Author-Judge's Commentary 321 o handled all the elements The requiredelements, as viewed by the judges, were in two distinct phases Models needed to consider the mission of the stunt person. A model had to be developed that ensured that the stunt person could jump over the elephant. The better teams then worked to minimize the speed with which to accomplish this jump. Teams that used a high-speed jump were usually discarded by the judges quickly In Phase II, the model had to consider the landing; this included speed, energy, force, and momentum of the jumper, so that the boxes could be used safely to cushion the fall Most of the better papers did an extensive literature and Web search for in- formation about cardboard. However, many teams spent way too much energy researching cardboard; their time would have been better spent in modeling The poorest section in all papers, including many of the Outstanding papers, was the summary Another flaw found by the judges was the misuse of ECT(Edge Compres sion Testing)in a proportionality model. It is true that a proportionality exists, as shown in igure 1; but that proportionality is not the one used by the teams Ferre aite F 1. Force as a function of delta in ect Many started with BCS=5.87×ECT×√Pt develop an energy model, where energy is the area under the curve, name where P is the perimeter of the box and t is its thickness. Many went on 2 PX ECT X h(magic number). However, this proportionality is flawed. The potential energy is an area but it is 2 x Px ECT x 8, which is not an equivalent statement(see Figure 1Author-Judge’s Commentary 321 • handled all the elements. The required elements, as viewed by the judges, were in two distinct phases. • Models needed to consider the mission of the stunt person. A model had to be developed that ensured that the stunt person could jump over the elephant. The better teams then worked to minimize the speed with which to accomplish this jump. Teams that used a high-speed jump were usually discarded by the judges quickly. • In Phase II, the model had to consider the landing; this included speed, energy, force, and momentum of the jumper, so that the boxes could be used safely to cushion the fall. Most of the better papers did an extensive literature and Web search for in￾formation about cardboard. However, many teams spent way too much energy researching cardboard; their time would have been better spent in modeling. The poorest section in all papers, including many of the Outstanding papers, was the summary. Another flaw found by the judges was the misuse of ECT (Edge Compres￾sion Testing) in a proportionality model. It is true that a proportionality exists, as shown in Figure 1; but that proportionality is not the one used by the teams. Figure 1. Force as a function of delta in ECT. Many started with BCS = 5.87 × ECT × √ P t, where P is the perimeter of the box and t is its thickness. Many went on to develop an energy model, where energy is the area under the curve, namely 1 2 ×P ×ECT×h(magic number). However, this proportionality is flawed. The potential energy is an area but it is 1 2 × P × ECT × δ, which is not an equivalent statement (see Figure 1)