New Rule 3.b.v.

[ramcoach]

Is it just me, or does rule 3.b.v. ("Each moveable/adjustable physical object in the device can only be utilized by one assigned task") seem problematic?

If I use a screw to move a ball (task 4.d) and then that ball falls into a cup as part of a pulley system (task 4.f) to lift a block, isn't the ball a moveable physical object being utilized by two tasks?

It seems that any object being moved or adjusted as required by tasks 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e, 4.f, 4.g, 4.h, 4.i, 4.j, and 4.l is also required to be part of the next action.

How are people interpreting this?

[chalker]

Is it just me, or does rule 3.b.v. ("Each moveable/adjustable physical object in the device can only be utilized by one assigned task") seem problematic?

If I use a screw to move a ball (task 4.d) and then that ball falls into a cup as part of a pulley system (task 4.f) to lift a block, isn't the ball a moveable physical object being utilized by two tasks?

It seems that any object being moved or adjusted as required by tasks 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e, 4.f, 4.g, 4.h, 4.i, 4.j, and 4.l is also required to be part of the next action.

How are people interpreting this?

Keep in mind this is not the place for official clarifications, etc.. etc.. That said I think your example hits exactly on one of the reasons we put that rule in this year - it was too hard to explicitly tell what components constitutes each task. For example:
4.b. says you must use a screw to move an object a certain distance (in your example the ball)
4.f. says you must use a pulley to lift an object a certain distance - in past years some people would try to utilize the same ball as this object. Meaning there might not be enough time while the device operates for the supervisors to verify that the conditions of 4.b were met (e.g. the set distance).

There are lots of similar examples. The bottom line is this should be simple to engineer around. In your example, have the first ball knock another ball into the pulley cup. Thus it's clear which objects belong to which tasks.

[simoncao]

How exactly would you complete task 4.J. then? the task pretty much requires you to lift the cup or sand into the other container. Wouldn't the lifting of the cup or sand be counted as a task?

[goodcheer]

How exactly would you complete task 4.J. then? the task pretty much requires you to lift the cup or sand into the other container. Wouldn't the lifting of the cup or sand be counted as a task?

Its seems to me task 4.j involves a number of smaller tasks to complete the one main task. I guess the smaller tasks could be called steps to avoid confusion. Granular material has to be moved and poured by one container and another container must receive the material and cause the next action. All those steps along with the required positioning of the containers make up task 4.j. As far as this task violating the new rule 3.b.v. it seems the granular material in the second container would have to stay in the container. If the material used in the task came out of the second container and caused the next action (like the golf ball example) that might violate the rule. Although this does seem like a gray area and a good question.

[hogger]

IMO, this introduces unnecessary burden on the events and judges. By definition the device is one big chain reaction, they are all connected in some ways. I think the parallel rule already addresses certain aspects of this. The whole thing may come down to creative writing of the task list:

4b: The screw moves the ball X cms before falling down off a ledge.
4f: The cup moves a string attached to a pulley pulling up another object....