Mission Possible C

Locked
User avatar
beaverkid
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: February 18th, 2008, 9:54 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by beaverkid » October 4th, 2013, 1:26 pm

penclspinner wrote:
Flavorflav wrote:Let's throw it up to experienced event supervisors on here: If a device closed a switch which allowed current to flow from a battery and the current caused the next action, would you allow that to score as mechanical-> chemical and chemical -> electrical, or simply as mechanical -> electrical?
I'd score it as mechanical -> electrical
I totally agree with penclspinner. If you're just completing a circuit and letting electron flow, that's mechanical -> electrical. You treat the battery as a black box. On the other hand, if you build your own battery, then you can claim the chemical portion as well.

Similar, if you drop something on the switch of a flashlight and the light turns on, I would say that's mechanical -> electromagnetic. On the other hand, if you made your own switch for the flashlight and you make mechanically close the switch, then I would say that's mechanical -> electrical -> electromagnetic.

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by Flavorflav » October 4th, 2013, 7:13 pm

beaverkid wrote:Similar, if you drop something on the switch of a flashlight and the light turns on, I would say that's mechanical -> electromagnetic.
Good point, and I suspect that is what the language about a battery scoring depending on how it causes the next action. So if switch allows a battery to heat nichrome, you would allow mechanical -> electrical -> thermal? Presumably the student at least have to would have to wire the switch, while in the flashlight it was built in.

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: Mission Possible C

Post by twototwenty » October 6th, 2013, 11:33 am

Flavorflav wrote:
beaverkid wrote:Similar, if you drop something on the switch of a flashlight and the light turns on, I would say that's mechanical -> electromagnetic.
Good point, and I suspect that is what the language about a battery scoring depending on how it causes the next action. So if switch allows a battery to heat nichrome, you would allow mechanical -> electrical -> thermal? Presumably the student at least have to would have to wire the switch, while in the flashlight it was built in.
If this is the case, how are you going to get chemical -> electrical? Homemade batteries are illegal, so if you do something to directly initiate a electricity-producing reaction, you break the rules and risk loosing points, or even being tier-2ed

penclspinner
Member
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: June 1st, 2006, 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by penclspinner » October 6th, 2013, 3:02 pm

twototwenty wrote:
Flavorflav wrote:
beaverkid wrote:Similar, if you drop something on the switch of a flashlight and the light turns on, I would say that's mechanical -> electromagnetic.
Good point, and I suspect that is what the language about a battery scoring depending on how it causes the next action. So if switch allows a battery to heat nichrome, you would allow mechanical -> electrical -> thermal? Presumably the student at least have to would have to wire the switch, while in the flashlight it was built in.
If this is the case, how are you going to get chemical -> electrical? Homemade batteries are illegal, so if you do something to directly initiate a electricity-producing reaction, you break the rules and risk loosing points, or even being tier-2ed
Humm....well be creative! You have months to think about how to implement this.

I'm not sure if the following example is a correct demonstration of chemical -> electrical but I just came up with it right now.
Mix 2 chemicals to form a precipitate reaction and have the opaque vessel blocking a light source (laser, flashlight, etc) that's illuminating a photodiode (photoresistor?). Once the light is blocked, it closes the circuit and initiates the next reaction.

I'm not 100% sure if this is an appropriate example but I would encourage you to use it as an inspiration to think outside the box.

User avatar
alpacas
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: October 4th, 2012, 6:09 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: M94
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by alpacas » October 6th, 2013, 3:41 pm

I think in the past that example of forming the precipitate has been counted for CHEM-EMS because other than burning (which is tenchnically chemical but usually counted in the ETL as thermal) that is the only way to trigger an EMS action with chem

olympiaddict
Member
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: August 11th, 2012, 5:17 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by olympiaddict » October 6th, 2013, 7:08 pm

I believe twototwenty is operating under the same perspective that I am, which is that a direct conversion of energy, not just triggering, is necessary to score points. One of the reasons I feel this way is because there are way too many grey areas in my opinion in what constitutes triggering and any intermediate energy forms, eg a switch, is it M->E or M->C->E? We'll find out whether that's true or not about direct conversion vs. triggering once clarifications open up. But I believe the point totwotwenty is making is that any device that you built yourself that could score under those rules to convert chemical to electrical would by definition be a homemade battery since batteries convert chemical energy to electrical potential. Therefore I believe that a commercial battery would score points.
I'm really pretty convinced that commercial converters like candles and batteries are scoreable- where in the rules does it actually disallow this? Personally I'm convinced 3e explicitly allows it but either way, I don't see where it is disallowed.

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by Flavorflav » October 7th, 2013, 2:54 am

I can tell you that the last time Mission used energy conversions, points were scored for triggering another energy form and batteries did not score for simply being batteries. You couldn't really build a device that actually transferred the energy like you are thinking - there isn't enough energy in the starting task to carry you through. You have to access additional stored energy along the way, from batteries, candles etc., which under your theory would be parallel paths and get you tiered. Try to wrap you head around that and things will become clearer to you.

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: Mission Possible C

Post by twototwenty » October 7th, 2013, 5:25 am

Flavorflav wrote: I can tell you that the last time Mission used energy conversions, points were scored for triggering another energy form and batteries did not score for simply being batteries.
The key difference between then and now being that back in 2009, when MP was based on energy conversions last, homemade batteries were not only legal, they earned you a bonus. I totally understand the point you are making, that the use of a commercial battery for chem -> elec is at best questionable...my dilema is really that I think this is a contradiction in the rules, if commercial battery for chem -> elec isn't a viable conversion.

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: Mission Possible C

Post by twototwenty » October 7th, 2013, 5:30 am

Sorry for the double post, but on a completely different note, here is an old link from the 2009 MP that might prove helpful in looking at how teh rules might be interpreted (it is a copy of a nationals-level ETL):
http://scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 194#p54554

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: 0

Re: Mission Possible C

Post by Balsa Man » October 7th, 2013, 6:06 am

twototwenty wrote:Sorry for the double post, but on a completely different note, here is an old link from the 2009 MP that might prove helpful in looking at how teh rules might be interpreted (it is a copy of a nationals-level ETL):
http://scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? ... 194#p54554
Just a minor point of clarification - while the post is from '09, the ETL was my son's from '05, which is the last time the points for types of energy transfers was used.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO

Locked

Return to “2014 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest