MagLev C

Locked
nadroj
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: October 4th, 2011, 10:09 am
Division: C
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by nadroj » December 24th, 2012, 6:19 am

In the rules it mentions that the magnets on the car need to be changeable in order for the car to move in whatever direction the event is being run on competition date. This is assuming the standard track has one strip North and one strip South. This year the competitor can supply his own track. Would it be within the rules to have say both strips on the track being North, and the car also only North magnets. This would mean that the magnets do not need changing to reverse direction. So is it within the rules to have only one kind of pole on both track and car?

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: MagLev C

Post by Balsa Man » December 24th, 2012, 7:41 am

Well, with the standard caveat, "nothing here is official, only formal rules clarifications/FAQs...", I'd argue the arrangement you're talking about is fine. There is certainly nothing in the rules prohibiting it. There is nothing in the rules speaking to any polarity layout requirements for the track. Nothing even close to any 'spirit of the rules' issues. It facilitates/responds to the requirement the vehicle be able to run both directions. Frankly, it's the obvious way to go...
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

iwonder
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1115
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by iwonder » December 24th, 2012, 12:12 pm

We ran into this problem at our last invite, our track has both strips with the same polarity facing up, the A team vehicle has changeable magnets by design, but the B team vehicle had magnets superglued on, the proctor was fine with A(obviously) but took off a percentage of the score from the B team because the magnets weren't able to be changed, even though the vehicle could go either way on the track. I'd suggest submitting a clarification on this.

Also, does anyone know why the commercial tracks have one north and one south strip in the first place?
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown

Jdogg
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: May 19th, 2011, 6:00 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Harriton > PSU
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by Jdogg » December 24th, 2012, 4:46 pm

iwonder wrote:We ran into this problem at our last invite, our track has both strips with the same polarity facing up, the A team vehicle has changeable magnets by design, but the B team vehicle had magnets superglued on, the proctor was fine with A(obviously) but took off a percentage of the score from the B team because the magnets weren't able to be changed, even though the vehicle could go either way on the track. I'd suggest submitting a clarification on this.

Also, does anyone know why the commercial tracks have one north and one south strip in the first place?
well looking at the rules and understanding that my opinion is not official blah blah blah.

3.k. Any magnets, except rare earth magnets, may be used on the vehicle, but competitors must be able to modify the placement of the magnets so that the vehicle can travel in either direction on the track.

After rereading this line several times, if you don't need to modify the placements of the magnets and your vehicle can travel either direction, then you don't need to worry about this rule. I mean i think the best way to explain this and correct me if i'm wrong, is that if it's snowing then it must be cold. While the opposite if it's cold it must be snowing doesn't hold true. So if your vehicle is able to travel each way, then you shouldn't need to modify the placement of the magnets. Well this is just my opinion..
Harriton Class of 2013
Vice-Deputy of Avionics and Control for Lunar Lion
Assistant Coach of State College High School

gorf250
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 4:09 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by gorf250 » December 26th, 2012, 7:15 pm

iwonder wrote: Also, does anyone know why the commercial tracks have one north and one south strip in the first place?
i'm wondering the same thing. would the two magnetic fields possibly interfere with each other otherwise? I can't see any other advantage.
#AllSevenYears

joeyjoejoe
Member
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: December 27th, 2012, 12:56 pm
Division: C
State: GA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by joeyjoejoe » December 27th, 2012, 1:10 pm

nadroj wrote:In the rules it mentions that the magnets on the car need to be changeable in order for the car to move in whatever direction the event is being run on competition date. This is assuming the standard track has one strip North and one strip South. This year the competitor can supply his own track. Would it be within the rules to have say both strips on the track being North, and the car also only North magnets. This would mean that the magnets do not need changing to reverse direction. So is it within the rules to have only one kind of pole on both track and car?
I just submitted this question in the rules clarification section of SOINC.ORG. I'll let you know what their response is as soon as I receive it. This is the way we configured our track from the get-go and it never even crossed our minds that there could be a points deduction. You've got me scared now.

...and as long as we're talking about rules clarification. Allinea made the following post:
My mentor and I were debating adding groves to the sides and then doing something with that, e.t.c. The rules say inadvertent contact is permitted in terms of the vehicle levitating, which would imply intentional contact with the sides is illegal. Then again, I don't see anything about adding things to the sides of the tracks such as grease. I see a rules clarification occurring for this.
Rule 3.l states: The vehicle must be levitated as it moves down the track (inadvertent contact is permitted). Competitors must demonstrate that their vehicle levitates by pushing the vehicle slightly down.

