×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High Schooler Is Awarded $100,000 For Research

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the never-too-early-to-be-a-girl-genius dept.

Science 287

wired_LAIN writes "A teenager from Oklahoma was awarded $100,000 in the Intel Science Talent Search competition for building an inexpensive and accurate spectrograph that can identify the specific characteristics of different kinds of molecules. While normal spectrographs can cost between $20,000 and $100,000 to build, her spectrograph cost less than $500. The 40 finalists' projects were judged by a panel of 12 scientists, all well established in their respective fields. Among the judges were Vera Rubin, who proved Dark Matter, and Andrew Yeager, one of the pioneers of stem cell research."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

287 comments

Bah! (0, Offtopic)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375445)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

I guess /.'s Spectrograph needs fixed.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375551)

Needs fixing.
Needs to be fixed.
Pick one.

Re:Bah! (0, Offtopic)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375709)

Needs fixing.
Needs to be fixed.
Pick one.
If you wish to avoid looking like a jackass, use complete sentences if you wish to pick on someone's grammar. Or better yet, do not bother correcting someone's grammar when it is immaterial to the point they are making.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376247)

FOAD

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376415)

Hey, just giving you a dose of your own medicine. I can't help it if you got your panties all in a bunch. Take a valium or something.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376441)

So...was the original grammar correct or not you pedantic fuck? And how exactly is one supposed to take a 'point' seriously when the poster sounds like a retard? Seems pretty material to me.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375643)

As does Slashdot's grammar. *sigh*

Behold Slashdot's intro to Hamlet's Soliloquy : "Or not! That is the question!"

I now sit back wait for the knee-jerk "languages are fluid and always changing" excuses to be stated.

I bet! (2, Offtopic)

guysmilee (720583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375461)

I bet! Mom & Dad never helped at all!

This nation... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375463)

Needs a thousand more students like her! Way to go!

Re:This nation... (-1, Troll)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375593)

SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Don't let Bill know about this, it will ruin his current lobbying attempts!!

Re:This nation... (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375987)

I can practically hear the shipping containers being filled in Beijing with $199 combination laser pointer/spectrographs as we speak!

I have to remember to pick one up at Costco when we go next week.

Um (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375509)

So she bought a prism from Edmund and made 100000$ out of it?

Re:Um (0, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375567)

Yeah, you're totally much smarter than her!

Re:Um (1)

dthx1138 (833363) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375753)

Er.. what?

Slashdot: the only place where you can make a crappy joke and have it be misinterpreted as a statement of intellectual superiority

Re:Um (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376399)

Slashdot: the only place where you can make a crappy joke and have it be misinterpreted as a statement of intellectual superiority

What do you expect with a subject line of "Um"? It's the Slashdot hint code for "Hey everybody, I'm an asshole! Now read this!"

Okay can we see the project? (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375521)

I want to see how she did it.

Re:Okay can we see the project? (5, Informative)

quanminoan (812306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375889)

This link [sciserv.org] provides a little more information.

Re:Okay can we see the project? (0)

vonhammer (992352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376259)

Hmm, surprising. Several hotties, although the winner would have been instantly identifiable regardless of ordering...

The Important Question (0, Offtopic)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375527)

Is she single? because that is hot.

Re:The Important Question (0)

Blappo (976408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375603)

Um, no. Just no.

Mary Masterman [astroleague.org]

Re:The Important Question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375663)

didn't take long for you idiots to start objectifying her and making critical comments on her appearance. is it all that porn watching that makes you think that's appropriate? that females are just some product you can rate "Hot or Not"? she's obviously brilliant (and now, wealthy). you think you can drag her down with your hateful crap? are you so intimidated that you have to pretend she'd give a shit about your asshole opinion? let's see how hot you are, dork.

The appearance thing aside... (1)

nathan s (719490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375741)

$100,000 is hardly "wealthy," and moreover if you RTFA, you'll see that it's a $100,000 scholarship. So she can maybe take a couple of free years at a good university, but it's hardly like she won the latest super lottery or something. It would have been nice to see more details on what she actually built, too.

Re:The appearance thing aside... (2, Insightful)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375883)

a couple of years?

$100,000 will get you all the way through your masters now days. Assuming you can maintain some semblance of a GPA.

Re:The appearance thing aside... (1)

nanio (937692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376315)

BS & a Masters for $100,000? In Oklahoma maybe...

