Technical Problem Solving C

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by Flavorflav » February 23rd, 2014, 2:56 pm

ichaelm wrote:Here's an interesting question that zero out of 20 teams got completely correct at CWRU yesterday:

For a general heat exchanger, consider the inlet temperature of chamber A to be T1A, the outlet temperature of chamber A to be T2A, the inlet temperature of chamber B to be T1B, and the outlet temperature of chamber B to be T2B. If T1A > T1B, is it possible that T2A < T2B? Why or why not?

Many teams had the right answer (yes), but none were close to an explanation as to why. Just thought I'd put it up here to challenge you guys and make sure I wasn't being unfair.
In a countercurrent exchanger where T1B is much lower than T1A, T2A would always have to be higher than T1B, but there is no reason that it would have to be higher than T2B. I'm not sure that counts as an explanation, though.

User avatar
ichaelm
Member
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 3:10 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: CWRU, Cleveland, OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by ichaelm » February 25th, 2014, 3:48 pm

Exactly! I was looking for something about countercurrent heat exchangers, or really anything besides concurrent flow.

User avatar
solakmagic
Member
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: March 9th, 2012, 3:25 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by solakmagic » March 10th, 2014, 7:06 am

Hey all! I was wondering if anybody had a good resource/ method for equivalent weights in Faraday's 2nd Law of Electrolysis??
"Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety nine per cent perspiration" - Thomas Alva Edison

AlphaTauri
Staff Emeritus
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 829
Joined: September 11th, 2009, 1:41 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: 04h 35m 55.239s, +16° 30′ 33.49″
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by AlphaTauri » March 13th, 2014, 6:35 pm

So this is only really tangentially related to TPS, but I thought it might have some impact on future years...

We've started our electrochem unit in AP Chem, and it turns out that the Nernst equation, which I thought was pretty standard electrochem from doing TPS, is apparently "beyond the scope" of the new AP Chem curriculum... as is the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, which is incredibly common when dealing with acid/base stuff (other "exclusions" can be found here). I do see their point in removing material so that the course focuses more on depth than breadth, but cutting things like Nernst and H-H seems... excessive. Mostly it's just odd to think that for future sciolyers, these concepts that are standard knowledge now won't even be covered in class.

Thoughts? Opinions?
Hershey Science Olympiad 2009 - 2014
Volunteer for Michigan SO 2015 - 2018

]\/[ Go Blue!

User avatar
fishman100
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 478
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 1:26 pm
Division: Grad
State: VA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by fishman100 » March 13th, 2014, 6:52 pm

AlphaTauri wrote:So this is only really tangentially related to TPS, but I thought it might have some impact on future years...

We've started our electrochem unit in AP Chem, and it turns out that the Nernst equation, which I thought was pretty standard electrochem from doing TPS, is apparently "beyond the scope" of the new AP Chem curriculum... as is the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, which is incredibly common when dealing with acid/base stuff (other "exclusions" can be found here). I do see their point in removing material so that the course focuses more on depth than breadth, but cutting things like Nernst and H-H seems... excessive. Mostly it's just odd to think that for future sciolyers, these concepts that are standard knowledge now won't even be covered in class.

Thoughts? Opinions?
I knew that they removed the Nernst eqn but I didn't know that they also removed H-H. It's true that they may be "unnecessary" since the new AP Chem emphasizes depth, but I'm glad we learned about them because when it comes to FRQ's (and even some MC questions) I found them to be extremely helpful in explaining/calculating pH. In fact, one of our FRQ's on our test required using H-H...
I'm wondering if students who use either equation will receive credit on the AP exam.
Langley HS Science Olympiad '15

Crazy Puny Man
Member
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by Crazy Puny Man » March 13th, 2014, 7:07 pm

AlphaTauri wrote:So this is only really tangentially related to TPS, but I thought it might have some impact on future years...

We've started our electrochem unit in AP Chem, and it turns out that the Nernst equation, which I thought was pretty standard electrochem from doing TPS, is apparently "beyond the scope" of the new AP Chem curriculum... as is the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, which is incredibly common when dealing with acid/base stuff (other "exclusions" can be found here). I do see their point in removing material so that the course focuses more on depth than breadth, but cutting things like Nernst and H-H seems... excessive. Mostly it's just odd to think that for future sciolyers, these concepts that are standard knowledge now won't even be covered in class.

Thoughts? Opinions?
I really do not like some of the new curriculum changes. They scrapped most everything that has to do with logarithms - Nernst, H-H, Arrhenius, Clausius-Clapeyron (did I spell that right? xD). I don't think they scrapped the kinetics equations - like, for zero/first/second-order reactions. Idk about that.

They also got rid of phase diagrams, with the justification that phase diagrams are covered in a first year chemistry course, or what-not

Lots of things are covered in a first year chemistry course, that's not a good justification to get rid of phase diagrams from the AP curriculum :roll:

But yeah, not pleased with that at all :/ CollegeBoard...

If what happened with AP Bio ends up happening for AP Chem (Bio's curriculum got easier, but had WAY less 5's - so basically CollegeBoard could make the exam easier, get more kids to take it, and keep the average score the same so they can technically say that the curriculum is still the same difficulty)...then... :x

What do you guys think?

darkwinters
Member
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: December 3rd, 2013, 6:14 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by darkwinters » April 9th, 2014, 9:32 pm

Has anyone run into any thermodynamic stuff on tests that hasn't had to do with Newton's law of cooling?

User avatar
alwaysmatts
Member
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 7:04 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by alwaysmatts » May 10th, 2014, 4:55 am

Hey so i decided to do tps next year(if they still have this event)

According to this year's test(or the previous years'), is everything for each topic covered in AP, or it goes deeper than that?

If so, whats a good source for study
Scioly <3

Unusual Flux
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: May 12th, 2014, 8:18 pm
Division: C
State: AL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C

Post by Unusual Flux » May 12th, 2014, 8:31 pm

Has anyone run into a problem regarding the Stefan-Boltzmann equation before?
Ha! Try me

anitawood
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: August 25th, 2013, 4:24 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Technical Problem Solving C - 2015 Draft Rules

Post by anitawood » August 8th, 2014, 12:43 pm

Does anyone know the subjects for Technical Problem Solving for the 2015 season? I know some schools already have draft rules for the 2015 events. Thanks.

Locked

Return to “2014 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest