I'm not arguing the ruling... but if you really want to split hairs, how is holding something, and then letting go, NOT an actuator.
What is the purest definition of an "Actuator"?
Seriously, unless you are using the magnetic field to manipulate sub-atomic particles, isn't the whole point to effect the motion of another item... holding, or pushing, or pulling.... in all cases you are excerting a force on another object, causing it to either move, or not move. In the case under siscussion, if the electromagnet is on amd the metal is being "held" in place, and then some external force (robot) did pull the metal away from it, and then than force was removed, wouldn't the electromagnet pull the metal back into place again... So although it would "normally" be holding it in place it may actually move it under some unforseen operating circumstances.
So... holding or pulling or pushing.... seems to me it's an actuator no matter what it's doing. Fortunately the GDC has ruled otherwise... but it's far from "unambiguous" in my more "generic" view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether
It's actually a narrow interpretation. A COTS electromagnet is clearly permitted as long as it is not actuating something. A COTS electro-magnetic actuator is not permitted under any circumstances.
The only thing that is not clear is whether a COTS electromagnet is permitted if it is actuating (forcibly moving) something external to itself on the robot. That specific question has not been explicitly addressed by GDC by either of the Q&A responses, since both questions were asking about an electromagnet simply holding something, not moving something.
There have been no arguments about electromagnets used as a holding device, that I am aware of. I don't expect any. The GDC ruling was quite unambiguous.
~
|