Junkyard Challenge B

[mrcadman]

Check the video that shows how the electronic timing is done.

Finding a solution that works in a carefully controlled "sterile" environment is not difficult, but the goal must be to find one that will work under all possible conditions. The system discussed in the video is a very good solution, but to sell the idea you need to show how it can be used in an environment with high ambient noise levels and in cases where the mousetrap is released slowly so it doesn't make a distinct "snap".

In my opinion, the problem with the event is not in the timing method, but in the rules placing so much weight on the time and in allowing a simple solution that makes a near-perfect time readily attainable by almost anyone.

Ambient noise isn't a problem with the sound editor, unless there's fireworks nearby.
A slow mousetrap would be an issue, but?
Then is it measured by actual tripping, or being completely tripped all the way down? and then define "down" too.

Agreed, the rules weight on time changed things, and simple or not, they should provide a reliable, accurate solution. Since there is a free audio way, that would at least be an attempt at micro-timing.

[fleet130]

My point is that you need to show that it will work under those conditions. Have you tried it with high ambient noise levels? If, so you should include the results. When you are offering a new solution to a problem, you can't expect people to take your word for it or ask them to disprove what you say. If you do, they will just walk away and do nothing.

Your problem is to sell the idea to the people responsible for running the event. That means demonstrating to them that it will work under all imaginable conditions. You can't expect them to adopt a timing method until they have tried it themselves or have hard data from someone they respect and trust.

[mrcadman]

My point is that you need to show that it will work under those conditions. Have you tried it with high ambient noise levels? If, so you should include the results. When you are offering a new solution to a problem, you can't expect people to take your word for it or ask them to disprove what you say. If you do, they will just walk away and do nothing.

Your problem is to sell the idea to the people responsible for running the event. That means demonstrating to them that it will work under all imaginable conditions. You can't expect them to adopt a timing method until they have tried it themselves or have hard data from someone they respect and trust.

The event supers don't know me from Adam. The youtube link provided shows it clearly. I would like to think they might read the forums, but i suppose we can't count on that. There is a link for rule clarifications, and this really doesn't qualify. Do you think if a we submitted a clarification request which linked to the perfect youtube example, that they would examine it, or maybe even bring in someone from, say, the University's audio department to explain just how easy and accurate it is? To me, having done video and audio editing for quite a while, it's a no-brainer, but it's not like the event supervisors are approachable.
In any case, upon occassion that i have ever written and it wasn't precisely and only about a line item clarification, there has been no answer.

I guess i could offer to show up early, demonstrate the software, offer to provide the setup, and hope? I guarantee i could demonstrate the accuracy short of a fireworks display. Clapping, doors slamming, things dropping just don't have the same sound signature.
(Sigh) it really is a problem brought on by the rules, and somehow unforseen by the rule makers. There may not be a solution short of hi-speed video, and those cameras are not abundant, and their editing software not easy to learn. They would certainly need a volunteer from their Media department.
HD and 60 frames a second rarely shows the motion, and that would only be about half the minimum required.

I'll make a stab (again) at bringing up the issue, and potential solutions, but if they couldn't see that one coming when editing the rules, it's likely to still fall upon deaf ears. If my team wasn't going to be very serious competition or not competing at all, i would BEG to go and help judge this very cool event.

In any event, we'll be prepared for REAL accurate timing, alert judges, tired judges, and even the innattentive.

[wlsguy]

When did the goal of this event turn away from the creation of devices to having the most acurate timing device? Sure, it can be important to have the timers as acurate as posible, but isn't it also important to set off the mousetraps in the correct order? Set off the mousetraps at all? Have the mousetraps the right distance away? Yes, it is unfortunate (and wrong) that that happened, but it sure won't happen at Nats. I said it once and I'll say it again; everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to this problem. Answer me this: has anyone been to a tournament yet where the difference between two places came down to a portion of a second as a tie-breaker?

Actually Ohio has some really good devices. The Solon Invitational had at least 5 machines that finished between 60.0 and 60.5 seconds. This was repeated at the WL-S invitational where 6 teams had perfect scores and were within a similar margin. Based on these results, I expect ~10 teams with perfect scores at the State Tournement and 2 of those will go on to Nats.

[wlsguy]

FYI; The Nats people are already aware of the concerns with timing and have been looking at different solutions (including the sound timing one shown in the video). As far as I know, nothing has been decided.

