Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Can we have a separately powered battery on a flash on the robot or is that not allowed? It says in the rules on page 82 ::rtm:: it is fine for cameras, but does a flashlight count as a COTS?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I have a theory that this is allowed if the flashlight is programmable because then it is a COTS computing device.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

A solo "flashlight" is not COTS computing device.

A cell phone is a COTS computing device. Using the flashlight function on a cell phone is ok. You can also use a USB flashlight powered off a COTS computing device.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Prove it. This flashlight is a computing device: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1196

The fact that you can use a light on a cell phone as a flashlight but not a flashlight is absurd and is yet one more piece of evidence that the rules around batteries for devices that are not part of the control system are outdated.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I haven't read truly deep into the rules this year but last year they didn't have a problem with it as long as it didn't distract drivers.... (which it did in most cases) but other than for alignment ( for lining up the robot before a match) purposes I believe they are allowed. But don't quote me make sure you read carefully.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

If you use a normal flashlight, it has to be wired up to the robot somehow. In the past, we've used dowel rods as dummy batteries that press wires up against the battery terminals.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Flashlights are allowed. the OP was asking about a flashlight with it's own battery. Only COTS Computing Devices are allowed to have their own battery. A regular flashlight has to run off the Robot's battery.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Actually, the onus is on the Team to prove that it is. This is the closest the game manual gets to defining "computing device":

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Says "etc" and Mr Turing defined them in such a way that that flashlight counts and so do many others. It's an argument I'm willing to have with an LRI.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

"It's not a flashlight! it's an arduino with a really strong status LED! :rolleyes: "

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Not a bad idea. Here's a video on how to build that setup. If you go that route, make sure the voltage to the flashlight is adjusted as necessary.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Now that's a phrase a LRI would understand. I had to go read the Sparkfun article to see what a programmable flashlight was. And in both code examples they were using it to flash a status out. So Leav is spot on with his description.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Stand alone flashlights have always been required to be powered by the robot battery.
Please read
R37. The only legal source of electrical energy for the ROBOT...

In addition under R07
M. High intensity light sources used on the ROBOT (e.g. super bright LED sources marketed as ‘military grade’ or ‘self-defense’) may only be illuminated for a brief time while targeting and may need to be shrouded to prevent any exposure to participants. Complaints about the use of such light sources will be followed by re-inspection and possible disablement of the device.

R96 refers to the Driver Station only.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

R37 has exceptions for batteries that are integral to and part of a COTS computing device. If I call it a microcontroller with a bright status LED is that not a COTS computing device? It's definitely not "military grade".

This is legal:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834234171

But yet this might not be:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896

And this might not be either:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13276

Al, I love you guys a lot (seriously, the LRIs have like the worst job because of people like me who constantly needle them) but these battery rules are broken. They've been broken for several years since portable USB battery packs became very prevalent.

I can use the same basic technology if it is inside of a cell phone but yet it's not legal if the battery isn't sold with the widget as is the case with this carrier board for a TX1 that has an integrated charging/discharging circuit: http://auvidea.eu/images/auvidea/pro...top_bottom.jpg

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".

It makes no sense to me that a team can use a kangaroo PC with a battery built in to it because it is assumed that it is somehow safer than the above linked TX1 carrier that we would need to add a battery to ourselves. If neither is part of the control pathways for the robot and the robot can be safely disabled then what is the harm? Obviously the current rules don't prevent robots from catching on fire as it is.

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?

Or is it to prevent teams from creating a robot that can't be disabled? Great, then make it so batteries other than the "one true source of power" are legal provided that when the robot is disabled all motor activity must stop... or wait, we can't actually do that anymore because of the spinning LIDAR systems that are now legal and will likely keep spinning even when the robot is disabled.

EDIT: Also, a note to inspectors. The current rules allow for the Galaxy Note 7 to be used on a robot.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I've seen a flashlight powered by it's own battery used on at least 2 robots, both of which passed inspection for elims (just an anecdote).

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.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Yeah, I hear you on that. Actually, I have a relevant story...

A few years ago, in a non-FIRST competition, the organizers were asked multiple times if "all power must turn off when Big Red Button is pressed" meant that "no electrons are flowing at all including in computing devices". The answer, multiple times, was "yes, that's what it means". My team spent a lot of time getting our onboard laptop to run off one of the two onboard 12V batteries (IIRC, that was our method for complying with the rule--meant removing the battery). Anybody want to guess why the rule was changed at competition to allow the computers to run after the button press?

