Food Science B

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:16 pm

dholdgreve wrote:Looking over the rules, Rule 3a says "Part 1: This part of the test will include both experimental tasks and multiple choice or other questions about the chemistry of food AND food grains (any seed)." This would seem to say that while the event focus may be on grains this year, that the entire world of food chemistry is not off limits and that anything within the rough definition of the chemistry of foods is fair game. If they had wanted it to be just about grains, I'd think they would have used different wording... any thoughts?


I agree with you, but I would think that it's just grains.
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:19 pm

Jesusfather123 wrote:Please can some one say what is needed to be prepared regarding food grains?

In the rules, it has everything that you would need. Just look it up and use that.
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

Skink
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:23 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Skink » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:42 pm

I had the opportunity to supervise this at a competitive invitational and was not thrilled with what I saw. I had teams spending upwards of 15min fumbling around with the calorimetry lab (can't light the match, can't keep it from burning itself out, can't light the food, can't burn the food completely, can't burn the food adequately...) that's, still, only worth 15% of the score. It's not worth it! If you take the test very well, you're bound to win most levels of competition with or without the lab. I worry about how much practice time gets devoted to this activity.
Memberships:
The Society for the Discontinuation of Fast Facts
The Society for the Discontinuation of Game On

NeilMehta
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:27 pm
Division: B
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby NeilMehta » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:59 pm

Skink wrote:I had the opportunity to supervise this at a competitive invitational and was not thrilled with what I saw. I had teams spending upwards of 15min fumbling around with the calorimetry lab (can't light the match, can't keep it from burning itself out, can't light the food, can't burn the food completely, can't burn the food adequately...) that's, still, only worth 15% of the score. It's not worth it! If you take the test very well, you're bound to win most levels of competition with or without the lab. I worry about how much practice time gets devoted to this activity.

It's interesting how they choose to place such a high weight on the test this year, because we don't need a notebook this year either. Is there a lab portion of Potions and Poisons, cause I heard it was replacing Food Science next year.
R.C. Murphy JHS Science Olympiad - B Division
2015-16: Food Science / Mission Possible / Road Scholar / Meteorology
2016-17: Food Science / Microbe Mission / Road Scholar / Meteorology / Fast Facts

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:34 pm

In the last meet I attended, there was no "lab work" with Benedict', Biurets, etc. Any ideas why?
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

SPP SciO
Member
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:21 pm
Division: B
State: NY
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby SPP SciO » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:54 pm

Skink wrote:I had the opportunity to supervise this at a competitive invitational and was not thrilled with what I saw. I had teams spending upwards of 15min fumbling around with the calorimetry lab (can't light the match, can't keep it from burning itself out, can't light the food, can't burn the food completely, can't burn the food adequately...) that's, still, only worth 15% of the score. It's not worth it! If you take the test very well, you're bound to win most levels of competition with or without the lab. I worry about how much practice time gets devoted to this activity.



Does the 15% of the score derive completely from the final determination of the calories in the food item, or are there a bunch of points divided up and awarded for things like setting up equations, unit conversions, error analysis, etc?

I think the calorimetry math, and being able to estimate energy losses, is all good stuff and worth studying and preparing for. Has this been taken into account when scoring the tests at the various invitationals that have happened so far?
Coach
MS 821 Sunset Park Prep
http://www.sppscio.com

Skink
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:23 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Skink » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:53 am

Neil,
Yeah, it's straightforward mix-these-chemicals sorts of deals. It'll be a breath of fresh air from the last four years of B chemistry event messes.

Sasstiel,
The only required activity is the calorimetry. After that, it's at the discretion of the supervisor to design the event.

SPP SciO,
The rules are open-ended. I would hope that folks have sensitivity to the fact that this is a multistep activity, but I'm sure it'll be different every time. When I did it, I credited teams for bringing a device at all, collecting data sensibly (oh, man...this was a mess), equations and supporting calculations, finally followed by hitting the "literature" value for my foodstuff within certain percentage intervals all within the 15%. I asked about weaknesses in the procedure in the other section of the test. I look forward to getting others' tests back to see how they approach this.
Memberships:
The Society for the Discontinuation of Fast Facts
The Society for the Discontinuation of Game On

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:57 am

Anyone have any idea why they decided to use joules/grams for the calorimeter part, and can you send me the equation?
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

Em
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:51 am
State: -
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Em » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:11 am

SPP SciO wrote:
Skink wrote:I had the opportunity to supervise this at a competitive invitational and was not thrilled with what I saw. I had teams spending upwards of 15min fumbling around with the calorimetry lab (can't light the match, can't keep it from burning itself out, can't light the food, can't burn the food completely, can't burn the food adequately...) that's, still, only worth 15% of the score. It's not worth it! If you take the test very well, you're bound to win most levels of competition with or without the lab. I worry about how much practice time gets devoted to this activity.



Does the 15% of the score derive completely from the final determination of the calories in the food item, or are there a bunch of points divided up and awarded for things like setting up equations, unit conversions, error analysis, etc?

I think the calorimetry math, and being able to estimate energy losses, is all good stuff and worth studying and preparing for. Has this been taken into account when scoring the tests at the various invitationals that have happened so far?


At an invitational my students attended one team received all the experimental points for (1) setting up the calorimetry equation using their experimental data and (2) calculating the density of a muffin. The team didn't have time to solve the calculation for #1, but seemingly knowing what needed to be done received full credit, even without a "correct" answer. However, as noted by someone previously, my second team scored more points by doing well on their exam even though they received 0/20 points on the experiment portion.

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:24 pm

Em wrote:
SPP SciO wrote:
Skink wrote:I had the opportunity to supervise this at a competitive invitational and was not thrilled with what I saw. I had teams spending upwards of 15min fumbling around with the calorimetry lab (can't light the match, can't keep it from burning itself out, can't light the food, can't burn the food completely, can't burn the food adequately...) that's, still, only worth 15% of the score. It's not worth it! If you take the test very well, you're bound to win most levels of competition with or without the lab. I worry about how much practice time gets devoted to this activity.



Does the 15% of the score derive completely from the final determination of the calories in the food item, or are there a bunch of points divided up and awarded for things like setting up equations, unit conversions, error analysis, etc?

I think the calorimetry math, and being able to estimate energy losses, is all good stuff and worth studying and preparing for. Has this been taken into account when scoring the tests at the various invitationals that have happened so far?


At an invitational my students attended one team received all the experimental points for (1) setting up the calorimetry equation using their experimental data and (2) calculating the density of a muffin. The team didn't have time to solve the calculation for #1, but seemingly knowing what needed to be done received full credit, even without a "correct" answer. However, as noted by someone previously, my second team scored more points by doing well on their exam even though they received 0/20 points on the experiment portion.

On the test that I took, calculating the density was a question, where they gave you the measurements and asked you to solve. Also, even though we weren't accurate at all for the calorimeter portion, we still got first place overall.
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

dholdgreve
Member
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:20 pm
Division: B
State: -
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby dholdgreve » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:08 pm

I ran this event recently. Regarding the Calorimeter, I felt that it was unrealistic to expect these middle school age kids or younger to build a device such as this, then compare their data to the stated caloric values from the manufacturer who used equipment in the thousands of dollars. Yes, we still did the lab, but rather than look for the correct answer, we reviewed the work based on organization, data collected (did they collect all the info that was needed to perform the calculations, and was it properly labeled), the basic calculations of reducing the heat gain / total amount of water to heat gain / ml, the equating of this to calories, the conversion of the calories to joules using the correct constant, and ultimately the comparison of their results to the stated caloric values (% efficiency) of their unit... Ya... nobody got that far... but if they did, we would have been ready!

