Hovercraft B/C

maxxxxx
Member
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: November 30th, 2015, 8:11 am
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby maxxxxx » May 22nd, 2017, 8:42 pm

LittyWap wrote:I really am praying for fastest wins, I had a design that got under a second!


I feel like there are enough "fastest wins" events and this would essentially become floating Battery Buggy for B division. I wouldn't be surprised if they added in the predicting aspect from MagLev. Your idea of lightest mass is pretty interesting though, I think some combination of that with something else(that would require big batteries or something heavy) would make for some innovative designs.
Lower Merion Class Of 2017

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 22nd, 2017, 8:46 pm

UltramatrixMan wrote:
LittyWap wrote:I really am praying for fastest wins, I had a design that got under a second!
\

I would wager that they will not ever make the competition fastest wins, because Chalker has said multiple times that fast is a safety issue, which was the whole problem with maglev. I also think that he said slower is harder from an engineering stand point too? Correct me if I'm wrong Chalker, which you already have multiple times today XD.



You'd be right to assume that faster is more dangerous.... On our second trial during a Ohio invitational, our <1 second vehicle (it was the only vehicle we had at the time) slammed into the barrier unexpectedly forcefully, and dented the shielding. This compounded in the denting of our shielding and a few textbooks on the floor... Faster is not a good idea, but you never know, the people who make the rules make mistakes too.

Now that chalker is watching, may I suggest rubber band powered Hover? It would certainly make for safer vehicle!
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

ericlepanda
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: February 9th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby ericlepanda » May 22nd, 2017, 8:52 pm

LittyWap wrote: rubber band powered Hover? It would certainly make for safer vehicle!

no plz i like electricity
Marie Murphy


Wright State\Regional\State\Nationals
Optics: 4th\2nd\2nd\6th
Food Science: 8th\1st\12th\14th
Hovercraft: 12th\1st\1st\2nd
Ecology 10th\3rd\5th\11th

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 22nd, 2017, 9:00 pm

My partner and I joked briefly about jet powered hover, where tanks of Nitrous Oxide replace batteries. I mean, as long as lift is powered by a fan blade and motor, I don't think jet engines are discounted by the rules. (Of course I'm joking!)

More seriously, something like bottle rockets, where the propulsion of the vehicle is pneumatic, and the test is about gas laws?
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

User avatar
Ashernoel
Member
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: January 27th, 2017, 1:31 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby Ashernoel » May 22nd, 2017, 9:25 pm

Who knows maybe there will be required testing sheets that need to be done on five surfaces that are given and then one is chosen at the competition but all graph have to be turned in, kinda like thermo :p
NT 2019

sciolyFTW_aku
Member
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: June 10th, 2015, 11:48 am
Division: C
State: MO
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby sciolyFTW_aku » May 23rd, 2017, 7:38 am

Hi,

For those of you who are slightly triggered by the fact that the track wasn't good/your hovercraft didn't perform up to expectations, here's a little story:

In the month before nationals, I tried to get data about my hovercraft with the track that my coach built me, but due to modifications/the track not being good (it kept on stopping at about 120 cm), I was unable to get any real data. However, due to the fact that my hovercraft didn't depend on the material of the side walls/track and that the target distance was 120 cm. I was able to get a pretty good time through intuition at the competition itself (19.67s). Yes there was definitely a bit of luck involved right here, but my main point is that I feel like it depends on more how you use your 8 minutes efficiently at the competition then taking a whole ton of data before it. (Of course this doesn't apply to the people who had a bad track, that's just bad luck.)

Also, my partner and I bombed the test (left 9 questions blank), but we still got 6th, showing that few teams were able to get a good time score and the test was hard as well.

Thanks,
sciolyFTW_aku
B-)

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 23rd, 2017, 8:37 am

sciolyFTW_aku wrote: it depends more on how you use your 8 minutes efficiently at the competition, rather than taking a whole ton of data before it.



I would tend to disagree. Acquiring an excessive amount of data before competition provides all the information with which you may maximize your eight minutes. Should you bet on the fact that everything will just fall in your lap, (track is the same as the only one you tested on, track width is uniform throughout, distance is precisely the only distance you could achieve) you will certainly have to bet on luck. Praying that everything will work out in the end is in direct contradiction to the spirit of Science Olympiad and Science itself. Unlike other schools of thought, Successful scientists make use of predictions and information that they have acquired to excel. Of course, for us naive scientists, a healthy dose of luck is certainly welcome, with quality data being the fundamental component for succeeding.
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby Unome » May 23rd, 2017, 11:58 am

LittyWap wrote:Acquiring an excessive amount of data before competition provides all the information with which you may maximize your eight minutes.

