Mission Possible C

[scramblingman]

Another question. Are we not allowed to use voltaic cells that produce less than 10V because we have to use commercially made batteries? If so, any chemical -> electrical transfer would not be allowed, which seems a little unfair.

You might want to look closely at the wording of this faq: http://www.soinc.org/node/1328

Thanks!

[aahs_so]

I apologize for the misidentification.

But since we're nitpicking.. I'll nitpick. Another name for a rocket igniter is an 'electric match' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_match). From wikipedia:

"Electric matches consist of two parts, a bridgewire and a pyrogen. The bridgewire is a heating element, typically in the form of a loop or coil of thin wire, which is encased in the pyrogen, which is a quantity of readily ignited pyrotechnic initiator composition.....igniters for solid fuel model rocket motors often include powdered metals, which provide more heat and duration to the match flame"

Thus, by some of the logic I've seen on this thread, some of you might think an electric match could consist of a E -> T -> C -> T series of energy transfers.

That is in fact the energy transfers that do take place. The question is what is scoreable? You say they should not be. Are they scoreable if they were made separate objects? Say a nichrome wire and a flammable chemical (not too flammable for safety's sake).

However, taking a step back and looking at the rules as a whole, my opinion is that a random person off the street looking at such a device and being given a high-level overview of the rules would say it's a single action - hence can be counted as only a single energy transfer.

Here's where the vagueness of the rules comes in. They state that it must be a "direct" transfer. Which one do you count? It can't be E -> T (output, after C->T) because that is not "direct" or is it? The phrase "Batteries, candles, small rocket igniters, etc. may receive points determined by the way they cause the next action", is difficult to interpret without the historical background about how black box transfers are dealt with. How would a person off the street interpret that? I certainly had a much different spin on it the first 20 times I read it before getting on this forum.

Yes, the rules are a little vague on this whole issue, and depending upon the questions that we receive online we might issue a public FAQ about this. However my general advice is to err on the side of caution - use a 'lay person' interpretation of what an action and energy transfer might be. Don't risk losing a whole bunch of points or being tiered due to trying to push the interpretation of the rules. You might get away with it at regionals, but as you move up in the competition levels you'll be far less likely to convince a seasoned event supervisor.

Good advice. I don't mean to be a pain,but am still genuinely confused about what the rules mean especially around the concept of "direct", the meaning of 3.e, and the black box issue. We will try to avoid questionable transfers, but we have to understand the rules to do that.

Thanks to all the chalkers and the work you do for SO.

[jgensel]

Yes, the rules are a little vague on this whole issue, and depending upon the questions that we receive online we might issue a public FAQ about this. However my general advice is to err on the side of caution - use a 'lay person' interpretation of what an action and energy transfer might be. Don't risk losing a whole bunch of points or being tiered due to trying to push the interpretation of the rules. You might get away with it at regionals, but as you move up in the competition levels you'll be far less likely to convince a seasoned event supervisor.

But interpreting the direct transfer rule can make these "safe" transfers non-scorable in the eyes of some judges. No matter which side of the rules you ere on there are people on the other side that can make arguments against it.

[SilverNight]

Chalker, two questions about containers...

1. If we have a hole in the bottom of one of our containers, but the objects intended for that container stay within the walls of the container and would remain in that container, even if the container was moved outside of the device, are we ok? The containers would otherwise be identical - same size, shape, and plastic.

2. Is it ok to have things other than air, golf tees, marbles, or paper clips inside the containers? The only thing I can find in the rules about what shouldn't be in the containers is that there's a penalty for each golf tee, marble, and paper clip that is sorted into the wrong container.

Thanks!

I'd think General Rule #2 applies to this... but as always, this isn't the place for official clarifications or comments.

Could you issue an official answer about this (especially the first question)? I just don't want the event supervisor to interpret this differently. Thank you! (And thank you for making Science Olympiad possible for us all!)

[Flavorflav]

Thus, by some of the logic I've seen on this thread, some of you might think an electric match could consist of a E -> T -> C -> T series of energy transfers.

That is in fact the energy transfers that do take place. The question is what is scoreable? You say they should not be. Are they scoreable if they were made separate objects? Say a nichrome wire and a flammable chemical (not too flammable for safety's sake).

From a practical point of view, can you expect judges to know that about matches, igniters, and every other possible object a student might use? Should judges take students at their word about what is going on inside the black box? How would that not be a violation of General Rule 1?
Your nichrome example certainly counts. Wrap a match in nichrome and the heat causes a chemical reaction, visible as flame.

However, taking a step back and looking at the rules as a whole, my opinion is that a random person off the street looking at such a device and being given a high-level overview of the rules would say it's a single action - hence can be counted as only a single energy transfer.

Here's where the vagueness of the rules comes in. They state that it must be a "direct" transfer. Which one do you count? It can't be E -> T (output, after C->T) because that is not "direct" or is it? The phrase "Batteries, candles, small rocket igniters, etc. may receive points determined by the way they cause the next action", is difficult to interpret without the historical background about how black box transfers are dealt with. How would a person off the street interpret that? I certainly had a much different spin on it the first 20 times I read it before getting on this forum.

I think you guys are going a bit overboard on the interpretation of "direct." If you take it simply as meaning that there are no intervening actions, these problems go away.

[olympiaddict]

The problems only go away if there is a clear and dependable rule, FAQ, or clarification. There are still problems if we don't know what to expect when we show up to competition.

[Flavorflav]

The problems only go away if there is a clear and dependable rule, FAQ, or clarification. There are still problems if we don't know what to expect when we show up to competition.

Or if you just stop trying to claim three energy transfers off of a match. They go away then, too.

[chalker]

Could you issue an official answer about this (especially the first question)? I just don't want the event supervisor to interpret this differently. Thank you! (And thank you for making Science Olympiad possible for us all!)

The only way to get an 'official' answer is to submit a question via the soinc.org website. If we see enough questions of the same type we are likely to post a public response.

[olympiaddict]

The problems only go away if there is a clear and dependable rule, FAQ, or clarification. There are still problems if we don't know what to expect when we show up to competition.

Or if you just stop trying to claim three energy transfers off of a match. They go away then, too.

Actually no, they don't.

I've now gotten a (somewhat unclear but better than nothing) response from our States supervisor, who would score the match differently than you would. (For the record, if you read my posts above, I said that we decided to stay away from anything questionable if at all possible, and we have since determined a way to avoid the match, but that is beside the point).

Like jgensel said a few posts above,

...interpreting the direct transfer rule can make these "safe" transfers non-scorable in the eyes of some judges. No matter which side of the rules you ere on there are people on the other side that can make arguments against it.

It's simply not a matter of trying to rack up transfers- even the interpretations that cause a task to be lower-scoring are not always safe, because a judge may decide they do not actually qualify as the "safe" transfer you say that they do.

[Flavorflav]

The problems only go away if there is a clear and dependable rule, FAQ, or clarification. There are still problems if we don't know what to expect when we show up to competition.

Or if you just stop trying to claim three energy transfers off of a match. They go away then, too.

Actually no, they don't.

I've now gotten a (somewhat unclear but better than nothing) response from our States supervisor, who would score the match differently than you would.

Interesting. What did he say about the match?

Also, apologies for the excessive snark on my part.