good»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 4

Learning

4. Where the goals of the course fulfilled?

15 svarande

No»0 0%
Almost»2 13%
Yes»13 86%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

5. Do you consider that you had good pre-knowledge?

15 svarande

Not at all, I missed a lot»0 0%
Yes»6 40%
Yes, definitely»9 60%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

6. Which parts of the course were difficult/easy?

- some questionnaire given in the assignment were real good but we didnt find the concrete answers such as difference between single cylinder and multicylinder for same power , really it is a good question but till now i didnt find a concrete answer and we guessed the answer ..so please give the answers after the assignment »
- the theory part i believe was too easy. »
- The most was ok»
- Some parts of gt-power was very difficult.»
- difficult : optical measurements easy : alternative fuels»
- Some gas exchange knowledge was not new and easy.»
- GT Power was tough, but I enjoyed working with it !! »

7. Is it clear what your knowledge from the course can be used for?

15 svarande

No»0 0%
Almost»2 13%
Yes»13 86%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Lerning Gt-power was vary good since it feels that we can just walk to volvo and tell them we already have some experience.» (Yes)

8. Did you find the course to be scheduled right in time in the global course plan?

15 svarande

Yes»15 100%
No, too early»0 0%
No, too late»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1

- If something, the two courses in ICE should be moved closer together, since it is easier to keep all theory in your head between the two courses.» (Yes)

9. Did you find the "suggested readings" uploaded to the web page helpful?

15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

- But, it had been better if it was suggested readings to all lectures and not only a few.» (Yes)
- They where helpful, but there schould have been more questions (to cover all lectures) and they schould be more similar to those on the final exam. I was also under the impression that the techers didn´,t put to much work infå writing the questions (they were only halfway finished).» (Yes)

Lectures

10. What did you think about the lectures as a whole?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 6%
Ok»2 13%
Good»10 66%
Very good»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- gets a little messy with different lecturers and they dont know wht the others have been talkin about» (Ok)
- The quality of the lectures took a big step forward compared with the intruduction course in ICE.» (Very good)

11. How many lectures did you go to?

15 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»0 0%
40-60%»1 6%
60-80%»5 33%
80-100%»9 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.53

- 100% of the lectures and excercies.» (80-100%)

12. If you did not go to the lectures, what was the reason?

- spent the evening before in the workshop for too long»
- Other courses.»
- have some conflict with another course»

13. How did you like the lectures by Petter Dahlander?

(Engine modeling, Sprays, Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Development trends SI engines.)

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»1 7%
Good»7 50%
Very good»6 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.35

- personally i feel modelling is very difficult to understand from the class lectures and from the course book too» (?)
- a bit messy but interesting» (Good)
- Good dynamism» (Good)
- Good content, good presentation.» (Very good)
- very enthusiastic, which is rare.» (Very good)
- I missed CFD but all others were real good !! » (Very good)

14. How did you like the lectures by Arjan Helmantel?

(Gas exchange/charge motion, Engine operating characteristics, Diesel spray combustion 2, Development trends CI engines)

15 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»6 40%
Good»7 46%
Very good»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- The content was good, presentation could improve» (Ok)
- He should go more into details and it would then be very interesting and constructive» (Ok)
- his slides were very good , he can deliver the lectures little bit clear or audible» (Good)
- very good powerpoints, easy to study at a later time» (Good)
- He has a lot of knowledge but ı,s not a real good talker. Dı,d good lectures though» (Good)
- It can sometimes be difficult to understand Arjans sliped/pictures, exept this he is very good.» (Good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

15. How did you like the lectures by Monica Johansson?

(Alternative fuels)

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 8%
Ok»1 8%
Good»8 66%
Very good»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

- missed» (?)
- i missed that !! » (?)
- bit boring » (Ok)
- More about fuels next year, monica was very good and managed to learn us a few things about chemistry (whitch we should learn alot more about).» (Very good)

16. How did you like the lectures by Mats Andersson?

(Optical measurement methods)

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 21%
Ok»4 28%
Good»7 50%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- i missed that !! » (?)
- the basic classes of measurement were very boring explaining quantum physics and things but the later part was quite interesting , can be better with real world examples» (Poor)
- These lectures were quite boring/uninteresting, but it could have been due to the nature of the topic itself.» (Poor)
- Just alot of slides.» (Poor)
- whole first lecture he just talked about measuriment techniques without actually showing any examples of pic/movies you can get with the techniques» (Ok)

17. How did you like the lectures by Sven Andersson?

(Diesel spray combustion)

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 7%
Ok»2 14%
Good»3 21%
Very good»8 57%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Feels like they were very similar to those in the intro course» (Ok)
- Excellent as usual!» (Very good)

18. How did you like the lectures by Anders Karlsson?

(Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in industry)

14 svarande

Very poor»1 7%
Poor»2 14%
Ok»5 35%
Good»5 35%
Very good»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- dont remember» (?)
- lots of repetı,tı,on from ICEcourse» (Poor)

Design task

19. What did you think about the design task as a whole?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»0 0%
Good»6 40%
Very good»9 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- The concept and aim of the exercise was good, it was the idiosyncrasies of the software that trip you up.» (Good)
- Some questions were difficult, it was even hard to find the answer in books or on the internet.» (Good)
- great way to learn gt power» (Very good)
- Very good to use a common software.» (Very good)
- Overall very good, but. I wish we could have spent a little more time learning about some of the parameter changes (incl. background). Also, i would have like som thero behond for example tuning the intake runner length. We could have been given a formula to calculate the length roughly, witch would have given us more time to optimize other parameters etc. » (Very good)

