Thoughts? (on rule points)

[Paradox21]

You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?

Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.

[Flavorflav]

You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?

Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.

I haven't even got an acknowledgment of receipt of any of mine. IN previous years those have been almost instantaneous.

[eta150]

They're pretty good about that stuff to everyone, in all events. I e-mailed about an error in the wright stuff scoring sheets last year, so they sent me an email back, and changed the sheet to fix the error I pointed out. They pretty much had too, because most teams there would have been second-tiered unfairly if they hadn't.

[andrewwski]

One year I sent a clarification request in January and didn't get a response until March.

That was extremely helpful, seeing as competition was in February.

[Uncle Fester]

Interesting about the multiple tasks question. While I hotly disagree with the "Parallel paths" reasoning (one in, one out is HARDLY a "Parallel path"), I knew a long time ago that they really wanted "ten steps."

I think that both Dark Sabre and Delta Hat hold the lifetime title of "most points in a single step". I always enjoyed the Missioners that said that if they couldn't advance to Nationals, they could at least get everyone's attention by consolidating steps. Alas, will be sadly missed.

But they want ten steps. So give them ten steps.

[Dark Sabre]

Two clarifications just appeared on http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif_2009

Mission Possible: Section 3.d. should read (see additions in bold): "Electric components shall be limited to batteries, wires, motors, switches, resistors, capacitors, commercial photocells (i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors), mechanical relays, lightbulbs, and LEDs. No computers or transistors will be permitted in the device." (11/9/09)

Mission Possible: Section 4.b. should read (see additions in bold): "Activate a photocell that allows current to flow to a motor, which leads to the next action." (11/9/09)


So you can 100% use lightbulbs, LEDs, and photoresistors now

[fleet130]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

[Flavorflav]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

[gh]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.

[Flavorflav]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.

So I am. I had assumed that the terms were equivalent. I now see that I was not correct. So we are left with fleet130's question above.

ETA: I still think that the original conception was for a solar or photovoltaic cell, from the "supplies the power for" line. I suspect that the authors made the same mistake that I did.