Efficiencies

Locked
rjm
Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: March 31st, 2002, 4:07 pm
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by rjm »

I have always preferred efficiency calculations over schemes which require carrying "all the load". "All the load" is a totally artificial quantity. If you want real-world applications, you will design like a real-world engineer and consider safety factors, long-term serviceability and maintenance costs, regional economy of materials and labor skills vs. costs of less readily available resources, weathering and cyclical variations in environmental conditions, adaptability to changing uses over the anticipated useful life of the structure, aesthetics, and so on. In this context, structural efficiency represents the capital cost of the structure and while it may be desirable to minimize that first cost, it is often not the primary consideration in the design and construction of the structure. So, to do this as a real-world "all the load" application, I'd expect everyone to bring in 30 gram towers and score beauty points.

Structure competitions such as Science Olympiad structure events are more similar to the research and testing which are done on materials, designs, and assemblies to demonstrate their ultimate strength. That's how the information that engineers use to build "safe" structures is determined. Real-world application here is the concept that test structures must be evaluated to form the base knowledge that allows engineers to do their jobs.

I've always contended that students learn more about structures by breaking them than they will ever learn from unbroken structures. Punishing them for breaking their structures seems counterproductive.

So far as B vs C future structure events are concerned, there is always an effort made to differentiate between the divisions even the the event is nominally the same. In general, the challenge is a bit more difficult for C.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI
dholdgreve
Coach
Coach
Posts: 573
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 2:20 pm
Division: B
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Efficiencies

Post by dholdgreve »

chalker wrote:
lucwilder42 wrote: Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in
Hmmm... I wonder who's leaking all our 'secret' committee discussions about next year's rules? ;)

But seriously, we are considering incorporating height into the scoring formula (i.e. taller towers get more points). As I've done for other events, I'm happy to hear and pass along feedback about this idea (or any other you might have).
Whoa... If you are being serious here with the height thing, consider a few pragmatic points from those running this event:
Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.

If not, consider the safety implications of a 7th grader climbing a ladder to drop the loading chain down through their tower.

We have already crossed the height disadvantage line this year. By including height in the towers, will we be discriminating against shorter competitors?

Think of the venues. Many times the ceilings are at 8'-0", a potential limiting factor... This mean presposting the "deck" heights, similar to the way it is done in planes and copters

VERY BAD IDEA.
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad

Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"
soccerkid812
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: December 16th, 2010, 4:43 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by soccerkid812 »

[quote="dholdgreve"][quote="chalker"][quote="lucwilder42"] Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in[/quote]

Hmmm... I wonder who's leaking all our 'secret' committee discussions about next year's rules? ;)

But seriously, we are considering incorporating height into the scoring formula (i.e. taller towers get more points). As I've done for other events, I'm happy to hear and pass along feedback about this idea (or any other you might have).[/quote]

Whoa... If you are being serious here with the height thing, consider a few pragmatic points from those running this event:
Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.

If not, consider the safety implications of a 7th grader climbing a ladder to drop the loading chain down through their tower.

We have already crossed the height disadvantage line this year. By including height in the towers, will we be discriminating against shorter competitors?

Think of the venues. Many times the ceilings are at 8'-0", a potential limiting factor... This mean presposting the "deck" heights, similar to the way it is done in planes and copters

VERY BAD IDEA.[/quote]


I think the height variable will be an interesting twist into the event.

Not all teams with make their tower taller than the required min height though, because we do not know how many points height will add in the new scoring system. Also, I believe there should be a min and max height allowance.
I see where you come from with loading the chain down through the tower, but you can always work around that. I am sure the ladder wont be too high that is gives some teams a disadvantage.
User avatar
Littleboy
Member
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: March 14th, 2010, 4:53 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by Littleboy »

Or make it so it is like the 2006 (i believe) bridge, where the proctor decided which of three spots you would test. You could have it so that the tower needs to have multiple spots to test from. That would also throw an interesting twist without the height problem.
chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2107
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Efficiencies

Post by chalker »

dholdgreve wrote: Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.
Yes, we've already thought of this issue and will have a maximum height if we go this route. I disagree that everyone 'will be there anyway', because tower weight will still be an issue, which means that the higher you go, the more you'll weigh. We are working on balancing the scoring formula to appropriately handle this tradeoff between height and weight.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair
SLM
Member
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: January 31st, 2009, 2:24 pm
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by SLM »

chalker wrote:
dholdgreve wrote: Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.
Yes, we've already thought of this issue and will have a maximum height if we go this route. I disagree that everyone 'will be there anyway', because tower weight will still be an issue, which means that the higher you go, the more you'll weigh. We are working on balancing the scoring formula to appropriately handle this tradeoff between height and weight.
The following idea does not apply to Towers, it is more related to Elevated Bridge.

Does it make sense to have the teams build a bridge that rests on a support platform and can carry the weight of a moving train consisting of one or more wagons (as illustrated below)?

Image
This offers students an opportunity to work on a more realistic engineering problem, allows for more variations in design and creativity, and the testing platform is simple to build and relatively safe to operate. I am certain a reasonable scoring system based on weight of the bridge and the number of wagons it carries can be established.

Any thoughts?
User avatar
havenguy
Member
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: March 3rd, 2011, 2:06 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by havenguy »

YES! We got a 21 efficiency at states and placed 6th.

To bad we didn't get our top efficiency, which was 26, which would have placed 2-4.

Lets see what we get at nationals.
University of Pennsylvania Class of 2020
Strath Haven High School Class of 2016

2016 States Results:
Invasive Species: 1st
Dynamic Planet: 1st
Disease Detectives: 5th
Anatomy: 6th

Team Place: 4th
sr243
Member
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 4:53 pm
Division: C
State: WI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by sr243 »

So I found out the WI division C winner had a ratio of 44.5. That is simply amazing. I wonder what the winner for nationals will be.
dholdgreve
Coach
Coach
Posts: 573
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 2:20 pm
Division: B
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Efficiencies

Post by dholdgreve »

SLM wrote:
chalker wrote:
dholdgreve wrote: Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.
Yes, we've already thought of this issue and will have a maximum height if we go this route. I disagree that everyone 'will be there anyway', because tower weight will still be an issue, which means that the higher you go, the more you'll weigh. We are working on balancing the scoring formula to appropriately handle this tradeoff between height and weight.
The following idea does not apply to Towers, it is more related to Elevated Bridge.

Does it make sense to have the teams build a bridge that rests on a support platform and can carry the weight of a moving train consisting of one or more wagons (as illustrated below)?

Image
This offers students an opportunity to work on a more realistic engineering problem, allows for more variations in design and creativity, and the testing platform is simple to build and relatively safe to operate. I am certain a reasonable scoring system based on weight of the bridge and the number of wagons it carries can be established.

Any thoughts?
In essence, this is a buttressed type bridge, which requires virtually zero error factor from the maker of the testing apparatus. Just one mm one way or the other, and a perfectly built structure will bomb. SO has almost notoriously shied away from these in past... My guess it that won't change.
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad

Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"
chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2107
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Efficiencies

Post by chalker »

sr243 wrote:So I found out the WI division C winner had a ratio of 44.5. That is simply amazing. I wonder what the winner for nationals will be.
In Ohio yesterday the B winner (Solon MS) had 43.89 and the C winner (Solon HS) had 44.46. I suspect a lot of teams at Nationals are going to be in that range.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair
Locked

Return to “Towers B/C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests