Thoughts? (on rule points)

Paradox21
Staff Emeritus
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 395
Joined: January 11th, 2009, 7:10 am
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Paradox21 » November 3rd, 2009, 7:47 pm

Dark Sabre wrote:You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?
Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.
When it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people: those who let it happen, those who make it happen, and those who wonder what happened.

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

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Flavorflav » November 4th, 2009, 6:52 am

Paradox21 wrote:
Dark Sabre wrote:You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?
Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.
I haven't even got an acknowledgment of receipt of any of mine. IN previous years those have been almost instantaneous.

User avatar
eta150
Member
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 3:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Kville
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by eta150 » November 4th, 2009, 10:26 am

They're pretty good about that stuff to everyone, in all events. I e-mailed about an error in the wright stuff scoring sheets last year, so they sent me an email back, and changed the sheet to fix the error I pointed out. They pretty much had too, because most teams there would have been second-tiered unfairly if they hadn't.
#ACESWILD

andrewwski
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 954
Joined: January 12th, 2007, 7:36 pm
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by andrewwski » November 4th, 2009, 11:26 am

One year I sent a clarification request in January and didn't get a response until March.

That was extremely helpful, seeing as competition was in February.

Uncle Fester
Member
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: May 14th, 2001, 4:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN
Location: Michigan, SO in Indiana
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Uncle Fester » November 5th, 2009, 9:54 pm

Interesting about the multiple tasks question. While I hotly disagree with the "Parallel paths" reasoning (one in, one out is HARDLY a "Parallel path"), I knew a long time ago that they really wanted "ten steps."

I think that both Dark Sabre and Delta Hat hold the lifetime title of "most points in a single step". I always enjoyed the Missioners that said that if they couldn't advance to Nationals, they could at least get everyone's attention by consolidating steps. Alas, will be sadly missed.

But they want ten steps. So give them ten steps.
Uncle Fester, Maker & Fiction Science Writer

The Misadventures of the Electric Detention
The Revenge of the Electric Detention
The Curse of the Electric Detention
>> Three full-length adventures, 26 short stories and counting!

Dark Sabre
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 705
Joined: January 4th, 2004, 5:53 pm
Division: Grad
State: KY
Location: Louisville, KY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Dark Sabre » November 9th, 2009, 11:37 pm

Two clarifications just appeared on http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif_2009

Mission Possible: Section 3.d. should read (see additions in bold): "Electric components shall be limited to batteries, wires, motors, switches, resistors, capacitors, commercial photocells (i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors), mechanical relays, lightbulbs, and LEDs. No computers or transistors will be permitted in the device." (11/9/09)

Mission Possible: Section 4.b. should read (see additions in bold): "Activate a photocell that allows current to flow to a motor, which leads to the next action." (11/9/09)


So you can 100% use lightbulbs, LEDs, and photoresistors now :D

fleet130
Staff Emeritus
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 433
Joined: November 10th, 2001, 3:06 pm
Location: Mare Tranquillitatis
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by fleet130 » November 10th, 2009, 6:10 pm

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.
Information expressed here is solely the opinion of the author. Any similarity to that of the management or any official instrument is purely coincidental! Doing Science Olympiad since 1987!

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

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Flavorflav » November 19th, 2009, 6:11 am

fleet130 wrote:So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.
It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

gh
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 323
Joined: October 22nd, 2003, 5:47 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Location: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by gh » November 19th, 2009, 11:47 am

Flavorflav wrote:
fleet130 wrote:So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.
It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.
A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.
“Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.” —Sophocles
If you are looking to give help or get help:
[wiki][/wiki] > Forum post > > PM > Email
Don't forget the Image Gallery, the , and the list of Exalted User medals.

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

Re: Thoughts? (on rule points)

Post by Flavorflav » November 19th, 2009, 2:17 pm

gh wrote:
Flavorflav wrote:
fleet130 wrote:So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.
It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.
A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.
So I am. I had assumed that the terms were equivalent. I now see that I was not correct. So we are left with fleet130's question above.

ETA: I still think that the original conception was for a solar or photovoltaic cell, from the "supplies the power for" line. I suspect that the authors made the same mistake that I did.

Locked

Return to “Mission Possible C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest