Scioly.org

Discussion for Wind Power C.

Wind Power
Testing Apparatus Picture
Resistors
Turbine Equations
Cutting CDs

Wind Power Wiki

apparently one has to build it on site, is that true?

Is this event just a re-naming of last year's Physics lab? Or is there going to be a substantial change?

I really hope it'll be more like last year. I still have a lot of extra supplies and I don't want them to go to waste!

The thing about last year's physics lab, though, was that it didn't actually measure power generated; it was just voltage. So instead of having to actually generate power like a real turbine would, these just had to spin as fast as possible. And while that was pretty interesting, if they just put a low-value resistor across the voltmeter, the turbine would actually have to generate power, and the event would favor more realistic designs. Of course, its not like they should change anything now. I hope it's not build-on-sight, though...

Yea, I agree. I would like to be able to build a nice design before competition. I hated our test portion though, the majority of it was about efficiencies that my partner and I had no clue how to calculate.

The soinc website is being slowly updated for 2011. According to this and this, wind power is going to be a lot like physics lab.

ichaelm wrote:The soinc website is being slowly updated for 2011. According to this and this, wind power is going to be a lot like physics lab.

So Wind Power is basically just a renaming of Physics Lab/Physical Sci Lab. That's a shame, I wanted to see something new/different. Also, I hope they don't have on-site builds- is it really possible to make a good blade assembly in less than 50 minutes?

I would actually like to see an on-site build. You definitely can make a pretty good design; however they wouldn't be as good as what we saw last year. But what I didn't like about last year was that some teams had access to some very expensive tools and were able to machine precision blades (or just 1 blade). An on-site build would limit everyone to the same materials and tools which would make things much more fair.

Well, the rules are never exactly the same. At minimum, they'll just change the dimensions or something. Or, they could completely change the scoring system, put restrictions on materials, or who knows?

Also, I think the idea of an on-sight build is great for the large number of schools that don't even hand out rules to the students and just have them pick events that sound interesting. It gives them something to do, instead of just walking in with something they've never tested that doesn't spin. I saw a lot of assemblies at my regional that were so heavy they couldn't stay on the mount! As for the rest of us, I guess it does level the playing field slightly. But my materials and tools were very simple: some balsa from the hobby shop, toothpicks, an exacto knife, rubber bands, a ruler, tap water, a dremel drill, a toaster, a dead 6v lamp battery, those glass spice containers, and newspaper. And that got me first place at my regional and PA state, and then 8th at nationals (in B division, yes I know it's easier, but still). I have no idea what first place used, but I know for sure that you can do very well with not that much. It's a lot like bridges or towers or wright stuff. Nobody has some sort of $3000 precision balsa-gluing machine. In fact, I think it would be a good idea for wind power to, instead of being on-sight, have a specific list of allowed materials. Like:

• wood
• glue

Paradox21 wrote:I would actually like to see an on-site build. You definitely can make a pretty good design; however they wouldn't be as good as what we saw last year. But what I didn't like about last year was that some teams had access to some very expensive tools and were able to machine precision blades (or just 1 blade). An on-site build would limit everyone to the same materials and tools which would make things much more fair.

I don't think it would be that bad. In 6 days, we built an assembly out of cardboard, CD, and hot glue. We got 5th at states.