"Separate" containers

[SPP SciO]

Rule 4.f.i regarding the final task: ". After all other planned scorable actions have been attempted, the Device must separate the
original mixture into three separate (marked by material) containers that are different from the original container where the mixture was dropped."

Is there a specific definition of separate? For example, if you have a container with 3 distinct chambers, can that count as separate containers, even if it's possible that material can pass from one to another? The rules then go on to define container: "Container : Receptacle (such as a box or jar) for holding goods or items. A container needs sides to hold and protect its contents. The specific design and material of the sides and base can vary greatly depending on the container’s purpose. The base does not need to be flat or solid. The base cannot be the Mission Device base." If you have a box that's subdivided with a mesh floor, can each room in the box count as a different container?

[Northridge]

This obviously isn't official.

If I were judging a machine, so long as there were 3 obvious separate chambers that were separated by their own walls I would have no problem with this as there are clear landing zones for each item. Having said that, I would advise having a separate container for each item. Even if it is maybe 3 small boxes in one large box, I would have separate containers. The worse thing you can do is make a build event judge think. That is doubly true of Mission Possible. I have seen good judges talk themselves out of things before because the machine was weird or odd.

Plus my experience has been that Mission is such an odd event where the judges have to be so specialized that rarely do coaches win arbitrations against Mission. So make your kids lives easier and just have separate containers.

[JMDugan]

You should watch the help session on mission possible. i think they said this would not qualify

[gmatyja]

Does "separate" also imply that the containers should not be attached to the final action mechanism or the device itself, and therefore meaning that each container is easily removable for the ES to count the items contained in each?

[SPP SciO]

I wouldn't interpret separate to mean they need to be removable, but the ES will need to count and verify. Practically speaking too, students will need to easily be able to remove the items between test runs etc.

I'm wondering about nested containers - 6j gives 50 points to containers holding all 10 items but none of the other items - What if you had a small container holding marbles that's within the volume of a larger container which holds golf tees? I think it comes down to the interpretation of the word "hold" - I would give credit to a design like that, if the items were actually only touching the container that's holding them.

[gmatyja]

I'm just curious what you believe what the rules committee meant by 'separate' when referring to 'separate containers' and not just 'containers'. The video at the beginning of the season indicated that you can't use a container with compartments. So, if that's true, participants shoudn't be able to create a single container with multiple compartments.

On the 'hold' question, I think the rules would use the common dictionary definition of 'hold' that relates to containers, such as in this example: This bucket is able to hold 1 liter of water.

If we use this common definition and your nested example, the larger container will be holding the smaller container, 10 tees and 10 marbles.

Rule [4.f.iii. line 3] does reinforce this view, as it does use the word "contain" instead of "hold" for the bonus.

[SPP SciO]

I'll have to go watch the video - I saw one from soinc.org that was early in the season and there seemed to be confusion about water being allowed, which has since been explicitly allowed via clarification. As far as I'm concerned, only the rules manual and the official soinc.org clarifications are the official sources.

Here's what I mean by what I'd consider separate - imagine a graduated cylinder standing in a wide beaker. If you had oil in the graduated cylinder and water in the beaker, those two substances would remain completely separate, each within their own container. The graduated cylinder is physically holding the oil while the beaker is physically holding the water. However - the beaker would indeed "contain" some portion of the oil within its volume. But, the beaker is not necessary for containing the water and the graduated cylinder is not necessary for containing the oil - thus, I'd give it a thumbs up for scoring purposes.

[gmatyja]

In this scenario you give, I would consider the containers physically, but not functionally, separate. Physically, the oil, water and graduated cylinder are contained the beaker. Functionally, the beaker contains water and the graduated cylinder contains oil.

[SPP SciO]

Right - so how should points be awarded? I got this as a response when I submitted a clarification question : "We will not make a determination
if something is scoreable or is legal according to the rules. Interpretations will be left up to the local Event Supervisor. "

So if I am the local Event Supervisor, my interpretation is clearly the more lenient one. It's middle school science - we separate mixtures with methods that exploit their physical properties. So, if students manage to get the paperclips, marbles, and golf tees sorted and concentrated - the spirit of the challenge has been met!

But what happens if the State supervisor holds the "contained by volume" interpretation (which I think is pedantic)? If an ES at an early invitational gives a green light to something that seems completely legitimate, it could really do a team a disservice down the line.

[YoGabbaGabby]

For the definition of container:
The ES at my first invitational said it must have 4 walls(since it specifies the base can be removed, it implies there must be the other four walls) or could also be a cup with curved walls.

(These are not my personal beliefs.)
Its a little worrying to me that a different ES could interpret this in very different ways, even if I keep it safe and go with what the above ES said, there might still be a risk since the rules are quite vague.