Quote:
Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid
|
So I truly do not understand what FIRST is after here. If they don't want external batteries then specify that.
If they are going to allow batteries for laptops then I truly do not understand why they think laptop batteries are integral. They are not required for a laptop to function. They are not essential to completeness yet that is how they defined it so I'm left to think that a battery must be required for a laptop because if it loses power then it will potentially corrupt the OS or files. Any 1st year EE undergrad can tell you that a power source is a power source yet FIRST doesn't seem to think that. Maybe a cell phone has a battery that is literally required for completeness but that's not strictly true either. All of these devices can be run from an alternative power source like the robot battery.
Now they've said that USB power packs shouldn't be considered integral. Well, ok... what about this:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896
IT USES A USB BATTERY PACK!!!
Not to mention the custom circuit rules which allows for other things like this:
Ebay link for a supercap based system that should be able to charge from the robot battery
USB batteries aren't legal but yet this thing seems perfectly legal provided it charges from the robot battery and doesn't power anything on the robot's control system or motors. IT MAKES NO SENSE! It's not a battery after all, it's just a bunch of capacitors in a custom circuit. Bonus, it has a built-in USB port.
I'm committed to kicking and screaming about this for as long as it is ambiguous and believe me, we'll push boundaries on trying stuff.
I really implore FIRST to stop and think about what this rule is trying to accomplish and then explain the intent. At this point they are just being silly.