View Single Post
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-03-2011, 15:09
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Minibot switches...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
Tristan,
You may have missed the discussion with inspectors. The GDC has been very clear and the switch can be used if the card or packaging in which it is sold says "light switch" or "limit switch" or if the web catalog includes any of those words. Merely being a switch in the lightswitch area does not a lightswitch make. We do not have any room for interpretation nor regional acceptance of a switch that is used for one purpose but is not marketed by the manufacturer for that purpose.
I agree with you that merely being a switch in the lighting section is not sufficient. There needs to be evidence that the switch is commonly available, and intended for use in a household lighting application. (The Q&A has referred teams to Team Update #12, which states "'light switches' permitted on the MINIBOT are not confined to those used in wall mounting boxes; anything sold as a 'light switch' for household use is allowed".)

The question of how something is marketed came up in the context of limit switches. (There, the GDC's standard said "marketed", not "marketed by the manufacturer". Indeed, that's why we accept vendors' websites as evidence.)

Applying the same "marketed" standard to light switches (which I agree is reasonable), I would have to say that if the store places it in a display that implies that this is the purpose of the device, then that satisfies the definition of marketing.

As a hypothetical example, Home Depot has a bin in their home lighting aisle that contains a number of unmarked switches, loose and unpackaged, and without an identifiable manufacturer's name. The shelf label below this and other bins is "Light Switches (120 V AC, 3 A)". Above the bins, there is another shelf displaying some household lamps, one of which uses the switch in question. I interpret that as evidence that the switch is marketed by its vendor as a household light switch—but we wouldn't have known that from examining the nonexistent packaging or cash register receipt. A full photographic record of the circumstances under which the switch is sold, though perhaps not contemplated by the GDC as a form of evidence, could be sufficient in my view to establish compliance with the rules. (And if the photos are not clear, or only show the switch in its bin without any of the other context, or don't show that the switch was used on a household lamp, then too bad; the team hasn't provided enough information. The team needs to meet a very high standard of proof.)

In other words, manufacturer's or vendor's documentation is a preferred method of demonstrating compliance—but the actual enforceable requirement is what's spelled out in the rules (as clarified by the update), and not merely the presence of that documentation.