Connecting two simple machines

[SPP SciO]

We've got something very similar - Lever -> Wedge is the transfer. The business with the string and candle goes on the TSL but it's just one transfer. Whatever is holding the string in place (likely screw eyes) wouldn't be a simple machine, so it's ok.

[goodcheer]

In their FAQ, they actually wrote that you could release the energy from an energy storage device between the simple machines, and that the first simple machine didn't need to directly drive the second simple machine in their transfer. That suggests that a mousetrap between everything would be fine, and that other incidental simple machines would also be fine. We were told at our regional that we couldn't by a judge, but at the regional, they didn't count it against us. I submitted an official request, but they are very slow to respond, so I'm trying to start an outside conversation to see what others think.

If you had S->L1->IP, where the goal was to score S->IP, and the L1 is just helping with the transfer, I don't see anything that says you can't count it as S->IP. I would agree that you couldn't count the S->L1 and L1->IP if you want credit for the S->IP.

I agree based on the FAQ, you can have an energy storage device between the two simple machines you want to count as a unique transfer. A mousetrap is an energy storage device made of three levers. So it seems you can have other simple machines between the two simple machines you want to count as a unique transfer if you can have a mousetrap. It seems the unique transfer is to be made up of the two simple machines of your choosing regardless of other ones that might be used between them. Each simple machine listed can count for points in a transfer three times, but you can use them more than three times in a non-scoring fashion. The rules speak of non-scorable transfers. Both scorable transfers and non-scorable ones can be made of simple machines, the only difference being you get to choose which ones you want to score.

Your point about not being able to use eye hooks between two simple machines because they might be counted as pulleys is not very convincing. I believe you were just trying to make a point, but I don't believe it makes the same point as using a mousetrap or simple machines between two scorable simple machines. Every definition I have seen of a pulley says it is a wheel with a grooved rim around which a cord passes. It acts to change the direction of a force applied to the cord. An eye hook might change the direction of force, but without the wheel, the friction would be so great there would be no mechanical advantage. You mentioned the wheel just reduces friction, but that is what it is supposed to do. So, funny thing is, I believe you can use eye hooks within a scorable transfer, but they would be non-scorable because they are not simple machines.

P.S. There is something funky about the way some words get posted like the word "the" having capital H and all the a's are capital A. The word force should be force as in "may the force be with you...."

[smansman]

I see nothing in the rules preventing use of a horse, so feel free to use one to apply force

My point on the screw eye was indeed just to force the point. I would note, however, that with a chrome plated screweye and string going through it that there may actually be less friction between the string and the screweye than between the wheel and axle in a traditional pulley. And I did see teams at regionals that used a screw eye in this manner as part of their pulley system. I didn't judge them, but I don't believe they were penalized. So there do seem to be inconsistencies.

I've submitted official questions for both screweye as pulley and the use of simple machines in middle of transfer, but as is usual, there seems to be a long lag in any response. Unfortunate given the time of year and the many regionals and state meets in progress.

** OK, so it is changing F O R C E to horse for me as well! **