My suggestion to those doing and running this event is "Make the Best of it." Instead of focusing on building the best possible calorimeter out there, focus on an very organized report format that clearly documents the entire procedure... Don't worry that your 2 soda cans only had a 28% efficiency... it doesn't matter... What matters is can the event proctor clearly follow your logic path, and have you conveyed through your records that you totally got this, and understand every single thing about the calculations. And to those running the event, I respectfully suggest that you focus on the process as opposed to the results. It will make grading a whole lot easier and less subjective.
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad
Killer of Towers
Buster of Crime

SPP SciO
Member
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:21 pm
Division: B
State: NY
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby SPP SciO » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:28 pm

dholdgreve wrote:I ran this event recently. Regarding the Calorimeter, I felt that it was unrealistic to expect these middle school age kids or younger to build a device such as this, then compare their data to the stated caloric values from the manufacturer who used equipment in the thousands of dollars. Yes, we still did the lab, but rather than look for the correct answer, we reviewed the work based on organization, data collected (did they collect all the info that was needed to perform the calculations, and was it properly labeled), the basic calculations of reducing the heat gain / total amount of water to heat gain / ml, the equating of this to calories, the conversion of the calories to joules using the correct constant, and ultimately the comparison of their results to the stated caloric values (% efficiency) of their unit... Ya... nobody got that far... but if they did, we would have been ready!

My suggestion to those doing and running this event is "Make the Best of it." Instead of focusing on building the best possible calorimeter out there, focus on an very organized report format that clearly documents the entire procedure... Don't worry that your 2 soda cans only had a 28% efficiency... it doesn't matter... What matters is can the event proctor clearly follow your logic path, and have you conveyed through your records that you totally got this, and understand every single thing about the calculations. And to those running the event, I respectfully suggest that you focus on the process as opposed to the results. It will make grading a whole lot easier and less subjective.


When you ran this event, how much time were the students given for the calorimeter portion? I'm thinking that the scales required must be a limiting factor - it would seem unreasonable to run this event without a scale capable of measuring to the 0.01g, and it's unlikely that most competition sites would have more than a couple of them available ... Will the teams be called individually to the calorimeter station at some random point during the 50 minutes? Is it a wise idea to have one partner be the calorimeter specialist, so the other partner can continue working on the test - similar to Optics?
Coach
MS 821 Sunset Park Prep
http://www.sppscio.com

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:37 pm

SPP SciO wrote:
dholdgreve wrote:I ran this event recently. Regarding the Calorimeter, I felt that it was unrealistic to expect these middle school age kids or younger to build a device such as this, then compare their data to the stated caloric values from the manufacturer who used equipment in the thousands of dollars. Yes, we still did the lab, but rather than look for the correct answer, we reviewed the work based on organization, data collected (did they collect all the info that was needed to perform the calculations, and was it properly labeled), the basic calculations of reducing the heat gain / total amount of water to heat gain / ml, the equating of this to calories, the conversion of the calories to joules using the correct constant, and ultimately the comparison of their results to the stated caloric values (% efficiency) of their unit... Ya... nobody got that far... but if they did, we would have been ready!

My suggestion to those doing and running this event is "Make the Best of it." Instead of focusing on building the best possible calorimeter out there, focus on an very organized report format that clearly documents the entire procedure... Don't worry that your 2 soda cans only had a 28% efficiency... it doesn't matter... What matters is can the event proctor clearly follow your logic path, and have you conveyed through your records that you totally got this, and understand every single thing about the calculations. And to those running the event, I respectfully suggest that you focus on the process as opposed to the results. It will make grading a whole lot easier and less subjective.


When you ran this event, how much time were the students given for the calorimeter portion? I'm thinking that the scales required must be a limiting factor - it would seem unreasonable to run this event without a scale capable of measuring to the 0.01g, and it's unlikely that most competition sites would have more than a couple of them available ... Will the teams be called individually to the calorimeter station at some random point during the 50 minutes? Is it a wise idea to have one partner be the calorimeter specialist, so the other partner can continue working on the test - similar to Optics?

When I was last at an invitational, we got called up one team at a time, and did our thing. My partner and I both did the calorimeter portion, but I don't know if you are allowed to only send one person up or not. To be called up, we first put our calorimeters on a table (the table was numbered), and supervisors called teams up in order. I hope that answers your questions!
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

Sasstiel
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:08 pm
Division: B
State: IL
Location: On Earth!
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby Sasstiel » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:43 am

We were asked to burn a cashew at the event? I know the topic is grains, and this was waaaaaay off. :roll:
DFTBA!
2016 events -
Exp Des, Wind, Food, and Bottle

dholdgreve
Member
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:20 pm
Division: B
State: -
Contact:

Re: Food Science B

Postby dholdgreve » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:13 pm

SPP SciO wrote:
dholdgreve wrote:I ran this event recently. Regarding the Calorimeter, I felt that it was unrealistic to expect these middle school age kids or younger to build a device such as this, then compare their data to the stated caloric values from the manufacturer who used equipment in the thousands of dollars. Yes, we still did the lab, but rather than look for the correct answer, we reviewed the work based on organization, data collected (did they collect all the info that was needed to perform the calculations, and was it properly labeled), the basic calculations of reducing the heat gain / total amount of water to heat gain / ml, the equating of this to calories, the conversion of the calories to joules using the correct constant, and ultimately the comparison of their results to the stated caloric values (% efficiency) of their unit... Ya... nobody got that far... but if they did, we would have been ready!

My suggestion to those doing and running this event is "Make the Best of it." Instead of focusing on building the best possible calorimeter out there, focus on an very organized report format that clearly documents the entire procedure... Don't worry that your 2 soda cans only had a 28% efficiency... it doesn't matter... What matters is can the event proctor clearly follow your logic path, and have you conveyed through your records that you totally got this, and understand every single thing about the calculations. And to those running the event, I respectfully suggest that you focus on the process as opposed to the results. It will make grading a whole lot easier and less subjective.


When you ran this event, how much time were the students given for the calorimeter portion? I'm thinking that the scales required must be a limiting factor - it would seem unreasonable to run this event without a scale capable of measuring to the 0.01g, and it's unlikely that most competition sites would have more than a couple of them available ... Will the teams be called individually to the calorimeter station at some random point during the 50 minutes? Is it a wise idea to have one partner be the calorimeter specialist, so the other partner can continue working on the test - similar to Optics?


We set the Event up in 2 Parts... Part 1 was set up in (7) 5-minute Stations. Each station had several questions, and most had a small lab at the end. As you can imagine, trying to come up with that many mini labs on grain is next to impossible. While we really tried to focus on grains (Having 2 stations totally dedicated), we also did a "Salt concentration of various noodle soups" lab where the kids were able to use their conductivity testers to put 4 samples in the correct order of salinity. We also did a Vitamin C / Lugols titration of 4 samples. Anyhow... The Stations took 35 minutes. This left about 20 minutes for the kids to do their Calorimetry. We set of the Part one stations at opposite ends of the room, and had a couple of Volunteers "ride herd" to make sure everyone progressed in the correct direction. At the end of Part one, Each of the 13 teams came to a central table in the room. This table contained a bowl of Fritos, a bucket of water (with thermometer, if they wanted to use it, and (5) scales that measured to .01 grams (These are not as expensive as you might think. We bought all 5 for less than $70.00). As part of the kids instructions, I suggested that they make sure they use the same scale to weigh their ash as they did to weigh their sample, as their could potentially be slight differences in the way the scales are calibrated... (there was a difference of .04 grams from high scale to low scale)... This tournament was set up for only 26 teams. We had 2 sessions of 13 teams each, and sharing digital scales did not seem to bottleneck anything the way triple beam balances would have.

For those of you scheduled to run this event, and like the way we set it up, one word of caution... TAPE THE STATION TESTS DOWN to the station table... We had one group walk off with one of our laminated station cards with all the questions on it! We looked, asked, investigated, and never did find it... I had no back ups of the cards, never in my wildest nightmare imagining this would happen... So I told one of our teams to start their calorimeter test 5 minutes early, Ran to the computer lab, downloaded another copy from dropbox, printed, and returned within 5 minutes... When all the other teams were starting their calorimeter testing, I had our team run their last station for 5 minutes, then go back to the calorimeter thing... Ya... not a good situation, but as close as we could get to being fair.
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad
Killer of Towers
Buster of Crime


Return to “Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest