Robot Arm C

Locked
User avatar
mrsteven
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 815
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 5:40 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by mrsteven »

well I think horizontally is actually a bit easier to have done, but that requires a massive amount of torque to have done, meaning uber pricy seros/motors...

Im still a fan of the 'at the end of the run, get the arm as high as possible and use that as the height bonus'
- simple to measure since its the end and thus no more moving around
- Still makes the challenge of height (with a specific mention in the rules that the arm used to move the objects is the height measured, not some pole someone attached just for the bonus or other oddity)
- Allows the time aspect to be put in, like this year it was not
2011 Helicopters State Runner-up
2012 Helicopters State Champion
2013 Robot Arm State Champion
User avatar
harryk
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 268
Joined: March 17th, 2010, 12:28 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by harryk »

mrsteven wrote:well I think horizontally is actually a bit easier to have done, but that requires a massive amount of torque to have done, meaning uber pricy seros/motors...
Maybe you missed my last statement
harryk wrote:Though, I hope everyone realizes that in these scenarios, most people will probably have a separate mechanism(as I am imaging) from the arm itself.
Theres no need to have servos or motors at all, though making a very tall tower is much easier than a very long horozontal stick
Colorado School of Mines
"Yes, he likes that; Alfie! Though personally he prefers to be called Stormaggedon, Dark Lord of All" - The Doctor, Closing Time
User avatar
illusionist
Member
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by illusionist »

Thinking of both the issue with "attached to the robot" this year, and the balloon bonus in Mission Possible a couple years ago, I can imagine a team constructing some sort of launching mechanism that would shoot a part of the robot holding the object straight up, but still be attached by string (kind of like a rocket). Sure there could be ways to go around this, but I think something like this will be the result. Of course, I could be totally wrong and Mr. Anderson might have already thought of this.

One way to get around such an issue is to require that the object be held above 'x' centimeters for a certain period of time in order to be eligible for the bonus.
User avatar
blazer
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: August 5th, 2010, 10:20 pm
Division: C
State: MO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by blazer »

This bonus also reminded me of the Mission Bonus. That balloon bonus was so large the national medaling teams did not even have to worry about completing all the tasks in order to secure a medal. To the maximum distance others have suggested: this addition is impossible because it defeats the entire purpose of the bonus - to make perfect scores impossible. I am of the opinion that the bonus should be something that only the very good teams even need to worry about, like the tiebreakers last season; the tiebreakers that only decided the ranking at very competitive state tournaments like Ohio and Michigan and nationals.
Regionals: 1st Robot Arm, 1st Thermodynamics, 1st Experimental Design, 1st Chem Lab, 2nd Forestry, 4th Gravity Vehicle, 5th Optics
State: 1st Robot Arm, 1st Gravity Vehicle, 1st Optics, 1st Chem Lab, 2nd Experimental Design, 3rd Thermodynamics, 6th Forestry
Nationals: Tie for 1st Robot Arm
User avatar
mrsteven
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 815
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 5:40 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by mrsteven »

I agree, something really difficult that isn't going to even be attempted by the vast majority of the teams, like with the chinook thing in helicopters.
It really helped those who were able to make it, but wasnt attempted by most people, and in some states no one had a successful one.

Really make people crank out something new and original that requires a good deal of time to figure out
2011 Helicopters State Runner-up
2012 Helicopters State Champion
2013 Robot Arm State Champion
chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2107
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by chalker »

Just to clarify on the 'self measure' idea, the thought is to perhaps require the teams to incorporate a tape measure or something into the lifting process, so that the event supervisor can easily read off the resulting distance without worrying about how to get a meter stick or whatever aligned properly.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair
jander14indoor
Member
Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: April 30th, 2007, 7:54 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by jander14indoor »

illusionist wrote:Thinking of both the issue with "attached to the robot" this year, and the balloon bonus in Mission Possible a couple years ago, I can imagine a team constructing some sort of launching mechanism that would shoot a part of the robot holding the object straight up, but still be attached by string (kind of like a rocket). Sure there could be ways to go around this, but I think something like this will be the result. Of course, I could be totally wrong and Mr. Anderson might have already thought of this.