Full agreement with this statement especially. When I did Simple Machines, the reason we did so well on the lever (third-best lever score at Nationals that year, and luck could have pushed us ahead of Longfellow since we were only ~1 second slower) was because we prepared for every possible situation we could think of. After getting 3rd at state in 2014 due to the materials used on the masses' loops being different than what we had been practicing with, we made sure to switch up our loop material, the shape of the masses, etc. when we did practice. We also prepared for as many different mass ratios, both at the extremes and nearer to the middle, to optimize our accuracy (for example, using more of the lever if the masses were of roughly similar mass to increase accuracy), and devised a precise method to maximize speed. The same roughly applies to any build within physics or tech (and plenty of other lab events as well).
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

ftf841
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: March 28th, 2017, 3:21 pm
Division: C
State: MD
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby ftf841 » May 23rd, 2017, 3:02 pm

sciolyFTW_aku wrote:Hi,

For those of you who are slightly triggered by the fact that the track wasn't good/your hovercraft didn't perform up to expectations, here's a little story:

In the month before nationals, I tried to get data about my hovercraft with the track that my coach built me, but due to modifications/the track not being good (it kept on stopping at about 120 cm), I was unable to get any real data. However, due to the fact that my hovercraft didn't depend on the material of the side walls/track and that the target distance was 120 cm. I was able to get a pretty good time through intuition at the competition itself (19.67s). Yes there was definitely a bit of luck involved right here, but my main point is that I feel like it depends on more how you use your 8 minutes efficiently at the competition then taking a whole ton of data before it. (Of course this doesn't apply to the people who had a bad track, that's just bad luck.)

Also, my partner and I bombed the test (left 9 questions blank), but we still got 6th, showing that few teams were able to get a good time score and the test was hard as well.

Thanks,
sciolyFTW_aku

I actually didn't really test my hovercraft at all before nats, since at states and regionals, they let us have a bunch of trial runs during the 8 minutes, so I just guess and checked until the time score was close to the target time, and then I started my actual runs. I went into nats thinking the event was going to be run the same way, and I was pretty shocked when i realized that it was run wrong at states and regionals. My time score was pretty bad (29 seconds), but we managed to place 18th somehow.
i'll work on my events eventually

Centennial High School
Exclusive Game On Competitor

SciolyMaster
Member
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: May 23rd, 2017, 4:18 pm
Division: B
State: MO
Location: Observable Universe
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby SciolyMaster » May 23rd, 2017, 4:36 pm

UltramatrixMan wrote:
chalker wrote:
UltramatrixMan wrote:For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places.


This is not true at all. Even within the medalists there was a significant time spread.


Hm, I did talk to the ES and must have misunderstood what he said to me. Can you at least give us some idea of how close the top 10 or so teams' scores were?

Our best run time was 14 seconds... yet we still got 6th place! It was all because we did so well on the test, plus we had a max weight hovercraft.

ericlepanda
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: February 9th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby ericlepanda » May 23rd, 2017, 4:40 pm

SciolyMaster wrote:
UltramatrixMan wrote:
chalker wrote:
This is not true at all. Even within the medalists there was a significant time spread.


Hm, I did talk to the ES and must have misunderstood what he said to me. Can you at least give us some idea of how close the top 10 or so teams' scores were?

Our best run time was 14 seconds... yet we still got 6th place! It was all because we did so well on the test, plus we had a max weight hovercraft.


Did you miss any questions on the test? If so, which ones?
Marie Murphy


Wright State\Regional\State\Nationals
Optics: 4th\2nd\2nd\6th
Food Science: 8th\1st\12th\14th
Hovercraft: 12th\1st\1st\2nd
Ecology 10th\3rd\5th\11th

SciolyMaster
Member
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: May 23rd, 2017, 4:18 pm
Division: B
State: MO
Location: Observable Universe
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby SciolyMaster » May 23rd, 2017, 4:50 pm

ericlepanda wrote:
SciolyMaster wrote:
UltramatrixMan wrote:
Hm, I did talk to the ES and must have misunderstood what he said to me. Can you at least give us some idea of how close the top 10 or so teams' scores were?

Our best run time was 14 seconds... yet we still got 6th place! It was all because we did so well on the test, plus we had a max weight hovercraft.


Did you miss any questions on the test? If so, which ones?

Honestly, I don't think we missed any questions. There was one question we were unsure of; it asked for the position of an object after it moved according to a velocity-time graph, but didn't tell us the direction, so we just put down the magnitude of the position vector.

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 23rd, 2017, 5:26 pm

ericlepanda wrote:Did you miss any questions on the test? If so, which ones?



I didn't have the BTU conversion and didn't have the date when the word "Hovercraft" was patented. Other than that, we left one part of the tension problem blank.
Last edited by LittyWap on May 23rd, 2017, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

SciolyMaster
Member
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: May 23rd, 2017, 4:18 pm
Division: B
State: MO
Location: Observable Universe
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby SciolyMaster » May 23rd, 2017, 6:24 pm

LittyWap wrote:
ericlepanda wrote:Did you miss any questions on the test? If so, which ones?



I didn't have the BHU BTU conversion and didn't have the date when the word "Hovercraft" was patented. Other than that, we left one part of the tension problem blank.

FTFY

SciolyMaster
Member
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: May 23rd, 2017, 4:18 pm
Division: B
State: MO
Location: Observable Universe
Contact:

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby SciolyMaster » May 23rd, 2017, 6:30 pm

LittyWap wrote:
ericlepanda wrote:Did you miss any questions on the test? If so, which ones?



I didn't have the BHU conversion and didn't have the date when the word "Hovercraft" was patented. Other than that, we left one part of the tension problem blank.

I wasn't sure about the btu conversion problem either. The number we got seemed awfully large. Then again, if we missed it, I don't think very many, if any, other teams would have gotten it right either.


Return to “2017 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest