[Tuba4]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

So, you are assuming that as long as some "connecting linkage," that establishes contiguity between the two protruding arms of the appendage, passes outward, along with the arms, and fully beyond the perimeter, as part of the same motion that extends the arms outward., then this makes them effectively a single appendage.

This implies you are also assuming that two arms joined at their base to a single hinge plate fixed onto the frame, which plate remains permanently inside the frame perimeter, and by which this hinge plate swinging, would both arms be actuated to move IN UNISON beyond the frame periphery, that such a mechanism would be considered TWO appendages, because the the element that establishes their "connecting linkage" (for contiguity) never travels outward along with the arms beyond the frame perimeter.

So if both these assumptions are valid, then the conclusion would be that as long as the appendage's "arms" have a "connecting linkage" which travels along with the motion of these MULTIPLE "arms," which ALL break the frame perimeter, so long as that connecting linkage also breaks the frame perimeter, this connected group of appendage "arms" will be considered to be a SINGLE appendage.

This would make the critical test be whether or not the "connecting linkage" element fully tracks along with the motion of the "arms" and ends up always traveling through the space near the robot such that, along with the arms, it ALSO always breaks the plane of the edge perimeter whenever those "arms" extend beyond the frame perimeter.

-RRLedford

Actually....no. The test is much simpler. If two appendages which operate independently are connected by some type of linkage so they can no longer operate independently but only operate in unison, they are a legal appendage. That is what I am going for in my submission to the Q&A.