Page 1 of 1
Action Transfers
Posted: October 12th, 2014, 5:44 pm
by blakinator8
General Discussion about the theory, construction, and (unofficial) interpretation of Action Transfers, and Energy Transfer Sequences.
As a starting topic, I'd like to talk about electromechanical relays.
A relay, under most circumstances, takes in an electric current, which powers an electromagnet, causing a mechanical arm to move, which then completes another circuit. In terms of an ATL, it would look like E > M > E. This means that a relay completes two transfers. The rules state that "A single Action or component must contribute to only one scoreable Transfer" (Section 4). Because of this rule, a relay, which completes two transfers, might be ruled as illegal because it is traditionally thought of as one component- a single, self-contained box soldered into a circuit board. However, when the dust cover is taken off, a much more complicated story is revealed:
There are clearly two separately moving parts inside: The electromagnetic coil circuit, and the bar which is hovering above this circuit, waiting to connect the switch. These parts do not have to ever touch each other. These parts can also be used separately from each other. It is analogous to turning on an electric motor that then completes a circuit, which is certainly legal under the current rules. I think that the line between what is a single component and what's not comes down to whether the transfer is visible, per rule 3e. In the case of a relay, I think that the competitor should be able to visually demonstrate to the ES how the two parts of the component work.
Thoughts?
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: October 17th, 2014, 12:22 pm
by Uncle Fester
MASSIVE EDIT 10/21/14
Well, that was dumb. Never comment without a copy of the rules, current rules, in your hand.
Looking over the rules right now, now that last-minute rules changes are done and everything's gone to print. There's no emag spectrum this year, just "visible light", so the whole relay thing is moot.
Reminds me of some years ago when someone posted a severely cut-&-pasted version of mission, and left in a small scrap of an abandoned scheme with three balls named Moe, Larry and Curley. Got questions about it all season. At least we knew who paid for rules and who didn't.
JimR might remember that one.
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: October 21st, 2014, 7:37 pm
by scramblingman
If you have a pre-lit light that is covered by a plate, and then move that plate using a motor and let the light trigger a photoresistor circuit, would that count as E - M - VL - M, even though the mechanical movement isn't actually transferring its energy to the light?
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: November 12th, 2014, 2:20 pm
by MtnDewFreak1020
Uncle Fester wrote:MASSIVE EDIT 10/21/14
Well, that was dumb. Never comment without a copy of the rules, current rules, in your hand.
Looking over the rules right now, now that last-minute rules changes are done and everything's gone to print. There's no emag spectrum this year, just "visible light", so the whole relay thing is moot.
Reminds me of some years ago when someone posted a severely cut-&-pasted version of mission, and left in a small scrap of an abandoned scheme with three balls named Moe, Larry and Curley. Got questions about it all season. At least we knew who paid for rules and who didn't.
JimR might remember that one.
Actually, I believe based on my understanding of the 2014-2015 Science Olympiad Mission Possible Division C rules the man proves a point and the actions of a relay would be a scorable enerygy transfer. I believe the man is not refering to the electromagnet being of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum refers to the relationship of electectrical waves and magnetic waves in the form of light, visible and non. In this case electricity is powerering an electro magent (electrical). The electromagnet moves a lever (mechanical) and the lever completes a circuit (electrical). Thus, i believe the energy sequence is electrical to mechanical to electrical, or e>m>e. Although the inner workings of the relay must be visible to count as a energy transfer, i do not see how this transfer violates the rules and does not meet the requirements to count as an energy sequence. The only "ify" part of this design i feel is that maybe the relay should be handbuilt which isn't too difficult in my opinion compared to the possible complexity of other ETS's.
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: December 19th, 2014, 11:05 am
by goodcheer
blakinator8 wrote:General Discussion about the theory, construction, and (unofficial) interpretation of Action Transfers, and Energy Transfer Sequences.
As a starting topic, I'd like to talk about electromechanical relays.
A relay, under most circumstances, takes in an electric current, which powers an electromagnet, causing a mechanical arm to move, which then completes another circuit. In terms of an ATL, it would look like E > M > E. This means that a relay completes two transfers. The rules state that "A single Action or component must contribute to only one scoreable Transfer" (Section 4). Because of this rule, a relay, which completes two transfers, might be ruled as illegal because it is traditionally thought of as one component- a single, self-contained box soldered into a circuit board. However, when the dust cover is taken off, a much more complicated story is revealed: image above.
There are clearly two separately moving parts inside: The electromagnetic coil circuit, and the bar which is hovering above this circuit, waiting to connect the switch. These parts do not have to ever touch each other. These parts can also be used separately from each other. It is analogous to turning on an electric motor that then completes a circuit, which is certainly legal under the current rules. I think that the line between what is a single component and what's not comes down to whether the transfer is visible, per rule 3e. In the case of a relay, I think that the competitor should be able to visually demonstrate to the ES how the two parts of the component work.
Thoughts?
Yes, I agree. The rule you quote in section 4, line 4 shouldn't make a difference in my opinion. If you considered a manufactured relay, you would probably not use it as one action or component because a simple switch would accomplish the same end result (electrical transfer). But if you build one and break it down into its steps the way you do, it would accomplish a sequence of energy transfers (ETS), that is, E to M to E. Also, to start the electric current to the relay, you would probably use a mechanical switch, so the ETS could be: MEME (what my grandson calls my wife).
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: December 19th, 2014, 11:32 am
by goodcheer
scramblingman wrote:If you have a pre-lit light that is covered by a plate, and then move that plate using a motor and let the light trigger a photoresistor circuit, would that count as E - M - VL - M, even though the mechanical movement isn't actually transferring its energy to the light?
You could probably get something to work like that. Rule 3L says energy devices may be activated prior to the start (including candles). However, it would be just as easy to create a mechanical switch for the light so that the ETS would be: M, E, VL, E. Note it seems the step after the visible light involving the photoresistor would be electrical. Not sure exactly how these work, but it would lead to an electrical step.
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: January 15th, 2015, 7:36 pm
by Flavorflav
I wouldn't score the relay as a transfer at all. It's a black box with electricity going in and electricity coming out.
Re: Action Transfers
Posted: January 19th, 2015, 8:17 am
by goodcheer
Flavorflav wrote:I wouldn't score the relay as a transfer at all. It's a black box with electricity going in and electricity coming out.
If someone made their own relay switch in such a way that each step was visible, it should count as a transfer. I can see someone making an electromagnet that moves a mechanical lever that trips an electrical switch (E-M-E). I believe it was the intent of the first post to show this as a possible ETS. It would need to be brought out of the black box and made obvious by the way it is constructed.