Can't Judge a Powder B

[Jim_R]

Discussion for Can't Judge a Powder B.
Can't Judge a Powder Wiki
2010 Thread

[melody2k6]

Anybody thinks there'll be changes to the rules this year?

[sciolygrl258]

I don't think so, there's not much to change. The rules are pretty simple.

[melody2k6]

Well, they might add NaOH to the rules this year or some other reagent.

[rocketman1555]

NaOH was in the rules last year.

[melody2k6]

Was it? They had it at Nationals but I don't think it was in the official rules.

[rocketman1555]

You're right, it wasn't in the rules last year. I was looking at an old test.

[melody2k6]

I've always been wondering about this, but are you suppose to make an inference in an observation? Some sources say that in order to get a 5 point observation, you have to make an inference. Is this true?

[haven chuck]

Absolutely not. It may mean that in order to answer the question (and get the full 5 points), you have to make an inference from your observation, but a good test/test grader would never dock points because you made an observation and not an inference. The Can't Judge A Powder Wiki has a good section on writing proper observations if you need more clarification on what is and isn't allowed.

[frogzorz]

This may sound redundant, but that event supervisor from nationals was a super-d****e. She disqualified a person (I forgot your username, sorry!) for rubbing their eye inside their goggles! Most people aren't perfect! We might forget stuff even if it's Nationals and extremely important.

[melody2k6]

This may sound redundant, but that event supervisor from nationals was a super-d****e. She disqualified a person (I forgot your username, sorry!) for rubbing their eye inside their goggles! Most people aren't perfect! We might forget stuff even if it's Nationals and extremely important.

Do you know if it was this year that the team got disqualified? What place did they get?

[robotman]

It was this year at nationals I was in the room when it happened.
I believe it was a NY team and they filed an appeal which overruled the DQ. They where up near the top I believe

[frogzorz]

I'm pretty sure they got 14th.

[melody2k6]

Absolutely not. It may mean that in order to answer the question (and get the full 5 points), you have to make an inference from your observation, but a good test/test grader would never dock points because you made an observation and not an inference. The Can't Judge A Powder Wiki has a good section on writing proper observations if you need more clarification on what is and isn't allowed.

According to this link provided on the CJAP soinc event info page, in order to get a full 5 points for your observation, you must infer in the observation to demonstrate your knowledge in the difference between an observation and an inference. The example the link provides as a 5 point observation is: "When .2 grams of the powder was dissolved in 3 ml of DI the temperature decreased from 23.3°C to 21.8°C thus inferring that dissolving the powder in water is endothermic". Yet, numerous powerpoints clearly state that this is not allowed. Provided with this controversial scoring criteria, what should most supervisors consider as a 5 point observation?

[purplepeopleeater]

rule book this year says that as a tie breaker or in general if you observe that "when .1g of powder was put into 5mL of water, the powder floats on the water until it is stirred" would recieve the full 5 points vs. if you wrote that the substance floated on water would be 4 points..
I was coaching a group of kids friday when the same question came up. IDK...
wait i just read that again... as for inferring (like therefore it is endothermic) I know when our coaches proctor an event, they take away points for that.