One more thought experiment, from the other extreme. A team attaches a 5
th CIM to their robot. How much modification do they have to do to it to make it no longer a motor, and therefore legal by the standard discussed above? (And of course, does <R47> apply? Assuming that it isn't a motor because it's modified, is it in violation for being a modified motor?)
Does the standard depend on whether it
could be used as a motor, or merely the way in which it is installed and connected?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonRotolo
A piece of a non-permitted item is judged as a piece, not as an item. Does that make sense?
|
Overall, I think that would make sense, and I think it would be a good idea for FIRST to draw the line at the ability to perform the key function of a motor (i.e. to use electrical energy to do mechanical work via a whole bunch of EM field sorcery). (The same goes for batteries, with respect to storing and delivering electrical energy.)
But to offer an supplemental hypothesis (supplemental, because there's no real dispute as to the primary objectives of these rules), what if FIRST wrote the rules this way to give the impression of consistency? Spectators and fellow competitors can see at a glance that every robot is subject to the same power constraints. That's a plausible enough intention that I don't think we can as yet say with certainty where the line is to be drawn. (And this line's position in turn affects the legality of the much more benign magnet from the original post.)