Mission Possible C

[Flavorflav]

With respect, the issues with motors and relays are not new. While it is true that most teams in the nation have not competed, it is clearly highly problematic to change the rules in midseason. Since I, also, am aware of many very respectable scores, I would be very interested to know why you would even be considering such a thing.

[chalker]

I would be very interested to know why you would even be considering such a thing.

As some of you may know (and for those who don't), the national office is very reluctant to ever issue rules clarifications. There are only a few issued every year, and the vast majority are due to a missed word, typo, or confusing wording. It is extremely rare for a rules clarification to significantly change the general conditions of a particular event.

And we've learned our lesson over the years regarding unintended results of significant rules clarifications. Part of the reason I've initiated this discussion here is to help satisfy us that we aren't missing some key point in our considerations. Please note that when I say 'we', it truly is a group of people that are passionate about SO, have been involved for a very long time at all levels, and are interested in doing whats best for the organization as a whole.

In this case, we issued a clarification in September that we thought would address the majority of the issues with electrical components in this event (see http://www.soinc.org/official_rules_clarif). However, based upon information we are getting from a variety of channels (including questions submitted on the soinc.org website and event supervisors at invitational tournaments) we are concerned that there is still a significant issue with the rules as they currently stand.

Please don't think we are taking this situation lightly nor rushing into it. We've been discussing it internally for quite some time and trying to look at it from all angles. Today alone I personally had a phone call and received 16 different emails from members of the core group involved. While we've generally reached a consensus on it, there are some nuances we are still working out.

Can't forget the normal caveat about this not being the place for official statements / clarifications / etc etc.

[olympiaddict]

We really appreciate your work and I think we understand the complexity involved in these things! i can also say that I think it's awesome that you are reaching out to competitors, coaches, ES's, etc. in such an accessible way in both this situation and others all the time. Glad to see you're considering every point of view, and I know SO is in good hands.

[FawnOnyx]

I would appreciate such a change. To me, allowing LEDs without resistors, phototransistors without transistors, and switches but not relays among other things never made sense and I totally see how it would make the event more accessible for everyone.

Even though my partner and I also put in a lot of time adjusting sensitivity and working around the electronics rule, I'd be pretty happy to see this clarification because I could drastically improve my current circuits and even look into more efficient pathways. Although newcomers to the event would have a much easier time starting out, I wouldn't worry much because I would have more room to improve as well, plus the headstart.

For language of such a clarification, what about allowing both discrete components and IC's, but just prohibit programmable microcontrollers or computers? I think IC's such as op-amps, comparators, and 555s are both useful in certain situations and educational for learning about how to manipulate electric potentials. (within the energy transfer focus of the event). Once you go beyond to programming microcontrollers to do anything you want, I think that's beyond the event's scope and a reasonable cutoff. It's also really easily defined so it won't lead to much controversy. I personally don't see much of a financial barrier since IC's are super cheap unless you're buying a processing or programming chip or something.

Another easily defined cutoff could be no semiconductor components except photodiodes and phototransistors. However I think this is much less desirable because the transistor vs phototransistor issue remains and transistors would be very handy in certain circuits. I think it's silly to prohibit transistors when you could probably cover up certain phototransistors to work as transistors. But maybe a transistor count limit like max 2 transistors would be workable. (similar to the motor limit)

[torqueburner]

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.

Except for possibly allowing resistors so that LEDs can be used without the risk of destroying them, I agree with the posting above. My team has spent a lot of time and effort working around the current restrictions regarding electronics. Necessity is the mother of invention. We have a way to use phototransistors without transistors or relays, and for that matter, LEDs without a commercial resistor. Part of the engineering process is the need to work around such restrictions and requirements. Change the rules now, and it allows those who have procrastinated the quick, easy solution.

[Cheese_Muffin_Man]

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.

Except for possibly allowing resistors so that LEDs can be used without the risk of destroying them, I agree with the posting above. My team has spent a lot of time and effort working around the current restrictions regarding electronics. Necessity is the mother of invention. We have a way to use phototransistors without transistors or relays, and for that matter, LEDs without a commercial resistor. Part of the engineering process is the need to work around such restrictions and requirements. Change the rules now, and it allows those who have procrastinated the quick, easy solution.

I understand all of these concerns. However, I am not sure as to why LEDs have a certain advantage. Light bulbs can do everything/anything that LEDs do. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

[iwonder]

LED's typically take a lot less power, that's probably the only concern.

[Cheese_Muffin_Man]

LED's typically take a lot less power, that's probably the only concern.

True, but leaving a small light bulb on for 2 minutes won;t necessarily kill the battery right away.

[olympiaddict]

I would consider LED's as Electrical -> EMS, but I would consider an incandescent lightbulb as Electrical -> Thermal -> EMS.

[Cheese_Muffin_Man]

I would consider LED's as Electrical -> EMS, but I would consider an incandescent lightbulb as Electrical -> Thermal -> EMS.

No, Actually I think you could go either or, but not both. Meaning with a light bulb, you can go from electrical to thermal or electrical to electromagnetic, depending on how you plan to use it.