One way to get around such an issue is to require that the object be held above 'x' centimeters for a certain period of time in order to be eligible for the bonus.
I'd thought of part of that and others not. Height will be measured to height reached at end, after timing ends and must be 'stable'/stationary, so no launching rockets.

HADN'T thought of balloon on string, but easy enough to eliminate as that would be TOO easy.

Hm, must be last action of arm and part of arm. Interesting. I think we'll still be surprised how high that might go, but it would limit it because it wouldn't start action till everything else done.

As far as making bonus too large, we've thought of that, because I agree we still want to motivate the students to do the rest of the tasks. Target is a goal 10 to 50% of the rest.

Comment on the self measure idea. I like it, but I'm not sure how to validate the student's measure. That's where I need help.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI
twototwenty
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 292
Joined: March 24th, 2011, 10:28 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by twototwenty »

Am I right in saying that the point of self-measurement is to ensure that arms are not too tall to be measured? Because if it is, might it be easier and less complicated to, as I said before, limit the size the robot has to start at? That way, it would be pretty easy for the event supervisor to measure the height of the arm, if the arm had to be able to fit in a small box, besause it wouldn't be possible for the arm to go too high. Also, this would mean teams couldn't just have a long pole of some sort that they attach the object to and simply raise up with their arm.
chalker7
Member
Member
Posts: 612
Joined: September 27th, 2010, 5:31 pm
Division: Grad
State: HI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by chalker7 »

twototwenty wrote:Am I right in saying that the point of self-measurement is to ensure that arms are not too tall to be measured? Because if it is, might it be easier and less complicated to, as I said before, limit the size the robot has to start at? That way, it would be pretty easy for the event supervisor to measure the height of the arm, if the arm had to be able to fit in a small box, besause it wouldn't be possible for the arm to go too high. Also, this would mean teams couldn't just have a long pole of some sort that they attach the object to and simply raise up with their arm.
Not necessarily, it would serve the same purpose as the self-measurement rule in Mission Possible. Sure, it would be a limiting factor, but its main goal would be to make the job of the supervisor easier.

Even with limiting the size of the imaginary box around the robot (which was the first thing we thought of when we came up with this as an option) I can think of at least one way to get the object essentially infinitely high (or at least, high enough that measurement would be impossible/definitely limited by the ceiling of the room) that hasn't been mentioned yet, so that would be something that would have to be dealt with in the rules.
National event supervisor - Wright Stuff, Helicopters
Hawaii State Director
User avatar
illusionist
Member
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Robot Arm C

Post by illusionist »

chalker7 wrote:
twototwenty wrote:Am I right in saying that the point of self-measurement is to ensure that arms are not too tall to be measured? Because if it is, might it be easier and less complicated to, as I said before, limit the size the robot has to start at? That way, it would be pretty easy for the event supervisor to measure the height of the arm, if the arm had to be able to fit in a small box, besause it wouldn't be possible for the arm to go too high. Also, this would mean teams couldn't just have a long pole of some sort that they attach the object to and simply raise up with their arm.
Not necessarily, it would serve the same purpose as the self-measurement rule in Mission Possible. Sure, it would be a limiting factor, but its main goal would be to make the job of the supervisor easier.

Even with limiting the size of the imaginary box around the robot (which was the first thing we thought of when we came up with this as an option) I can think of at least one way to get the object essentially infinitely high (or at least, high enough that measurement would be impossible/definitely limited by the ceiling of the room) that hasn't been mentioned yet, so that would be something that would have to be dealt with in the rules.
Yup, I too have a very simple method that would easily fit within 30 x 30 x 30, yet reach at least 9 feet.

I don't see Mr. Anderson's issue with self-measuring. Is it that you don't trust the students to provide an accurate measurement? I'd think that it would be difficult to alter a tape measure. You can always ensure that it starts at the bottom and goes up to the height of the object. This makes the event supervisor's job a lot easier, and based on what I have in mind, it wouldn't make it too complicated for the student to build either.
I'm not sure I understand why you would need to validate it. I think that at least at regional tournaments, and maybe even states, you can do a visual inspection of the student's measuring device to make sure that the numbers are consecutive. Btw, if something like this is implemented, can you allow the measurement to be made in inches? Centimeters would be more accurate, however I've personally found it difficult to find a tape measure that measures in centimeters.
Locked

Return to “2012 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest