Designs

[sjwon3789]

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.

[ethanhunt]

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]

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)

[goodcheer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

[JP]

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.

[torqueburner]

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)