Re:The appearance thing aside... (1)

AoT (107216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376429)

Well, one would assume that the 100,00 is in addition to the free ride she'lll be getting at her scholl of choice.

She built a fucking spectrometer on thee cheap.

Re:The appearance thing aside... (1)

nathan s (719490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376569)

Harvard [harvard.edu], for instance, is estimating $48,850 per year. $100K will get you halfway through a BA, and no more.

Obviously if she's winning scholarships, she'll probably get enough from other scholarships and/or Federal assistance to cover her education through a PhD if she wants to take it that far, but anybody who thinks $100K is "wealthy" these days is simply naive.

Re:The Important Question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375817)

hahahaa, everybody look at the angry (single) nerd girl!

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375893)

What the hell is wrong with this place? She IS cute...

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376221)

"She IS cute..."

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHA. No.

He said HOT, not CUTE.

Also, how desperate are you?

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375961)

lol. hate women much?

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376241)

I think someone's intimidated by some joke. Boy are you ever a humorless sour feminist type. Sorry, slapping together a bunch of stuff from Edmund with daddy's money does not make you brilliant.

If I weren't old enough to be her father (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375995)

I'd probably find her very cute. Just as cute as the girls I chased (fruitlessly) in high school, and more nerdy.

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376165)

eW!! fugs..

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375695)

The Important Question

Is she single? because that is hot.


I think an even more important question is, "Is she at least 18 years old?"

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375781)

I think an even more important question is, "Is she at least 18 years old?"
Only if the OP is (a) himself over 18, and (b) he intends to initiate a sexual relationship immediately.

Re:The Important Question (1)

mikecardii (978929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375835)

Well, according to TFA, she's 17. Which is old enough to consent in most states.

Re:The Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376075)

Specifically her home state of Oklahoma, in which the age of consent is 16.

Re:The Important Question (1)

mikecardii (978929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376201)

I can see the headline now. "Mass exodus of male teenage nerds roaming Oklahoma in search of female science fair winner"

Read the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375529)

The summary is incorrect. The actual cost, as stated in the article, is less than $1000, which is a bit more than $500.

Dollar dollars (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375645)

The summary is incorrect. The actual cost, as stated in the article, is less than $1000, which is a bit more than $500.
Actually, the summery said, "her spectrograph cost less than $500 dollars". Have you any idea how much a 500-dollar dollar is worth? Her spectrograph costs less than at least two of them!

Re:Dollar dollars (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375699)

I wrote:

summery
Aw crap.

Re:Dollar dollars (1)

Snospar (638389) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375915)

How old are you?

You could be experiencing what the Simpsons refer to as the "dumbening"!

It appears that these kids have escaped this awful syndrome by a fair degree.

Re:Dollar dollars (2, Funny)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375783)

You aren't familiar with 500-dollar dollars? You get them from an ATM machine by punching in your PIN number. Just make sure the machine is plugged into AC current, or it won't work.

The $$60 billion Man (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375841)

That means that if we can catch Vash the Stampede, we can manufacture 120 million spectrographs!

Re:Dollar dollars (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376017)

Actually, the summery said, "her spectrograph cost less than $500 dollars". Have you any idea how much a 500-dollar dollar is worth? Her spectrograph costs less than at least two of them!
Actually, we have no idea of the possible values of $500. Furthermore, we have no idea why the author would have used a text string to represent a numerical value.

Re:Dollar dollars (3, Informative)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376301)

They had an interview on NPR the other day (Wednesday or Thursday on All Things Considered if you wish to look up the podcast) with the winner, she said that she spent around $300 but with the parts that she already had (a digital camera for one) and a few donations she received the estimated total cost of such a device would be around $1000.

Re:Dollar dollars (1)

5pp000 (873881) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376561)

Heh -- that bugs me too :) Though it's not as bad as the endless confusion of power with energy, leading to phrases like "megawatts per year".

dark matter (4, Insightful)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375549)

Among the judges were Vera Rubin , who proved Dark Matter

Nitpick: That should probably read "provided evidence for the existence dark matter."

I find this ironic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375637)

I find this ironic:

Among the judges were ... Andrew Yeager, one of the pioneers of stem cell research
So now he's giving awards to the very same kids he would have preferred to slice up and use for research just a few years ago?

Re:I find this ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375775)

Stem cell researchers don't slice up kids. They also don't slice up embryos that otherwise would have been developed and brought to term.

Re:I find this ironic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375823)

The amount of atoms on the planet is pretty much the same year to year. The piece of paper you threw away yesterday contained carbon atoms from the very kids you didn't bring to life by masturbating this morning!

Yeah, I think you're an idiot.

Re:I find this ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375843)

So now he's giving awards to the very same kids he would have preferred to slice up and use for research just a few years ago?


Sounds to me like you are losing your objectivity.

No scientists (including Yeager) are proposing the forcing of parents to terminate their pregnancies just to produce more research material.

Re:I find this ironic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375979)

No scientists (including Yeager) are proposing the forcing of parents to terminate their pregnancies just to produce more research material.
That's right, they just want to strongly encourage this behavior, sometimes even providing the murder operation for free.

Re:I find this ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376111)

After having spent a lot of time flying in airplanes with kids, I find they are doing a bang-up job strongly encouraging this behavior themselves.

Re:dark matter (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375779)

Well, yeah, and the headline should probably read "High School Scholar," but who's counting?

Re:dark matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376489)

Could have been worse - could have been "invented dark matter".

Re:dark matter (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376547)

Nitpick: That should probably read "provided evidence for the existence dark matter."

Nitpick of nitpick: That should probably read "provided evidence for the existence of dark matter."

That is SO COOL. (1, Insightful)

Archeopteryx (4648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375557)

As an ex science fair participant, I cannot begin to say how cool this is.

Re:That is SO COOL. (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375875)

I made baking soda volcanoes too, where the hell is my 100 grand? That could buy a lot of vinegar and Arm & Hammer.

"Awarded" or "Paid"? (5, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375607)

Does she keep the rights to her invention, or does somebody else get ownership of them? This sounds like a potentially valuable invention.

Re:"Awarded" or "Paid"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376229)

Valuable in the same way a $10-60 microscope works more or less the same way as a $2,000 one with Zeiss lenses. Or a profilometer being made from $200 in parts. iow, she didn't really invent anything, but put together a device for cheaper.

I don't disagree the $100,000 commercial devices could be made substantially cheaper, probably 10-fold. But most of those devices are calibrated, certified back to NIST metrological standards, include sweeping warranty and support, and probably a software library for interpretation. Don't forget to add in expertise, time, field testing, manufacturing overhead, and profit.

In fact, most scientific instruments, if broken down, are rather simple. NMR, interferometers, lock-in amplifiers, etc. are not that hard to put together if that's *all* you are doing. But to do it yourself, is labor and expertise expensive, and that's really what you are paying for--convenience. You want to do research. You don't want to be reinventing the wheel (not that there is not value in that, as understanding the tools helps a lot esp. in formulating better tools and understanding the limits of research).

The reason her device is cool is that it's no small feat to put together, not the invention of it, but the creativity in reduplicating something that isn't really easy to do. One website I had thought about putting up was a wiki on how to produce various scientific instrumentation much as she did with this one particular one, but time is a constraint for me, and surprisingly MAKE magazine seems to be more and more encroaching on covering these sorts of things as time goes along.

Anyways, I'm not trying to minimize her accomplishment, but it isn't exactly a new invention.

Not bad (4, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375615)

That's okay, I guess. Personally, I really liked the totally rad volcano that used baking soda and vinegar to actually erupt!

cheaper space probes (2, Interesting)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375701)

Strap this thing on a rocket. $500 million to send a probe to mars? I bet we could do it for $250,000, maybe be less if it leaves on a tuesday.

Re:cheaper space probes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375949)

Not exactly $250,000, but you should be able to get below $2m by mass production [fourmilab.ch].

marSe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375727)

bought the farm... the reaper In a this is consistent I type this. BSD culminated in a fuul-time GNAA AS IT IS LICENSED Distro is done Here With the work, or crisco or lube. Pooper. Nothing long term survival iirecoverable it transforms into variations on the big picture. What eulogies to BSD's

Other winners (5, Interesting)

jotok (728554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375789)

From the Intel Science Talent Search [sciserv.org] website:

