The target can be anywhere from 2m to 8m at 1/2 meter increments like 2.5m or 6.5m. The close target can be anywhere from 10cm to 1m off the ground in 10cm increments. So the close target could be @ 3.5m and 70cm off the ground and the far target could be 6m.trajectoryroxs wrote:Okay, I have a question about States targets for Division B, the targets will be at a half a meter ground and half a meter up right? In the rules it says "1 meter or lower" which is confusing me....
~ Trajectoryroxs
Trajectory B/C
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: March 5th, 2010, 2:07 pm
- Division: C
- State: MI
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Trajectory B/C
- zyzzyva980
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: November 18th, 2009, 12:59 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: IA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Trajectory B/C
Yes, the target can be placed at half meter intervals from 2-8 meters. 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5...
The height can be in 10cm increments. .1, .2, .3, .4...
The height can be in 10cm increments. .1, .2, .3, .4...
Olathe North HS, 2011-2013 | National Runner-Up, Sounds of Music (2012)
Never lose the joy of competing in the pursuit of winning
Never lose the joy of competing in the pursuit of winning
Resources
Site Help: FAQ & IRC
Event Help: [wiki][/wiki] & Image Gallery
Social Networks: scioly.org on Facebook & Twitter
Site Help: FAQ & IRC
Event Help: [wiki][/wiki] & Image Gallery
Social Networks: scioly.org on Facebook & Twitter
- anon y mouse
- Member
- Posts: 35
- Joined: May 2nd, 2009, 10:36 am
- Division: C
- State: PA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
-
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 961
- Joined: January 12th, 2007, 7:36 pm
- Division: Grad
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 17 times
Re: Trajectory B/C
Yep, 10 cm increments was last year's rules. Careful that you are looking at the right ones.
- Phenylethylamine
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: January 8th, 2009, 4:47 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: MA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Trajectory B/C
At NY States yesterday, the targets were at 9.5 m and 3.5 m, with the close target 1.4 m off the ground.
We had managed to hit 9.5 m consistently in practice (our device has had problems with not getting the full distance, but we were under the impression that we had pretty much solved them), but when we put our device on that increment in the event, it went maybe 8.9 m at most; we didn't manage to hit the far target.
On the other hand, we were very worried about the close target, because in the process of getting the full distance, we had compromised our ability to hit shorter distances. We had also never specifically tested anything off the ground (we had a lot of problems finding space and time to test... there aren't many places in our school district with sufficiently high ceilings lol), so I attempted to construct the parabola of a shot at certain increments knowing only the angle of release and the distance traveled (clearly not very accurate). However, somehow all this worked out, and we managed to get a good shot on the close target- maybe 20 cm at most.
In other words, we still don't understand what the heck we're doing.
(We're completely rebuilding before Nationals, because we finally realized that no matter what we've tried, there are always insurmountable problems with this design. Every time we fix one of them, another one is created.)
We had managed to hit 9.5 m consistently in practice (our device has had problems with not getting the full distance, but we were under the impression that we had pretty much solved them), but when we put our device on that increment in the event, it went maybe 8.9 m at most; we didn't manage to hit the far target.
On the other hand, we were very worried about the close target, because in the process of getting the full distance, we had compromised our ability to hit shorter distances. We had also never specifically tested anything off the ground (we had a lot of problems finding space and time to test... there aren't many places in our school district with sufficiently high ceilings lol), so I attempted to construct the parabola of a shot at certain increments knowing only the angle of release and the distance traveled (clearly not very accurate). However, somehow all this worked out, and we managed to get a good shot on the close target- maybe 20 cm at most.
In other words, we still don't understand what the heck we're doing.
(We're completely rebuilding before Nationals, because we finally realized that no matter what we've tried, there are always insurmountable problems with this design. Every time we fix one of them, another one is created.)
Protein Modeling Event Supervisor 2015
MA State Science Olympiad Tournament
MIT Invitational Tournament
--
Ward Melville High School Science Olympiad 2010-2012
Paul J Gelinas JHS Science Olympiad 2007-2009
MA State Science Olympiad Tournament
MIT Invitational Tournament
--
Ward Melville High School Science Olympiad 2010-2012
Paul J Gelinas JHS Science Olympiad 2007-2009
- zyzzyva980
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: November 18th, 2009, 12:59 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: IA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Trajectory B/C
Well, I didn't feel like looking up the rules and the last post said that, so I guess you can't believe everything you see here. I thought it was .01 anyway.
