Scioly.org

---AlphaTauri, really? In all competitions I've been at, when a piece has fallen off, the judge counted it as failure...that's odd.

I asked a professor about it once and he put it this way, "If you were traveling on a bridge, you would want it to be safe right? Well, if a piece 'falls off' a bridge, would you fear crossing it? In the US DOT, bridges are usually closed when a piece 'falls off' (or something else isn't quite right), because they don't want anyone to get hurt. The elevated bridge is the same way, you're preparing to build a real-life bridge. You wouldn't want to build a bridge, have a piece fall off and then still demand an engineering prize, would you?"

He really put it in a new light for me. It may be about bridges, but I've always remembered that when I build towers. 15Kg is the total weight of the people that will visit my tower. No more people can get on, or the tower will break. No less, because then the tower would be too big. Maybe it's a little silly...but that's what I do when I build my tower. I get a little imaginative with SO...keeps me interested when I get bored with a project.

just4qs wrote:---AlphaTauri, really? In all competitions I've been at, when a piece has fallen off, the judge counted it as failure...that's odd.

I asked a professor about it once and he put it this way, "If you were traveling on a bridge, you would want it to be safe right? Well, if a piece 'falls off' a bridge, would you fear crossing it? In the US DOT, bridges are usually closed when a piece 'falls off' (or something else isn't quite right), because they don't want anyone to get hurt. The elevated bridge is the same way, you're preparing to build a real-life bridge. You wouldn't want to build a bridge, have a piece fall off and then still demand an engineering prize, would you?"

Yes, but in real life, they don't load bridges/towers until they break, nor are most real structures designed to break right after reaching their maximum "safe" load.

It's Science Olympiad. It's going to be a little unrealistic.

Careful here in how definitive you are being. The usual statements still apply. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR OFFICIAL CLARIFICATIONS. Anything you read is only an opinion, EVEN IF A NATIONAL EVENT SUPERVISOR WRITES IT! The rules are written by a committee and the national supervisors are sometimes overruled!! If you REALLY want to know whether a piece falling off stops the weight addition ask YOUR event supervisor and ask it on the NSO clarifications page.

As to the professor's logic, sorry, it DOES NOT APPLY! DOT practice is NOT relevant, ONLY the rules. Its adding things like this that aren't in the rules that started this thread. SO bridges/towers/whatever are not meant to be treated like 'real world' bridges/towers/whatever. Real world bridges are designed to hold 2-3 or more times the load then anyone ever expects them to see in real life so there is little or no risk of failure. That's why any real failure is investigated to the n'th degree to make sure it never happens again. SO bridges, towers, whatever are meant to be teaching devices and we often put stuff in the rules that aren't relevant in the real world.

One opinion,

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

jander14indoor wrote:Careful here in how definitive you are being. The usual statements still apply. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR OFFICIAL CLARIFICATIONS. Anything you read is only an opinion, EVEN IF A NATIONAL EVENT SUPERVISOR WRITES IT! The rules are written by a committee and the national supervisors are sometimes overruled!! If you REALLY want to know whether a piece falling off stops the weight addition ask YOUR event supervisor and ask it on the NSO clarifications page.

As to the professor's logic, sorry, it DOES NOT APPLY! DOT practice is NOT relevant, ONLY the rules. Its adding things like this that aren't in the rules that started this thread. SO bridges/towers/whatever are not meant to be treated like 'real world' bridges/towers/whatever. Real world bridges are designed to hold 2-3 or more times the load then anyone ever expects them to see in real life so there is little or no risk of failure. That's why any real failure is investigated to the n'th degree to make sure it never happens again. SO bridges, towers, whatever are meant to be teaching devices and we often put stuff in the rules that aren't relevant in the real world.

One opinion,

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

And my opinion-
Could not agee more, Jeff.
Its all so fundamental- how rule-based systems/competitions work; what rules are about. The Rules create and define a "world"; other "worlds"- perceived, believed, "real" or otherwise, have no place in "our, S-O competition "world." The idea of any judge/official, in any competitive world, making up and imposing their own personal rules, for whatever reason, is fundamentally.....against The Rules; wrong, inappropriate. Deciding that adding a rule about the time a tower should carry full load is needed for fairness; thinking that adding a rule that "reflects" how "real world" structures are.....dealt with; imposing a penalty because of a student's race, or because of the school they represent, are all fundamentally the same; inappropriate to "our world", wrong, and against the rules.

Whill we have to deal with volunteer event supervisors (likely motivated to be fair; may not know the rules inside and out), Tournament Directors should make it clear that a fundamental expectation is that they enforce the rules as written; only as written (and officially clarified), period. No added, personal rules from any other "world."

just4qs, btw- blows my mind what you report- all such rulings I would have to say violated the rules; for at least the last 10 yrs, the rules as written have not had such a provision. All instances I've seen have been judged correctly- and oppositely.

Second rant on this topic over

I'm afraid I have to disagree here... as I feel this is a violation of rule 3.g : The tower must be a single structure with no separate or removable pieces... If a piece flies off, it is no longer one piece... Splitting hairs? Absolutely, but this how I'd interpret it if I were running it.

dholdgreve wrote:I'm afraid I have to disagree here... as I feel this is a violation of rule 3.g : The tower must be a single structure with no separate or removable pieces... If a piece flies off, it is no longer one piece... Splitting hairs? Absolutely, but this how I'd interpret it if I were running it.

Note that rule 3.g. falls under the CONSTRUCTION section, not the COMPETITION section. Once it's been checked during impound to meet all construction requirements, what occurs during the competition is only relevant to the competition section, not the construction section. The discussion at hand involves under what conditions during the competition the supervisor can stop the loading of sand. Rule 5.i explicitly states towers that fail must be scored according to weight supported WHEN failure occurs (not it doesn't say BEFORE). Rule 5.j goes on to explicitly define what constitutes failure (which does NOT include a piece falling off).

About the only way I think we could have been more clear with the rules is to add a list of things that explicitly do NOT count as failures... but that's a slippery slope because if we start listing things we'll likely not be able to include all possible things that could happen.

Of course, as usual this is not the place for official clarifications.....

Last year at a state competition I saw a team that was loading the sand and the tower was approaching failure because it was starting to lean. The chain made contact to one side of the chimney and the event super stopped the team from loading anymore even though the tower had not yet failed. The chain had not made contact to the test stand and there was no side lateral support from anything other than the tower itself. I believe they protested because the rules did not support the stopping, but were overuled. This year again in the rules, 5.J doesn't seem to support that stoppage. Does a State have discretion to take national specs and apply their interpretation to suit a possible oops to save face?

baker wrote: Does a State have discretion to take national specs and apply their interpretation to suit a possible oops to save face?

Yes

dholdgreve wrote:I'm afraid I have to disagree here... as I feel this is a violation of rule 3.g : The tower must be a single structure with no separate or removable pieces... If a piece flies off, it is no longer one piece... Splitting hairs? Absolutely, but this how I'd interpret it if I were running it.

Although im sitting here without rules i believe that that is under the 'construction' section of the rules, yes?
I would interp that as it needs to be CONSTRUCTED to not have removable or separable pieces. If it happens to have something fly off unintentionally then its all good as long is it doesnt do one of the 3 stopping things (no longer hold, using side of testing for help etc)

and even then, they're not 'removable' pieces. If you have a chair and you sit on it and it breaks, therefore the leg of it pops off. Does this mean that the chair leg is removable? I think not, its meant to be solid but became removable.

Just one valid point of view i would use if the supervisor decided to attempt splitting hairs. If they still were firm with the decision, I would look for an appeal

^ I'm overly persistent ^.^

chalker wrote:

baker wrote: Does a State have discretion to take national specs and apply their interpretation to suit a possible oops to save face?

Yes

Understood and accepted.

Let me ask.. Under this years rules, if the chain should touch the inside of the chimney, not the test base, as loading is occuring (it was not touching when it started), would it be fair to say this is not a failure because the tower is still holding the load?