Hey look! It's a raspberry pi with a battery:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896
Ok, seriously, I agree with OP that this is a topic that needs to be dealt with.
My suggested rule change is simple though. Just enable teams to use all batteries outside of the standard robot battery provided they do not interfere with the control pathways for any motors, they can be removed and disconnected quickly/easily, and they do not appear to be unsafe to a reasonably astute observer (no exposed wires, held securely, can't be easily punctured, well protected, etc).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gray beards of CD
Marshall, you fool, you'll cause the inspectors a lot more work and make robots less safe to operate.
|
I don't think my suggestion will do either personally and it *might* just help a lot of teams who are struggling to deal with power-hungry games that demand power-hungry drivetrains and power-hungry mechanisms and power-hungry co-processor vision systems. I dare say, it might even inspire some students.
For one, enabling the use of all batteries means the inspectors don't have to look at an approved list or deal with the currently ambiguous ruling of only allowing non-standard batteries that are "integral to" a COTS computing device.... which by the way, I'd like to know if this flashlight (
http://www.lightmalls.com/nextorch-p...4aAvW 98P8HAQ) counts as a COTS computing device since it is programmable.
Let's talk safety with alternative battery sources. If the concern is that something is going to catch fire then coin cell batteries and USB power supplies aren't likely to do it. I'm not saying they can't but they are common components (Sorry FRC fans but those crappy Chinese USB power supplies are a lot more common than FRC batteries) and I suspect the likelyhood of a fire is about the same as the chances of one from the standard robot battery we all know and love so can we ignore this facet of safety and move on? Not to mention that the same crappy Chinese batteries are legal provided they are "integral to" a COTS computing device.
The real issue/fear is that a robot or robot mechanism will remain powered up and running. I believe that if the team can demonstrate to an inspector that the power source does not interface with the power for a motorized mechanism or drivetrain then it should be legal. I believe teams already have to do this if they have an "integral" power supply for a COTS computing device on board... and if they don't then they should.
Also, I want a ruling about super capacitors while we're at it. They are circuit components and not batteries so they are legal for keeping a raspberry pi powered right?
While I disagree with the way the OP worded his initial post, this issue is a sore spot for me as well and I do think FRC should address it in a manner similar to the "allow but educate" style that they have adopted in the recent years. Come on KOP team, Frank, and LRIs... how about showing some love for additional power sources for computing devices?