Scioly.org

See rule 4.c

What are the limits on a "perfectly square" platform? (i.e. why wasn't the platform just defined as 5.0 cm to 10.0 cm on each side?)

Unome wrote:See rule 4.c

What are the limits on a "perfectly square" platform? (i.e. why wasn't the platform just defined as 5.0 cm to 10.0 cm on each side?)

I think it's because they don't want it to be 5x10 cm or 7x8 cm- perfectly square means it must be 5x5 or 10x10 or 7.3x7.3 or anything else in that range, but its length and width must be equal.

ET2020 wrote:

Unome wrote:See rule 4.c

What are the limits on a "perfectly square" platform? (i.e. why wasn't the platform just defined as 5.0 cm to 10.0 cm on each side?)

I think it's because they don't want it to be 5x10 cm or 7x8 cm- perfectly square means it must be 5x5 or 10x10 or 7.3x7.3 or anything else in that range, but its length and width must be equal.

The thing is, what would be the problem with a rectangular platform? Any team that doesn't have a perfectly square platform, to whatever degree of specificity the event supervisor uses, doesn't get any of the end task points.

Unome wrote:

ET2020 wrote:

Unome wrote:See rule 4.c

What are the limits on a "perfectly square" platform? (i.e. why wasn't the platform just defined as 5.0 cm to 10.0 cm on each side?)

I think it's because they don't want it to be 5x10 cm or 7x8 cm- perfectly square means it must be 5x5 or 10x10 or 7.3x7.3 or anything else in that range, but its length and width must be equal.

The thing is, what would be the problem with a rectangular platform? Any team that doesn't have a perfectly square platform, to whatever degree of specificity the event supervisor uses, doesn't get any of the end task points.

Hopefully this will be subject to a rules clarification. Just giving a simple +/- on each dimension would solve the problem. As it is though I doubt any reasonably ES is going to reject someone for having a slightly rectangular platform. As long as it's clear that you made an effort to make the platform into a square, it's hard to imagine anyone giving you trouble for it.

Wabbit wrote:

Unome wrote:

ET2020 wrote: I think it's because they don't want it to be 5x10 cm or 7x8 cm- perfectly square means it must be 5x5 or 10x10 or 7.3x7.3 or anything else in that range, but its length and width must be equal.

The thing is, what would be the problem with a rectangular platform? Any team that doesn't have a perfectly square platform, to whatever degree of specificity the event supervisor uses, doesn't get any of the end task points.

Hopefully this will be subject to a rules clarification. Just giving a simple +/- on each dimension would solve the problem. As it is though I doubt any reasonably ES is going to reject someone for having a slightly rectangular platform. As long as it's clear that you made an effort to make the platform into a square, it's hard to imagine anyone giving you trouble for it.

This is a stab in the dark - I don't have a definitive answer - but here goes:

There is an incentive for having a smaller device in general, so as a competitor if I could design a rectangular platform, I would likely design a long narrow rectangle. 9V batteries almost always fall along a particular axis, such that the long edge of their base ends up parallel to the ground. They are much more stable along the other axis. Thus, I could design a long narrow platform that is likely to catch the battery if it falls, while minimizing space.

However, my guess is they want to force a trade-off between a small (5cmx5cm) but risky platform that must therefore be much more stable, and being conservative but suffering a 10cmx10cm platform that takes up a lot of space.

I may be about to make the end task way easier for everyone, but I need to check that this is legal

Could you theoretically place a magnet on the underside of the platform beneath the battery to stabilize it? You could still pull the battery off the platform, so it should qualify as not being attached to anything.

TheSquaad wrote:I may be about to make the end task way easier for everyone, but I need to check that this is legal

Could you theoretically place a magnet on the underside of the platform beneath the battery to stabilize it? You could still pull the battery off the platform, so it should qualify as not being attached to anything.

I don't think so because of the "freestanding" part of the rules.

TheSquaad wrote:I may be about to make the end task way easier for everyone, but I need to check that this is legal

Could you theoretically place a magnet on the underside of the platform beneath the battery to stabilize it? You could still pull the battery off the platform, so it should qualify as not being attached to anything.

This is a difficult question. After reading over that section of the rules a few times, I can't find a clear answer. It is probably worth a FAQ.

LostInTheSauce wrote:

TheSquaad wrote:I may be about to make the end task way easier for everyone, but I need to check that this is legal

Could you theoretically place a magnet on the underside of the platform beneath the battery to stabilize it? You could still pull the battery off the platform, so it should qualify as not being attached to anything.

I don't think so because of the "freestanding" part of the rules.

Freestanding is defined as "not supported by another structure," and support is defined as "bear the weight of."
Since the magnet isn't bearing the battery's weight or even touching it directly, that's why I thought it should be legal.

Is there a flaw with that train of logic?

To address the end of section 4c which says that only the battery may be supported by the platform, I'd probably connect the magnet to the superstructure that is lifting the platform instead of, say, gluing a magnet to the bottom of the platform. Theoretically, this could make the magnet not even directly touch the platform.

TheSquaad wrote:

LostInTheSauce wrote:

TheSquaad wrote:I may be about to make the end task way easier for everyone, but I need to check that this is legal

Could you theoretically place a magnet on the underside of the platform beneath the battery to stabilize it? You could still pull the battery off the platform, so it should qualify as not being attached to anything.

I don't think so because of the "freestanding" part of the rules.

Freestanding is defined as "not supported by another structure," and support is defined as "bear the weight of."
Since the magnet isn't bearing the battery's weight or even touching it directly, that's why I thought it should be legal.

Is there a flaw with that train of logic?

To address the end of section 4c which says that only the battery may be supported by the platform, I'd probably connect the magnet to the superstructure that is lifting the platform instead of, say, gluing a magnet to the bottom of the platform. Theoretically, this could make the magnet not even directly touch the platform.

My primary concern is not with "freestanding" but with "not attached." It hinges on whether you deem the magnetic force to qualify as attachment. You can make a strong case either way - an FAQ will be needed.