Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Tristan,
Weight and size is performed with the bumpers off and the battery out. Inspection continues with no power until such time as the inspector reaches the "power on tests" at the end of the inspection.
As Mike has pointed out in example above, there will be mechanisms that require locking pins to transport the robot safely onto the field. I agree with his assessment. If removal of the lock cannot keep the robot within the sizing box, then it doesn't pass the test of "self-supporting" in <R90>. If the robot is prepared for a match by storing energy in one of the allowed methods in <R01> and the locking device makes handling and transport safe then as Mike has put it, it's use should be mandatory.
Again, until the GDC releases a rule governing this situation or the inspection checklist is released, this is my opinion and no one else. In training inspectors, I cannot advise them to inspect a robot powered, precharged, or predeflected until such time as there is a need to demonstrate the power on tests or the energy and travel of a moving robot mechanism as part of that inspection.
|
Let me put this another way—the issue is with this year's rules:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Section 8.2
NORMAL CONFIGURATION – The physical configuration and orientation of the ROBOT when the MATCH is started. This is the state of the ROBOT immediately before being enabled by the Field Management System, before the ROBOT takes any actions, deploys any mechanisms, or moves away from the starting location. This configuration is static, and does not change during a single MATCH (although it may change from MATCH to MATCH).
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <R90>
The ROBOT will be inspected for compliance with the dimension constraints specified in Rule <R10> while in its NORMAL CONFIGURATION, by being placed within a FIRST Sizing Device that has inside surface dimensions consistent with the rule. Other than resting on the floor of the Sizing Device, no part of the ROBOT can break the plane of the sides or top of the Sizing Device during size inspection. The ROBOT must be self-supporting while in the Sizing Device.
|
It is explicitly stated that size inspection takes place while in normal configuration. The most straightforward reading of "immediately before being enabled by the [FMS]" leads me to believe that they are defining normal configuration in terms of the instant before a match begins—the robot is powered, and disabled. Therefore, despite usual practice (of which I am certainly aware), and perhaps our better judgment, the 2010 rules do not specify size inspection with "the battery out".
If a team reads <R90> and constructs a mechanism that is self-supporting in normal configuration, but either non-self-supporting or outside the size limits when unpowered, and then presents it for inspection, the inspectors need to formulate an appropriate way to measure its size, while avoiding the imposition of
ad hoc constraints and simultaneously maintaining a safe process.
If we leave that particular robot unpowered and unrestrained, it will fail—but these conditions are inconsistent with normal configuration. This is therefore an unacceptable basis upon which to evaluate rules compliance
for that robot. (For other robots, where the unpowered configuration is clearly equivalent to the normal configuration, this is moot.)
On the other hand, if we power it and leave it unrestrained, there may be unnecessary hazards to the inspectors and bystanders. Only if the risk is minimal would this be appropriate.
If the risk of harm is too high in the previous scenario, then we must consider restraining it. If we're willing to interpret the self-supporting requirement in <R90> as a constraint on design (in other words, the robot must be
able to be self-supporting in the box), rather than as a constraint on the precise process used by the inspectors, then it would be sufficient for the team to independently demonstrate self-containment, and then put it in the box with a restraint to permit it to fit and to preserve safety. (For example, a robot's kicker is known to be self-contained when in normal configuration, but requires power. However, the robot will not fit with the kicker extended. Partially retract the kicker and restrain it securely, so that it fits in the box. Check for size.)
Alternatively, if the shape of the sizing box permits it, and the robot had already demonstrated the capability to self-constrain when powered, you could simply insert the unpowered, unrestrained robot and ignore the protrusion.
Now, with regard to electromagnets: I presented that as an example of a mechanism that would require power to stay within size limits, but which did not depend on the controls being enabled. If that's indeed ruled illegal, then for the purposes of my example, we can imagine another mechanism that behaves similarly.
As an aside, I'm not convinced that that clapper mechanism is a solenoid actuator—it seems to fail the usual definition of a solenoid (an electromagnetic coil surrounding a cavity, within which there is a uniform magnetic field) or a solenoid actuator (which moves an armature linearly within the cavity). It is definitely an electromagnetic actuator—but if there was no intent to distinguish a solenoid from any other electromagnet, why use the specific term?
Similarly, with the electromagnetic locks, their geometry is totally different from a solenoid—they rely on the field outside of the coil, and do not directly drive an armature.