Awesome Aquifers B

User avatar
Fossil Freak 25
Member
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 6:03 pm
Division: C
State: WA
Location: Behind you
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by Fossil Freak 25 » May 7th, 2012, 8:42 pm

no, put rocks with way different porosity's in the tube, then they can see the difference.
Go Cougs!

TYG
Member
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 5:10 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Location: Where the dream should destroy reality.
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by TYG » May 7th, 2012, 8:46 pm

honeybunchesofoats wrote:
TYG wrote:At our state tournament, my partner and I lost points on porosity for not providing a demonstration relevant to the aquifer, because we measured porosity in two beakers separate from the aquifer. Does anyone know how we could get around doing so, while still demonstrating porosity?
Did you use the same rocks from the aquifer for the tube?
No, we didn't. We used beads of difference sizes but the same spherical shape to show porosity. If we did use the same rocks, do you think it would have ended up differently?
Fossil Freak 25 wrote:no, put rocks with way different porosity's in the tube, then they can see the difference.
Thank you both for your help.
Last edited by TYG on May 7th, 2012, 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TYG
Member
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 5:10 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Location: Where the dream should destroy reality.
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by TYG » May 7th, 2012, 8:47 pm

ignore this. meant to edit but accidentally quoted. Sorry.

mnstrviola
Wiki/Gallery Moderator Emeritus
Wiki/Gallery Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 433
Joined: February 15th, 2011, 5:45 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: IU Bloomington
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by mnstrviola » May 21st, 2012, 6:17 pm

So how was awesome aquifers at nats?

User avatar
silentsage
Member
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: December 22nd, 2011, 10:09 am
Division: C
State: PA
Location: Sorry, I'm busy reading a very large book.
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by silentsage » May 23rd, 2012, 6:17 am

It was so-so, not so hard, but the images were better labelled than before. There were many concepts (no remediation!), and my partner and I finished in 8 minutes. I didn't really like any of the tests I took that much.
Road Scholar seems to depress everyone on my team who does it, but it's my favorite event...
I <3 DQIX and Squirtle
2013 RS National Champ

User avatar
Fossil Freak 25
Member
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 6:03 pm
Division: C
State: WA
Location: Behind you
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by Fossil Freak 25 » June 4th, 2012, 10:25 am

There were a lot of concepts :/
Go Cougs!

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: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by havenguy » June 4th, 2012, 3:04 pm

Well, Aquifers is leaving next year, so here are my thoughts on it:

1) It wasn't as organized in comparison to other events, and there wasn't that much info on soinc.org, which made you have to navigate groundwater.org, which isn't as familiar to me.

2) Every test we took was too easy, and it really came down to tiebreakers most of the time. There's not that much to learn about aquifers; we knew everything/mostly everything on the Nationals test and we got 34th.

3) The presentation section wasn't as sincere as I might have expected when I started doing it. The teams who got better scores were the one's that had practiced more, not necessarily those who had a complete understanding of aquifers. The concepts were not that complicated, and I didn't like that they were listed online. In my opinion, I would have liked it to be more of a "think on your feet" event, which would show what teams had the full understanding of it.

4) Having said that, I thought that through the presentation, I learned a lot, and it was a great way to give a visual representation of an aquifer and the surrounding area/aspects.

5) I don't do Dynamic Planet, but I felt that the event had all of the information contained in Dynamic Planet, but Dynamic Planet doesn't have all of the information contained in Aquifers. Especially this year, since the focus topic for Dynamic Planet was Freshwater.

6) Every competition I went to, the event was extremely organized and well run, and it seemed it was easy to run too. The organization of the event is a great aspect of Awesome Aquifers.

Please don't take offense to any of this, it's just my opinion. Overall, I would say that it was a fun event, but a little too easy.
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

mnstrviola
Wiki/Gallery Moderator Emeritus
Wiki/Gallery Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 433
Joined: February 15th, 2011, 5:45 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: IU Bloomington
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Awesome Aquifers B

Post by mnstrviola » June 4th, 2012, 4:31 pm

havenguy wrote:Well, Aquifers is leaving next year, so here are my thoughts on it:

1) It wasn't as organized in comparison to other events, and there wasn't that much info on soinc.org, which made you have to navigate groundwater.org, which isn't as familiar to me.

2) Every test we took was too easy, and it really came down to tiebreakers most of the time. There's not that much to learn about aquifers; we knew everything/mostly everything on the Nationals test and we got 34th.

3) The presentation section wasn't as sincere as I might have expected when I started doing it. The teams who got better scores were the one's that had practiced more, not necessarily those who had a complete understanding of aquifers. The concepts were not that complicated, and I didn't like that they were listed online. In my opinion, I would have liked it to be more of a "think on your feet" event, which would show what teams had the full understanding of it.

4) Having said that, I thought that through the presentation, I learned a lot, and it was a great way to give a visual representation of an aquifer and the surrounding area/aspects.

5) I don't do Dynamic Planet, but I felt that the event had all of the information contained in Dynamic Planet, but Dynamic Planet doesn't have all of the information contained in Aquifers. Especially this year, since the focus topic for Dynamic Planet was Freshwater.

6) Every competition I went to, the event was extremely organized and well run, and it seemed it was easy to run too. The organization of the event is a great aspect of Awesome Aquifers.

Please don't take offense to any of this, it's just my opinion. Overall, I would say that it was a fun event, but a little too easy.
I mostly agree with you, except I'd like to add on to the belief that aquifers is too easy. For the most part, the demonstration is more practice than knowledge. However for the tests, there can be stuff related to hydraulic head and groundwater flow that has advanced math involved, which could separate the less prepared from the more prepared. But when you're given 10 multiple choice questions about the water cycle / what is an aquifer, the test really does come down to tiebreakers.

Locked

Return to “2012 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest