WY Teen Cut From Science Fair For Entering Too Many 204
An anonymous reader writes " A Wyoming high school student who built a nuclear reactor in his dad's garage was disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair this month on a technicality.' His crime: competing in too many science fairs."
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard of several teens building nuclear reactors in their garages it seems. How are they accomplishing this, when foreign states seem to have such difficulty?
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost anything is a nuclear reactor if you play with the definition. There are isotopes decaying in my thumb right now. It's a nuclear reactor. I seriously doubt these things are producing net energy beyond curiosity wattage. You can probably do some interesting betavoltaic stuff that would generate power at the cost of $50/milliwatt. If you tried to scale it up and generate any significant power, the Feds would eventually find you... probably. I've often wondered if anybody has set one up for "off grid" power. I think there's a 50-50 chance that one back-woods dude is powering his cabin on a huge parcel of land somwhere where it woudln't attract attention. Dangerous as all get-out though. It's so much easier just to use wood stoves, solar panels, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How stuff works - gas burning refridgerator [howstuffworks.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Granted I get that this kid probably didn't exceed the energy output needed to make this plausible, <snip>
Nuclear energy generation isn't something "magical" or especially difficult per sé. What makes it difficult, is the containment you need to prevent radiation from escaping and measures put in place to prevent the reaction from going out of control (something you also need by the way for conventional power sources) and I ser
Re: (Score:2)
From what I'm reading it seems that a runaway neutron-producing reaction that could cost millions USD in cleanup can be done with readily available materials in milligram quantities. A few micrograms worth of slow neutrons injected into stuff around you is seriously bad news.
Re: (Score:3)
Some lighthouses in Russia are powered by RITEGs about the size of a large fridge...good luck collecting enough nuclear material to build such a thing though.
Re: (Score:2)
Some lighthouses in Russia are powered by RITEGs about the size of a large fridge...good luck collecting enough nuclear material to build such a thing though.
Yup, if you google around you can find stories about bad things that have happened to people who have tried to take such things apart not realizing what they are. I hadn't heard about lighthouses, but I have heard about them being used for radio beacons (more or less the same thing at a different wavelength and rate of "rotation").
Bad comparision (Score:3, Informative)
Almost anything is a nuclear reactor if you play with the definition. There are isotopes decaying in my thumb right now. It's a nuclear reactor.
But it's not a fusion reactor. If you want to trivialize what the kid did, at least compare apples to apples.
Re: (Score:3)
All the nuclear reactors and batteries you people are talking about are FISSION reactors.
You know, Uranium or Plutonium or some other radioactive material breaking down in to lighter elements.
A FUSION reactor takes light elements, like hydrogen or helium and fuses them into heavier elements like helium or lithium, etc.
Fusion is currently only experimental. I wonder if the article got it wrong and he was actually doing fission, but fissionable materials
Re:Bad comparision (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Given the kid's name, a fusor was nearly inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most of the things people are talking about here aren't nuclear reactors at all. A nuclear reactor has to, by design, promote a nuclear reaction. Just letting a bunch of nuclear material decay at its natural rate such as in an RTG isn't a reactor.
As for fusion currently being only experimental. Anything approaching break-even is experimental. All kinds of fusors, however, have been around for years. The Farnsworth Fusor is about 50 years old and is a pretty proven technology, it just doesn't produ
Re: (Score:2)
Having a nuclear fusion reaction, in other words a nuclear synthesis reaction, is orthogonal to having break even energy production.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a nuclear fusion reaction, in other words a nuclear synthesis reaction, is orthogonal to having break even energy production.
Sorry, why would that be? At the level of individual collisions, a collision producing a fusion reaction is pretty much guaranteed to be break even (if there's more energy in the collision than would be released by the fusion it's probably too energetic to produce fusion). If fusion doesn't occur, the collision is elastic, and, depending on the setup, the same energy can end up in another (or a billion other) collisions, one of which may produce fusion. The basic idea behind promoting fusion is creating a s
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there a time that the americium in smoke alarms was detachable and someone made a productive reactor from collecting the material from like 1000 smoke alarms?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there was [youtube.com]
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Farnsworth Fusors are fusion reactors that aren't net energy positive. They're just fascinating.
The kids who build fission reactors aren't building them on a large enough scale to risk harm to anyone but themselves. By way of analogy, anyone can make a model rocket engine out of firecrackers, at the risk of blowing their fingers off. Making a solid rocket engine that can boost something into orbit an entirely different story.
Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)
Farnsworth Fusors are fusion reactors that aren't net energy positive. They're just fascinating.
Good News, Everyone! My latest reactors are getting much better now, and yes - yes, they ARE fascinating!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until Morgan Freeman gets going....
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Farnsworth Fusors are fusion reactors that aren't net energy positive. They're just fascinating.
The kids who build fission reactors aren't building them on a large enough scale to risk harm to anyone but themselves. By way of analogy, anyone can make a model rocket engine out of firecrackers, at the risk of blowing their fingers off. Making a solid rocket engine that can boost something into orbit an entirely different story.
What I find amusing about this story is that the kid's name is... wait for it... Farnsworth.
Yes, really.
Re: (Score:2)
farnsworth, n. The amount of energy generated by a Farnsworth fusor in one second.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know it's just a coincidence, but I like that the student is also named Farnsworth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It produces neutrons. There are practical uses in all sorts of fields.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes absolutely no talent to waste power like this. Well, perhaps it does, to use so much power while getting so little useful result.
Think about carefully next time you're driving down the road in a vehicle that gets around 12% effeciency from the gasoline it burns.
Yeah, I'll think about that for you. (Score:3)
It takes absolutely no talent to waste power like this. Well, perhaps it does, to use so much power while getting so little useful result.
Think about carefully next time you're driving down the road in a vehicle that gets around 12% effeciency from the gasoline it burns.
I'll think about that, and I'll think about the fact it could probably be 30% more efficient than that, if it wasn't for all the crap additives like ethanol and MTBE they are stuffing into it to keep cars manufactured prior to 1981 (prior years did not have oxygen sensors to control fuel mixture) from polluting.
Then I'll wonder exactly how many pre-1981 cars are actually still on the road, and I'll wonder about the percentage of total fuel usage by all cars which is accounted for by pre-1981 cars.
Then I'll
Re: (Score:2)
Then I'll wonder exactly how many pre-1981 cars are actually still on the road, and I'll wonder about the percentage of total fuel usage by all cars which is accounted for by pre-1981 cars.
If they stopped putting in additives; the price per gallon would explode, because the expensive part is now more concentrated. How do you think the average person will feel about paying $2 to $3 more per Gallon?
It would be commercial suicide, unless all the retailers did this, they wouldn't buy the more expensive
Re: (Score:3)
Check your math. Gasoline sold at retail typically has 10% ethanol (usually corn-derived) and 90% actual gasoline. So if they did away with the alcohol, the price would go, well, probably nowhere, since alcohol's price isn't zero, and it has less energy per gallon than gasoline. It's there because the corn states and ethanol producers lobbied to require it. It is a net waste of energy since growing the corn and turning it to alcohol consumes more energy than it creates.
Re: (Score:3)
A big loss would be the ethanol manufacturing plants, quickly reduced in value to scrap: all in all, a good thing.
You really think so? What about Ethanol for human consumption?
Given the future of the economy.... I think there's going to be a lot of demand for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not take talent to waste power.
It takes talent to build a fusor from scratch.
It takes talent to build scintillators, or even use existing one, to get a spectrum from your reaction to know the exact reactions that are occurring and in what proportions.
It takes talent to keep yourself safe using such a device.
It take drive and motivation and a damn side more vision than most people have to attempt such endeavors. This is the Hello World for a nuclear physicist and I encourage such behavior.
If all you can see is someone "wasting" electricity I think you've missed out on a much larger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a nuclear fusion reactor, not a fission one. A Farnsworth fusor [wikipedia.org] is relatively easy to build.
Re: (Score:3)
How are they accomplishing this, when foreign states seem to have such difficulty?
Two different definitions of nuclear reactor. The teens are not building nuclear reactors in the nuclear power plant sense - a sustained, large scale reaction with a net energy release. They are building reactors in the technical sense - a device that can produce nuclear reactions. They're not worried about sustaining a reaction, or about net energy production, or about industrial scale production. They're just worried about did a reaction happen or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Nuclear Boy Scout" did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn [wikipedia.org]
He used smoke detectors for fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermonuclear reactors using some isotope of Uranium / Plutonium != All versions of nuclear reactors, in much the same way as 747s using a series of jet engines != All vehicles using engines (of some design).
But it does require some knowledge of physics to know how common something can qualify for the phrase 'nuclear reactor,' and it does take some browsing / reading to know of the various versions that have been used / are used today.
Re: (Score:2)
When did "thermonuclear" start meaning "fission"? Last time I cared to look (decades ago), thermonuclear meant FUSION (which doesn't use U/Pu)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A Farnsworth Fusor [fusor.net] is a fusion reactor and can be built at home with a little electrical engineering prowess. Someone needs to do some research before making claims that it can't be done. The problem with that device is that the containment is too good. It's not possible to add fuel once the reaction is started and the reaction produces less energy than is required to start it.
If teleportation of protons (ionized hydrogen, not photons) becomes practical, it may achieve breakeven.
Re:Fusion Reactor (Score:4, Informative)
> If teleportation of protons (ionized hydrogen, not photons) becomes practical, it may achieve break-even
It is extremely unlikely that any non-equilibrum reactor will ever reach break even. This includes the fusor, Forward's design, focus fusion, and many other designs. The bremsstrahlung is simply too great for any realistically sized reactor to stop thermal transport out of the core more rapidly than the reaction rate can replace it.
Re:Fusion Reactor (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the kid's own website, right?
No, it's not. You may have been confused because his name is Farnsworth, which isn't a particularly common name; as another poster said, it would be interesting to know if there's a family connection with the Farnsworth [wikipedia.org] the fusor [wikipedia.org] is named for. Fusor.net, AFAICT, is a site run by and for fusor hobbyists, people who like to tinker with the kind of machines this kid built.
And for those who are saying "Oh, he just downloaded some tutorials off the net"--well, if you could or would have done something like that as a teenager, good for you, but most people couldn't or wouldn't. It's not groundbreaking research, but putting together a working fusor is a pretty neat accomplishment for a high-school kid.
All the better.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a big deal. After all I have been banned from entering beauty contests, including the rejection letter that read "geez, give it a rest already!"
Re:All the better.. (Score:5, Insightful)
disqualifying someone just because they failed to win too many times is low
That's not why he was disqualified. He was disqualified because he failed to advance to the next level and then jumped over the state border to try again with the same project in another state. Without this rule, you could have kids entering a dozen different state competitions with the same project, just hoping to get the right set of judges to advance you.
Re:All the better.. (Score:5, Interesting)
disqualifying someone just because they failed to win too many times is low
That's not why he was disqualified. He was disqualified because he failed to advance to the next level and then jumped over the state border to try again with the same project in another state. Without this rule, you could have kids entering a dozen different state competitions with the same project, just hoping to get the right set of judges to advance you.
While what you say is technically true, the way you say it implys that he did this to circumvent the system. From the article itself, it was his high school that entered both the Wyoming and the South Dakota events and they, along with the people at both Universities involved were unaware of the rule. It seems like this was one of those rules put in place to prevent cheating that had unintended consequences. Even the article states the rule is looking at being rewritten because of it.
Re:All the better.. (Score:5, Informative)
“The South Dakota fair is close and gives our kids another opportunity to present their work,” Scribner said. “I think that was some of our motivation, and it did give our kids another chance to qualify.”
The school absolutely used multiple fairs to get extra chances to qualify - they outright say so. And that's exactly why the rule's in place.
They put the rule in place to stop people failing at one using other fairs as a chance to succeed at another. He failed at one then used another to succeed. The school uses the second fair for exactly that purpose. And then they're shocked when they discover there was a rule to prevent the loophole they thought they'd discovered. That's not an unintended consequence. That's the intended consequence.
Re:All the better.. (Score:4, Insightful)
“The South Dakota fair is close and gives our kids another opportunity to present their work,” Scribner said. “I think that was some of our motivation, and it did give our kids another chance to qualify.”
The school absolutely used multiple fairs to get extra chances to qualify - they outright say so. And that's exactly why the rule's in place.
They put the rule in place to stop people failing at one using other fairs as a chance to succeed at another. He failed at one then used another to succeed. The school uses the second fair for exactly that purpose. And then they're shocked when they discover there was a rule to prevent the loophole they thought they'd discovered. That's not an unintended consequence. That's the intended consequence.
You left out the part about the school not being aware of the rule and the officials not being aware of the rule and the colleges involved not being aware of the rule all because the rule was not enforced in the past. If it is an obscure rule that nobody is aware of, it is hard to cry foul with an intent to cheat. If it is enforceable, why was only his project disqualified and not all of the duplicated projects? If it was correct, why was the chairwoman dismissed over this?
Maine has a law about how many pounds of cherries must be in a pie before it can be called a cherry pie. Not a pie sold today meets that standard, but the rule is on the books. Missouri doesn't allow margerine to be sold, or at least for it to be called that and yet grocery stores are full of it. There are all sorts of rules on the books that are old and obsolete, just like the rule in question with the science fair. The question people should be asking is why was it enforced all of a sudden and only selectively and if it was all on the up and up, why was the director let go?
Re:All the better.. (Score:5, Informative)
It was not enforced in the past because nobody doing the state fair jumping had qualified for the ISEF before. It's in the article.
The US science fair system is poorly organized, which is why things like this happen. It's disappointing for the kid but he did not qualify at his own state fair anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
The International fair is sponsored by Intel. That means that the rules are probably 45 pages long in tiny print and if followed exactly would disqualify 95% of the projects that were entered. At least that's the way their chip specs read.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not enforced in the past because nobody doing the state fair jumping had qualified for the ISEF before. It's in the article.
The US science fair system is poorly organized, which is why things like this happen. It's disappointing for the kid but he did not qualify at his own state fair anyway.
That's beside's the point. If entering multiple times is prohibited, then it should not be allowed regardless of whether somebody finally qualifies or not. Selective enforcement of a rule or a law begs the question as to why in this instance and not others? If rules and laws are not evenly applied, then they are subjective and subjective rules are not fair to anybody.
The way you rationalize it is like saying that cheating in school is okay as long as you aren't valedictorian.
Re: (Score:2)
Resume building awards, money, berths to the International Science & Engineering Fair (expenses paid)...there's a lot you can win. And the intent of regional/state fairs is to provide geographic egalitarianism, or else you'll have half the high schools in NY sucking up all the qualifying spots from all other states nearby through border jumping.
Re:All the better.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This story is the round-robin vs. single elimination argument. From what I gather, the ISEF use a single elimination system. That means (to use an extreme example) even if your science experiment is the second best in the world, you can be eliminated in the first round if the eventual winner happens to also go to your school. The "you can only enter one science fair" rule enforces that possibility. That's what happened to me - my best friend in high school was #1 in math and the sciences and I was #2. He won all the awards, scholarships, accolades, and recognition. I got... nice pieces of paper congratulating me on my 2nd place finish. Until I moved and went to a different high school, and easily beat out all the other students in math and the sciences.
When practical, a round-robin system is much better as it allows you to appraise a wider range of competitors head-to-head. Then you can take the top 2^n candidates from the round-robin and put them into a single elimination "finals" if you wish. What you call a "loophole", others could legitimately see as a mechanism to bypass this inherent unfairness of the single elimination system.
All major sporting competitions use round-robins before the single elimination final rounds. Tennis appears to use purely single elimination, but they track each player's win/loss ratios against different opponents (equivalent to round-robin results) to give them a ranking, then use the ranking to seed the single elimination tournaments to make sure the top seeds do not meet each other early in the tournament. Another approach is to use single elimination, but have a loser's bracket for everyone who loses once. Then the final is between the person who goes through undefeated vs. the person who wins the loser's bracket.
