View Single Post
  #88   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 20:32
RRLedford RRLedford is offline
FTC 3507 Robo Theosis -- FRC 3135
AKA: Dick Ledford
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 286
RRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arizonafoxx View Post
Here is the definition of contiguous from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contiguous

1
: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point
2
of angles : adjacent 2
3
: next or near in time or sequence
4
: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence <contiguous row houses>

Could we use definition 3 to solve this whole problem. "Next or near" would solve all the problems of not touching when taking cross sections and "in time or sequence" would help with the deployment process as a whole. If the appendage moves all parts touching or not in the same sequence it would be considered contiguous. It seems to me if we have this definition on hand as proof at competition no inspector or head ref would be able to rule against us.
#3 def is more related to temporal considerations with a touch of motion implied. There is a concept of "contiguous motion" that might be applied.
#4 is more related to the connecting physicality of objects assembled together.

-RRLedford