Efficiencies

sciolyswizzle16
Member
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:34 am
Division: C
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by sciolyswizzle16 »

wow, that's really good!
my school was suppose to go to that invitational, but unfortunately we couldn't due to the "snowstorm".
Events for 2011-2012
Forestry (2nd at regionals) (1st at states)
Chem Lab (1st at regionals) (6th at states)
Towers (8th at regionals) (10th at states)
Team (1st at regionals) (3rd at states)
User avatar
sj
Member
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:37 am
Division: C
State: NJ
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by sj »

Thanks! :D
2011 Nationals Results : Sumo Bots 2nd, Helicopters 4rd, Mission Possible 4th, Towers, 9th
WWP SOUTH 3rd At NATS!!!!!

2012 Events: Robot Arm, Towers, Gravity Vehicle
SLM
Member
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:24 pm
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by SLM »

sj wrote: Yeah, I had a 9.7 gram tower that held all 15 kilos so a 23.1 efficiency. :D
Congratulations on your success at Towers and your other events.

Out of curiosity, how much time have you been spending on your events since the beginning of this SO season?
User avatar
lllazar
Member
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:20 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by lllazar »

Just got new wood a few days ago, after revising our base design and testing today our 8.2 g tower held all the weight, 27.4~

I speak from experience, plan out your design and building method first before you even build a tower, i don't think we'd be getting anywhere close to this high without an accurate jig and consistent building technique. The design honestly isn't that important as far as placing at state goes (now at nats, definitely...design is paramount, how else would they get lower than 5 grams :) )
2011 Season Events~

Fossils (Regionals ~1st) (State ~6th)
Towers (Regionals ~1st) (State ~3rd)
Helicopter (Regionals -3rd gahhh) (State ~5th)
Wind Power (Regionals ~1st) (State ~3rd TIERED!)

Hooray for getting everything i wanted?
User avatar
hpfananu
Member
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:22 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by hpfananu »

Congrats! We just had an invite and I'm not sure what happened but our tower that was 16.5 g (not specialized wood yet) wasn't able to hold the weight. I'm thinking it was because while bracing, we tried to straighten the tower and that may have put a lot of stress on it. We had a tower of the exact same design not nearly as straight holding approximately 18 kg and this one holding 6.5 kg. Do you guys think this could have been it or some other factor like wood? We've been using a foam board but no actual jig yet, but this time we're planning on using that paper jig that NC SO has a video of. Any other jig recommendations? Thanks in advance!
Materials Science|Water Quality|Disease Detectives
Sleep is for the Weak: SLHS SO 2012-2013
TAMS 2013-2014
User avatar
sj
Member
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:37 am
Division: C
State: NJ
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by sj »

SLM wrote:
sj wrote: Yeah, I had a 9.7 gram tower that held all 15 kilos so a 23.1 efficiency. :D
Congratulations on your success at Towers and your other events.

Out of curiosity, how much time have you been spending on your events since the beginning of this SO season?
Probably about 15 hours a week.
2011 Nationals Results : Sumo Bots 2nd, Helicopters 4rd, Mission Possible 4th, Towers, 9th
WWP SOUTH 3rd At NATS!!!!!

2012 Events: Robot Arm, Towers, Gravity Vehicle
soccerkid812
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:43 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by soccerkid812 »

What wood sizes and wood weights did you use for the 9.7g tower or any other tower?
dholdgreve
Coach
Coach
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:20 pm
Division: B
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Efficiencies

Post by dholdgreve »

As I understand it, Solon brought 2 Division B towers to the Northmont Invitational last Saturday. Both weighed between 5 and 6 grams. One held the entire load. the other did not... Very impressive for the first invitational of the year!
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad

Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"
User avatar
lllazar
Member
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:20 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by lllazar »

Wow, very impressive, i wonder how that would relate to div c (the efficiencies would be lower but it can't see too much of a differential).
2011 Season Events~

Fossils (Regionals ~1st) (State ~6th)
Towers (Regionals ~1st) (State ~3rd)
Helicopter (Regionals -3rd gahhh) (State ~5th)
Wind Power (Regionals ~1st) (State ~3rd TIERED!)

Hooray for getting everything i wanted?
old
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:48 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Efficiencies

Post by old »

bmbw123 wrote:I'm sure this is a relatively stupid/simple question, but is there a certain way you all pour in the sand. If a lever system is used to let the sand fall in, would you want to go slow, then faster, then switch back to slow? Letting the sand in slow seems like it would make your tower sustain the weight for longer times, but faster streams seems a bit all of a sudden.

And if there is a manual sand system, then I would assume you would try to pour the sand around the bucket evenly, so there are no mounds, and try to do it as quick as possible?
It makes no difference if the sand is evenly distributed in the bucket as the attachment to the bucket and tower are both flexible.
As to what speed you should pour the sand you have two conflicting considerations. You want the tower to have to support the sand for the minimum time possible, which would suggest a fast pour. But the sand is falling some distance from the outlet of the "lever" system so it will have some velocity by the time it hits the bucket. when the sand hits the bucket it must quickly decelerate which requires an opposing force from the bucket (and therefor the tower). The faster you pour the greater the force needed to decelerate the sand. F=change in momentum / change in time. So if you pour 1 KG/sec. of sand at 4 M/Sec. (a reasonable speed for a 30cm drop to the bottom of the bucket) you have a change in momentum of 4KG M / Sec. sq. which is a force of 4 newtons. This force is equivalent to the tower carrying an additional 400 grams of sand while you are pouring. If you slow down to 0.5 Kg of sand per second the equivalent mass carried drops to 200 grams. If you run a constant pour speed that would reach 15KG in 2.5 minutes your tower will be effectively be carrying an additional 40 grams the entire time you are pouring.

Return to “Towers B/C”