All of these systems were designed to overcome this inherent major flaw of the single elimination system. So it's a bit naive to declare this story over and uninteresting simply because the student/school broke a rule apparently designed to enforce that flaw. Unless they have some mechanism to allow outstanding runner-ups to enter the next level of science fair competition, I'd say it's a bad rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Tennis appears to use purely single elimination, but they track each player's win/loss ratios against different opponents (equivalent to round-robin results) to give them a ranking, then use the ranking to seed the single elimination tournaments to make sure the top seeds do not meet each other early in the tournament.
The trouble with this approach is that it favours the incumbents. Imagine there's this amazing tennis player, who never lost a match... he'd get seeded number one. Two youngsters eventual
Re: (Score:2)
The school absolutely used multiple fairs to get extra chances to qualify - they outright say so. And that's exactly why the rule's in place.
That isn't why the school did it. But apparently they used the EXACT same number of chances to qualify as they are allowed to do. They are just supposed to go to a regional FIRST then to the state. But apparently the South Dakota regional was closer, so they went to the Wyoming State FIRST then went to the SD regional. Ohhh the horrors!
Of course I don't understand how he didn't qualify at the state one.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misread it.
“The South Dakota fair is close and gives our kids another opportunity to present their work,” Scribner said. “I think that was some of our motivation, and it did give our kids another chance to qualify.”
The _Motivation_ was to Present the work; the extra chance to Qualify was a side-effect, but not the motivation; according to that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
disqualifying someone just because they failed to win too many times is low
That's not why he was disqualified. He was disqualified because he failed to advance to the next level and then jumped over the state border to try again with the same project in another state. Without this rule, you could have kids entering a dozen different state competitions with the same project, just hoping to get the right set of judges to advance you.
I'm trying to understand the difference between that and marketing your own commercial product in different places and getting different results.I don't consider that cheating. In the business world it is called trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Though even in the business world there are plenty of rules which, if you break them, you make more money, yet the rules are in place to (at least in theory) ensure the health of the whole system. That is the case here, the rule (at least in theory) is designed to work towards the goals of the science fair system, even if it does take away a tool that individuals could use to advance
Re: (Score:2)
Though even in the business world there are plenty of rules which, if you break them, you make more money, yet the rules are in place to (at least in theory) ensure the health of the whole system.
Frequently, the rules are in place to ensure profit for certain groups or individuals and/or discourage competition.
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing happens all too often with science fairs, the are looking for above average students to encourage them to go into science fields, but for some reason frown on the amazing projects.
Years ago in High School I had a very smart friend that had a science fair project on the macroscopic effects of quantum phsical properties in quartz fibers, he spent months on the project, corresponded with scientest that were published in peer reviewed publications, etc. He easily won at the local highschool
Re: (Score:2)
I was disqualified from a competition run by FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) when I was in high school because I scored so well I must have cheated.
It was multiple choice on 'Computer Concepts' I scored 98/100, second highest was 76/100.
That was pretty bad... but worse was the next year, I tried again... and was disqualified because I 'won' the previous year.
I ended up dropping out of school and getting a GED later because of the stress of it.
Re:All the better.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's what the rule's for; to prevent students from milling through county fairs in order to qualify for the state fair. (Perhaps the idea is that it would let a student with a lot of funding go into a low-income county and exercise an unfair advantage? Although that would just even itself out at the state level anyway...) In this case, though, the student was entering into fairs in two different states, (if you consider Wyoming and South Dakota different) and the rule wasn't worded in a way that considered that. The person responsible was quietly let go, though, so... yeah.
This story has nothing to do with the kid's project, if anyone was wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's what the rule's for; to prevent students from milling through county fairs in order to qualify for the state fair.
Except that he didn't "mill" through county fairs, and he qualified for the international from a regional. The problem is you are supposed to go to a regional first, then a state. We did it the other way around. Stupid rule. If you allow people two fairs, then allow them two fairs.
