Machines C 2020-2021

[MoMoney$$$;)0)]

Under criticism of the rules, they pretty clearly said what's required on each graph. I don't recollect on the top of my head what they are, but I remember I got full graph points every time for my machine.

The ambiguity also means that proctors could mark you off simply because you interpret it differently than you

At our regional, the proctor thought that we had to have graphs and tables, not graphs or tables.

At state, the proctor thought that spanning the mass range meant that the data had to go beyond what is allowed at competition (i.e. 19 grams to 801 grams). She also thought that 4 charts meant 4 columns.

That doesn't even go into trying to figure out what data is supposed to go on the chart. It took me forever to decide what the chart would be on because they don't tell you what your variables are supposed to be like in other events. They just say to come with charts, and outline how they want the charts done. More clear chart score guidelines next year would be nice. Although, by following the guidelines, we did manage to earn full points every time, it just took a little bit of pointing out what the rules said and explaining our interpretation.

I feel that this is partially true, but the only thing I can say in triple, maybe even quadruple times read to the rules to make sure you understand what you're getting into before making a build, or taking a tests, even before your first practice; to fully grasp what's expected of you.

[jaggie34]

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 Machine tests and lab aspect with the same rules?

I can't say for certain, but I believe the build will stay the same while the test will have new topics added. If anyone has suggestions on how they think the test can change, it can't hurt to add them in this thread.

[RiverWalker88]

Just as a random thought, it would be interesting if you had to construct a machine during the event to accomplish a goal set by the supervisor (for example, moving an effort force 30cm to move a resistance force 45 cm, or something like that). It's not all that plausible to actually add to the event, but would be (probably?) a fun addition.

[CPScienceDude]

Just as a random thought, it would be interesting if you had to construct a machine during the event to accomplish a goal set by the supervisor (for example, moving an effort force 30cm to move a resistance force 45 cm, or something like that). It's not all that plausible to actually add to the event, but would be (probably?) a fun addition.

that would be really fun.

[MoMoney$$$;)0)]

Just as a random thought, it would be interesting if you had to construct a machine during the event to accomplish a goal set by the supervisor (for example, moving an effort force 30cm to move a resistance force 45 cm, or something like that). It's not all that plausible to actually add to the event, but would be (probably?) a fun addition.

that would be really fun.

I agree, however there would need to be set parameters of the types of machines allowed to be constructed, since it would be like Mystery Architecture but Machines version. Definitely adding a fun concept into the event, and might even help to spread out the scores a little bit.