Page 27 of 28
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 22nd, 2011, 5:26 pm
by tornado guy
We were really disappointed, my team mates tower got a 42-43 efficiency at our Region and State. For Nationals we did the exact same design except a tad bit lighter and it ended up breaking at 14 for efficiency. We really have no clue on what happened.
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 22nd, 2011, 5:30 pm
by tornado guy
We were really disappointed, my team mates tower got a 42-43 efficiency at our Region and State. For Nationals we did the exact same design except a tad bit lighter and it ended up breaking at 14 for efficiency. We really have no clue on what happened.
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 22nd, 2011, 8:58 pm
by dragonfly
nejanimb wrote:Slightly over 48, I believe.
Actually it was almost a 54 if I'm not mistaken. Congratulations Troy on a fantastic job!
I was fairly disappointed in the other tower efficiencies...I'd expected there would be a greater amount with higher scores in the top 10....either way congratulations to everyone else as well!
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 23rd, 2011, 9:56 am
by googlyfrog
Our tower gained almost 2 grams on the way, and it used to give us an efficiency around 30. Something happened, and it broke and gave us an efficiency of 9, so we got 48th place. They didn't slow-mo our tower break, so I'm still confused as to how it broke. The chimney basically just collapsed I guess, but I don't know why. I know this is a pretty vague description of what happened, but does anyone have any possible theories about why it happened?
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 23rd, 2011, 12:01 pm
by lucwilder42
dragonfly wrote:nejanimb wrote:Slightly over 48, I believe.
Actually it was almost a 54 if I'm not mistaken. Congratulations Troy on a fantastic job!
I was fairly disappointed in the other tower efficiencies...I'd expected there would be a greater amount with higher scores in the top 10....either way congratulations to everyone else as well!
54 is ridonkulous, i want a picture
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 23rd, 2011, 3:59 pm
by rjm
These are the unofficial raw scores for the top ten Division B Towers from Nats:
(Tower mass/load supported/score)
4.39/15.000/51.253
4.41/15.000/51.020
4.83/15.000/46.584
5.10/15.000/44.118
6.08/15.000/37.007
6.23/14.767/35.002
6.84/15.000/32.895
7.12/15.000/31.601
6.55/14.296/31.202
5.13/12.477/30.346
First and second were very close.
Sorry, I don't have the raw scores for Division C. Div. C was assigned to another event supervisor. These may end up on Avogadro.
Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 23rd, 2011, 6:55 pm
by Littleboy
wow .02 difference
thats nothing at all
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 23rd, 2011, 11:14 pm
by Aia
.02g difference between 1st and 2nd? That's absolutely ridiculous. Congrats to all the top teams though- those are some impressive numbers!
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 24th, 2011, 7:21 pm
by T-B
rjm wrote:These are the unofficial raw scores for the top ten Division B Towers from Nats:
(Tower mass/load supported/score)
4.39/15.000/51.253
4.41/15.000/51.020
4.83/15.000/46.584
5.10/15.000/44.118
6.08/15.000/37.007
6.23/14.767/35.002
6.84/15.000/32.895
7.12/15.000/31.601
6.55/14.296/31.202
5.13/12.477/30.346
First and second were very close.
Sorry, I don't have the raw scores for Division C. Div. C was assigned to another event supervisor. These may end up on Avogadro.
Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI
I am interested to know how many of these top designs were standard 4-column, standard 3-column, bridge-like base, or something completely new?
Re: Efficiencies
Posted: May 24th, 2011, 8:40 pm
by iYOA
well if anyone has pictures, could you please upload them?