Olathe North HS, 2011-2013 | National Runner-Up, Sounds of Music (2012)
Never lose the joy of competing in the pursuit of winning
Never lose the joy of competing in the pursuit of winning
Resources
Site Help: FAQ & IRC
Event Help: [wiki][/wiki] & Image Gallery
Social Networks: scioly.org on Facebook & Twitter
Site Help: FAQ & IRC
Event Help: [wiki][/wiki] & Image Gallery
Social Networks: scioly.org on Facebook & Twitter
- swimmmm
- Member
- Posts: 85
- Joined: February 21st, 2010, 4:01 pm
- Division: C
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Trajectory B/C
our trajectory competely failed too =/ it was doing perfect, hitting pins at practice, and there everything just went wrong.Phenylethylamine wrote:At NY States yesterday, the targets were at 9.5 m and 3.5 m, with the close target 1.4 m off the ground.
We had managed to hit 9.5 m consistently in practice (our device has had problems with not getting the full distance, but we were under the impression that we had pretty much solved them), but when we put our device on that increment in the event, it went maybe 8.9 m at most; we didn't manage to hit the far target.
On the other hand, we were very worried about the close target, because in the process of getting the full distance, we had compromised our ability to hit shorter distances. We had also never specifically tested anything off the ground (we had a lot of problems finding space and time to test... there aren't many places in our school district with sufficiently high ceilings lol), so I attempted to construct the parabola of a shot at certain increments knowing only the angle of release and the distance traveled (clearly not very accurate). However, somehow all this worked out, and we managed to get a good shot on the close target- maybe 20 cm at most.
In other words, we still don't understand what the heck we're doing.
(We're completely rebuilding before Nationals, because we finally realized that no matter what we've tried, there are always insurmountable problems with this design. Every time we fix one of them, another one is created.)
our guesses:
1) air is extremely dry in there. i run winter track meets in that track and its ridiculous, my throat like closes up every meet.
2) IT WAS SO COLD!!!! i was like shivering in there lolll my partner had her jacket on....
good job by the way! =] i was so proud that someone was finally closing in on FM... about time! and ur 200 pts over Columbia was pretty impressive/
-
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 932
- Joined: April 5th, 2008, 6:51 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: ME
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Trajectory B/C
If I put this together with what swimmm said, I would say that your problems on the far target could possibly be attributed to the rubber contracting or stiffening from the cold and dryness.Phenylethylamine wrote:At NY States yesterday, the targets were at 9.5 m and 3.5 m, with the close target 1.4 m off the ground.
We had managed to hit 9.5 m consistently in practice (our device has had problems with not getting the full distance, but we were under the impression that we had pretty much solved them), but when we put our device on that increment in the event, it went maybe 8.9 m at most; we didn't manage to hit the far target.
On the other hand, we were very worried about the close target, because in the process of getting the full distance, we had compromised our ability to hit shorter distances. We had also never specifically tested anything off the ground (we had a lot of problems finding space and time to test... there aren't many places in our school district with sufficiently high ceilings lol), so I attempted to construct the parabola of a shot at certain increments knowing only the angle of release and the distance traveled (clearly not very accurate). However, somehow all this worked out, and we managed to get a good shot on the close target- maybe 20 cm at most.
In other words, we still don't understand what the heck we're doing.
(We're completely rebuilding before Nationals, because we finally realized that no matter what we've tried, there are always insurmountable problems with this design. Every time we fix one of them, another one is created.)
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain
-
- Staff Emeritus
- Posts: 829
- Joined: September 11th, 2009, 1:41 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: PA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Trajectory B/C
I had Regionals today, and I didn't get to see the Trajectory, but I heard that my teammates almost nailed the near target but didn't do so well on the far target. And then the catapult was fired without the tennis ball, which meant one of their four shots was completely wasted. Does anyone have a checklist or something of the sort that they go through before firing to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen?
Hershey Science Olympiad 2009 - 2014
Volunteer for Michigan SO 2015 - 2018
]\/[ Go Blue!
Volunteer for Michigan SO 2015 - 2018
]\/[ Go Blue!
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 499
- Joined: January 6th, 2009, 7:54 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Trajectory B/C
We used to have one last year, but we wasted alot of time checking stuff off, so we plan who's doing what ahead of time, and we also check each other's work
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests