Mission Possible C

[olympiaddict]

Haha I like the hint

Those are good suggestions , although regarding #3- I've heard of some ES's determining whether an object is a resistor by looking at how it's used- which makes sense to me. Sure, the wires connecting your circuit have resistance, but you're not trying to take advantage of that- using a giant spool of wire as a wire-wrap resistor would seem against the spirit of the rules, and I would argue the pencil method would as well

[chalker]

First, a reminder this isn't the place for official clarifications or statements....

That said, if we were hypothetically looking at issuing one of the following 2 clarifications, which would you think is the best route to go for the overall benefit of everyone (e.g. competitors, event supervisors, nationally competitive teams, etc. etc.)?

1. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components.
2. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components EXCEPT for integrated circuits and computers.

Note that existing battery / voltage and safety limitations would still apply in either situation.

[olympiaddict]

1. Allowing any and all electrical/electronic components.

I think that this would be better because firstly it mirrors the "real world" of engineering better- in several cases I have seen a way to achieve a task using the technically appropriate components that would achieve it more reliably and effectively, but haven't been able to. It seems like learning to use these components is a more valuable skill than learning to work around them- in my experience it has led to finagling with questionably reliable or high maintenance solutions instead of elegant (even if not easy) choices.

Restricting components sometimes also leads to increased cost- for example, paralleling a bank of not-dirt-cheap phototransistors instead of spending a small amount of money on a transistor and another resistor.

As far as highly competitive teams, allowing a wider range of components would facilitate building more elegant and repeatable machines- no one wants to see an incredible device fail because of something silly right?that really applies to everyone, not just super competitive levels of competition.

As far as event supervisors- what is an integrated circuit precisely? Does the package make a difference? Because it seems like some photodiodes would seem a lot like integrated circuits if packaged differently. Maybe I'm lacking in knowledge on the exact definition, but it seems fuzzy, and event supervisors shouldn't have to draw a line through a grey area- for everyone's sake, fairness, enjoyment of the competition, clear rules are important.

And lastly, it just seems silly to spend a ton of effort and time and/or a few extra bucks to "make something work" when there is a simpler, smaller, cheaper, and/or more reliable way that is just prohibited by the rules. Let me just say- I can't think of any uses of IC's that I see as "cheap" or unfair, other than use as timers, which has already been taken care of by the other rule. To be honest I don't see a downside in allowing them other than potentially including more expensive components- but we've had that discussion before in many of these threads, and I don't see where extra money would even help in this case.

Anyhow, there's my big long reasoning. However let me just say I don't think this decision should get in the way of allowing one of the clarifications to happen- I think it would improve the event and let us focus on the many other more important engineering questions the event presents.

[Flavorflav]

First, a reminder this isn't the place for official clarifications or statements....

That said, if we were hypothetically looking at issuing one of the following 2 clarifications, which would you think is the best route to go for the overall benefit of everyone (e.g. competitors, event supervisors, nationally competitive teams, etc. etc.)?

1. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components.
2. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components EXCEPT for integrated circuits and computers.

Note that existing battery / voltage and safety limitations would still apply in either situation.

I think that at this late date it would not be good to allow any and all components. Regional competitions have already started in New York - more than half the State has already gone - and devices are already built. Allowing ICs now could make a device that was competitive under the published rules no longer competitive, effectively requiring a second infusion of cash and time. Because we are so far into the season, I would suggest that any rule changes be kept to the absolute minimum - allowing only resistors, say.

[GoldenKnight1]

First, a reminder this isn't the place for official clarifications or statements....

That said, if we were hypothetically looking at issuing one of the following 2 clarifications, which would you think is the best route to go for the overall benefit of everyone (e.g. competitors, event supervisors, nationally competitive teams, etc. etc.)?

1. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components.
2. Allowing any and all electrical / electronic components EXCEPT for integrated circuits and computers.

Note that existing battery / voltage and safety limitations would still apply in either situation.

If anything (2) makes a lot more sense. I have seen plenty of teams have what is effectively a resistor in their boxes that they have made. I ask myself why is a store bought resistor not allowed but a photoresistor is. This would seem to allow the use of simple electronic components that were not covered in the few words of the rules. Don't do option (1). Among other things it would make it far easier for teams to get the ideal time.

[iwonder]

Electronic timing devices aren't allowed anyways, so how does allowing them make it easier to get the ideal time?

Also, I think it's a problem more left up to the committee, but there is an issue with certain states that are right in the middle of regionals, some have finished, and others of us have yet to start and would love to be allowed to use more materials. Definitely though this is one of those things where sooner is better. But perhaps put a condition on it where the current limit applies for regionals and then open it up for states? It means some teams will have to modify their devices, sure, but I would make changes between regionals and state anyways, whereas since regionals are currently going on, it offers no change to the present competition (I don't know of any state contests happening in this month. Montana's done :/ ).

[olympiaddict]

I like the idea of saying it will only apply to states and higher- that seems like a fair way to handle the issue of in-progress competitions.
I personally prefer the 1st and think it would be best for everyone, but I really think that even allowing all components except IC's would be a big improvement. However, I think that would create a grey area which would make problems for supervisors and competitors.
https://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/as ... 000000.jpg
In this image I see packages that are used for power transistors, a component I think should be allowed, and I see metal can packages used in photodiodes.
I just think that only forbidding IC's will be too vague and cause problems come competition day.

[iwonder]

I agree, the problem with limiting IC's is figuring out what is and what isn't one. Technically speaking, a darlington transistor is an IC since it contains two transistors on one piece of silicon, but it still comes in a TO-220 package, while you can get a simple xFET or Bipolar transistor in the same package, and it would require looking up each component to determine if it met the rules. Also, you can get a resistor pack in a DIP package, which would further complicated and confuse matters.

[SilverNight]

For the clarification about what constitutes a container:

A container by definition must be capable of holding, restraining, and containing its contents (i.e. golf tees, paper clips, and/or marbles) in the container's volume or area. Containers may have modifications as long as they meet the definition of a container and comply with the rules. While the containers do not have to be removable from the device, a key test would be the question, "if the container was moved outside of the device, would the contents remain in the container?"

1. Does "contents in the container's volume or area" mean that the container just has to hold the 10 objects we put into it (so there can be a hole in the side of the container as long as the objects don't fall out when you take the container out of the device) or that you have to be able to fill the container to 1 pint with the objects and still not have the objects fall out?
2. What if the container was upside down, but was still containing the objects? What about if it was inclined downwards so that the objects would fall out if you removed everything around the container and then moved the container, still inclined, out of the device. But if you removed it upright, or kept everything around it, the objects would stay.
3. Where are you getting your 1 pint containers? I found containers that say 16/18 ounces (16 ounces = 1 pint) like this but when I measured them they're actually 18 ounces.

[chalker]

3. Where are you getting your 1 pint containers? I found containers that say 16/18 ounces (16 ounces = 1 pint) like this but when I measured them they're actually 18 ounces.

Try walking up and down the aisles of your local grocery store (or even looking in your fridge or pantry at home). There are TONS of food products that come in 1 pint containers of all shapes and sizes. You can easily clean most of them out after removing the contents.