Definitely somebody to watch... (Score:4, Insightful)
People who take an "unusual" interest in knowing things are dangerous.
It'd be great (Score:3)
... if the faculty could figure how to get this kid to coach others.
Regardless, it does seem like he'll have a bright future if he's that motivated.
Bureaucracy wins again (Score:2, Funny)
But hey, he's wearing a lab coat. Can't he go on TV to sell Viagra?
Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor (Score:5, Interesting)
The Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor [wikipedia.org] is decades old, relatively easy to build (I know someone who built one in his garage), available commercially (as a neutron source) and is generally considered to be not a candidate for fusion power.
Given that the name of the student is Conrad Farnsworth, I have to wonder if there is a family connection, but the article does not go into that.
I got banned for ONE project (Score:2)
I made a stink bomb in chemistry class, and not only did I get banned, I also got the black plimsoll across my backside! (c. 1973).
Re: (Score:3)
I made a stink bomb in chemistry class, and not only did I get banned, I also got the black plimsoll across my backside! (c. 1973).
If you did that today, you'd get visited by the feds, put on a no fly list, and expelled from school.
Want Fries With That? (Score:2)
Really? Wow.
I predict many job offers for this individual.
This isn't because he is doing too MORE Science. (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary makes it look like he is being held back by bureaucracy, while he's really just using it. He entered ONE project in many fairs. Each of these fairs were lateral contests in a larger competition. Effectively he entered multiple times in the over-all road to the International Fair.
What he did would be like a NCAA team losing in March Madness multiple times, only to move position in the bracket, to try again on each defeat. Sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy.
The kid was taking the same project to different fairs after failing to qualify. Nothing is stopping him from doing Science. He was more interested in being successful. He wasn't doing this so he could "do more science". He was doing it so he could basically enter more times, giving him an unfair advantage. Say I ran a science fair for a bunch of inner city kids. They worked really hard on their projects. When time for judging comes up, some AP, college-bound kid with a rich ( anything white-collar, to these inner city kids) dad comes in with his garage-built project. He didn't qualify in his home town, but blows these kids out of the water. I would be livid.
However, by seeing the way he plays ball, we know he will fit right in in Academia.
Re: (Score:2)
He entered many fairs? The article I read mentioned two, Wyoming State Fair and one for South Dakota. It's something his school has been doing for at least a few years as they live so near the border.
I wouldn't exactly call entering two fairs that were geographically very close to the school gaming the system.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't exactly call entering two fairs that were geographically very close to the school gaming the system.
How is getting to have twice as many chances to enter as all the other kids not gaming the system? How does the distance enter into it? How far apart do the two fairs have to be for it to stop being fair?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Exactly this. I'm referring to propping oneself up on the work of others; worrying more about getting grants and being published in Journals. I didn't say he would excel, but he sure is cut out for it.
Nooo (Score:2, Funny)
"disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair"
I'll show you! ...I'LL SHOW YOU ALL!!!!!
Muahahahahaha...
At what point do you draw the line? (Score:2)
I'd be very interested to know a) why this kid didn't advance in his home state and b) why other kids did? Was the judging really objective or was there some bias somewhere? Did the judges base their decision on criteria other than real science? I don't think we've heard the whole story here.
But let's consider this: you write a research paper and submit it to one peer-review journal. They reject it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to submit it to other journals? What if it turns out that your
"Technicality?" (Score:2)
It wasn't a "technicality." It was a rule, and even a fairly reasonable one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is a rule, but he didn't break the spirit of the rule. He attended two events. Just not in the order the rule says. The rule doesn't even say you have to qualify in both events. He competing in a qualifying regional fair, and he competed in a qualifying state fair... he just didn't do the "and then" part.
Math is hard (Score:4, Informative)
If you can qualify for the international straight from a regional, then the rule is stupid.
Why am I expecting to see a sticker that says.. (Score:2)
Doomsday device. It's a weird coincidence that his name is Farnsworth. Now it would be really weird if it were Wernstrom.
Re: (Score:2)
Could it have been some development of the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, perhaps?
He's got the right surname, for sure. Maybe a descendant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Could it have been some development of the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, perhaps? He's got the right surname, for sure. Maybe a descendant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor [wikipedia.org]
Maybe an ancestor [geektrio.net]?
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not quite accurate.
He went to the science fair in Wyoming, conducted by the University of Wyoming, which is a 'State Level' fair. He didn't place.
His school also attends a 'Regional Level' fair, sponsored by the South Dakota School of Mines. He did place at that one.
He get disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair because he went to a regional fair after attending a state fair.
If those two events had simply happened in the reverse order, he would have been fine. It's not his fault the two events are scheduled the way they are.
Also, his town is only 3 miles from the South Dakota border, so it's not like he crossed five states to try to cheat the system. For all we know, students who live in South Dakota attend his high school.
Re: (Score:3)
This right here, TFS is so distorted. He didn't make it past round 1 in his state, so he jumped the border (with his schools's permission) in order to try again. They had rules against this for a very good reason.
From TFA the school did not know it was a problem. The events did not know it was a problem. The kid in question did not know it was a problem. Not included in the article but elsewhere online, it was not the same "experiment" but modified based on feedback from the first science fair. (Isn't that how science advances?)
There was no intent to cheat here, just a well meaning rule to prevent cheating that was erroneously applied (the director who singled him out has been fired). What the real story is that has
Re: (Score:2)
But still, he is spending his time doing so. It's likely that he refines his entry each time. Unless he's simply being lazy and the project has no scientific value, let him be. Encourage his persistence at scientific achievement.
And frankly, a scientist will often do the same with a research publication. If it isn't accepted, the paper is refined and proposed at a different venue.
Besides, are they kicking out other students who use the same tactic, but try fewer times? How many entries is too many? Is
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with this story at all. He entered different lower-level competitions with the same entry in order to maximize his odds of making it to the next level. The problem with allowing this would be that to even the odds, everybody would have to enter every competition, where the same set of projects would be re-evaluated over and over.
That is false. His high school entered both competitions and he along with other students submitted projects for both competitions. His was not the only disqualified project, the difference is that his was interesting enough that it had already caught the public's attention. The rule in question is an old rule and this is not the situation it was intended to prevent. As such, the committee is looking at revamping the rule and the official who disqualified him has been dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
He entered different lower-level competitions with the same entry in order to maximize his odds of making it to the next level.
No, he did not enter "different lower level competitions" He went to a state fair, then went to a regional. This is allowed. But you are supposed to do them in the other order.
Re:A working fusion reactor??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We can achieve fusion without too much trouble. The elusive white whale so far has been a sustainable fusion reaction that puts out more energy than you have to put into it.
Details, details...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we also don't have trouble creating fusion reactions that put out *far* more energy than we put in to them.
The problem is doing anything useful with that energy other than making a really big boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy eh? Work on it and get back to me.
Here you go [wikipedia.org],
Re: (Score:2)
From article: "Conrad Farnsworth is the first person in Wyoming to build a nuclear fusion reactor. He is one of only 15 high school students in the world to successfully achieve fusion. He made it using parts he ordered online, traded with other fusioneers and created himself."
So this and 15 other high school students have been able to achieve what no other scientist in the world has been able to achieve to date? Hmmm.
The article doesn't say that only 15 high schoolers have been able to do this and no other scientists have. OTOH, it is pretty impressive that some high schoolers have been able to achieve what professional scientists have by spending a fraction of the cost on education and materials. These kids, wherever they may be in the world are similar to the kids that were building rockets at the dawn of the space age or breadboard computers prior to the PC.
If that capability isn't enough to win a science fair, I wo
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid? are all of you?
Welcome to the H. L. Mencken principle...
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, WY has just one University. It's about four hours away from Newcastle where he lives. There are only seven community colleges. None of them are nearby either - the closest are two to three hours away from him. Even to Rapid City, SD, it's an hour and 1/2.
So, while online options might be available, depending on bandwidth to the town of 3,500 people, signing up for evening classes is largely out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)