The rules state that, "A single action or component may contribute to only one scroeable Transfer." According to this rule I believe you are correct in saying that the component can be counted for points the first time you use it only. If the component is reused, it cannot count towards another scoreable Transfer.SWAnG wrote:1. if we utilize a component multiple times, can it be counted for points the first time we use it? Or will it never be able to count towards a transfer.
Designs
Re: Designs
-
- Member
- Posts: 29
- Joined: November 6th, 2011, 4:09 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: CA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Designs
In regards to the question of whether or not we can use multiple matches and count them for multiple transfers (the idea of repeating transfers in general), I think the answer was provided very clearly by someone earlier in the thread. Some claim that this could be considered the same "action" being counted for multiple transfers, but the rules this year do in fact provide an unambiguous definition of an action: the ASL. The ASL is the action sequence list, quite literally a list of the sequence of actions. Therefore, if you use two matches in different parts of your device, they would be in separate places on the Action Sequence List. Based on the very fact that the two matches are separate on the ASL, they must be considered separate actions. The ASL is a record of all scored and nonscored actions, and therefore every distinct entry on the ASL must be considered a distinct action.
The one action-one transfer rule, as the Chalker pointed out, was written to prevent a single action, such a match lighting, from being counted as multiple successive almost instantaneous transfers.
I would like to see this confirmed in an FAQ, but I think to disallow repeated transfers would be to blatantly violate the rules.
The one action-one transfer rule, as the Chalker pointed out, was written to prevent a single action, such a match lighting, from being counted as multiple successive almost instantaneous transfers.
I would like to see this confirmed in an FAQ, but I think to disallow repeated transfers would be to blatantly violate the rules.
#AllSevenYears
-
- Member
- Posts: 175
- Joined: August 11th, 2012, 5:17 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Designs
I agree with what gorf250 said, and would definitely agree that an FAQ is necessary. I don't see the justification for an interpretation of that rule that disallows multiple matches counting each time - it seems much more consistent with the rest of the rules to interpret that as preventing claiming many transfers in one pre-bought component, e.g. the match, light bulb, etc. Has anyone submitted any FAQ's about this?
Furthermore I think that the interpretation I support is much more consistent with the interpretation that seems to be used in these FAQ's:
http://soinc.org/node/1525
http://soinc.org/node/1504
In addition, it becomes a massive grey area to determine what things are the "same component" under the alternative interpretation - identical items? different brands of matches? burning things in general? or for another example, a regular electromagnet vs. a spring-return solenoid? The only clear and logically consistent ways I see to delineate what is the "same component" would be
1) Completely identical, e.g. sold as the same exact item, in a pack, etc., which would be silly because competitors could just buy slightly different items, different brands, etc., making this rule pointless
2) Uses the same scientific principles / type of energy / process / reaction / etc., e.g burning kindling and burning paper are the same, an electromagnet and a spring-return solenoid are the same, etc. etc., which seems to be an enormous stretch and in violation of this FAQ: http://soinc.org/node/1499
Given this potential for a really silly way to get around this rule (buying different brands etc.), and the potential for serious confusion, I can't see how this could be the meaning of that rule.
Furthermore I think that the interpretation I support is much more consistent with the interpretation that seems to be used in these FAQ's:
http://soinc.org/node/1525
http://soinc.org/node/1504
In addition, it becomes a massive grey area to determine what things are the "same component" under the alternative interpretation - identical items? different brands of matches? burning things in general? or for another example, a regular electromagnet vs. a spring-return solenoid? The only clear and logically consistent ways I see to delineate what is the "same component" would be
1) Completely identical, e.g. sold as the same exact item, in a pack, etc., which would be silly because competitors could just buy slightly different items, different brands, etc., making this rule pointless
2) Uses the same scientific principles / type of energy / process / reaction / etc., e.g burning kindling and burning paper are the same, an electromagnet and a spring-return solenoid are the same, etc. etc., which seems to be an enormous stretch and in violation of this FAQ: http://soinc.org/node/1499
Given this potential for a really silly way to get around this rule (buying different brands etc.), and the potential for serious confusion, I can't see how this could be the meaning of that rule.
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
- Division: B
- State: KY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Designs
skyman wrote:Do you think a Piezo buzzer would be acceptable for a buzzer that does not consist of an integrated circuit? The only three electronic components are a resistor, transistor and an inductor.
Should be ok in my view. Integrated circuits are not allowed; the buzzer with the components you list do not make up an integrated circuit.
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
- Division: B
- State: KY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Designs
sjwon3789 wrote:So how do you find the milk jugs? Aren't they all huge??
My friend said we can just cut a water bottle and that'll be considered as a jug?
Because after the clarification, it does say "beverage."
Half gallon jugs cut down to 10-11 cm are not very large and can be found in most grocery stores. Beverages sold in these containers include milk, juice, tea, water, etc. We have not been able to find a smaller "jug" with a handle per the FAQ. Quart jugs (and most soda bottles) have a molded section of plastic at the neck of the jug used to grasp the container, but I don't know if that would be considered a "handle."
- SWAnG
- Member
- Posts: 80
- Joined: January 18th, 2014, 11:22 pm
- Division: C
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Designs
I noticed that in the recently released Action Sequence List (http://soinc.org/sites/default/files/up ... 015ASL.pdf), it doesn't mention anything about reused components. Earlier, I think a consensus was made on the forums that a reused component could be given points the first time? If they are not considered part of the ETS, is there a way we should indicate this or should we just assume the judges will account for it themselves?
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
- Division: B
- State: KY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Designs
SWAnG wrote:I noticed that in the recently released Action Sequence List (http://soinc.org/sites/default/files/up ... 015ASL.pdf), it doesn't mention anything about reused components. Earlier, I think a consensus was made on the forums that a reused component could be given points the first time? If they are not considered part of the ETS, is there a way we should indicate this or should we just assume the judges will account for it themselves?
It seems it would need to be listed as a non-scorable step after the first use. All actions are to be documented in the list, but only those that are scored are numbered.
Last edited by goodcheer on January 19th, 2015, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- SWAnG
- Member
- Posts: 80
- Joined: January 18th, 2014, 11:22 pm
- Division: C
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Designs
I think in their example they only label the end of each ets and when the ball drops in. The motor lifting the golf balls may be a reused component but in their footnotes they make it seem like it contributes again to the next ets.
-
- Member
- Posts: 175
- Joined: August 11th, 2012, 5:17 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Designs
I agree with SWAnG, I think the footnotes make it clear that it counts both times by listing the two switch-levers as part of both ETS's.
What I don't understand is this FAQ:
http://soinc.org/node/1525
Can anyone help me figure out how a component could be used to life a golf ball several times but not used in the transfers again? Would it be when you have M-M steps etc. separating it from the transfers?
What I don't understand is this FAQ:
http://soinc.org/node/1525
Can anyone help me figure out how a component could be used to life a golf ball several times but not used in the transfers again? Would it be when you have M-M steps etc. separating it from the transfers?
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
- Division: B
- State: KY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Designs
SWAnG wrote:I think in their example they only label the end of each ets and when the ball drops in. The motor lifting the golf balls may be a reused component but in their footnotes they make it seem like it contributes again to the next ets.
The motors lifting the golf balls in the sample ASL are not necessarily re-used components. They could be different motors since both have to be started according to the list of actions.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests