Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:34:56 -0500
Author: email@example.com (Karl Trappe)
Subject: Re: AAPT Demo. Competition
FYI: there is no 4th prize, at least not one that carries any monetary
reward. So, we could have done as you suggested and given nothing but 2
Please be aware that the reason for forgoing the 1st prize was that most of
the entries were redos of already existing demonstrations (and done in a
manner not unlike the standard references in the PIRA bibliography). Some
of the entries were hashed out on this and other listserves just prior to
the competition, even to the point of naming the specific components and
In fairness, that was also true of the "Inexpensive" category. Although I
did not judge that category, I noticed that at least one of the winners
went to a method extolled in numerous AAPT sponsored workshops over the
past several years, ie, nothing was new/unusual about the entry.
Please offer your services to judging the competition in the future. Its a
lot of fun trying to remember where you have seen the demo/experiment
>not required though, just logical.
>Paul Nord wrote:
>> I wasn't there, and it doesn't really matter to me who was awarded prizes,
>> but, I do have to object to your numbering...
>> In the event of a tie at second place, the next place to be awarded is not
>> third, but fourth. Clearly, there were three others who placed ahead of
>> this person, and they came in fourth.
>> They do this in the olympics. If there is a tie for first, they award
>> two golds and a bronze.