Designs

sjwon3789
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 3:45 pm
Division: C
State: VA
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby sjwon3789 » March 4th, 2015, 6:26 am

XJcwolfyX wrote:I don't see why they cannot just clarify this. What's holding them back?


Honestly, because it'll make the competition too much easier, they'll probably restraining themselves from letting us NOT lifting the golf balls. Only that can make sense, but there was a flaw to their rules. But what's irritating is that they can just simply tell us straightforward that you either have to or not. But I'm betting that they're going to make us because receiving 2 pts from golf ball vs dimension points differ too significantly.
2013 Events: Boomilever, Keep the Heat, WIDI
2014 Events: Boomilever, Geologic Mapping, Mission Possible, Scrambler
2015 Events: Air Trajectory, Bridge Building, Mission Possible

ethanhunt
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: March 4th, 2015, 11:34 am
State: -
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby ethanhunt » March 4th, 2015, 11:40 am

Chalker, do you have anything to say about this? I'm a competitor on Mission and I want to know if I should go ahead and build my device based on not lifting golf balls, or I need to redesign. My team's state tournament is coming up, and I've become really confused with the vagueness of the rules.

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby chalker » March 4th, 2015, 3:32 pm

ethanhunt wrote:Chalker, do you have anything to say about this? I'm a competitor on Mission and I want to know if I should go ahead and build my device based on not lifting golf balls, or I need to redesign. My team's state tournament is coming up, and I've become really confused with the vagueness of the rules.


You'll notice that I and others associated with the nationals rules making have been awfully quiet on these topics, despite being very active on others on SciOly. I'm not going to go into the reasons behind this, but I can assure you that:

1. we are aware of the situation
2. we are having extensive discussions behind the scenes about it
3. there will be additional formal statements at some point (i.e. updating existing FAQs, issuing new ones, etc)

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

goodcheer
Member
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
Division: B
State: KY
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby goodcheer » March 5th, 2015, 8:34 am

chalker wrote:
ethanhunt wrote:Chalker, do you have anything to say about this? I'm a competitor on Mission and I want to know if I should go ahead and build my device based on not lifting golf balls, or I need to redesign. My team's state tournament is coming up, and I've become really confused with the vagueness of the rules.


You'll notice that I and others associated with the nationals rules making have been awfully quiet on these topics, despite being very active on others on SciOly. I'm not going to go into the reasons behind this, but I can assure you that:

1. we are aware of the situation
2. we are having extensive discussions behind the scenes about it
3. there will be additional formal statements at some point (i.e. updating existing FAQs, issuing new ones, etc)



Thanks to all the ones involved in these decisions; it is obviously a very difficult task. I also want to ask how many ETS steps some of you have been able to get into your device? We began very early lifting golf balls for the ETS points and when that requirement changed, it did help us on one of our steps. But, we did not want to change our entire setup, so we only have 2 ETSs in the device. Does that seem like way too few? Our dilemma was that we made some excellent, consistent lifts and did not want to scrap them. Thats why we have grumbled about the changes introduced by the FAQs. It doesn't seem logical to require lifting golf balls for 2 points and not require it for the 50 point ETSs.

torqueburner
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: January 8th, 2010, 11:41 am
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby torqueburner » March 5th, 2015, 8:49 am

goodcheer wrote:Thanks to all the ones involved in these decisions; it is obviously a very difficult task. I also want to ask how many ETS steps some of you have been able to get into your device? We began very early lifting golf balls for the ETS points and when that requirement changed, it did help us on one of our steps. But, we did not want to change our entire setup, so we only have 2 ETSs in the device. Does that seem like way too few? Our dilemma was that we made some excellent, consistent lifts and did not want to scrap them. Thats why we have grumbled about the changes introduced by the FAQs. It doesn't seem logical to require lifting golf balls for 2 points and not require it for the 50 point ETSs.


Our students also spent a lot of time working on the lifting mechanisms. It was a bit of a surprise to learn that they are no longer needed to score 50 points per ETS, and that the payback is only 2 points per ball. But I have a feeling that many of the teams that worked on, and perfected the lift step will also prevail overall anyway. We currently have 5 bonus ETSs, plan to add another one, which will incorporate an adjustable timer, if we qualify for the State competition.

captjack
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 9th, 2015, 5:19 pm
State: -
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby captjack » March 5th, 2015, 7:30 pm

One of my teams coaches proctored Mission Possible at the Solon Invitational. I believe also there was the proctor responsible for Mission at Ohio's state tournament. This was about a week after the FAQ change regarding lifting golf balls was uploaded. They all seemed pretty dead set that it meant that competitors no longer had to lift the golf balls in between each ETS. I was pretty sure too, but after seeing this discussion I'm going to have a talk with that coach about exactly what was discussed.

On another note, I've combed through the rules and I need help on a design idea. Would a motor powered conveyor-belt with golf balls pre-loaded that releases a golf ball one at a time (separated by ETS's) into a jug be legal?

goodcheer
Member
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
Division: B
State: KY
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby goodcheer » March 6th, 2015, 8:17 am

captjack wrote:One of my teams coaches proctored Mission Possible at the Solon Invitational. I believe also there was the proctor responsible for Mission at Ohio's state tournament. This was about a week after the FAQ change regarding lifting golf balls was uploaded. They all seemed pretty dead set that it meant that competitors no longer had to lift the golf balls in between each ETS. I was pretty sure too, but after seeing this discussion I'm going to have a talk with that coach about exactly what was discussed.

On another note, I've combed through the rules and I need help on a design idea. Would a motor powered conveyor-belt with golf balls pre-loaded that releases a golf ball one at a time (separated by ETS's) into a jug be legal?



That idea might work except for the rule found in par. 4 line 4.
This FAQ might apply: http://soinc.org/node/1525
As a matter of fact, this idea was presented earlier and it might have contributed to the notion that the lifting of golf balls with separate lifts is quite a challenge.

sjwon3789
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 3:45 pm
Division: C
State: VA
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby sjwon3789 » March 6th, 2015, 12:01 pm

"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.
2013 Events: Boomilever, Keep the Heat, WIDI
2014 Events: Boomilever, Geologic Mapping, Mission Possible, Scrambler
2015 Events: Air Trajectory, Bridge Building, Mission Possible

JP
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: March 6th, 2015, 4:30 pm
State: -
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby JP » March 6th, 2015, 4:46 pm

Are we allowed to have a a piece of wood that disconnects a circuit to stop the motor for our lifter(to prevent damage) and moves the golf ball toward the jug? The piece of wood is initially completing a circuit while inside our lifter. Once the golf ball reaches the top, both the wood and golf ball come out and the circuit stops.
2014 Boomilever (UCC Regionals)- 2nd
2014 Boomilever (State)- 1st
2014 Elastic Launched Glider (State)- 5th
2015 Bridge Building (Region)- 1st
2015 Bridge Building (State)- 1st
2015 Air Trajectory (State)- 2nd
2015 Mission Possible (State)- 6th

torqueburner
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: January 8th, 2010, 11:41 am
Division: C
State: PA
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby torqueburner » March 7th, 2015, 8:25 am

JP wrote:Are we allowed to have a a piece of wood that disconnects a circuit to stop the motor for our lifter(to prevent damage) and moves the golf ball toward the jug? The piece of wood is initially completing a circuit while inside our lifter. Once the golf ball reaches the top, both the wood and golf ball come out and the circuit stops.


This type of thing has generally been allowed in the past - turning off motors or nichrome heaters after they are used. I asked this question through the FAQ system, got this reply, although it has not been posted:

You may turn off previous electronic circuits for safety purposes.

The original question is included for your records; there is no need to
respond unless you feel there is an error.
=========================================================
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

In the past, it has been permitted to wire the device so that nichrome
heaters and the like switch off when they are no longer needed. Is this still
permitted, or does it violate the ". . .must contribute to the task sequence.
. ." part of this rule? thanks

Mission Possible

(section: 3 / paragraph: f / sub-paragraph: / line: 1)

goodcheer
Member
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
Division: B
State: KY
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby goodcheer » March 7th, 2015, 9:35 am

sjwon3789 wrote:"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.


Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.

sjwon3789
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 3:45 pm
Division: C
State: VA
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby sjwon3789 » March 7th, 2015, 3:45 pm

goodcheer wrote:
sjwon3789 wrote:"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.


Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.


I'm referring the E as the circuit for the motor, M as the motor spinning and the motion of the container being lifted, and E as the golf ball hits the switch.

Thanks.
2013 Events: Boomilever, Keep the Heat, WIDI
2014 Events: Boomilever, Geologic Mapping, Mission Possible, Scrambler
2015 Events: Air Trajectory, Bridge Building, Mission Possible

JP
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: March 6th, 2015, 4:30 pm
State: -
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby JP » March 8th, 2015, 8:11 am

sjwon3789 wrote:
goodcheer wrote:
sjwon3789 wrote:"process of a golf ball moving into a scoring jug (cannot be counted as an Energy Form)" so does that mean that we can't have anything like E-> M -> E where M is used for motor that lifts the golf ball up and E as a switch? Is the "cannot be counted as an energy form" referring to the golf ball or the process itself, meaning that I can't have this ETS alone; therefore, have to include something else?

