Scioly.org

Ashernoel wrote:Because the scoring is much less generous, I think Thermo is harder this year. The exponential nature of Newton's Law of Cooling means that students at the top could not only impact their own scores with slightly better devices but also greatly diminish others' scores. Each half degree really matters now, where they did not last year.

First off. Nice avatar Asher. Second. I totally agree with Asher as this year you will be impacted by being inaccurate. It is now easier to be accurate but... one mistake and you're toast. As for how I interpret the rules I see the test being more concept-based than number crunching. Also in the rules section 4a. Does anyone know how invitationals will work for the volume of water? Will they all just be at 100ml? Or will they use national standards? (Invites that say they will be run like nats are exempt from this question.)

TheChiScientist wrote:

Ashernoel wrote:Because the scoring is much less generous, I think Thermo is harder this year. The exponential nature of Newton's Law of Cooling means that students at the top could not only impact their own scores with slightly better devices but also greatly diminish others' scores. Each half degree really matters now, where they did not last year.

First off. Nice avatar Asher. Second. I totally agree with Asher as this year you will be impacted by being inaccurate. It is now easier to be accurate but... one mistake and you're toast. As for how I interpret the rules I see the test being more concept-based than number crunching. Also in the rules section 4a. Does anyone know how invitationals will work for the volume of water? Will they all just be at 100ml? Or will they use national standards? (Invites that say they will be run like nats are exempt from this question.)

1. According to the rules manual, all invitationals are supposed to conform to regionals standards, not nats. How is it that an invite can be run like nats then?

2. I ran a sim in Desmos, and the graph looks fairly linear up through a 75% drop in temperature. Anyone who loses more than that is in big trouble.

Jacobi wrote:

TheChiScientist wrote:

Ashernoel wrote:Because the scoring is much less generous, I think Thermo is harder this year. The exponential nature of Newton's Law of Cooling means that students at the top could not only impact their own scores with slightly better devices but also greatly diminish others' scores. Each half degree really matters now, where they did not last year.

First off. Nice avatar Asher. Second. I totally agree with Asher as this year you will be impacted by being inaccurate. It is now easier to be accurate but... one mistake and you're toast. As for how I interpret the rules I see the test being more concept-based than number crunching. Also in the rules section 4a. Does anyone know how invitationals will work for the volume of water? Will they all just be at 100ml? Or will they use national standards? (Invites that say they will be run like nats are exempt from this question.)

1. According to the rules manual, all invitationals are supposed to conform to regionals standards, not nats. How is it that an invite can be run like nats then?

2. I ran a sim in Desmos, and the graph looks fairly linear up through a 75% drop in temperature. Anyone who loses more than that is in big trouble.

1. MIT and other big name invites run a nats standards. So this is why I ask.
2. Yea my data sets came to a similar conclusion so best if you avoid that big of a drop. Pro tip if this happens. Build a better box!

TheChiScientist wrote:

Jacobi wrote:

TheChiScientist wrote: First off. Nice avatar Asher. Second. I totally agree with Asher as this year you will be impacted by being inaccurate. It is now easier to be accurate but... one mistake and you're toast. As for how I interpret the rules I see the test being more concept-based than number crunching. Also in the rules section 4a. Does anyone know how invitationals will work for the volume of water? Will they all just be at 100ml? Or will they use national standards? (Invites that say they will be run like nats are exempt from this question.)

1. According to the rules manual, all invitationals are supposed to conform to regionals standards, not nats. How is it that an invite can be run like nats then?

2. I ran a sim in Desmos, and the graph looks fairly linear up through a 75% drop in temperature. Anyone who loses more than that is in big trouble.

1. MIT and other big name invites run a nats standards. So this is why I ask.
2. Yea my data sets came to a similar conclusion so best if you avoid that big of a drop. Pro tip if this happens. Build a better box!

Invitationals ultimately do basically whatever they want as long as they register their tournament and comply with copyright. Almost no invitationals run at Nationals standard - MIT switching to that last year was a surprise. Of the tournaments that specify, most will run at the state level - the vast majority of tournaments just don't say anything.

I'm having trouble determining the meaning of rule 5D1, which requires competitors to have data spanning "at least one variable range listed in 4.Part I.a".

To me, a variable range is a high value and a low value and all of the possible values in between for a given variable. For example, 60 degrees to 90 degrees celcius. However, the variables listed in 4.Part I.a are just the time and the possible volumes, which means that for Division B, the only acceptable variable range they can "span" is the volume range from 75 to 125. Why not just say that Division B must have data spanning from 75 to 125 mL? It seems extraordinarily confusing and unnecessary, especially considering Division C could span the "20 to 30 minutes" listed in 4.Part I.a. Furthermore, teams that are only preparing for regionals don't need volume measurements at any volume except 100 mL.

I know this isn't the place for FAQs, but I believe that portal hasn't opened yet on soinc.org. Any other interpretations about what this means, and what must be done to span "at least one variable range"?

Alex-RCHS wrote:I'm having trouble determining the meaning of rule 5D1, which requires competitors to have data spanning "at least one variable range listed in 4.Part I.a".

To me, a variable range is a high value and a low value and all of the possible values in between for a given variable. For example, 60 degrees to 90 degrees celcius. However, the variables listed in 4.Part I.a are just the time and the possible volumes, which means that for Division B, the only acceptable variable range they can "span" is the volume range from 75 to 125. Why not just say that Division B must have data spanning from 75 to 125 mL? It seems extraordinarily confusing and unnecessary, especially considering Division C could span the "20 to 30 minutes" listed in 4.Part I.a. Furthermore, teams that are only preparing for regionals don't need volume measurements at any volume except 100 mL.

I know this isn't the place for FAQs, but I believe that portal hasn't opened yet on soinc.org. Any other interpretations about what this means, and what must be done to span "at least one variable range"?

What you are seeing is the result of us trying to avoid having 2 sets of the rules, one for Div B and one for Div C. We have limited space in the rules and sometimes cut corners a little bit on explaining things that are different between the divisions.

Note however, that just because the competition itself is limited to a specific volume or temperature or time range, that doesn't mean you can't do testing ahead of time using a range of those and present that data on the charts.

chalker wrote: What you are seeing is the result of us trying to avoid having 2 sets of the rules, one for Div B and one for Div C. We have limited space in the rules and sometimes cut corners a little bit on explaining things that are different between the divisions.

Note however, that just because the competition itself is limited to a specific volume or temperature or time range, that doesn't mean you can't do testing ahead of time using a range of those and present that data on the charts.

Okay, that's what I was thinking. Speaking from the perspective of an ES, it's my current, personal interpretation that a Div B competitor will only receive these points if they have data series at both 75ml and 125ml, regardless of the level of competition. However, I will submit an FAQ about this in the future.

MattChina wrote:Is it me or did they just make the event way easier

I also think that they have made the event more study-focused over the build section. You are allowed to use a cotton ball, they removed the external beaker, they greatly decreased the span of possible test values, and removed the Ice Water Bonus. Personally, I think that removes a lot of the challenges of the build portion (mainly by removing the ice water bonus and decreasing the testing parameters). :/

Vrund wrote:

MattChina wrote:Is it me or did they just make the event way easier

I also think that they have made the event more study-focused over the build section. You are allowed to use a cotton ball, they removed the external beaker, they greatly decreased the span of possible test values, and removed the Ice Water Bonus. Personally, I think that removes a lot of the challenges of the build portion (mainly by removing the ice water bonus and decreasing the testing parameters). :/

The IWB was worth a net 1-2 points last year. This year's scoring weights both accuracy and hear retention more strongly than last year's - last year, you got more than half the points in both categories just for showing up.

I've been having a small problem with how scoring works this year, especially with the heat score. When I calculate the scores in Excel, the results make sense. However, when I put the exact same parameters into the official score sheet for Thermo, there are several problems. That spreadsheet will not give out a heat score for some teams, seemingly at random. Has anyone else noticed this?