I live on the forums... I sleep in the gallery section next to the helicopters button on Wednesdaysjander14indoor wrote:Hoping that some folks are still following SciOly over the summer. I'd like to leverage the expertise/ideas that exists within the SciOly community.
We're adding an open ended scoring element to the event for next year (I hate technology events where perfect scores are possible!) to minimize need for tiebreakers. Since its still draft, I'm not going to get to specific since it might change, but...
Here's the concept. Pick up one of the objects and raise it as high as you can while executing the rest of the tasks. The higher you go, the more points. Scaled to be significant, but not to swamp the rest of the tasks. My concern is the students will surprise us (as they routinely do) and we'll be seeing heights in the multi story range at nationals.
I'm not concerned with measuring height accurately till you get above reasonable step ladder range. Then I need to start looking at indirect methods. Now I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm the one with the best ideas on how to measure, so...
Question, how would YOU measure the height accurately. In detail. Low to mid range. Really crazy high.
Alternatively, can I make the students responsible for displaying height reached? If so, how do I validate what they report?
In terms of the height element its an interesting proposal but I would be weary of it. It would cause issues with measurement (like those you have expressed) and would favor teams with more money. Before I resurface that old argument this one is a little more founded. Traditionally robotics is expensive. It just is. You can certainly get around it and make ~80 robots that work well, I know this. I've done it. But adding a height element you have a whole new issue. The torque in servos (fairly standard thing for robot arm) would need to be very high to lift the arm to such a height, ranging close to the ~50 a pop servos or more. Material costs for the metal between motors is minimal, unless you add height so to keep the servo cost down, you need to buy more specialty materials that are strong and light weight. This would also require you to use higher angle servos (180+) than the 90 most use. Yes, you can get it high with 90 degrees, but to be competitive you'd need to be basically straight up. And I'd hate to blow my $300 SO budget for all events on $50 servos eating up my funding basically crippling me for any other event
Not a fan of the idea but I'm interested with the concept. I agree with you that some people will make it ridiculously tall, so perhaps put a limit on the max height where scoring will count? (like was done with towers last year at 70 cm) Limit it to what a person can reach with a measuring tape on a small step ladder. measurement could be a problem since you're idea has measurement happening while the robot is actively moving up and down. Perhaps use a meter stick and have a supervisor actively look horizontal at the claw and place a hand where it meets the highest point in the motion, lather, rinse repeat for the remainder of the run?
Better idea. have the student have 1 chance to do it rather than over the course of the run. have the student tell the supervisor before they attempt their 'high' point so they can be ready to measure once with someone holding a meter stick on one side of the arm and the supervisor measuring by looking horizontal at the actuator to the meter stick during the -lets say 10 second period- time called for the 'high point task'. Or even when the student calls the highest point, stop the run for a moment to measure, then resume time.
Oohhh my favorite! Only allow the bonus to those who have time left!!! Instead of measuring during the run, measure AFTER. If the participant has time to spare at the end of the 2 minute run time, use the remainder to get the the highest point possible and measure before time is up. So only available bonus for those able to make an arm to complete the course early. Obviously if the team chooses to go for this bonus without completing the run, its an option but wouldnt be able to go back with spare time and move more things.
That one is my favorite. Easy to measure. Places emphasis on time that this year didnt. And allows teams to go for it even if they werent able to move everything. Perhaps make it a number of points depending on height and adds to the score?
I wouldnt have students self report, too bias and naturally people will lie. I can't say I've ever turned in a real flight log for helicopters at any point over the last 2 years that reflect the actual top scores it can achieve. People will naturally up their estimates if in question. So for 'crazy high' I'd say make a cap so that you don't have to get a 3 story latter.
Or do some math... stand 100 ft away from the claw, site it, get the angle, use geometry!
Actually after that last idea I might enjoy that bonus... mhm. Interesting.