View Single Post
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-02-2015, 23:53
dtengineering's Avatar
dtengineering dtengineering is offline
Teaching Teachers to Teach Tech
AKA: Jason Brett
no team (British Columbia FRC teams)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,830
dtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Worried about weight ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall View Post
As I'm sure you know—but in case others haven't considered this—weight does not include buoyancy. Our conventional methods for measuring weight don't account for that source of error, but with most robots it's negligible.

.[/size]
I find myself compelled to disagree.... which is probably a sign that I should really be doing something useful or productive instead, but hey... this is more fun.

The FRC standard for measuring weight is to place the robot on a scale. In keeping with FRC precedent and in lack of guidance from the Q&A, I'd have to assume that the manual specifically chose the word "weight" rather than the word "mass" because the rule reflects the method of measurement.

Of course if FIRST was based on international standards for science and engineering, they would have a rule requiring the robot to have a mass of 55kg or less, and the point would be moot. Even specifying a weight of 55kg or less would imply a mass of 55kg or less as the gram is specifically a unit of mass, not a unit of force. The pound is an imprecise unit specifying neither mass nor force. Given that the people who wrote the rules are aware of the difference between mass and force and chose to go with an ambiguous term, it is only fair to conclude that they did so intentionally and give the benefit of the doubt to the team.

I also feel compelled to argue for the legitimacy of the balloon as a robot component. Other pressurized vessels, such as gas shocks and pneumatic tires are allowed, so long as they are not connected to the robot's pneumatic system. In the event that a sealed balloon was disallowed for some reason, there is no requirement that the buoyancy come from a sealed vessel. Hot air balloons work nicely with an opening.

I will now remove my tongue from my cheek before it causes permanent disfigurement!

Jason

P.S. The "anchoring" thing wouldn't work, however, as the robot must meet the weight limit in its starting condition. This might cause some grief with maximum height requirements.

Last edited by dtengineering : 18-02-2015 at 00:00.
Reply With Quote