Chief Delphi - 2005 - Radio Communication

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - 2005 - Radio Communication (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40331)

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

If you're able to do that without a radio or cell phone, or any other device transmitting a signal, feel free.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

How about communication between the two drivers? Our have complained about not being able to hear each other and I'm considering making a pair of headsets so they can talk without distraction.

I don't think there could be much said about that, as long as it was wired. Get a few good pairs of the headsets meant for helicopters, noise reducing ear cups, and noise canceling mic, and wire them together. Though I'm sure the refs would like to have at least one look at your circutry to make sure there isnt any rf stuff hidden in there.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

communcation within the drive team could be accomplished with something like the old air tubes they used on ships and in large factories

its really nothing more than hose and you speak into and listen to the other end. It should be possible to make a set for 3 or 4 people - and the headset would also block some of the crowd noise.

BTW - Morse Code - when you learn morse code your brain is in a different space. You can pick out morse code from a very weak radio signal better than you can hear a human voice, so in a noisy environment it would actually be easier to comprehend (if you had a lot of practice with it).

After using it for a while you dont hear beeps or dots or dashes, you hear letters, and if you are really good, you hear whole words

just like when you listen to english, you dont hear the phonics separately, and think to your self " that was the K sound, that was an E, that was an N -Oh, he said my name!" you hear the words as a whole.

-Ken (KG2ET) :^)

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Additionally, I take issue with the idea that the rules have to be thick like a phone book to be comprehensive. Though all-encompassing rules have a way of being long-winded, the trick is to (attempt to) be absolutely clear in one's choice of language, so as to communicate as much intent as possible, and to cover as many situations as possible, without wasting space on text that doesn't add any more meaning to the rule. In all seriousness, that offhand remark about lawyers (was it really Dean that said it; I don't remember) is being taken in a rather destructive direction—the fact that lawyers write long, drawn-out documents is a reflection of their understanding the consequences of not being precise. In truth, engineers ought to recognize the same—and very likely, most do, loath as they are to admit it. The fact that a rule is long, or that it specifies contingencies for unlikely situations doesn't make it a bad rule; it may be less fun for us to read, but at least you can't justify debating a call when the appropriate rule is specific, and the referee doesn't need to make an interpretation on the spot.

Well soccer has only 17 laws and manages to get by. That is due to the uniform interpretations, not just the laws themselves. These interpretations are what makes the game work, not just the slim law book (smaller than all the FRC rules!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I have been reading through this thread hoping to agree with some of the items and I am not sure I can. None of us have a clear idea what might have taken place from the stands to the driver's station when the that team was called for the communication infraction. That being said, I don't think that it should be interpreted as a blanket rule against communication from team or alliance members to the coaches or drivers. This has gone on as long as I have been part of this competition and likely since the beginning. I think the two issues here is one, no wireless communications and two, no communication from off field coaches to on field coaches. The first is a simple issue of interference with wireless robot communications and the second is a violation of the "one coach, two drivers, one human player" allowed per team. If a ref interpreted the actions of that mystery team as a violation of the second issue than he was correct in his enforcement.
Learning Morse Code is not that big a skill, even I have done it. At one time it was a requirement for boy scouts to know both the Morse Code and semaphore (flag code) for rank advancement. Millions of people worldwide have learned the code for their amateur radio licenses and use it regularly for their hobby. (Myself included, WB9UVJ)

I think what he meant by saying how impressive the Morse code would be was due to being able to read it from the drivers station via huge LED, not that being able no read code itself was too hard.

At this point I think they should just allow communication, would make this whole dispute null and void, making it much clearer. I really think that it would add a very interesting element to the game if there could be "coaches for coaches", if thats how you want to put it, in the stands who can give a overview sense.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethulin

At this point I think they should just allow communication, would make this whole dispute null and void, making it much clearer. I really think that it would add a very interesting element to the game if there could be "coaches for coaches", if thats how you want to put it, in the stands who can give a overview sense.

that would widen the gap between large and small teams. Large teams could easily have 3rd base and 1st base coaches, people up in the bleachers with binoculars and radios, people in the pit monitoring the robots telemetry

and a small team with only 5 or 6 people on the whole team, would end up 'playing against' 15 or 20 people.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Whole heartedly agree, some teams at regionals only bring just enough team members to drive.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Whole heartedly agree, some teams at regionals only bring just enough team members to drive.

Compared to most teams at our regional our team is pretty small. BUT I take issue with all of this "elevel the playing field" jabber. It seems we are unwilling to reward teams for their organization, fundraisng capacities etc. Where do you draw the line in "leveling the playing field", should we all just have to by a kit, not be allowed to use any outside parts or tools, have 2 mentors (no more or less) involved with the build process, 3 members max to the regional? Where does one choose to stop? It seems to me (and no, you do not have to agree, so please, do not just flame) that if you want to make it even for everyone fine, do so, but it does not seem logical to make some arbitrary judgement of how much is too much.

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Theres really two parts to FIRST, the game that is played, and which changes every year, and the mentors spending time with the students to show them what engineering is all about

the game is arbitrary - we could design dishwashers, or clocks, or egg droppers - any system that presents an engineering challenge, so the students get to experience an entire engineering design cycle.

FIRST trys hard to make the game itself reasonably fair, so that all teams are designing to the same requirements, playing by the same rules

but the other part: if fairness is a measure of FIRST, then no, that part is not fair. Some teams have tons of mentors and resources, and some have little or none. Fortunately we are not competing against each other to see who is the 'most inspired'.

but on the playfield, would you contend that some football teams should be allowed to have 50 players on the field at the same time, because they come from a big school with lots of kids who all want to play?

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

i agree with both sides of this arguement...
FIRST events are ment to be a huge group of high school students gathering together to expand therir knowledge in the field of engineering

some teams may have upwards of 50 students while others may only have 3 or 4
this may be for different reasons, but in the long run they both have advantages and disadvantages

the team with 50 students can easily have people scouting or people strictly assigned to being "cheerers"...all of this will be done from the stands

in my opinion the team that has only a few students may have a slight upper hand

scouting can be done in the stands by others, but in the long run the people that are down on the field contribute the most to weather a team will be considered as a alliance partner or not (simply because they have worked with them or seen them work)

the number of people on your team doesn't matter it is the heart within the members that you do have

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitroxextreme

in my opinion the team that has only a few students may have a slight upper hand...

Thats right! a team with 5 or 8 students? Look how much time each student gets to spend with a mentor! Look at how much hands-on time they get with the bot, and the controls, and the SW and the wiring

every student on the team probabally gets in some driving time

small teams are not fair - the students get way more attention and inspiration! :^)

Re: 2005 - Radio Communication

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethulin

BUT I take issue with all of this "elevel the playing field" jabber. It seems we are unwilling to reward teams for their organization, fundraisng capacities etc.

Ethulin,
You may have misinterpreted my meaning. When I speak of level playing field, I am addressing the concept that I want all teams, large and small, to have the experience that once on the field they are playing their robot and their drivers and their coach against the same complement of people as the teams they are playing. I want all teams exposed to the same inspiration that my students experience when at competition. I want students from any team to know they can approach me with a problem or a question about my team, robot or strategy, and get a truthful answer to the best of my ability. I am not alone in this effort. If I was I am sure I couldn't do this alone. Pick a name from the CD member list and in all likelyhood you will find a mentor, young or old, engineer or not, who is willing to do the same thing I am. We have a gut feeling as to what is right and what is a level playing field. We know this is an imperfect system, but it beats whatever is in second place. Oh well, now I see I have gone on too long again. That's the tough part of getting the first response before I have my morning coffee. Please don't consider this a flame, I am just passionate about this program. Please ask if you have questions.