Second Place: John Pardon, 17, of Chapel Hill, N.C., solved a classical open problem in differential geometry
Third Place: Dmitry Vaintrob, 18, of Eugene, Ore., proved that loop homology and Hochschild cohomology coincide for an important class of spaces
Fourth Place: Catherine Schlingheyde, 17, of Oyster Bay, N.Y., for her research on microRNA repression
Fifth Place: Rebecca Kaufman, 17, of Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., for her study of the effects of male hormones in a model of schizophrenia
Sixth Place: Gregory Brockman, 18, of Thompson, N.D., for his mathematics project that provided a thorough analysis of Ducci sequences
Seventh Place: Megan Blewett, 17, of Madison, N.J., for her analysis of a protein that may be implicated in multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Eighth Place: Daniel Handlin, 18, of Lincroft, N.J., for developing an accurate, low-cost method of determining the position of geo-stationary Earth-orbit (GEO) satellites
Ninth Place: Meredith MacGregor, 18, of Boulder, Colo., for her research on the fluid dynamics of the "Brazil Nut Effect"
Tenth Place: Emma Call, 18, of Baltimore, Md., for the fabrication of 3-D microcubes
I'm amazed at what these kids were able to accomplish. How much support did they have? What schools do they attend? How much money were they granted to accomplish their research?

In any case, I have two thoughts on this:
One, good teachers and money can't make stupid kids smart, but they sure as hell can enable really smart kids to shine. I wonder how this ties in with Bill Gates' recent announcements concerning the state of science and math education in American schools.

Two, I notice a complete lack of representation by the "soft" sciences. Is it because the people writing the grants share the same disdain for disciplines that lack explanatory power as everyone else, or is it because it's easier to set up a biology program than a sociology program? I suspect a little of both--you probably need far more social context than an 18-year-old will have to pursue studies of voter demographics (not to mention the data acq is probably beyond their capabilities).

But some of that context used to be handled by education as well--you had to read the classics, you had to study some philosophy, you had to know history. My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means. Is this also a failing by our educational system? Isn't such education necessary to be a good researcher?

Re:Other winners (4, Funny)

CommandNotFound (571326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376053)

...Anyone know if there's a "Loop Homology and Hochschild Cohomology for Dummies" out yet?

Holy cow, these kids are off the charts! And I was impressed with the GW-BASIC database I wrote in high school. It looks like something Homer Simpson built compared to that...

Re:Other winners (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376119)

Reading the summaries of the projects shows that one of those is my colleague's Masters physics project. Wonder if I should tell him?
Ouch. (by which I mean congrats, kids)

Re:Other winners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376137)

I wonder how this ties in with Bill Gates' recent announcements concerning the state of science and math education in American schools.

Interesting you should mention that. He is far from the first to say anything on the matter, and the brilliance of his content (remember the book?) has yet to be discovered. How come all the people more knowledgeable on this subject get ignored?

Bashing? Not really: I do think it is an interesting question. Gonna go reverse-PC on me saying this, hm?

Re:Other winners (4, Insightful)

jcgf (688310) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376253)

But some of that context used to be handled by education as well--you had to read the classics, you had to study some philosophy, you had to know history. My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means. Is this also a failing by our educational system? Isn't such education necessary to be a good researcher?

It goes the other way too. Ask a philosophy student to explain lift and drag and see how far you get.

Re:Other winners (4, Interesting)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376269)

So 6 out of the top 10 are females. What the hell happens after high school? Maybe things are just getting better with this generation.

Unrelated. Usually with some high level math theory title I understand the individual words by themselves, but not all together. But that 3rd place title. Holy crap. 3 words I've never even heard of.

Re:Other winners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376483)

Well it's another math project. I'm not surprised that three out of the ten projects are math related since it's one field where anyone can enter for very little money and no special access to data is required. Some of the other projects seem like they would either require expensive research or access to data that most people wouldn't have.

Oblig Simpsons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376367)

"Ninth Place: Meredith MacGregor, 18, of Boulder, Colo., for her research on the fluid dynamics of the "Brazil Nut Effect""

Here in Brazil, we just call them nuts.

Re:Other winners (2, Insightful)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376513)

Two, I notice a complete lack of representation by the "soft" sciences. Is it because the people writing the grants share the same disdain for disciplines that lack explanatory power as everyone else, or is it because it's easier to set up a biology program than a sociology program? I suspect a little of both--you probably need far more social context than an 18-year-old will have to pursue studies of voter demographics (not to mention the data acq is probably beyond their capabilities).

Perhaps because "soft sciences" are real sciences. Sure they may use scientific method, but they sure as hell don't have the same accuracy. They haven't yet accumulated the same amount of data as the "hard" (or I prefer real) sciences.

I mean, take Marxism for example. Historical materialism is claimed to be scientific, it may well use scientific method, but it sure as hell ain't science.

