Page 10 of 14
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
by MadCow2357
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:16 pm
by xiangyu
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Thanks! I still think it's pretty crazy that the top 2 teams had exactly the same weight boomilever. Also can't help but think if one of them regret not sanding their device a tad bit more...
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:31 pm
by Unome
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:16 pm
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Thanks! I still think it's pretty crazy that the top 2 teams had exactly the same weight boomilever. Also can't help but think if one of them regret not sanding their device a tad bit more...
Heh, I remember being in the middle of score counseling and I hear that conversation happening off to my side... as far as I'm aware, the last time this happened was 2012 Nationals in Towers, Div C 6th place.
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:38 pm
by Lorant
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Does anyone know if Troy and/or New Trier ended up holding full load? I was third with around 1896 pts, by the way, holding just barely below full load.
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:53 pm
by builderguy135
Lorant wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:38 pm
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Does anyone know if Troy and/or New Trier ended up holding full load? I was third with around 1896 pts, by the way, holding just barely below full load.
I heard both weighed 10.01 and held full load, making the score 1998.
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 6:58 pm
by bernard
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
I know the Boomilever top scores! I'll share some details in a later post.
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 7:01 pm
by windu34
builderguy135 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:53 pm
I heard both weighed 10.01 and held full load, making the score 1998.
This is correct
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 26th, 2020, 7:03 pm
by MadCow2357
Lorant wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:38 pm
MadCow2357 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 6:13 pm
xiangyu wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 3:29 pm
Anyone know the Wright Stuff and Boomilever Top Scores?
Not sure about Wright Stuff, but I have some Boomi scores:
First and second had a complete tie (Troy and New Trier). Both scored 1998.002 and predicted full load.
Fourth was 1824.82
Hope this helps!
Does anyone know if Troy and/or New Trier ended up holding full load? I was third with around 1896 pts, by the way, holding just barely below full load.
Congratulations on your impressive score! Full load from you would have mopped the floor with the rest of the competition!
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 27th, 2020, 1:08 am
by SilverBreeze
About the Forensics test(5): I really loved the difficulty and breadth of the questions(gives us lab-impaired people something to do), and the length of the test kept us busy the whole block and would have taken many hours and much effort to write.
But...
I wish the test had been a bit more on-spec(minor issues with a mixture; it was an interesting challenge though, however frustrating) and asked a bit less physics(though that's probably my fault for being unprepared).
We were so rushed that we only realized the bottle labeled "NaOH" was HCl at the end when it turned pH paper red and fizzed in a sample, but I understand Forensics takes an immense amount of time and effort to set up(especially with this test, which had, for example, real fibers, plastics, and chromatography) and that mistakes do happen. The bottle labeled "HCl" was indeed HCl, though. I wish we had figured it out earlier, but things could have gone worse, and I was very satisfied with the way the event had been set up and run overall.
Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020
Posted: January 27th, 2020, 6:41 am
by shrewdPanther46
SilverBreeze wrote:
About the Forensics test(5): I really loved the difficulty and breadth of the questions(gives us lab-impaired people something to do), and the length of the test kept us busy the whole block and would have taken many hours and much effort to write.
But...
I wish the test had been a bit more on-spec(minor issues with a mixture; it was an interesting challenge though, however frustrating) and asked a bit less physics(though that's probably my fault for being unprepared).
We were so rushed that we only realized the bottle labeled "NaOH" was HCl at the end when it turned pH paper red and fizzed in a sample, but I understand Forensics takes an immense amount of time and effort to set up(especially with this test, which had, for example, real fibers, plastics, and chromatography) and that mistakes do happen. The bottle labeled "HCl" was indeed HCl, though. I wish we had figured it out earlier, but things could have gone worse, and I was very satisfied with the way the event had been set up and run overall.
The test was cool as expected. I agree with the things you said above. I don't remember there being any physics tho... the only question that could be classified as physics would be the photometry energy calculation, but they pretty much told us the answers. As long as you kept your units straight, it should have been easy points.
Note: I didn't actually get to look at my tests yet
Edit: my partner and I completely skipped the mass spec section and didn't even look at it, from reading Pikachu's post, looks like thats where the physics was