2020-2021 Detector

User avatar
MoMoney$$$;)0)
Member
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
Division: C
State: OH
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 16 times

2020-2021 Detector

Post by MoMoney$$$;)0) » March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am

Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling


2019-2020 Medal Count: 5 :cry:
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult

User avatar
MTV<=>Operator
Member
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: February 8th, 2019, 12:41 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by MTV<=>Operator » March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am
Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.
I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.
THHS '21 Builder Cult Member
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020: GV (9 YUSO, 5 Regional), Detector (8 YUSO, 7 Regional), WS (10 Regional), PPP
2020-2021 Events/ Yosemite
Vehicle Design / 1
WICI / 3
Circuits /--
Machines /--

jinhusong
Member
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: March 16th, 2017, 3:34 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by jinhusong » March 16th, 2020, 12:59 pm

Just change regional to State rule.

shrewdPanther46
Member
Member
Posts: 438
Joined: October 9th, 2017, 6:25 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by shrewdPanther46 » March 17th, 2020, 6:46 am

Personally, I would like to see a change in the task itself. I feel like its pretty feasible given that all the basic materials (microcontroller and related hardware) can be reused. Only thing that might change is the sensors themselves

knightmoves
Member
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: April 26th, 2018, 6:40 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by knightmoves » March 17th, 2020, 2:57 pm

shrewdPanther46 wrote:
March 17th, 2020, 6:46 am
Personally, I would like to see a change in the task itself. I feel like its pretty feasible given that all the basic materials (microcontroller and related hardware) can be reused. Only thing that might change is the sensors themselves
That would be what would happen if we carried on the normal rotation, right? Detector Building would come back for its second year, with a different measurement task?

LIPX3
Member
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: January 10th, 2016, 8:41 am
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by LIPX3 » March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm

MTV<=>Operator wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am
Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.
I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.
That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.

User avatar
pepperonipi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 200
Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
Division: C
State: FL
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by pepperonipi » March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm

LIPX3 wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm
MTV<=>Operator wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am
Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.
I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.
That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.
Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.
And will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.)

Boca Raton Community High School
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page | WikiProject SciOly and Scioly.org | Pi-Bot

2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2021: Detector, Orni, Circuit, WICI

User avatar
MoMoney$$$;)0)
Member
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
Division: C
State: OH
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by MoMoney$$$;)0) » March 19th, 2020, 5:11 pm

pepperonipi wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm
LIPX3 wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm
MTV<=>Operator wrote:
March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am


I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.
That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.
Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.
Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling


2019-2020 Medal Count: 5 :cry:
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult

User avatar
Umaroth
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 337
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by Umaroth » March 19th, 2020, 5:21 pm

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 5:11 pm
pepperonipi wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm
LIPX3 wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm

That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.
Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.
Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?
They were definitely straightforward (aside from ambiguity on whether or not readings had to be blind), but by luck based they mean how the accuracy of the reading oftentimes comes down to how much the calibration thermometer, and not the device, itself fluctuates.
Troy SciOly 2021 Co-Captain
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now
2021 Tryouts: Circuit, Code, Detector, DP, GeoMaps, Machines

The team may be gone, but the program lives on...
Umaroth's Userpage

User avatar
MoMoney$$$;)0)
Member
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
Division: C
State: OH
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: 2020-2021 Detector

Post by MoMoney$$$;)0) » March 19th, 2020, 5:33 pm

Umaroth wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 5:21 pm
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 5:11 pm
pepperonipi wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm


Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.
Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?
They were definitely straightforward (aside from ambiguity on whether or not readings had to be blind), but by luck based they mean how the accuracy of the reading oftentimes comes down to how much the calibration thermometer, and not the device, itself fluctuates.
I think that's a fairly relateable factor, but the way to keep this as straightforward as possible is to try to get a better thermometer and try to keep your calibration thermometer in the same area as a your probe, you can do this by just taping them both together and sticking them on one side of the cup, pot, etc. Every time except for one I got to see the thermometer during my reading allowing me to get exact to ±0.1 Celsius. Just a few suggestions.
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling


2019-2020 Medal Count: 5 :cry:
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult

Locked

Return to “Detector Building C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest