Designs

[goodcheer]

"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.

Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.

[sjwon3789]

"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.

Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.

I'm referring the E as the circuit for the motor, M as the motor spinning and the motion of the container being lifted, and E as the golf ball hits the switch.

Thanks.

[JP]

"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.

Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.

I'm referring the E as the circuit for the motor, M as the motor spinning and the motion of the container being lifted, and E as the golf ball hits the switch.

Thanks.

In their example ASL, they count the first M-E-M sequence as an ETS. I think M means the golfball hitting a switch. E is the circuit powering the motor to lift the ball. M again is the golfball hitting the next switch. If they put it in their ASL, is it definitely allowed?

Btw thanks torqueburner

[goodcheer]

In their example ASL, they count the first M-E-M sequence as an ETS. I think M means the golfball hitting a switch. E is the circuit powering the motor to lift the ball. M again is the golfball hitting the next switch. If they put it in their ASL, is it definitely allowed?

Btw thanks torqueburner

Sorry, my mistake. I was reading the sample ASL wrong. I thought the first ETS began at the line marked #2, but it seems it ends there and the 50 points are listed there for the ETS. Yes, it does seem M-E-M is as you describe it and if it is listed this way, it should be allowed. I would add this though, the ETS in the sample ASL has two golf balls being collected (not necessary to lift them): one to initiate the ETS and the second to end it. Good way to get a simple ETS!

[wlmeng11]

I don't see why they cannot just clarify this. What's holding them back?

Honestly, because it'll make the competition too much easier, they'll probably restraining themselves from letting us NOT lifting the golf balls. Only that can make sense, but there was a flaw to their rules. But what's irritating is that they can just simply tell us straightforward that you either have to or not. But I'm betting that they're going to make us because receiving 2 pts from golf ball vs dimension points differ too significantly.

On the contrary, I feel that reverting the FAQs without any prior notice would be entirely unfair to the teams that decided to not use a lift system (such as mine and ethanhunt's, and likely many more), as all officially posted information thus far since the wording regarding scoring golf balls was originally changed has made it clear that golf balls do not have to be lifted in order to score an ETS.

Additionally, while the rules have been changed then reverted regarding the handle of the scoring jug, doing the same in this situation would have entirely different consequences, as the handle rule was an added restriction that was subsequently removed, whereas in this case, the requirement of lifting golf balls was already removed, and adding it back in the middle of comopetition season would certainly spell disaster for any team facing such a rule change immediately before their competition (disclaimer: my regional tournament is in less than a week). In other words, reverting the handle rule was merely an annoyance to everyone that went out and bought a milk jug, while reverting this rule could put many teams in a very bad position.

On a side note, while I agree that not requiring golf balls to be lifted does make the competition easier, it isn't "too much easier," as completing more than 2 or 3 ETS's is not trivial, and it's certainly no easier than last year and any year before, when the focus of the event was on energy transfers rather than lifting golf balls (I personally think the energy transfers should be the main task and lifting golf balls should be the bonus task, rather than the other way around).

[goodcheer]

I don't see why they cannot just clarify this. What's holding them back?

Honestly, because it'll make the competition too much easier, they'll probably restraining themselves from letting us NOT lifting the golf balls. Only that can make sense, but there was a flaw to their rules. But what's irritating is that they can just simply tell us straightforward that you either have to or not. But I'm betting that they're going to make us because receiving 2 pts from golf ball vs dimension points differ too significantly.

On the contrary, I feel that reverting the FAQs without any prior notice would be entirely unfair to the teams that decided to not use a lift system (such as mine and ethanhunt's, and likely many more), as all officially posted information thus far since the wording regarding scoring golf balls was originally changed has made it clear that golf balls do not have to be lifted in order to score an ETS.

Additionally, while the rules have been changed then reverted regarding the handle of the scoring jug, doing the same in this situation would have entirely different consequences, as the handle rule was an added restriction that was subsequently removed, whereas in this case, the requirement of lifting golf balls was already removed, and adding it back in the middle of comopetition season would certainly spell disaster for any team facing such a rule change immediately before their competition (disclaimer: my regional tournament is in less than a week). In other words, reverting the handle rule was merely an annoyance to everyone that went out and bought a milk jug, while reverting this rule could put many teams in a very bad position.

On a side note, while I agree that not requiring golf balls to be lifted does make the competition easier, it isn't "too much easier," as completing more than 2 or 3 ETS's is not trivial, and it's certainly no easier than last year and any year before, when the focus of the event was on energy transfers rather than lifting golf balls (I personally think the energy transfers should be the main task and lifting golf balls should be the bonus task, rather than the other way around).

I agree with what you say about the jug. What they did about that was reasonable. But, the golf ball issue is not as simple because the change they made regarding it has effected many of the other rules making them incoherent. If they keep it as they currently have it, it seems we will just have to ignore the inconsistencies that have been created. That might be unscientific and unsavory, but what else can we do?

I agree also with what you say about reverting back to the original ruling: it would effect many of the designs made since the newer ruling. But, there were also many older designs effected by the newer ruling when it was handed down. It might not be reasonable to revert back to the original ruling at this point, but teams that lift golf balls as the rule book specifies perhaps should be rewarded for their efforts more than 2 points. Perhaps increasing the value of lifting golf balls would be a way to smooth out some of the wrinkles, level the playing field? After all, as you say, lifting golf balls was supposed to be the main task. The "Device Task" found in par. 4 line 1 is to raise one or more golf balls, collecting them in one or more scoring jugs...Whereas the bonus ETSs are optional, yet receive 50 points. And an ETS can be as simple as M-E, flipping a mechanical switch to turn on an electrical current. Of course you still have to collect a before and after golf ball. But, think about it: just collect two golf balls and you can get 50 points for a legitimate ETS. But lift and collect the golf balls and they are only worth an extra 2 points each and the lifting part is the most difficult and takes the most space. The point values seem skewed under the current rulings. Under the original rules as found in the rule book, not so much because you had to lift and collect the golf balls to score 50 points for an ETS. By changing the FAQ, they made it easier to score 50 points and at the same time devalued the lifting of golf balls. It seems crystal clear to me, but I could be in a fog. Any other thoughts?

[XJcwolfyX]

I agree with what you say about the jug. What they did about that was reasonable. But, the golf ball issue is not as simple because the change they made regarding it has effected many of the other rules making them incoherent. If they keep it as they currently have it, it seems we will just have to ignore the contradictions that have been created. That might be unscientific and unsavory, but what else can we do?

I agree also with what you say about reverting back to the original ruling: it would effect many of the designs made since the newer ruling. But, there were also many older designs effected by the newer ruling when it was handed down. It might not be reasonable to revert back to the original ruling at this point, but teams that lift golf balls as the rule book specifies perhaps should be rewarded for their efforts more than 2 points. Perhaps increasing the value of lifting golf balls would be a way to smooth out some of the wrinkles, level the playing field? After all, as you say, lifting golf balls was supposed to be the main task. The "Device Task" found in par. 4 line 1 is to raise one or more golf balls, collecting them in one or more scoring jugs...Whereas the bonus ETSs are optional, yet receive 50 points. And an ETS can be as simple as M-E, flipping a mechanical switch to turn on an electrical current. Of course you still have to collect a before and after golf ball. But, think about it: just collect two golf balls and you can get 50 points for a legitimate ETS. But lift and collect the golf balls and they are only worth an extra 2 points each and the lifting part is the most difficult and takes the most space. The point values seem skewed under the current rulings. Under the original rules as found in the rule book, not so much because you had to lift and collect the golf balls to score 50 points for an ETS. By changing the FAQ, they made it easier to score 50 points and at the same time devalued the lifting of golf balls. It seems crystal clear to me, but I could be in a fog. Any other thoughts?

It would not be reasonable to change anything back at this point, including the point values of the golf balls... It's too late

[MC McGilicutty]

This whole entire ordeal is completely unfair. So many state competitions are coming up for teams and if all of a sudden they rule that you have to lift the golf balls to get any points for ETS's then the teams that decided to not lift any of them are left in the dust and it wouldn't even be their fault. The rules this year have been one of the hardest in science olympiad and the fact that everything keeps changing with FAQ's and then reversed FAQ's make this event one of the worst to compete in. You will never know what one judge considers to be eligible for an ETS compared to another because of the mess that this is. Not to be rude to the Chalkers but it is quite sad to see one of the best events in science olympiad made into such a crap shoot. It is very disheartening for me and my team to not know whether or not our machine will be sufficient for state or not.

[goodcheer]

It would not be reasonable to change anything back at this point, including the point values of the golf balls... It's too late

Just offering a proposal that might be fair to everyone, not just those who benefited from the FAQ change. Changing point values should not be a problem.

To MCMc, what about those who have been working since Oct perfecting the lifting of golf balls? Where is the concern for them (if I may speak for our team and others with similar concerns)? The first FAQ requiring the lifting of golf balls for an ETS came down the end of Oct. The one that reversed that FAQ came down the end of Jan. When the new FAQ came along and changed the requirement late in the game (in my view), some did not want to scrap three months of hard work. Although they do so at the risk of being left in the dust by those who have been designing for easier ETS points the past one month. "Sad...unfair...disheartening" is not beyond repair; lets keep hammering this out. Whatever is decided in the end, lets just do our best and be happy to compete against whatever we might come up against. Good luck to everyone.

[MC McGilicutty]

To MCMc, what about those who have been working since Oct perfecting the lifting of golf balls? Where is the concern for them (if I may speak for our team and others with similar concerns)? The first FAQ requiring the lifting of golf balls for an ETS came down the end of Oct. The one that reversed that FAQ came down the end of Jan. When the new FAQ came along and changed the requirement late in the game (in my view), some did not want to scrap three months of hard work. Although they do so at the risk of being left in the dust by those who have been designing for easier ETS points the past one month. "Sad...unfair...disheartening" is not beyond repair; lets keep hammering this out. Whatever is decided in the end, lets just do our best and be happy to compete against whatever we might come up against. Good luck to everyone.

I think you misunderstood me. I am in the same exact boat as you are in. My team is lifting 3 (on a good day) golfballs right now, but it is very large. If many teams decide to go with a smaller design and get all the ETS's without even having the lifting a golfball restriction I think it would be incredibly unfair because of the size that we needed to lift just a few golf balls. This whole situation is just a mess right now and I hope that a decision can be made as soon as possible that is fair to all teams.