Mission Possible C

[chalker]

.......My suggested answers:
Relays have traditionally been considered switches in SO.
A motor converts electrical energy to rotational mechanical energy. Solenoids are actuators but not motors. Servos are motors, but are illegal because they include ICs.
A phototransistor is a phototransistor because of what it is, not because of how it is used. If it is a legal component, there is no restriction on use other than safety....... Are there other issues of more consequence that I am not aware of?

Thanks for the input. A couple questions back at you:
-If I hook a solenoid up to a gear set in order to achieve rotational motion (e.g. like the wheels / pistons on an old steam engine), is it considered a motor?
-If not, why should teams with the technical capability to do that be able to get around the spirit of the 3 motor limit rule?
-Ditto for rotary solenoids (just google the term for some pictures). Can the average event supervisor visually tell the difference between a rotary solenoid and a motor?
-the current clarification says "....photosensors (e.g. photoresistors, phototransistors)....", indicating we intended them to be used as sensors. Will the average event supervisor interpret that the same way you do in that they can be used in other roles?
-Should teams with the electrical know-how to wire up a photoresistor or phototransistor to be used like a normal resistor of transistor be allowed to have such an advantage to get around the 'normal' interpretation of the rules?
-Absent seeing this thread, how does a new team or event supervisor know that 'relays have traditionally been considered switches'?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is there are a lot of detailed questions we've been facing, and a lot of creative unintended scenarios as a result of the current clarification / rules. Everyone seems to have a different interpretation / opinion on this various items, which means there is a lot of ambiguity. Thus the fundamental issue of consequence is whether that is what's best for everyone involved, or whether we should try to get rid of it so everyone can focus on the other aspects of the event.

[chalker]

Chalker, what's your view on this black box view? Should we still abide to it even though it is not specified in the rules?

It doesn't seem anybody can agree on what this 'black box' rule even is, thus why would you think you would be held to it? My unofficial opinion is that a lot of people are just using that term to refer to rule 3.g. (which you obviously do need to follow since it's printed in the rules).

[Flavorflav]

-If I hook a solenoid up to a gear set in order to achieve rotational motion (e.g. like the wheels / pistons on an old steam engine), is it considered a motor?
-If not, why should teams with the technical capability to do that be able to get around the spirit of the 3 motor limit rule?

I don't have my rules on me, but if memory serves solenoids are not permitted components. Doesn't that make these questions moot?

-Ditto for rotary solenoids (just google the term for some pictures). Can the average event supervisor visually tell the difference between a rotary solenoid and a motor?

If I understand correctly, a rotary solenoid would move along the axis of rotation while is it rotating. If this motion is necessary to the operation of the device, then it would be easy to detect. If it is not, then what difference does it make?

-the current clarification says "....photosensors (e.g. photoresistors, phototransistors)....", indicating we intended them to be used as sensors. Will the average event supervisor interpret that the same way you do in that they can be used in other roles?

I hope so. The rule specifies components, not their usage. One could legally use a motor as a counterweight, couldn't one?

-Should teams with the electrical know-how to wire up a photoresistor or phototransistor to be used like a normal resistor of transistor be allowed to have such an advantage to get around the 'normal' interpretation of the rules?

Yes.

-Absent seeing this thread, how does a new team or event supervisor know that 'relays have traditionally been considered switches'?

The same way I learned it the first time - I requested a clarification. I do think it would have been a good idea to throw them in to the rules specifically, just to alleviate confusion.

[Flavorflav]

Chalker, what's your view on this black box view? Should we still abide to it even though it is not specified in the rules?

It doesn't seem anybody can agree on what this 'black box' rule even is, thus why would you think you would be held to it? My unofficial opinion is that a lot of people are just using that term to refer to rule 3.g. (which you obviously do need to follow since it's printed in the rules).

To take olympiadaddict's example, would you score an incandescent light bulb as E->T->EMS, or simply as E -> EMS, assuming that the next action is initiated by the light from the bulb?

[A Person]

Chalker, what's your view on this black box view? Should we still abide to it even though it is not specified in the rules?

It doesn't seem anybody can agree on what this 'black box' rule even is, thus why would you think you would be held to it? My unofficial opinion is that a lot of people are just using that term to refer to rule 3.g. (which you obviously do need to follow since it's printed in the rules).

To take olympiadaddict's example, would you score an incandescent light bulb as E->T->EMS, or simply as E -> EMS, assuming that the next action is initiated by the light from the bulb?

This I would want to know. As of now I think I'll consider E->T->EMS to be true, because of how a lightbulb works. That is my personal opinion and the one that I will be using for now. I think someone mentioned that it wasn't true because they occurred at the same time to form one action. While it could be considered one action, I think the heating of the coil means a lot.

does anyone have an opinion on using like bionicle lego mindstorm like pieces?

You just listed two different versions of Lego. Bionicles have a lot of specially molded parts, while Mindstorms focuses on robotics. I think what you're looking for is the Technic series of Lego. For the bricks, I wouldn't suggest it as they tend to break apart quite easily. You could superglue it, I guess. For the Technic/Mindstorm/whatever, I've used it in all kinds of builds. Although I wouldn't suggest it all the time, they're definitely handy. Keep in mind that the Mindstorm robotics such as motors(they are servos, which contain ICs), sensors(contain ICs), or the Brain(definitely not allowed as of now) are not allowed for the reasons listed. But if you're just using the technic stuff(pins and holes stuff) just make sure you build sturdy and reinforce. Don't build flimsily, and when you attack it to your actual box or larger frame, don't be afraid to use screws. Better safe than sorry.

[chalker]

I don't have my rules on me, but if memory serves solenoids are not permitted components. Doesn't that make these questions moot?

-homemade solenoids are explicitly allowed in the printed rules, thus the questions of what exactly is a motor are relevant
-here's a pic of a random rotary solenoid: http://www.magnetschultz.co.uk/uploads/ ... noid-l.jpg
Sure looks an awful lot like a motor (and I'm sure someone could make a 'homemade' one that looks very similar). Does it fall into the 3 motor limitation? Would most event supervisors have the same opinion? Here's another quandry to consider (and I'm not necessarily looking for a response to): you mentioned a definition of a motor as a device that "converts electrical energy to rotational mechanical energy". But if you look closely at the rules it doesn't explicitly say anything about electrical motors. So what about pneumatic or hydraulic motors? Do they count against the limit?

-Should teams with the electrical know-how to wire up a photoresistor or phototransistor to be used like a normal resistor of transistor be allowed to have such an advantage to get around the 'normal' interpretation of the rules?

Yes.

General rule #1 says: "Teams may not interpret the rules so that they have an unfair advantage over the rules or another team." Seems to me a lot of event supervisors might point to that as a reason to not allow 'non-normal' uses of photoresistors / phototransistors.

I do think it would have been a good idea to throw them in to the rules specifically, just to alleviate confusion.

Hence the issue we are facing right now. You think it'd be good to mention relays in the rules. We've got a ton of FAQs asking us about a variety of other components and devices that people think we should mention in the rules to alleviate confusion. How should we prioritize which ones to mention and which ones not to?

As always, thanks for being engaged and providing input. This is exactly why I decided to ask these questions here and it's hopefully giving everyone a sneak peek at the types of things we discuss internally when dealing with these types of issues.

[chalker]

I think someone mentioned that it wasn't true because they occurred at the same time to form one action. While it could be considered one action, I think the heating of the coil means a lot.

I'm curious as to how you think turning on a lightbulb would NOT be considered just one action within the general context and spirit of the rules. Rule 4. is very clear about each action only contributing to one scoreable transfer. 3.e. also mentions that things like batteries, candles, etc. receive points based upon the way they cause the NEXT action.

Unofficially (as always on this website), I think 3.e. makes it clear that the spirit of the event is not to be looking at energy transfers within normal, off the shelf type objects. And a lightbulb is a natural item to fall into the 'etc' part of that rule.

[Cheese_Muffin_Man]

I think someone mentioned that it wasn't true because they occurred at the same time to form one action. While it could be considered one action, I think the heating of the coil means a lot.

I'm curious as to how you think turning on a lightbulb would NOT be considered just one action within the general context and spirit of the rules. Rule 4. is very clear about each action only contributing to one scoreable transfer. 3.e. also mentions that things like batteries, candles, etc. receive points based upon the way they cause the NEXT action.

Unofficially (as always on this website), I think 3.e. makes it clear that the spirit of the event is not to be looking at energy transfers within normal, off the shelf type objects. And a lightbulb is a natural item to fall into the 'etc' part of that rule.

So Chalker, if I understand you correctly, we could only count a lightbulb as EM?

[aahs_so]

3.e is not at all clear that it means all off the shelf items. If that's what it means then it would have been best to state that and the "blackbox rule" would live on.

Since 3.e is not clear, our regional event supervisors accepted our elec -> therm -> ems transfers for the bulb. Putting a potential across the light bulb technically only heats the filament. That is visible. The heated filament then emits photons. Thus we have two "actions": heating the filament and emitting photons.

To say the the student didn't build it would open the door to not allowing just about everything. No we didn't make our own wires, we didn't make our own string, we didn't make our own salt, "etc".

I haven't been at this as long as some, but I found this years rules to be very difficult to interpret. I think that is also evidenced by the fact that there are 22 pages and counting of discussion here.

Thanks for dropping by and adding to the discussion.

[olympiaddict]

The problem is, where do "off the shelf" items end?
Is a store-bought flashlight mechanical -> ems? I see one action occurring if a light bulb is only one action.