Robot Arm C

[jander14indoor]

Not official, etc.

<SNIP> The event supervisors took out all the coins that left the outer tape. <SNIP>

Submit an FAQ.
Opinion, this is judges not reading this years rules, or reading it and thinking something was left out. It wasn't. But the ES rules and if they are consistent hard to overrule.
Best way to get a fix (even if I turn out wrong) is to have an FAQ officially published that everyone can officially refer too and everyone can have consistent expectations.
You (or perhaps better, your coach) may also want to submit an FAQ to your local regional or state contest to get the ES thinking about it before hand and perhaps doing some more research.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Side question of grammar pops up as I write this. Is it "an FAQ" or "a FAQ"? I mean its pretty common to say either F. A. Q. all three letters or "fak" one syllable. F is pronounced "ef" so sounds better to my ear to as "an", but admittedly the "e" sound doesn't show up in the written form. Pronounced "fak" clearly sounds better with "a". Tis a puzzlement. Caused me to edit this note 3 times before I just let it go and decided on consistency.

[dragonfruit35]

Not official, etc.

<SNIP> The event supervisors took out all the coins that left the outer tape. <SNIP>

Submit an FAQ.
Opinion, this is judges not reading this years rules, or reading it and thinking something was left out. It wasn't. But the ES rules and if they are consistent hard to overrule.
Best way to get a fix (even if I turn out wrong) is to have an FAQ officially published that everyone can officially refer too and everyone can have consistent expectations.
You (or perhaps better, your coach) may also want to submit an FAQ to your local regional or state contest to get the ES thinking about it before hand and perhaps doing some more research.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Side question of grammar pops up as I write this. Is it "an FAQ" or "a FAQ"? I mean its pretty common to say either F. A. Q. all three letters or "fak" one syllable. F is pronounced "ef" so sounds better to my ear to as "an", but admittedly the "e" sound doesn't show up in the written form. Pronounced "fak" clearly sounds better with "a". Tis a puzzlement. Caused me to edit this note 3 times before I just let it go and decided on consistency.

I have never heard it pronounced "fak". I've always thought of it as an... but that's interesting.

Also, I agree- nowhere in the rules does it say that the pennies can't leave the boundaries during the match, as far as I can tell.

[windu34]

I always pronounce it "fak"

[Complexity]

Submitted an "faq" about a week ago, and still no reply. I'm not worrying too much, Frankenmuth invitational is approaching, and looks to be much better run. Will confirm with event sups before testing so there is no confusion.

[gmui]

I just saw a team complete their Robot Arm event and had a question about how the proctors interpreted the rules. The team had a robot arm and a detachable powered end effector. Basically, they had an arm that held this device (that was connected to an external power supply with its own wire, and they placed it in the competition area. They let it go and then grabbed pennies and put them into the device. With all the pennies loaded, they picked up the device, turned it over and then turned on their device which shook the pennies out to distribute evenly.

By rule 6g.vi (Any part of the Device (except for end effectors and connections to control boxes) touching the Device Square surface in the ready to run configuration exits the Device Square) - the end effector is part of the device that can exist the device square.

And by Rule 6g-vii (The run must stop if: Any part detaches from the Device) and by letting it go on the competition area) , shouldn't dropping the end effector end their run?

The end effector was only attached with a tethered power cable to an external power supply that was not within the device square. So therefore it is part of the device that was not attached (rigidly or loosely) to anything in the Device Square.

They had a very good score that would likely win but isn't this against the rules and clarification? Their argument was that other tournaments allowed their strategy.

[maxxxxx]

I just saw a team complete their Robot Arm event and had a question about how the proctors interpreted the rules. The team had a robot arm and a detachable powered end effector. Basically, they had an arm that held this device (that was connected to an external power supply with its own wire, and they placed it in the competition area. They let it go and then grabbed pennies and put them into the device. With all the pennies loaded, they picked up the device, turned it over and then turned on their device which shook the pennies out to distribute evenly.

By rule 6g.vi (Any part of the Device (except for end effectors and connections to control boxes) touching the Device Square surface in the ready to run configuration exits the Device Square) - the end effector is part of the device that can exist the device square.

And by Rule 6g-vii (The run must stop if: Any part detaches from the Device) and by letting it go on the competition area) , shouldn't dropping the end effector end their run?

The end effector was only attached with a tethered power cable to an external power supply that was not within the device square. So therefore it is part of the device that was not attached (rigidly or loosely) to anything in the Device Square.

They had a very good score that would likely win but isn't this against the rules and clarification? Their argument was that other tournaments allowed their strategy.

By your description of that it would definitely end the run when they let go of the end effector. Just wondering, what tournament was this?

[gmui]

This was for a NY Regional. Unfortunately for them in the end they did seem to disqualify that team's runs as they did not medal.

[shakedown]

I was present for part of the discussion on this (and I am one of the coaches for the team).

The student's position is that this was OK. I also see the other side of this. The main issue is that this is open to interpretation. I believe the interpretation by the ES was based on the comments about a robot arm on page 3 of this forum. It must be noted that the two students (and the coaches) involved accept and respect their decision.

So here is the student's position - Rule 6.g.vii says "Any part detaches from the Device." A Device is defined in section 3 as as including "the Arm(s), remote control box(es) (e.g.wireless, hard-wired, etc.) their associated connections and optional separate power supply."
Here is what they had:
1 - The penny dispenser was hard wired to their control box.
2 - One battery powers the Device.
3 - The dispenser was controlled by the control box for the wrist / hand and is integrated in to the Device control system.

In short they do not believe that the dispenser ever detached from the Device. The rule doesn't say anything about the Device Square.

They had a discussion about their plans with the ES at an earlier invitational. They only had a passive dispenser at the time with a plan for powering it. The discussion was about the intent of the rules and tethering. It came down to what the tether did. If the tether was actively used to score points (providing power) that ES felt it was OK (and that is only his opinion). They powered the dispenser to vibrate the pennies out and successfully competed in two additional invitationals after that.

I checked the soinc site and I do not see any rule clarifications for Robot Arm.

At the first invitational they loaded the dispenser in the device square. They could have done that at the regional but I don't think they understood what the concerns of the ES were. On the first run the issue was that the wire for the dispenser knocked over a stack of pennies. There was a discussion about that being a DQ. Knocking the stack over actually hurt their score since the couldn't pick them to put them in the dispenser.

They had a strong run and were probably in the top 3 but they were tiered at some point after the run. We were told that there was a lengthy discussion about the situation and we appreciate that they debated their decision before making it.

They are deciding if they are going to change the robot or have two movement plans to discuss with the ES prior to running at States. I don't think that there is an issue if they load the dispenser in the Device Square, pick it up with the arm to dispense the pennies, and bring it back to the device square at the finish.

[jander14indoor]

Again, unofficial!

No Clarification, but I think this FAQ is relevant (and I quote from the national site):
CAN THE END EFFECTORS BE COMPLETELY MOBILE ON THEIR OWN, WITHOUT POWER FROM THE ARM. I.E. A SMALL RC CAR ATTACHED TO THE BASE VIA A TETHER TO THE BASE?

No. This would not meet the definition of a robotic arm. Definition (checked in multiple sources) A robot arm is a series of rigid elements linked by rotary or translation joints. The tether is not a rigid link, nor is it a rotary or translational joint.

I don't see how the device described can meet that definition of a robot arm. A tether is not a rigid link.

As to device square discussion, please note it only applies to the parts of the arm touching the square in the ready to run position. Shouldn't be applied to say the robot elbow or end effector that starts in mid air.


I see the word "disqualify" used pretty freely in this discussion and that disturbs me a little. If you apply the rule on detaching, that should simply stop the run, not DQ the team. Same for the device square rule. If the ES ruled the robot could not by design or intent score points, that still gives participation points. I hope this is just sloppy language as we purposely put in tiers to avoid DQing a team whenever possible. DQ requires pretty negative behavior on a teams part. Obvious cheating (note, even picking up the items and placing them is not cheating, it is covered by the rules and just stops the time, doesn't even tier the team!), outside help, cursing out the ES, kicking them in the shin, etc. None of the actions described rise to that level in my view.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[gmui]

Sorry - I was not part of the discussion and do not know how it was handled officially. By "disqualifying the run", I only meant that they didn't count the pennies that were in the target at the end as a normal score. If they did, they would certainly have medaled. Based on the rule to 'end the run' after something detaches, then their score would have reflected 0 pennies as dropping the end effector was the first step. This is what I suspect happened and that they were not DQ'd or even tiered.

I understand that the FAQ generally addresses this, but the question as to whether there is power or not or if it's an R/C car or not leaves some ambiguity on how the rule can apply generally. Can the FAQ or clarification be changed to say that detachable end effectors are not allowed and that a non-rigid attachment, like a tether (powered or not) does not count as attachment?

Seems nitpicky but whether or not you can use detached devices really impacts the difficulty of the challenge.