Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I don't see the power issue as "safety" per-se. More as equalizing the available power.

I can see how batteries for COTS computing devices are allowed, otherwise, you would have to allow for a boot-up period for those devices. They are also more sensitive to brownouts, which the internal battery solves.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I personally told a team last year to rewire a battery powered flashlight last year, and had another LRI who was acting as a RI concur with me. Unfortunately inspectors miss things.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

What we have done in the past in solder in positive and negative leads to the flashlight and hook that up to a spike or plug it directly into the PDP

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

One of the questions we are going to ask when inspecting...
"Is this a computer acting as a flashlight or is it is computing device?"
Any flashlight used on the robot must be powered by the robot battery. Computing devices with USB peripherals are allowed as a very particular exception. An USB powered light is not an acceptable use of the computing device and/or the USB power. If you have seen self powered flashlights (or torches if that is your regional term) then consider yourself lucky if they have not been found by your inspector.
I have specifically copied the new R07-M so that everyone will be aware. Bright lights exceed a variety of rules and/or standards provided by UL and other governmental agencies because of the optical exposure to the human optical systems and the possibility of long term damage to the same.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

LOL.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Keep in mind many of the flash lights on the robot are legally wired to he robot battery. To the casual observer appear to be battery powered because the battery compartment is still there.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

If you say to an inspector "But it passed at my last competition" they are allowed to smack you upside the head. It's there in the game manual if you look hard enough.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

This is one of those times where the ever important quote about robot design comes it. Never build your robot around a loop hole. There is no way to justify a flashlight as a COTS computing device. Flashlights draw so little current anyway so I don't really see why you would want/need to power it without using the robot power. Also, I assume that this is for vision so may I recommend these? They are ring lights. they come in 7 colors and 4 sizes and are very bright so they should suit most vision needs.

https://www.superbrightleds.com/more...lights/49/304/

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

[quote=marshall;1628484]R37

And I haven't even talked about super-capacitors which can be used as part of a custom circuit and that seems perfectly legal.

I get that you don't want to encourage teams to play with batteries and start fires. I really do. BUT the battery rules need to move to the paradigm that many of the other rules have adopted of "allow and explain".


Part of the issue is that the intent of this rule isn't clear. Is it to prevent a fire? Then why allow other batteries at all? Why allow capacitors?


Part of the value to students in FIRST is learning to design and build a robot to meet specifications as set by our client., which in this case is FIRST. This is how it is done in the "real world" where designers may see much better ways to accomplish a task, but often these "better ways" don't meet the needs of the customer, who has his own reasons for writing the specifications the way he has done.

(I've said for years, that FIRST needs to separate Robot Rules into Rules and Specifications. A rule might be that a team can only enter one robot in the competition. A specification might limit the size, weight, or allowed motors.)

Specifications don't have to make sense to the builders, but they still need to be met. So if FIRST wants all the power to come from one battery, kids build them that way, and we Inspectors inspect them that way.

If you want to change things, don't go picking fights with the Inspectors. Petition FIRST for changes through other less confrontational routes that might be more successful.

And by the way, those super-capacitors better be charged by the one allowed battery when I inspect them!

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I thought about responding to you by picking apart your post piece by piece... believe me, I can. However, at the core of your post is the reason I keep posting rants about outdated rules. You seem content with blindly accepting specifications and rules. Not just content, you want FRC to become about that by forking the manual into specifications for a design.

The problem is that your blind acceptance is the very reason we're able to find loopholes to begin with. If FRC never gets around to explaining why rules are written the way they are or having to clarify the intent because no one questions them then loopholes will be found.

Not only that but most of the engineering that I admire comes from people who examine the specifications closely and find loopholes. The Colin Chapman quote in my signature is there because I admire what Chapman was able to do with pushing the limits of what was thought possible in Formula 1. I teach my students to question everything. It's written in our team handbook that our students can question decisions and ask why or why not. Sometimes the answer is "because that's someone else's poorly written rule and we have to follow it" but at least I give them an answer.

As frustrated as you are as an inspector that has to deal with the shenanigans of a particular team, remember that teams act on the information presented to them. If the manual says custom circuits are legal then custom circuits are legal. Teams can (and I feel rightly that they should) get frustrated when they find a loophole and then have additional restrictions placed on them that weren't written. Obviously there are exceptions for personal safety but when new rules are made up on the spot and applied to a team for pushing the boundaries then it certainly appears to be enforcement of unwritten rules for the sake of not losing an authoritative face. If you explain the intent then it becomes more clear for all involved given the distributed nature of FRC.

And while you might think I'm picking fights with inspectors, remember that FIRST has no official presence on CD so what I post here and how I argue for or against something has no bearing at all on the rules for the game (Unless someone wants to drop the pretense and admit that CD is actually an official forum in some way but that would be another golden cow that gets murdered).

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Would an LED ring count as high-intensity in this rule?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Depends on if there are complaints or not. If you are uncomfortable staring at it for 5 seconds, I'd re-think it

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Here you go:

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/183

All I can say is I hope the LRIs have fun with this one.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I read that Q&A as saying, in other words: If a COTS computing device requires a battery to function normally, then the battery is legal. Otherwise, it is not.

I would probably insert "particular" in front of "battery" as well, but it's harder to pull that in. Now, if we discuss your proposed flashlight/COTS computing device... I think there's going to be some very "interesting" discussion there. Just don't make them call a C01 conference--have them call Al instead. :p


BTW: I've had a couple similar-type discussions. I hear you on needing clarity. But what is also needed is uniformity in enforcement. (Let's see how many old-timers pipe up here...) Anybody wince at "tape-measure tether"? How about "welding on the minibot"? "Load-bearing surface touching the triangle"?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Well, anyone else who wants to complain about how I give the inspectors a hard time, just remember that I played fair and asked the question in a respectful manner through the official channel. They chose not to answer and continue the ambiguity.

Most laptops do not require a battery to function. They can be plugged in. They can even be run off of the robot using a simple regulator since most are DC powered.

EDIT: Also, point of serious bitterness for me right now, they were asked to clarify intent and meaning, not to rule on any hypothetical components.