Scioly.org

Here you go it has a buy it now option and is brushed and will produce ample thrust so you need to reduce it by whatever means you decide to use. Good luck.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIFLY-HPER ... 35d2556852

http://www.gravesrc.com/mobile/Product. ... e=HCAA3440

This is not the site I used to buy it, but this contains 2 Hyperflow EDFs with motors. You just need to cut off the Styrofoam.

FawnOnyx wrote:I in general like the changes they made, such as guards for propellers, and no need to go for the most power or mass. I do think that 5 to 15 seconds is a really slow target time range to move a max 2kg maglev just a meter though.

Definitely the propeller guard. Everyone at regionals forgot it except for 6 schools including mine, so that's how I did well.

samlanvball wrote:

FawnOnyx wrote:I in general like the changes they made, such as guards for propellers, and no need to go for the most power or mass. I do think that 5 to 15 seconds is a really slow target time range to move a max 2kg maglev just a meter though.

Definitely the propeller guard. Everyone at regionals forgot it except for 6 schools including mine, so that's how I did well.

A lot of other schools at our event just didn't even run.

Our maglev has a really powerful motor (wired to a sizable rheostat for adjustable power), and apparently it scared/amused the judges (I built it but since it was at the same time as forensics, I didn't run it).

We got the full mass score (though our maglev came in at 1.8 kg), and we got 2nd overall (same as you).

Newly posted FAQ's @ soinc.org. I'm not sure I understand how a mass score and time score could be allowed to be from different sucessfull runs? Why not from different vehicles then? That is essentially what this is encouraging - changing the mass between runs. One run for mass ,regardless of time, another run for time regardless of mass.

Robotica

Its obvious that the rule clarification is for those competitors whose run time is adjusted via adding/subtracting weight.

I think you ought to get extra points if you do your best time with your maximum mass. Otherwise, it seems a little unfair.

Robotica wrote:Newly posted FAQ's @ soinc.org. I'm not sure I understand how a mass score and time score could be allowed to be from different sucessfull runs? Why not from different vehicles then? That is essentially what this is encouraging - changing the mass between runs. One run for mass ,regardless of time, another run for time regardless of mass.

Robotica

Yep, that's basically what it allows. If you look at the rules carefully there isn't anything prohibiting this. I thought it was obvious, but forgot to explicitly include it in the rules. Why else would the rules allow 2 successful runs to begin with if the intention wasn't to allow changes to be made between the runs?

lepidolite wrote:Any rules about having magnets on the outside of the track in addition to the inside?

New rules clarification!!

Question:
I know we can put magnets on the side rails as long as the distance from the top of the magnets to the top of the rail is between 2-5 cm but what about placing magnets on the outside of the rails?

============================================================================
Answer:
Yes. General rule #2 applies: https://www.soinc.org/ethics_rules

On the topic of offical FAQ's, I just noticed this one:

May a run still be considered successful if the vehicle momentarily stops at some point on the track after the start line and before the 95 centimeter line, and then begins moving again so that it passes the 95 cm line?
Yes. Although note that if the vehicle stops by design (i.e. in order to stall for time), that is not within the spirit of the rules.

I didn't submit this one personally, but I actually did have a (discrete) circuit that did just that; it stopped the motor for an adjustable amount of time and then turned it on full speed again to get the target time. When I designed it, I thought I was primarily being creative within the rules, while learning a lot about how circuits worked in the process. It's pretty disappointing to see it won't be accepted now, although I can see why it could be viewed as cheap or unfair.

However, I think with this whole new slew of FAQ's, it's getting really confusing where the spirit of the rules line is drawn. Three of the new FAQ's cite the spirit of the rules as solutions to questions that need much more specific answers. For example, if we should refer to the spirit of the rules when making circuits with transistors or capacitors or resistors, does that imply complex circuits involving a lot of those parts are too "cheap?" Is using a simple rheostat to vary the speed of the fan unfair? These are all apparently allowed when IC's are disallowed

For the side magnet FAQ too, does that mean the magnet strength can't vary at all along the track? What about the natural demagnetization that happens to ceramic magnets over time? I know after my old track began to demagnetize there were the magnetic equivalent of hills and valleys all down the track.

It's also interesting with the recent response about time and mass scores coming from different runs and vehicles. I can easily see someone else interpreting this as against the spirit of the problem because the point of the problem is to have a heavy vehicle that can achieve a wide range of run times.

I guess I'm just frustrated now that several ideas I had have been blocked under the "spirit of the rules." While exploring these things, I've learned a lot of science, but now I have to go back to the drawing board.

Some comments, unofficial as always (but keep in mind I did create most of those FAQ answers;) As always, I'm interested in feedback, particularly if we didn't take something important into consideration.

FawnOnyx wrote: I didn't submit this one personally, but I actually did have a (discrete) circuit that did just that; it stopped the motor for an adjustable amount of time and then turned it on full speed again to get the target time. When I designed it, I thought I was primarily being creative within the rules, while learning a lot about how circuits worked in the process. It's pretty disappointing to see it won't be accepted now, although I can see why it could be viewed as cheap or unfair.

This one isn't so much an issue with it being 'cheap' or 'unfair', more as potentially causing a safety issue. 3.l talks about a stopping system that stops motion or shuts the motor off. If we allow systems that temporarily stop the motor, then start it back up again after some fixed time, that opens up a huge safety issue. Ditto for if it just slows down for a little while to essentially a non-effective rotational speed. Also technically note that 5.b.ix. mentions failing to move after 3 seconds, but doesn't explicitly say that's at the start of the run. That could easily be interpreted to be if it stops for move than 3 seconds midway.

FawnOnyx wrote: For example, if we should refer to the spirit of the rules when making circuits with transistors or capacitors or resistors, does that imply complex circuits involving a lot of those parts are too "cheap?" Is using a simple rheostat to vary the speed of the fan unfair? These are all apparently allowed when IC's are disallowed

We have a general philosophy in SO events of disallowing ICs / computers, but allowing virtually any other electrical component. I've explained the reasoning for this in depth in the Mission Possible thread, so refer you there if you want to know more about it.

FawnOnyx wrote: For the side magnet FAQ too, does that mean the magnet strength can't vary at all along the track? What about the natural demagnetization that happens to ceramic magnets over time? I know after my old track began to demagnetize there were the magnetic equivalent of hills and valleys all down the track.

I'm not following this at all. The FAQ says magnets are allowed outside the track walls. Can you explain how this related to varying magnet strength?

FawnOnyx wrote:It's also interesting with the recent response about time and mass scores coming from different runs and vehicles. I can easily see someone else interpreting this as against the spirit of the problem because the point of the problem is to have a heavy vehicle that can achieve a wide range of run times.

Can you point to where in the rules it indicates the point is to 'have a heavy vehicle that can achieve....'? I'll point out the the Description explicitly says up to 2 vehicles, and the scoring doesn't say anywhere that only 1 vehicle gets scored (although we could have been more explicit in saying it's the best scores out of the vehicles.

FawnOnyx wrote:I guess I'm just frustrated now that several ideas I had have been blocked under the "spirit of the rules." .

Other than the 'stopping in the middle of the track for some time' idea, what else has been blocked now? The FAQs seem to be allowing lots of things.