Mission Possible C

[twototwenty]

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.

Totally with Flavorflav here - I personally have a device completely built (and I'm sure this is true of many teams), and I have had to work really hard to come up with some transfers that would have been made infinitely easier if a wider selection of electronic components were allowed. To change this rule would mean I would either have to change major portions of my device or be at a significant disadvantage (the transfers I would have to change would be far more risky than the same transfers utilizing certain electronic components, if that makes any sense).

[A Person]

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.

At my local Krogers, I found a 16 oz container made for coleslaw. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3205329/photo.JPG

[wlsguy]

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?"

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.

I see your question about the 1 pint container. Since the rules do not say "labeled" as 1 pint, a container designed to hold 13~14 oz of actual product will likely hold the required 1 pint (16 oz). Our team lost the bonus at the last competition because they used containers labeled as 14 oz but the actual volume was more than 16 oz. I really don't see why it matters anyway.

My thoughts to the rule writers; make all of the containers the same, allow modifications, and get rid of the actual dimension.

On the subject of electrical components: A few years ago Junkyard was basically ruined by the clarification that allowed PLCs. To add all electrical components at this late date would be taking the same risk.

[JTMess]

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.

Totally with Flavorflav here - I personally have a device completely built (and I'm sure this is true of many teams), and I have had to work really hard to come up with some transfers that would have been made infinitely easier if a wider selection of electronic components were allowed. To change this rule would mean I would either have to change major portions of my device or be at a significant disadvantage (the transfers I would have to change would be far more risky than the same transfers utilizing certain electronic components, if that makes any sense).

I agree 100% with Flavorflav and twototwenty. We've spent hours and hours theorizing transfers that would be made much easier using more advanced electronic components. Our regionals is over and changing the rules this late in the season would make the last five months of work almost useless to many teams that have completed devices. Adding resistors is the only modification that would improve the event without putting work to waste and forcing many teams into a complete rebuild. Additionally, if ICs and computers were allowed, richer teams would have a significant advantage.

[olympiaddict]

I see the concern you have about changing the rules after months of work. However I'm in the same position as you, but I think that it would make the event overall more enjoyable and focus on more important challenges. But I see where you are coming from.

I don't agree with the the claim that an advantage will be given to richer teams. The components i would be using (which include a small AVR microcontroller) would cost less than $10.

[A Person]

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?"

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.

I see your question about the 1 pint container. Since the rules do not say "labeled" as 1 pint, a container designed to hold 13~14 oz of actual product will likely hold the required 1 pint (16 oz). Our team lost the bonus at the last competition because they used containers labeled as 14 oz but the actual volume was more than 16 oz. I really don't see why it matters anyway.

My thoughts to the rule writers; make all of the containers the same, allow modifications, and get rid of the actual dimension.

On the subject of electrical components: A few years ago Junkyard was basically ruined by the clarification that allowed PLCs. To add all electrical components at this late date would be taking the same risk.

If you're talking about the same year I'm thinking of, that year because PLCs were allowed, I as a 6th grader was able to place at Nationals. I don't know, but I don't think there was a rule about parallel tasks, so I was able to get extremely close to the designated time. I think it wouldn't be much of a challenge if all electrical components were allowed.

[Phys1cs]

[quote="SilverNight"
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.
[/quote]

I submitted a national FAQ about these questions, "What constitutes a similar container to the starting device? Can there be modifications to the container (ie, a hole for a pulley wire, or a hole so things may fall out of), or would it then not be considered similar?". I got a response, saying that the answer had been posted on the national site, go to soinc.org, etc. Though it has not been posted, and I got an email about it.

[chalker]

I submitted a national FAQ about these questions, "What constitutes a similar container to the starting device? Can there be modifications to the container (ie, a hole for a pulley wire, or a hole so things may fall out of), or would it then not be considered similar?". I got a response, saying that the answer had been posted on the national site, go to soinc.org, etc. Though it has not been posted, and I got an email about it.

Check here: http://www.soinc.org/node/1332

[chalker]

On the subject of electrical components: A few years ago Junkyard was basically ruined by the clarification that allowed PLCs. To add all electrical components at this late date would be taking the same risk.

We are well aware of that situation and definitely don't want to repeat it (hence one of the reasons I'm soliciting opinions). However note that back then the problem was we allowed computers to be used for timing purposes, meaning everyone was able to get a perfect time. Rule 3.j. will NOT be changing (e.g. if we do issue a clarification on electric components, there will still be a prohibition about not using them to take up time or adjust for the ideal time)

I do appreciate all the input so far, however one general comment: as I indicated in my initial question, we are looking at the overall benefit to EVERYONE involved. We're well aware some people have already designed around the limitations, but there are a LOT of people who haven't even seriously started yet.

I'm particularly interested in hearing specifics of how people think this would provide an unfair advantage to 'rich' teams. I initially had similar thoughts, but after discussing it some we couldn't come up with any specific ways.

Finally, for those of you suggesting just a very limited clarification, can you please suggest some language? Note that 'just allow resistors' won't cut it. For example, what about capacitors that are part of some motors? We've already allowed photo-transistors, so can people use those as 'normal' transistors? Are relays considered switches? What is the definition of a motor? etc. etc. etc.

Normal caveat about this not being the place for official statements / clarifications / etc etc.

[JeremyGerber]

It's too late in the game to change the rules. If this were to be done, it needed to happen in Oct/Nov. Regional contests have already started.
On a similar note, I have ran the event twice now and will be running it again this weekend in Michigan. In general, the kids are figuring out how to score plenty of points with the rules as they are. I see no point in changing.