At least FIRST doesn't do that very often...

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

As a referee, I've seen several robots with light rings that made it uncomfortable to look at the robot. Is this something that should be sent back for re-inspection even if it doesn't fall under the "military grade or self-defense" rubric?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

R07M. e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e., "that is"). So if they're illuminated when they're not targeting something, you probably want to talk to your Head Ref about talking to the LRI.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I'm guessing most rookies doing vision are going to have a problem if that becomes a requirement given that spikes aren't made anymore.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Sorry I haven't had time to check in on CD for a few days. Work got in the way...
In no particular order,
FRC chose the wording "one battery" as a engineering challenge. I started in FRC when we were still using battery powered drills for drive and each drill used it's own battery. When FRC moved to the current battery (which BTW has a very good energy density) laptops were prohibitively expensive items to put on robots as well as video cameras. As the cost of these items fell, FRC changed rules to allow these devices with integral batteries to be used if the battery was not also connected to robot systems like drive or control. They still needed to be included in robot weight as they are now.
LED rings can be "super bright" or my term "mini-sun" and be objectionable. However, the majority of teams using LEDs control them so they are only illuminated when needed. "Self defense" flashlights are by definition "blinding" illumination. We had a lot of feedback from mentors and from UL that these devices put our teams and volunteers at risk of temporary and/or permanent eye damage. And many of those people pointed at a rather lengthy document highlighting the risks, recommendations and support for not using these devices in certain applications. The rule is a response to those who helped point us in the direction of safety.
Many people who simply read about "super capacitors" and think they are a way to circumnavigate the rules are surprised when the capacitor doesn't perform as expected. Large capacitors have an internal resistance that does not allow them to supply large amounts of current over even a few seconds. They take significant energy and time to charge and are meant to supply energy for short duration dips in voltage or to supply a voltage to a circuit that requires very little current. (in the nano-ampere range) The equations for charge and discharge of capacitors are all that is needed to analyze if a super cap will work in your application.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

The problem is that the wording is so ambiguous right now that no one knows what it means and now the Q&A people have provided the "your LRI will know it when they see it" (Just like pornography!) answer so I expect this to get worse. They were asked to clarify the intent of the rule, which as you say above, seems to be that there is but one source of power for the robot's drive and control systems.

But hey instead of clarifying the ambiguous wording, they've said that if the COTS computing device is designed to use a battery then it's fair game so we'll see about that :)

And I agree about super capacitors. They aren't any different than regular capacitors really. Our robot was described as a literal "bomb" last year because of our temporary use of them but I don't think it posed any more of a threat than anything else I've seen on robots.

I have hopes that FIRST will see the light and clarify the ruling next year or sometime soon but until then we'll keep trying new stuff. They fixed the scanning LIDAR stuff after a couple years: http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...0_09_24_41.pdf

Q71 was asked by Team 900 that year. As usual, we were told to scram. They are now legal though... speaking of... have an announcement to make later.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Marshall,
Can you please specify what you think is ambiguous in the rule so we can speak from a common position?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Happily. I want to know what "integral to and part of" means. Q&A said it means "essential to completeness" but that isn't true for laptop batteries. Laptops don't require batteries to function. I know this because I can remove the battery from my laptop and it will still run from a wall source. I can put a regulator in line and get it to run off a ROBOT battery.

So what characteristic or characteristics make a battery "essential to completeness" for a COTS computing device?

Is it enough to have a device that is merely designed to accept a battery and has a battery slot/containment/attachment area? Does it have to be sold with the battery?

If I can replace the battery for a laptop then why can't I add a battery to a raspberry pi? What's the difference in engineering terms?

What about a circuit board with some inputs labeled "battery"? Does that count as having a COTS device that has an integral battery?

What engineering challenge is FIRST proposing teams solve by making a team with a raspberry pi engineer a bulletproof system to keep their pi from needing to be reflashed from corruption but yet a team who can put a laptop on the robot doesn't have to worry about any of that? What is the point in this?

They want teams with better vision systems and better autonomous (I had a nice chat about it with Don and some folks from IBM last year) so why not allow USB battery packs for COTS devices?

EDIT: Also want to point out that while you can't use a USB battery pack for your Pi, you can gut a laptop down to nothing and use it to power a USB port that you can run your Pi off of. WTF?!?! (Where's The Flashlight?)

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Marshall,
I agree with you. I think that those questions need answering and that the definition of when non-robot batteries is something that needs to be revised, specified, and re-thought.

But for now, I think that the solution FIRST will be going with is relying on LRIs to make the distinction. Yes, this can lead to a robot being legal at one event and not at the next. Yes, this is not a good solution. Yes, something should be done to remedy this. But I have trouble believing that those upstairs will make this distinction this season.

My interpretation of the rule on whether it is integral or not are to ask the following questions:
Can I power this device without using it's battery and without plugging it into the wall?
A cellphone that requires the battery to be inserted to run would be allowed to use its battery. A drill where you can just power the terminals with a motor controller would not.

If it is possible to power without it's battery or plugging it into a wall, is it safe to do so?
I cannot think of any examples where it would not be safe but still possible off the top of my head but I'm sure one exists. A Raspberry Pi can be powered without a battery pack very easily and it is perfectly safe. So in this case you would have to power it with the robot battery.

I know, it doesn't solve everything. Even though the manual does not use these words here, it appears that they expect a "reasonably astute observer" to be able to say whether or not it is integral.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

That was a good reminder for me, I forgot they stopped making those. Even so, you are allowed to hook an LED ring up to a Spark, right? Or an I wrong?

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

This was at NASA Lunabotics in 2012 (or maybe 2011), right? I remember that. My team had written code such that when the big red button was pressed it issued a shutdown command on the laptop, so it didn't immediately shut off all power but was our attempt at complying with that rule.

Sorry for going off-topic.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

2012. I thought of pulling up an Aero Design shenanigan where opening and cleaning a motor made it modified even if you didn't swap any parts... but that one was overturned quickly.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I'd say that it would be called illegal. Unless I'm missing something, the Spark would destroy any LED assembly you could put on it. The maximum current it can supply for 2 seconds is 100A. The LED rings that we, and many other teams, are using use the 12V/500mA port on the VRM. The illegal part here is that doing this would be unsafe. Even if you configured the Spark to not deliver anywhere near that much current, I think that it would still be ruled unsafe.

What you could do is put a resistor in series with the LED ring to abate the current issue.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

This is a common misunderstanding, the led will only draw the amount of current that it requires for operation at the specific supply voltage. This is the same for any motor. Just because it is on circuit capable of 100amps does not mean that it will draw 100amps, it will draw exactly what it needs whether 0.1amp, 1 amp, 100amps or even 1000amps.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

The LED rings you and most teams use are 12V automotive rings. They already have resistors in series.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

You would want to use a 20 amp breaker on the spark so a RI wouldn't tell you that you needed 12 AWG wire to your light ring. :] I would be inclined to use a PCM (pneumatic module) rather than a Spark. It would need to be set to 12V

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I was about to say something about Ohm's Law, but I was too slow.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Well, I think they FINALLY did a little clarifying. Probably decided that since 900 wasn't asking, it was safe... ;)

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/332

This time, they went into intent. Basically, COTS computing devices that contain (are sold with installed) battery solutions are in, and devices that are not... are not. It's a start at clarity... but not fully there yet.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

I'm glad they finally published something explaining the intent (I'm not convinced they explained the purpose though - maybe they can use that dictionary to look up the difference - yes, I'm still bitter). I genuinely appreciate the response and clarification.

Also, still nothing stopping me from using a laptop to power a TX1 over USB. :)

EDIT: Q303 is entertaining and I'm pretty sure Q&A just shot people in the foot because I know I've heard of teams (and seen at least one team in person) using laptops without the screens and keyboards to save on weight. This is new.

Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
 

Allister,
Your description is close. If you modify the circuitry, you can force more current through an LED up to and including the point at which the LED fails. As you pass the specified operating current, the LED may not get any brighter but the additional current is given off as heat in the device. Due to the very tiny wires used to wire the LED die to the outside world, failure often results in burning that wire open. However, that is not the guaranteed failure as a meltdown of the die may result in a short.