opposition of a rule?

[Camren]

Is there anywhere in which i can suggest a restriction be removed from next years manual. If so can i get info on it. Mainly the reason i ask is because restricting alternators is actually more or less restricting the right of an alternative energy source via your control system. Also i believe if proper procedure is taken it can be safely done.

[Jon Stratis]

Out of curiosity, which rule (from last years book) do you want to have changed, exactly (I'm assuming <R34>)? When you say "alternative energy source", exactly what are you thinking should be allowed that isn't?

The "typical" use I'm aware of for an alternator is to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy - such as using your car's gas engine to recharge the battery. How do you want to create that mechanical energy in the first place?

[Alan Anderson]

Perhaps you could use the "Contact us" form on the FIRST web site to send your suggestion. I have a question and a comment for you first:

1) How do you propose using an alternator?

2) Restricting alternative energy sources seems perfectly valid to me. It means all teams should have exactly the same power available to run their robot.

[Basel A]

Is there anywhere in which i can suggest a restriction be removed from next years manual. If so can i get info on it. Mainly the reason i ask is because restricting alternators is actually more or less restricting the right of an alternative energy source via your control system. Also i believe if proper procedure is taken it can be safely done.

I believe there is (and has been) a specific rule that does specifically disallows the use of any electrical power source other than the battery, so when you say it restricts the use of an alternative energy source, I think that's exactly what they intend.

[EricH]

You could send a message to FIRST's GDC. IIRC, the procedure last year for suggestions was to send an email to FRCTeams at usfirst.org with the subject line reading "For GDC eyes only". They might not be taking suggestions via that channel this year, but it might be worth a shot.

Now, before you send that email, there are a couple of questions I should probably ask you (because if they aren't asked here, they'll be asked elsewhere, possibly by the GDC without consulting you).

1) Besides <R01>'s "stored at the start of the match" phrasing, which could be modified or eliminated, could you put an alternator on and comply with the entire current wiring rules (<R34> aside, as it would also be rewritten--I'm thinking <R37-E>, <R38>, and <R43> here)? If not, why not, and how could you fix that without removing the current safety elements?

2) Is there a COTS alternator that would meet current FRC safety rules and guidelines? If not, are you saying that you want to develop one and make the plans--and wiring instructions to hook it into the FRC robot electrical system--available to all teams that want to use it?

3) This is one to ask yourself, hard, and ask a few EEs as well: Is the possible electrical gain, theoretical and actual, going to be worth the extra weight?

If you're having trouble with batteries lasting (which I sort of suspect due to the component you're asking about), you may be better off asking yourself about optimizing power usage on the robot than asking the GDC to allow alternators.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Camren,
Could you fill us in on exactly what your thoughts on this might be? You can contact me via the PM feature if you do not want to give away a design idea. I can think of a few ways an alternator might be used legally on a robot but without specifics, I can't really give a blanket opinion.
If your application is simply to gain power from the energy of a robot in motion, there are significant losses in such a system that make it impractical. If the game played on the side of hill, we might be talking some real gains.