Ongoing Contest(Scores)

mwloveslm
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: October 30th, 2012, 6:31 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: MLHS from WCMS

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby mwloveslm » April 25th, 2013, 6:47 pm

wow nice....ok....do you think it might be possible for us to see a top view? If it's not a problem for you.....
That's a pic of a broken one from Tuesday.

I'll get some pics of the competition boom tomorrow...
okay thank you! ahaha :D
Livin' the Cali Lyfe (:
CHURCHILL MS
Build Events <3 <3

iwonder
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1112
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby iwonder » April 25th, 2013, 6:53 pm

I know it's a little late and all... but one suggestion is to get rid of the vertical piece near the testing wall, it's not really doing much more than keeping the base and the tube separate, right? My boom's have had some pretty weak tension members and I've gotten used to keeping it on the same jig I used to build it until we reach the competition, once we're there I either have the boom laying on it's side or it's on the testing wall and I use the bottom line to space them properly, and once the loading block's on there it doesn't go anywhere. From the looks of your member it might save you .25 or .5 grams :D

Other than that, it looks really nice! Thanks for the pic.
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby Balsa Man » April 26th, 2013, 4:32 am

I know it's a little late and all... but one suggestion is to get rid of the vertical piece near the testing wall, it's not really doing much more than keeping the base and the tube separate, right? My boom's have had some pretty weak tension members and I've gotten used to keeping it on the same jig I used to build it until we reach the competition, once we're there I either have the boom laying on it's side or it's on the testing wall and I use the bottom line to space them properly, and once the loading block's on there it doesn't go anywhere. From the looks of your member it might save you .25 or .5 grams :D

Other than that, it looks really nice! Thanks for the pic.
A picture is, indeed, worth....a lot of words; thanks for providing, George. A nice piece of work!
iwonder is right about the vertical. Helpful in setting up on the wall, but that setup can indeed be done w/o it, and it just adds weight.
Hard to tell- is the tension member square cross-section or a dowel (round)?

Absent the vertical at the wall, the appearance is quite similar to ours. Differences are a 1/4 wide x ~1/32nd thick t-member, in hickory instead of bass, a slightly different treatment at the bolt block, and at the wall end of the tube. At our State tournament we saw a couple variations. The B-team that won was running a setup very similar to ours- machined tube, slightly different wall bolt block setup. Second place (who won regionals) was running rolled tube about the same diameter...low density (square x-section- end grain orientation) blocks at both wall and distal ends that the tube fits in to, bass t-member. Third place C-team was running something very similar to that. Second place C-team was running a larger diameter, rolled tube.

The question I'm not sure of the answer to is how far a tube approach can go, compared to a "conventional" design. Our boom kids were really limited on time this year. Both teams only built one regional and one state boom, and the only test outside of competition was one of the regional booms taken to 12.5kg. The design calculations suggest a B-version in the 2,000 range is possible. We'll see what can be done in the next few weeks....
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

GeorgeInNePa
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 12:54 pm
Division: B
State: PA
Location: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby GeorgeInNePa » April 26th, 2013, 5:44 am

I know it's a little late and all... but one suggestion is to get rid of the vertical piece near the testing wall, it's not really doing much more than keeping the base and the tube separate, right? My boom's have had some pretty weak tension members and I've gotten used to keeping it on the same jig I used to build it until we reach the competition, once we're there I either have the boom laying on it's side or it's on the testing wall and I use the bottom line to space them properly, and once the loading block's on there it doesn't go anywhere. From the looks of your member it might save you .25 or .5 grams :D

Other than that, it looks really nice! Thanks for the pic.
A picture is, indeed, worth....a lot of words; thanks for providing, George. A nice piece of work!
iwonder is right about the vertical. Helpful in setting up on the wall, but that setup can indeed be done w/o it, and it just adds weight.
Hard to tell- is the tension member square cross-section or a dowel (round)?

Absent the vertical at the wall, the appearance is quite similar to ours. Differences are a 1/4 wide x ~1/32nd thick t-member, in hickory instead of bass, a slightly different treatment at the bolt block, and at the wall end of the tube. At our State tournament we saw a couple variations. The B-team that won was running a setup very similar to ours- machined tube, slightly different wall bolt block setup. Second place (who won regionals) was running rolled tube about the same diameter...low density (square x-section- end grain orientation) blocks at both wall and distal ends that the tube fits in to, bass t-member. Third place C-team was running something very similar to that. Second place C-team was running a larger diameter, rolled tube.

The question I'm not sure of the answer to is how far a tube approach can go, compared to a "conventional" design. Our boom kids were really limited on time this year. Both teams only built one regional and one state boom, and the only test outside of competition was one of the regional booms taken to 12.5kg. The design calculations suggest a B-version in the 2,000 range is possible. We'll see what can be done in the next few weeks....
The vertical is there to give two nervous 13yo girls one less thing to worry about. It made from very, very light balsa, so it doesn't add much at all.

Tension member is square cross section.

We're scheduled for the 9:00-9:50, so I'm on edge...

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby Balsa Man » April 26th, 2013, 6:03 am

Totally understand (on the vertical) :)
GOOD LUCK! Can't wait to hear...
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

GeorgeInNePa
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 12:54 pm
Division: B
State: PA
Location: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby GeorgeInNePa » April 26th, 2013, 6:19 am

The boom weighed 10.49grams.

13100grams held.

1248.81 efficiency.

It sheared one of the "wedges" on the tension arm. The tube could have held more.

I'm happy! It probably won't win, but I'm proud of the girls!

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby Balsa Man » April 26th, 2013, 6:42 am

The boom weighed 10.49grams.

13100grams held.

1248.81 efficiency.

It sheared one of the "wedges" on the tension arm. The tube could have held more.

I'm happy! It probably won't win, but I'm proud of the girls!
A very respectable score; you should be proud of them- pass on my congratulations to them, please.
Do you know what your bare tube weight was?
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

GeorgeInNePa
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 12:54 pm
Division: B
State: PA
Location: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby GeorgeInNePa » April 26th, 2013, 6:47 am

The boom weighed 10.49grams.

13100grams held.

1248.81 efficiency.

It sheared one of the "wedges" on the tension arm. The tube could have held more.

I'm happy! It probably won't win, but I'm proud of the girls!
A very respectable score; you should be proud of them- pass on my congratulations to them, please.
Do you know what your bare tube weight was?
4.3g on my $9 Harbor Freight digital scale.

The boom weighed 10.6 on the same scale, for comparison.

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby Balsa Man » April 26th, 2013, 7:06 am

Thanks.
"The numbers" definately indicate a tube at 1/16th wall, at that weight, could hold all, w/ a significant safety factor.
Hope that score holds up for a medal.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

GeorgeInNePa
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 12:54 pm
Division: B
State: PA
Location: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby GeorgeInNePa » April 26th, 2013, 7:56 am

Thanks.
"The numbers" definately indicate a tube at 1/16th wall, at that weight, could hold all, w/ a significant safety factor.
Hope that score holds up for a medal.
We'll do some experimenting over the Summer for next year. We need to perfect our mount and work on a jig for aligning the holes.

I heard Shady Side just went over 1600 in the second time-slot...

ETA:
Ours was good for for 3rd, behind Shady Side and Strath Haven (13xx)...

ckssv07
Member
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: March 22nd, 2011, 7:33 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby ckssv07 » April 26th, 2013, 7:25 pm

Thanks.
"The numbers" definately indicate a tube at 1/16th wall, at that weight, could hold all, w/ a significant safety factor.
Hope that score holds up for a medal.
We'll do some experimenting over the Summer for next year. We need to perfect our mount and work on a jig for aligning the holes.

I heard Shady Side just went over 1600 in the second time-slot...
Im not sure if it was 1600 or not... According to the mass they told me it held, it got a 1600, but as I was walking out they were saing something about it being 1770. If the mass they told me was strictly sand, and they added the bucket mass after than 1770 would fit. Also, when i was watching a boomilever it held total 15kg, but there was still a little sand left, so i a mnot sure.

User avatar
havenguy
Member
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: March 3rd, 2011, 2:06 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby havenguy » April 26th, 2013, 7:47 pm

Thanks.
"The numbers" definately indicate a tube at 1/16th wall, at that weight, could hold all, w/ a significant safety factor.
Hope that score holds up for a medal.
We'll do some experimenting over the Summer for next year. We need to perfect our mount and work on a jig for aligning the holes.

I heard Shady Side just went over 1600 in the second time-slot...

ETA:
Ours was good for for 3rd, behind Shady Side and Strath Haven (13xx)...
Yeah, we (Strath Haven) got a 1,320. If it had held the full bucket, it would have gotten just below 1600. It broke right at the point where the compression piece touches the wall, so stronger bracings there will be necessary for Nationals.

Anyway, I purposefully overbuilt it to hold the full load (with a couple of extra bracings I think it could have..), but at Nationals I'll be going all out :D .

And Shady Side, from what I heard, you guys got a 1600 :?
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

GeorgeInNePa
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 12:54 pm
Division: B
State: PA
Location: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby GeorgeInNePa » April 26th, 2013, 7:54 pm

Thanks.
"The numbers" definately indicate a tube at 1/16th wall, at that weight, could hold all, w/ a significant safety factor.
Hope that score holds up for a medal.
We'll do some experimenting over the Summer for next year. We need to perfect our mount and work on a jig for aligning the holes.

I heard Shady Side just went over 1600 in the second time-slot...
Im not sure if it was 1600 or not... According to the mass they told me it held, it got a 1600, but as I was walking out they were saing something about it being 1770. If the mass they told me was strictly sand, and they added the bucket mass after than 1770 would fit. Also, when i was watching a boomilever it held total 15kg, but there was still a little sand left, so i a mnot sure.

I'm pretty sure there is actually more than a total of 15kg in weight for the bucket, chain/block/etc, and sand. But you only get credit for 15kg.

ckssv07
Member
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: March 22nd, 2011, 7:33 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby ckssv07 » April 26th, 2013, 8:11 pm

We held 10.77kg, i just need to glue the compression joints a bit better because thats the only thing that broke. :D
It should also work a lot better if tested with an autotester, so i want to see if i can get a 2000. :P :P :P

User avatar
balsa
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 22
Joined: April 17th, 2013, 8:12 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: Troy, Room 901
Contact:

Re: Ongoing Contest(Scores)

Postby balsa » April 26th, 2013, 11:46 pm

can anyone explain a tube boom to me?
Image
Troy HS Science Olympiad
2015 Events: Protein Modeling, Geologic Mapping, Entomology


Return to “Boomilever B/C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests