Search found 175 matches
- March 30th, 2015, 2:25 pm
- Forum: 2015 Lab Events
- Topic: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C
- Replies: 268
- Views: 77749
Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C
What kind of accuracies and times are people getting in the build portion? We've been taking about a minute for ~3% error. Hard to tell how competitive that is though since the test factors in too.
- March 6th, 2015, 4:37 pm
- Forum: 2015 Build Events
- Topic: It's About Time C
- Replies: 101
- Views: 43092
Re: It's About Time C
What kind of scores are people seeing on the build portion of the event? Trying to gauge what the best balance between precision and long-term accuracy would be, as well as how well my clock is doing...
- January 19th, 2015, 2:24 pm
- Forum: Mission Possible C
- Topic: Designs
- Replies: 230
- Views: 63534
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 ...
- January 12th, 2015, 4:39 pm
- Forum: Mission Possible C
- Topic: Designs
- Replies: 230
- Views: 63534
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...
- October 5th, 2014, 5:43 am
- Forum: Mission Possible C
- Topic: Designs
- Replies: 230
- Views: 63534
Re: Designs
The device will only score points for six energy transfer sequences , such as M-E-T-M. As I understand the rules, this means that a series of energy transfers should connect each golf ball task, and it doesn't matter how many transfers there are in each ETS, just that it's a unique sequence. As such...
- October 2nd, 2014, 3:44 am
- Forum: 2015 Build Events
- Topic: Scrambler C
- Replies: 271
- Views: 72812
Re: Scrambler C
That's exactly why, magicalforest. When you use a falling mass launcher, this heavy mass falls and hits the ground, and any kinetic energy it had left is converted into sound/shock waves in the ground/air/etc. and since the mass is heavy, this is not negligible. With a spring launcher, the differenc...
- September 19th, 2014, 9:22 am
- Forum: 2015 Build Events
- Topic: Robo-Cross B
- Replies: 181
- Views: 53602
Re: Robo-Cross B
Without igniting another of the debates about costs of robotics events - in my experience (with Robot Arm) if you plan ahead, you can build robots that are extremely successful, for far less than buying a Vex kit. I don't disagree with Mr. Anderson that it is possible to do it for $100, and I would ...
- July 1st, 2014, 6:51 am
- Forum: 2014 Build Events
- Topic: Air Trajectory B/C [National Trial]
- Replies: 11
- Views: 11117
Re: Air Trajectory B/C [National Trial]
I think the intention was for that to be read as "air pressure or [air] movement".
However that should probably be cleared up for next year.
However that should probably be cleared up for next year.
- June 7th, 2014, 9:52 pm
- Forum: 2014 Build Events
- Topic: Mission Possible C
- Replies: 554
- Views: 115283
Re: Mission Possible C
I definitely agree that the transfers allow for much more unique thinking, and that's why I loved them. the tasks were just much clearer in terms of rules. Again, I'm not sure how to clarify the energy rules better, but if there is a way, making things much less ambiguous while keeping the transfers...
- June 5th, 2014, 11:14 am
- Forum: 2014 Build Events
- Topic: Mission Possible C
- Replies: 554
- Views: 115283
Re: Mission Possible C
Personally, although I really liked the energy transfer concept in theory, it was very unclear and as I'm sure everyone remembers caused a lot of rules problems in practice. It would still be a very cool premise next year, but if it is kept I really hope something is done to clear things up for next...