Re:Other winners (2, Informative)

indigest (974861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376539)

You will find that there is an interesting correlation every year between the Research Science Institute [mit.edu] participants and the Intel STS winners. RSI is a program that is run in cooperation with MIT where high school students spend their summer before senior year doing research with MIT professors. Intel has even noticed the connection and they have a page [intel.com] on it. Out of the list of top ten Intel STS winners, the following were at RSI in 2006:

Mary Masterman (1)
Dmitry Vaintrob (3)
Megan Blewett (7)

Pretty good for a program that only accepts 50 American students (IIRC). The usual suspects used to show up as Lucent Global Science Scholars as well, but that program was unfortunately ended in 2005.

In my experience, the key to high school and undergraduate research is a teacher/professor that pushes the student far beyond what he or she knows. A high school student just doesn't have enough experience to come up with truly groundbreaking research. However, amazing things can happen when the teacher/professor exposes the student to advanced concepts which their minds need to struggle to understand. The student will often approach the problem in a different way then the researchers in the field, which will sometimes lead to a new and unexpected result.

The main difficulty is that it can be really frustrating and demoralizing for a student to be in a place where they have to struggle to understand a concept. I think a lot of high schoolers and undergrads get discouraged when they have difficulty understanding a concept. Educators just need to keep that in mind and reassure students that the learning process is an important component of doing good research.

Cool! I know this person... (1)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375811)

Not personally, but having competed at the oklahoma state science fair, as well as the Intel ISEF (but not the Intel STS), I have heard her name a few times when being presented an award. It's pretty neat to see things like this happen, and, having won awards at Intel ISEF before, something of this magnitude would surely be quite a surprise. I wish her the best; her future certainly looks bright!

Accurate? Is it Calibrated? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375833)

How did she perform the calibration? Is the calibration source traceable back to some standards somewhere?
If not, what does it mean to be accurate?

Re:Accurate? Is it Calibrated? (5, Interesting)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376249)

She measured the spectra of known household substances and got numbers that fit with published data. That is a decent basis for calling it accurate, especially when you consider that her design can probably be improved quite a bit without making it much more expensive. A mass-produced, quality-controlled spectrograph based off her design could revolutionize the way such devices are used, because they are so cheap.

Overview of her Project (5, Informative)

Somegeek (624100) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375871)

From her biography on sciserv.org:

"Her Littrow spectrograph splits light, like a prism, and uses a camera to record the resulting Raman spectra - a specific vibrational fingerprint of the molecular compound being investigated. Using a laser as her light source, Mary tested several household objects and solvents and compared her results to published wave numbers. Despite the shortcomings of the inexpensive laser, she found she could make relatively accurate wavelength measurements with her homemade device."

Whatever... (2, Funny)

Udigs (1072138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375879)

Gee, I built a mass spectromoter at my High School science fair 12 years ago. My family didn't have 500 bucks to blow on a science fair project so I had to do it for under $50 and whatever handouts I could get for free from local college professors. Funny, all I got was first place at the county science fair. Though, 100,000 bucks would have been much nicer, and actually paid for the second year of the ivy league school I had to drop out of because I couldn't afford it.

Re:Whatever... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375999)

waaah. I built a proton synchrotron in my basement when I was in first grade but my Mom broke it when she was doing laundry, now I have to work at Taco Bell!

Re:Whatever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376167)

at least you don't have to work at CSC.

Re:Whatever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376407)

Haha, I was expecting a comment half as good as that... just too funny

After Watching Idiocracy.... (1, Interesting)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376023)

I think she and the other contest winners should be put into a forced breeding program. We need more genes like hers in the pool.

Re:After Watching Idiocracy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376261)

> I think she and the other contest winners should be put into a forced breeding program. We need more genes like hers in the pool

I'd hit it.

Net! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376125)

so the amount she'd be getting is $45,000, after taxes. Oh Wait! this is not the lottery. Never mind.

sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376159)

she got ripped off.

They've been building them for 500 bucks for years (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376323)

1. Build Spectrograph for $500
2. Sell for $10,000
3. Profit!

I made a telegraph key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18376535)

OK, it was grade school, not high school, but still...

fascinating gender differences in the prizes (5, Insightful)

retrosurf (570180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18376557)

All the boys worked on mathematics based tasks, and
all the girls were working on physical sciences, or
at least more applied problems.

Well, there's that one well rounded kid that applied
mathematics to the triangulation of geosynchronous
satellites, but the other guys were heavy math geeks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...