[brobo]

When did the goal of this event turn away from the creation of devices to having the most acurate timing device? Sure, it can be important to have the timers as acurate as posible, but isn't it also important to set off the mousetraps in the correct order? Set off the mousetraps at all? Have the mousetraps the right distance away? Yes, it is unfortunate (and wrong) that that happened, but it sure won't happen at Nats. I said it once and I'll say it again; everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to this problem. Answer me this: has anyone been to a tournament yet where the difference between two places came down to a portion of a second as a tie-breaker?

Actually Ohio has some really good devices. The Solon Invitational had at least 5 machines that finished between 60.0 and 60.5 seconds. This was repeated at the WL-S invitational where 6 teams had perfect scores and were within a similar margin. Based on these results, I expect ~10 teams with perfect scores at the State Tournement and 2 of those will go on to Nats.

Woah, about 10? The acuracy of the timing device doesn't decide how many people get a perfect score, it just decides what time people got. Sure, if you had that, it is possible to have 10 people get a perfect score, but let's remember that to get something like that 10 people would have to use something like a micro-processor that is calibrated to go off at exactly 60.9 seconds!

Ok, sure I'll admit that timing is a problem, but I think its nothing to worry about. Maybe 2, or even 3 teams may get a perfect score, but I doubt 10 will.

[mrcadman]

Aw c'mon.
I'd be very dissappointed if they took the attitude of "this situation will only tank a few teams, so let's do nothing".
Almost any processor out there can very accurately count to the 10,000 place with ease, and do 10 other things at (seemingly) the same time. Even the cheapest student-oriented chip out there screams with millions of calcs a second. It's quite a trick to make the mechanical parts sync with that each and every time though.
I submit if there's only 3 with perect scores, it will be because 15 teams got kicked into 20th+ place because they had extreme accuracy, but were judged by human timing at 61 or 62 seconds.

Whether this issue is important to "X" amount of teams is completely irrelevant whether it's 1 team or all 60. What is important, is that the rules dictated time as critical, so a reasonable best effort needs to be made to judge it accordingly. If students have worked themselves silly to achieve incredibly accurate timing, they deserve that reasonable effort at scoring. We're trying to promote science and reward the pursuit of excellence; not to say "good enough" or "your timing was so good, we're going to penalize you 20 places because we, your leaders, couldn't keep up with your technology skills".

Meh, As long as they are aware of the issue, I'm sure they'll make a good reasonable attempt to reward accuracy rather than penalize it.

[fleet130]

Here's some thoughts, not necessarily in response to anything from anyone else.

The problem (possibility of many teams getting perfect scores) came to light a short time before the 2010 tournament season started (I know it was being discussed long before that, but it took until then to reach the top). How we got here is irrelevant at this point in time. The question is what to do to fix it.

This is my understanding of the problem. Others may see things differently. I learned long ago that 10 people can agree on a proposal and they will all think it was adopted for a different reason. I'm not sure what the final decision is/was (or even if one has been reached).

The proposed change (outlawing electronic timers and/or parallel processing) WOULD have invalidated some devices whose teams had spent months designing and building in good faith to comply with the rules. After working on their design for months and investing considerable time & money, changes to the rules that invalidated their devices would been extremely unfair (even if their device still complied with the rules, their strategy might have been invalidated). Their team's overall performance/placing could have been adversely affected as the last-minute changes took away time and resources from preparing for other events. Teams who were lucky enough to have devices/strategies compatible with the rule changes would have an advantage.

The decision came down to: Invalidate many team's devices and unfairly place them at a disadvantage or accept that ties would need to be broken using a somewhat arbitrary tiebreaker. Which decision would have the greater adverse effect. Of course, that last sentence could lead to unending debate also!

As far as timing methods go, they are being investigated and we must have faith they will choose whatever they decide is the most viable.

Previous post was made as I wrote this one. Not sure if they support each other of conflict!

[wlsguy]

Sorry I should have clarified "perfect"

Perfect to me is a team that gets all of the points and whose time is between 60.0 and 60.99 seconds. This is where the reaction time of the event supervisor will come into play. I still expect ~10 teams will be in this range at the state tournement in Ohio.

[brobo]

Sorry I should have clarified "perfect"

Perfect to me is a team that gets all of the points and whose time is between 60.0 and 60.99 seconds. This is where the reaction time of the event supervisor will come into play. I still expect ~10 teams will be in this range at the state tournement in Ohio.

Ah, yes, I will agree with you. I don't know about 10, but yes, I will agree that several will get somewhere within that range.
Is it just me, or is this a circular argument? We've been on this subject for... about 2 pages? And we've gotten nowhere. All we've done is agree that there is a problem and Nats will be a huge disaster unless something will happen. But since non of us here have the power to correct the problem, we shouldn't worry about, and as they say, "jump off that bridge when we get to it."