Thanks.


Not sure if I understand your setup, but it sounds like you are trying to count something as an ETS which might not be allowed. The motor that lifts the golf ball, the switch that turns on the motor, and the golf ball cannot be counted as parts of an ETS the way I understand the rules. An ETS has to have an initiating golf ball and a concluding golf ball. So, an ETS occurs between the lifting of 2 golf balls (or collecting since lifting is not currently required per FAQs). If you are trying to count the lifting of a golf ball as an ETS, it seems you would have to have another golf ball before it and another one after it. That actually might work, but it would involve extra golf balls.

Also, not sure about your E-M-E sequence. M stands for mechanical not motor. E would represent the electrical motor. So, do you have something hitting a switch to turn on the motor? Then the motor lifts the golf ball? Then the golf ball falls into a jug? Does the golf ball hit another switch before falling into the jug? I can see M-E-M where M is a mechanical switch, E is the motor, and M another mechanical switch. But again, it seems you would have to have a before and after golf ball to count that as an ETS.


I'm referring the E as the circuit for the motor, M as the motor spinning and the motion of the container being lifted, and E as the golf ball hits the switch.

Thanks.


In their example ASL, they count the first M-E-M sequence as an ETS. I think M means the golfball hitting a switch. E is the circuit powering the motor to lift the ball. M again is the golfball hitting the next switch. If they put it in their ASL, is it definitely allowed?

Btw thanks torqueburner
2014 Boomilever (UCC Regionals)- 2nd
2014 Boomilever (State)- 1st
2014 Elastic Launched Glider (State)- 5th
2015 Bridge Building (Region)- 1st
2015 Bridge Building (State)- 1st
2015 Air Trajectory (State)- 2nd
2015 Mission Possible (State)- 6th

goodcheer
Member
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 7:09 am
Division: B
State: KY
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby goodcheer » March 8th, 2015, 10:12 am

JP wrote:
In their example ASL, they count the first M-E-M sequence as an ETS. I think M means the golfball hitting a switch. E is the circuit powering the motor to lift the ball. M again is the golfball hitting the next switch. If they put it in their ASL, is it definitely allowed?

Btw thanks torqueburner


Sorry, my mistake. I was reading the sample ASL wrong. I thought the first ETS began at the line marked #2, but it seems it ends there and the 50 points are listed there for the ETS. Yes, it does seem M-E-M is as you describe it and if it is listed this way, it should be allowed. I would add this though, the ETS in the sample ASL has two golf balls being collected (not necessary to lift them): one to initiate the ETS and the second to end it. Good way to get a simple ETS!

wlmeng11
Member
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: December 20th, 2014, 8:58 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Contact:

Re: Designs

Postby wlmeng11 » March 8th, 2015, 1:40 pm

sjwon3789 wrote:
XJcwolfyX wrote:I don't see why they cannot just clarify this. What's holding them back?


Honestly, because it'll make the competition too much easier, they'll probably restraining themselves from letting us NOT lifting the golf balls. Only that can make sense, but there was a flaw to their rules. But what's irritating is that they can just simply tell us straightforward that you either have to or not. But I'm betting that they're going to make us because receiving 2 pts from golf ball vs dimension points differ too significantly.


On the contrary, I feel that reverting the FAQs without any prior notice would be entirely unfair to the teams that decided to not use a lift system (such as mine and ethanhunt's, and likely many more), as all officially posted information thus far since the wording regarding scoring golf balls was originally changed has made it clear that golf balls do not have to be lifted in order to score an ETS.

Additionally, while the rules have been changed then reverted regarding the handle of the scoring jug, doing the same in this situation would have entirely different consequences, as the handle rule was an added restriction that was subsequently removed, whereas in this case, the requirement of lifting golf balls was already removed, and adding it back in the middle of comopetition season would certainly spell disaster for any team facing such a rule change immediately before their competition (disclaimer: my regional tournament is in less than a week). In other words, reverting the handle rule was merely an annoyance to everyone that went out and bought a milk jug, while reverting this rule could put many teams in a very bad position.

On a side note, while I agree that not requiring golf balls to be lifted does make the competition easier, it isn't "too much easier," as completing more than 2 or 3 ETS's is not trivial, and it's certainly no easier than last year and any year before, when the focus of the event was on energy transfers rather than lifting golf balls (I personally think the energy transfers should be the main task and lifting golf balls should be the bonus task, rather than the other way around).
Palo Alto High School


Return to “Mission Possible C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest