Scioly.org

ooh -_- someone's already got a viscometer built and tested

red, remember this. red, remember this. MUST REMEMBER

Hi everybody! I'm fairly new to this event (only did it last year for the first invitational of the year). I was just wondering, are the food science competitions, in general, majority test, majority lab, or a mixture of both? Also, is there a large emphasis on the effects of ingredients on baked goods, or the chemistry of the components of food? I'm sorry I'm asking so many questions, but if you could help me out, that would be awesome! Thank you!

youngswimmer wrote:hey um im new to this event and i know how to make the viscosity meter but i dont know how to use it. so how do you... i know how to do the timing part but the graph confuses me.

Also, I looked it up on youtube and there were a couple videos which helped me figure out how to do it last year...

10manwire wrote:Hi everybody! I'm fairly new to this event (only did it last year for the first invitational of the year). I was just wondering, are the food science competitions, in general, majority test, majority lab, or a mixture of both? Also, is there a large emphasis on the effects of ingredients on baked goods, or the chemistry of the components of food? I'm sorry I'm asking so many questions, but if you could help me out, that would be awesome! Thank you!

Well for one thing, there's a lot of variation between individual competitions and event writers. At NY states last year, there was a test on various topics, a viscosity test, and we had to find the density of a brownie. The supervisor also graded the viscosity graphs, which I'm not sure she was supposed to do. Overall I didn't find it a very well written event, because the questions were pretty easy and somewhat confusing - the last question was about car oil, which has nothing to do with food science at all, so not sure where that came from. The nationals event, on the other hand, was about half lab and half written, with powder tests, viscosity, and maybe density (I don't quite remember). The test was partially multiple choice and part short answer, if I remember correctly, and covered everything from sugar molecules to effects of extra eggs to the history of preservation techniques. All in all, there'll probably be a mix of everything mentioned in the rules, with a couple other questions thrown in for good measure.

Okay, thank you so much!

In the rulebook, it says you can make a larger hole for more viscous liquids. Wouldn't this mess up your standard curve? I feel like this inclusion will give many strange looking curves at states... Does anybody else agree?

In what sense? It's almost necessary to have a larger hole for nonviscous liquids to actually get through in the next century...if you mean putting water in there wouldn't work, use tape or something to seal off the hole until you're ready to measure.

Yes. I am fully aware of that. However, what I was thinking was why use two different sized holes (a small one one for the low viscosity liquids and a large one for the high viscosity liquids), instead of just using a hole large enough for the thickest liquids and using it for everything. I don't see why anybody would use two holes when you could just use one that works for all viscosities. And yes, of course I know to put tape on the hole...

Sorry, just after I posted that last message I realized how to properly use the quote funtion...

senyab wrote:

In the rulebook, it says you can make a larger hole for more viscous liquids. Wouldn't this mess up your standard curve? I feel like this inclusion will give many strange looking curves at states... Does anybody else agree?

In what sense? It's almost necessary to have a larger hole for nonviscous liquids to actually get through in the next century...if you mean putting water in there wouldn't work, use tape or something to seal off the hole until you're ready to measure.

Yes. I am fully aware of that. However, what I was thinking was why use two different sized holes (a small one one for the low viscosity liquids and a large one for the high viscosity liquids), instead of just using a hole large enough for the thickest liquids and using it for everything. I don't see why anybody would use two holes when you could just use one that works for all viscosities. And yes, of course I know to put tape on the hole...

I made two different viscotesters, each with a different sized hole. While this may seem impractical, it really is not. The problem with just using a medium sized hole is that it makes the low viscosity liquids (ie water and milk) extremely hard to differenciate due to the similarity in times. It also makes the high viscosity liquids take a ridiculously long time.
I made the two completely different viscotesters with two different curve graphs and yesterday at the competition, they worked perfectly. Even though I knew on sight that the liquid was Karo corn syrup (and I remembered from last year that the answer would be 2000 cP), my partner tested the visco anyways and got extremely close to 2000, so even without the prior knowledge we would've gotten it right. Using two different sized holes is actually quicker at competition since you won't be stuck waiting for something like honey to flow through a medium sized hole. While it may take slightly longer to make, in my opinion, it is well worth it at competition.

Is it a requirement for the viscotester to be made from a styrofoam cup?

Nope not at all, you can use any sort of container