Robot Arm C

[jander14indoor]

Usual comments about not official, opinion, etc.

<SNIP> Rule 6.c.iv. says time stops when any end effector is moved by anything besides stored energy in the device. When you drop a magnet or something else on the end of the arm, whether it is tethered by a string or not, it's going to be moved downwards by gravity, not energy stored in the device. <SNIP>

<SNIP> i'd just like to mention that the energy is stored in the device in the form of gravitational potential energy. gravity isn't increasing the overall energy of the arm at all, the potential energy from gravity is just being converted into kinetic energy. also the conversion of gravitational potential energy is going to occur whenever any point of the arm changes altitude at all. sooo if gravitational potential energy were against the rules to use, not a single robot would be able to score because they wouldn't be able to move downward

I actually find the second argument much more compelling than the first.
Chalker's argument taken to its limit would prevent dropping ANY object ANY distance to be scored. I hate to use intent, because the original rules writers can't hardly agree the day after the rules are written, how can anyone else understand intent? But in this case... Doesn't seem that intent was likely...
But I don't think I need to use intent afterall . "28" point is excellent. The only reason the object can fall is the robot picked it up and gave it gravitational positional energy in the first place. If all else on the robot is correct, that came from internal sources. Where's the external source of energy?

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[chalker7]

"28" point is excellent. The only reason the object can fall is the robot picked it up and gave it gravitational positional energy in the first place. If all else on the robot is correct, that came from internal sources. Where's the external source of energy?

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

I agree. 28 is making highly compelling arguments about gravity and potential energy.

[Balsa Man]

It seems that 28's point, and physics, and commom sense all align on the same conclusion, and while intent has not been explicitly stated , it can be said with certainty it was not the opposite (i.e, an intent to preclude things moving downward).

[illusionist]

Our batteries are old ones that I've had for a few years and used for RC cars. The sticker on the front has been faded so that you can't distinctly see the "7" in 7.2V. Would the battery likely be rejected, or is it possible that an event supervisor would bring a multimeter or something to check the actual voltage? Is there anyway I can fix the situation without having to buy a new battery?

[chalker]

Our batteries are old ones that I've had for a few years and used for RC cars. The sticker on the front has been faded so that you can't distinctly see the "7" in 7.2V. Would the battery likely be rejected, or is it possible that an event supervisor would bring a multimeter or something to check the actual voltage? Is there anyway I can fix the situation without having to buy a new battery?

Is there a part number or anything that you can go online and print off a spec sheet or description from the manufacturer? That's probably the best solution. Don't count on a supervisor to have a multimeter.

[illusionist]

Our batteries are old ones that I've had for a few years and used for RC cars. The sticker on the front has been faded so that you can't distinctly see the "7" in 7.2V. Would the battery likely be rejected, or is it possible that an event supervisor would bring a multimeter or something to check the actual voltage? Is there anyway I can fix the situation without having to buy a new battery?

Is there a part number or anything that you can go online and print off a spec sheet or description from the manufacturer? That's probably the best solution. Don't count on a supervisor to have a multimeter.

Here's what I was able to find form the manufacturer- http://www.duratrax.com/batteries/dtxc2010.html (Scroll down to the very bottom, DTXC2010). Do you think it'll be sufficient if I just print out that web page?

[chalker]

Here's what I was able to find form the manufacturer- http://www.duratrax.com/batteries/dtxc2010.html (Scroll down to the very bottom, DTXC2010). Do you think it'll be sufficient if I just print out that web page?

Probably.

[chalker7]

Here's what I was able to find form the manufacturer- http://www.duratrax.com/batteries/dtxc2010.html (Scroll down to the very bottom, DTXC2010). Do you think it'll be sufficient if I just print out that web page?

Probably.

Meaning, contact your local supervisor for absolute assurance.

[jander14indoor]

Not official, opinion as usual, but quoting from the rules:
3.d. Commercial batteries, not exceeding 14.4 volts as labeled, may be used to energize each of the Device's
electrical circuits. Multiple batteries may be connected in series or parallel as long as the expected voltage
output across any points does not exceed 14.4 volts as calculated using their labeled voltage.

I see "labeled" in that para twice. How much risk do you want to take of getting second tiered?

And to the question of voltmeter, again the rule mentions label, NOTHING about supervisor using a voltmeter. I would NOT depend on that.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[fleet130]

3.d. Commercial batteries, not exceeding 14.4 volts as labeled

I see no language prohibiting competitors from placing their own voltage label on the batteries. The intent may seem clear to those who know the history of similar event rules, but someone without that knowledge has no indication it may not be acceptable. What would be the chances of it being accepted/denied?