20. How many GT-Power exercises did you go to?

15 svarande

0-20%»1 6%
20-40%»0 0%
40-60%»2 13%
60-80%»1 6%
80-100%»11 73%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- spent to late evenings in the workshop» (40-60%)
- (I don"t fully understand what this question asks - I completed both of the assignments and all the suggest examples)» (80-100%)

21. What did you think about the GT-Power software?

15 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 6%
40-60%»1 6%
60-80%»4 26%
80-100%»9 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- The software is quite good, although it takes a while to get used to the interface. One issue was that we found the engine will continue to run at lambda values of up to 8/9 - this was because there was no combustion model. (this is just a remark)» (60-80%)
- Fairly easy to use once the course was completed, i.e. we would have liked more guiding in the beginning.» (60-80%)
- love it» (80-100%)

22. What did you think about Daniel Dahl"s supervision?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»1 6%
Good»11 73%
Very good»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- It seems as he took great responsibility for this part of the course and tryed to solve the problems quick.» (Very good)

23. What did you think about Jonas Wärnberg"s supervision?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»3 20%
Good»8 53%
Very good»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

- Wery helpful when given impossible questions to answer.» (Very good)

Engine laboration

24. What did you think about the engine laboration?

15 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»2 13%
Good»8 53%
Very good»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- boring and repetative. I was even put on making coffee instead of participating in the lab. The lab was boring and I didnt learn anything except to look at gauges» (Very poor)
- The asian guy that helped us should undergo some training regarding the hardware of the engine. Exept for that, the laboration was very good and we learned a lot. It would also be nice if everything worked as it schould» (Good)
- I think this was a great idea - the students get to see what a test setup looks like and also see how different combustion modes affect performance and emissions.» (Very good)

Course Literature

25. What did you think about the Heywood book?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 13%
Ok»1 6%
Good»6 40%
Very good»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

- too old it would be better to use Automotive engineering fundamentals by Richard Stone and Jeffrey K. Ball, available at chalmers library» (Poor)
- But not that much useful for this course. I used it more for the introductory course» (Good)
- great book» (Very good)
- Apart from the fact that it is now a little dated, it still does a great job of covering the fundamentals.» (Very good)
- The book is very good but is hard to use and didn´,t helped us much in this course. One would wish that chalmers could provide a good compendium that could be used in both ther internal combustion courses. The suggested reading should be more precise, so the students know which pages to read after each lecture. » (Very good)
- Thats my bible :)» (Very good)

26. What did you think about the lecture handouts?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»6 40%
Good»6 40%
Very good»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- ..but please do not print them to small!» (Very good)

Your work

27. How many hours per week did you spend for this course?

15 svarande

<15 h»1 6%
Ca 20 h»4 26%
Ca 25 h»6 40%
Ca 30 h»3 20%
> 35 h»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- More when doing design task 2.» (Ca 30 h)
- At the end, the gt-power task took a lot och effort. But this and the engine laboration ment that the labour was quite evenly distributed over time.» (Ca 30 h)
- GT Power all week along !! » (> 35 h)

The exam.

28. Do you think that the exam reflected the course well?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»5 33%
Good»7 46%
Very good»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- Maybe it was too easy.» (Good)
- Assignment should be graded not just pass/fail» (Good)
- The exam was good but more difficult than most old exams i have looked at. » (Very good)

Summary

29. What did you think about the course as a whole?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Ok»2 13%
Good»8 53%
Very good»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- I think the theory isnt advanced enough for an advanced course. Either increase the level of detail or turn it in to a course on engine simulation, and focus even more on that instead.» (Ok)
- It is a shame that I didn"t attend the basic course because I would have understood more things and it would have been easier for the design tasks.» (Good)
- Good course, it brings the student up to date with what is happening in the field currently.» (Very good)
- With minor adjustments this could be one of the best courses on the automotive program.» (Very good)

30. What parts of the course should be kept to next year?

- gt power assignemnt»
- Engine lab»
- The design tasks»
- design task, and I think it can be extended to include the supercharge engine design»
- basically everything»
- Engine lab»
- The GTPower assı,gnment The GDI engı,ne lab»
- GT Power assigns »

31. What should be changed for next year?

- modelling can be made clear and interesting , and some real world advanced engines can be studied like wankel in the mazda ,such small 1.3 litre engine delivering 350+ horse power ,how is that possible ...etc before the gt power tutorial would yield us better knowledge on subjects»
- increase level of detail on theory or go deeper into simulations»
- The optical measurement methods lectures could be made a little more interesting»
- Shorter about optical measurement.»
- may be some mechanical knowledge about engine can be included»
- More theory/background around gt-power. Better assistant for the engine laboration. More about fuels, turbocharging and other things that are new and under development in the industry. I also want more about variable cam timing and also something about the mechanichs of an engine.»
- Optical measurements methods was very difficult and wasn"t very well linked to the other lectures It would be better that the teacher writes on the board instead of having a powerpoint. It helps to keep concentrated and awake.»
- The CFD guy from volvo dı,dnt add much to the course. he dı,dnt tell many new thı,ngs»
- The amount of data to read through in heywood is really huge !! I would love to reduce this atleast a bit !! »

32. General comments

- nice course, learned a lot from lectures and design task.Good study environment, and got a lot of help from teachers and TA.»
- It was surprising not to talk about thermodynamics in a course about internal combustion engines.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från