IMO, the "inadvertent contact" mentioned clearly refers to contact with the magnets (i.e. the bottom of the track) and not the sides. In our case, our car is designed to touch one side of the track for it's entire travel. What is y'all's take on this??

iwonder
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1115
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by iwonder » December 27th, 2012, 2:30 pm

Again, none of this is official, but I'd say that your vehicle violated the rules. The rules states that the vehicle must be levitated as it travels down the track, however inadvertent contact is permitted, since the track as a whole was referenced earlier in the sentence, I believe it implies that inadvertent contact with the track(as a whole) is permitted. Therefore, intentional contact(with any part of the track) is not permitted. Since the side walls are obviously part of the track, intentional contact with the side walls would not be permitted.

Adding things to the side of the track however, probably falls under general rule #2(back of the rule book), and would be allowed. This would obviously aid in the event of unintentional contact to not slow the vehicle as much, but it wouldn't serve to show the contact as intentional(and thus a violation of the rules).
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown

Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: MagLev C

Post by Balsa Man » December 27th, 2012, 3:18 pm

iwonder wrote:Again, none of this is official, but I'd say that your vehicle violated the rules. The rules states that the vehicle must be levitated as it travels down the track, however inadvertent contact is permitted, since the track as a whole was referenced earlier in the sentence, I believe it implies that inadvertent contact with the track(as a whole) is permitted. Therefore, intentional contact(with any part of the track) is not permitted. Since the side walls are obviously part of the track, intentional contact with the side walls would not be permitted.

Adding things to the side of the track however, probably falls under general rule #2(back of the rule book), and would be allowed. This would obviously aid in the event of unintentional contact to not slow the vehicle as much, but it wouldn't serve to show the contact as intentional(and thus a violation of the rules).
In that the context of the "inadvertent contact" statement is "levitation" (with the next sentence speaking of pushing down (as in vertical)), it seems to be speaking of contact with the magnets. There are no statements on side contact, which would seem to be a case of general rule #2 (if rules don't say you can't, you can...).

To say intentional contact with the sides is not allowed seems (IMHO) to ignore.....physical reality. The sides are there for a reason. Without the sides, the magnetically levitated vehicle will not stay on the track- it will veer off to one side or the other; you can't "magnetically" set up/get forces that will centralize the vehicle/act to hold it centered- just how opposing magnetic fields work; it's an inherently unstable configuration. Contact with the sides is inevitable. Inevitable/unavoidable is different than intentional, or inadvertent. I'm quite certain there is nobody who has been able to, or will be able to make a run without ANY side-rail contact. Even with rules written by committees of volunteers, I'm sure there was no intent to make something that nobody can avoid "illegal."

Given the inevatibility of side contact, one of the keys to doing well is minimizing the energy loss from such inevitable contact. Reducing the friction of such contact is the way to do that. Since the other rules are silent on the "hows" of that, general rule #2 says 'have at it"

Just my take
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

joeyjoejoe
Member
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: December 27th, 2012, 12:56 pm
Division: C
State: GA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by joeyjoejoe » December 27th, 2012, 4:57 pm

Couldn't have said it better myself, Balsa man (really, I couln't). "Inadvertent contact" refers to the word "levitated" mentioned earlier in the rule which implies vertical contact, not lateral. Let me clairify one of the things that I said in my earlier post though: When I said that our car was designed to touch the sides, what I meant to say is that the various teams at our school have created several cars each and every car touched one side of the track or the other. We just considered it the nature of the beast and moved on to the next design principle that we did have a hand in improving. Tilting the track slightly one way or the other would affect which side the cars touched but the fact that they touched was always a given.

joeyjoejoe
Member
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: December 27th, 2012, 12:56 pm
Division: C
State: GA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MagLev C

Post by joeyjoejoe » December 27th, 2012, 6:28 pm

....and should I even broach the subject of friction-reducing wheels mounted on the sides of the car (rotating about a vertical axis so that they touch the sides of the track) or would that label me as a trouble-maker??

Locked

Return to “2013 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests