Go to Post FIRST is nothing short of a community. - karinka13 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 13:57
Unsung FIRST Hero
Karthik Karthik is offline
VEX Robotics GDC Chairman
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,346
Karthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesCH95 View Post
For the love of Andy Baker can we please stop lawyering this into oblivion and use some common sense? The GDC doesn't want to artificially limit designs through inane rule interpretation.

The appendage may have forks or splits in it as long as it is mechanically connected in such a way as they must function unison. Your arm+hand+fingers is considered one appendage. Your two arms acting in unison through brain commands (i.e. robot code) are still two separate appendages.
I agree what you have here is a common sense interpretation, one that I believe most teams have been operating under for the past 3.5 weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
The GDC just replied to my question about appendages during deployment. It's pretty clear now...they must always be contiguous:

Here is the question and response:


Q. To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a "H" shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out.

A. Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece.
This response seems to completely contradict the common sense interpretation put forth above by JamesCH95. This is what frustrates me when people start saying "don't lawyer the rules, just use common sense". Well, sometimes the common sense of the community and the common sense of the GDC aren't the same, nor should we expect them to be. Different people will always have different interpretations. In this case, since the rule wasn't unambiguously spelled out in the manual, and since Q&A's weren't fully addressed, we're now 58% through the build season and being given a ruling that will significantly alter the designs of many teams. The teams who didn't "lawyer" the rules and used their own common sense are now the ones who will be forced to make major changes.

I can't see any justification for why this rule is being interpreted this way. I'm hoping that this is just a misinterpretation, similar to the issue we saw with the reference plane of the bumper zone earlier this season. If not, a lot of teams are to have to make a lot of changes, and a lot of inspectors are going to be forced to enforce a rule they'll have a very hard time justifying to the teams.

They don't call it the hardest fun you'll ever have for nothing. Just another challenge.
__________________
:: Karthik Kanagasabapathy ::
"Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" -- R.W. Emerson
My TEDx Talk - The Subtle Secrets of Success
Full disclosure: I work for IFI and VEX Robotics, and am the Chairman of the VEX Robotics and VEX IQ Game Design Committees
.

Last edited by Karthik : 02-02-2012 at 14:12.
  #77   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 14:42
wilhitern1's Avatar
wilhitern1 wilhitern1 is offline
Sr. Systems Analyst / BRM
AKA: Neal Wilhite
FRC #1225 (Gorillas)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Hendersinville, NC
Posts: 147
wilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to all
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Steele View Post
We are working on a solution too. Think about "leading" with the contiguous element... perhaps a linkage that moves the appendage out and then down..
Or use two separate controlled motions to move the appendage out and then swing down...

I hope this helps some...

Good luck
I will be suggesting to my team tonight that we put a retractable cap on our appendage. To be lifted off of the appendage after the joining point has clearly exceeded the frame.
  #78   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 16:29
artdutra04's Avatar
artdutra04 artdutra04 is offline
VEX Robotics Engineer
AKA: Arthur Dutra IV; NERD #18
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 3,078
artdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond reputeartdutra04 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I was thinking more about this today and made a grave realization that these two Q&A Forum answers just painted FIRST into a corner that will make nearly all appendages illegal.

Quote:
Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. Our question is similar to FRC1540. We want to put surgical tubing "whips" on a roller located at the frame perimeter. When this rotates the whips will extend beyond the frame perimeter. Is each "whip" its own apendage or is the assembly considered one appendage? FRC3219 2012-02-01
A. If multiple items exit the Frame Perimeter and are not contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter, they are considered multiple appendages.
Quote:
Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a "H" shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out. FRC1540 2012-01-30
A. Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece.
What this means: if you follow these two Q&A rulings strictly, all wheels, gears, sprockets, rollers, or any other type of rotary motion device (with an axis of rotation parallel to the frame perimeter) on an appendage are now illegal.

Why?

There will always be a portion of the wheel, gear, or sprocket that is dis-contiguous from the rest of the appendage for the small duration of time between which the edge of the wheel, gear, sprocket, roller, etc breaks the plane of the frame perimeter and when the shaft breaks the plane.

Photos are worth a thousand words:

Image 1: What common sense would define as a contiguous appendage. In this case, it's a simple wheelie bar that extends straight outwards. The grey part is the robot base, the black side is the frame perimeter. The light red, blue, and green parts are an appendage that comes straight out. This appendage is entirely inside the frame perimeter and is legal.




Image 2: The appendage has started to break the frame perimeter and extend outward! This is a section view of the CAD assembly, looking outward from the frame perimeter. So far, so good. The appendage is contiguous.




Image 3: The appendage has continued to expand out, but it's now illegal! The portion of the wheel that has broken the plane of the frame perimeter is now dis-contiguous (outside of the frame perimeter) from the rest of the appendage!




Image 4: The appendage continued to expand outwards, and the axle of the wheel finally broke the plane of the frame perimeter! The wheel is now 100% contiguous with the appendage outside the frame perimeter again and is legal once again.




As these images very clearly show, unless the FRC GDC intended to ban all wheels, gears, sprockets, or rollers with a axle/shaft parallel with the frame perimeter, there must be an exemption of the contiguous mandate for appendages in the act of deploying.

There is a very simple solution solution to this fix this problem: only require the appendage to be contiguous outside the frame perimeter when it contacts or reacts with some element on the playing field.
__________________
Art Dutra IV
Robotics Engineer, VEX Robotics, Inc., a subsidiary of Innovation First International (IFI)
Robowranglers Team 148 | GUS Robotics Team 228 (Alumni) | Rho Beta Epsilon (Alumni) | @arthurdutra

世上无难事,只怕有心人.

Last edited by artdutra04 : 02-02-2012 at 16:33.
  #79   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 16:38
Bob Steele's Avatar
Bob Steele Bob Steele is offline
Professional Steamacrit Hunter
AKA: Bob Steele
FRC #1983 (Skunk Works Robotics)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,527
Bob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Art
You are exactly correct. That would be a noncontiguous deployment under a strict interpretation of the QA answer...

However, it could also be interpreted that the entire assembly including the wheel or gear is the appendage. If this is true, then the appendage would be contiguous outside the frame perimeter.....otherwise you could not put it out... because there would be two appendages....for a brief time...

This is, in essence the same issue with a rotating roller with small stubs of tubing on it... what IS the appendage??? Is it the entire unit? or bits of the unit as they move over the perimeter?


this is really getting ridiculous isn't it?
__________________
Raisbeck Aviation High School TEAM 1983 - Seattle, Washington
Las Vegas 07 WINNER w/ 1425/254...Seattle 08 WINNER w/ 2046/949.. Oregon 09 WINNER w/1318/2635..SEA 10 RCA ..Spokane 12 WINNER w/2122/4082 and RCA...Central Wa 13 WINNER w/1425/753..Seattle 13 WINNER w/948/492 & RCA ..Spokane 13 WINNER w/2471/4125.. Spokane 14 - DCA --Auburn 14 - WINNER w/1318/4960..District CMP 14 WINNER w/1318/2907, District CMA.. CMP 14 Newton Finalist w 971/341/3147 ... Auburn Mountainview 15 WINNER w/1318/3049 - Mt Vernon 15 WINNER w/1318/4654 - Philomath 15 WINNER w/955/847 -District CMP 15 WINNER w/955/2930 & District CMA -CMP Newton -Industrial Design Award

  #80   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 16:46
Jared Russell's Avatar
Jared Russell Jared Russell is offline
Taking a year (mostly) off
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs), FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,078
Jared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Art,

Clearly the wheel and it's supporting structure are the same appendage. In Image 3 it is obvious that the portion of the frame perimeter crossed by this appendage is contiguous. Whether or not that's how the GDC wrote it, that's clearly (IMO) what is intended.
  #81   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 11:25
Dale's Avatar
Dale Dale is offline
Head Coach & Mentor
AKA: Dale Yocum
FRC #1540 (Flaming Chickens)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 504
Dale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud of
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Just in case you weren't following this question on Q&A, here's another response on this theme:

Q. Thanks for the additional G21 clarification. I would appreciate a bit more clarification, primarily regarding your 2012-01-27 response to FRC0063. Can more than one component of a contiguous appendage assembly outside of the frame be simultaneously crossing one edge of the frame perimeter? Thanks.

A. Yes, provided any part of the appendage that is outside the Frame Perimeter is contiguous.
__________________
2016 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2016 Winner Oregon City District, 2015 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2015 PNW District Engineering Inspiration; 2015 PNW District Finalist; 2014 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2014 Championship Innovation in Controls; 2013 Chairman's (Oregon); 2013 Finalist (OKC); 2012 Winner (OKC); 2012 Chairman's (OKC); 2012 Woody Flowers (Oregon); 2011 Volunteer of the Year (Oregon); 2011 Finalist & Captain (San Diego); 2011 Innovation in Control (San Diego); 2010 & 2007 Chairman's (Oregon); 2010 Regional Champions (Colorado); 2010 Innovation in Control (Colorado); 2009 & 2008 Engineering Inspiration (Oregon); 2008 Regional Champions (Oregon); 2007 Regional Finalist (Oregon); 2005 Rookie Inspiration (PNW)
  #82   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 15:16
Austin2046's Avatar
Austin2046 Austin2046 is offline
Design, Strategy & Scouting Mentor
FRC #2046 (Bear Metal)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 175
Austin2046 has a spectacular aura aboutAustin2046 has a spectacular aura about
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

From the answers the Q&A has given, i don't see the image of the wheely bar as described above or an H-shaped appendage, as violating the rules about appendages. Here are the questions and answers again:

Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. Our question is similar to FRC1540. We want to put surgical tubing "whips" on a roller located at the frame perimeter. When this rotates the whips will extend beyond the frame perimeter. Is each "whip" its own apendage or is the assembly considered one appendage? FRC3219 2012-02-01

A. If multiple items exit the Frame Perimeter and are not contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter, they are considered multiple appendages.

Game - The Game » Robot Actions » G21
Q. To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a "H" shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out. FRC1540 2012-01-30
A. Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece.

Q. Thanks for the additional G21 clarification. I would appreciate a bit more clarification, primarily regarding your 2012-01-27 response to FRC0063. Can more than one component of a contiguous appendage assembly outside of the frame be simultaneously crossing one edge of the frame perimeter? Thanks.

A. Yes, provided any part of the appendage that is outside the Frame Perimeter is contiguous.


From the first answer our appendages have to be continguous outside of the frame perimeter. From the second answer our appendage has to be a contiguous piece when it's outside the frame perimeter. From the third answer more than one component of a contiguous appendage assembly can be simultaneously crossing one edge of the frame perimeter.

The way i interpret this is that our H shaped appendage is fine as long as when the appendage is fully deployed our cross member is located outside the frame perimeter. The second answer only means that two separate things can't join together to form one appendage after each breaks the frame perimeter, or that they can't separate after they've broken the frame perimeter (they stay one contiguous piece outside the frame) The answer doesn't say that an appendage can't cross the frame perimeter in multiple places. The third answer says that it can, as long as the multiple places are contiguous with eachother, not neccesarily contiguous outside of the frame perimeter.

So when the 2 ends of the H are going outside the frame perimeter 2 components of a contiguous appendage are crossing the frame perimeter. The appendage is contiguous while being deployed, and when the H is fully deployed the cross member is outside of the frame perimeter making it one appendage.

Last edited by Austin2046 : 03-02-2012 at 15:20.
  #83   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 16:01
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is online now
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,805
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Austin, that's the common sense interpretation.

The problem is, that's not necessarily what the GDC said.

Can more than one component of a contiguous appendage assembly outside of the frame be simultaneously crossing one edge of the frame perimeter? Thanks.

A. Yes, provided any part of the appendage that is outside the Frame Perimeter is contiguous.



To put the answer another way, if it's outside, and part of a contiguous assembly, the part that's outside has to be the contiguous part.

To be fair, you could apply the "is contiguous" to either "any part" or to "appendage". That's probably where we're differing--we're applying it to the "any part" and you're applying it to the "contiguous".
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

  #84   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 17:02
Dale's Avatar
Dale Dale is offline
Head Coach & Mentor
AKA: Dale Yocum
FRC #1540 (Flaming Chickens)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 504
Dale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud of
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Q. Thanks for the additional G21 clarification. I would appreciate a bit more clarification, primarily regarding your 2012-01-27 response to FRC0063. Can more than one component of a contiguous appendage assembly outside of the frame be simultaneously crossing one edge of the frame perimeter? Thanks.

A. Yes, provided any part of the appendage that is outside the Frame Perimeter is contiguous.
I read this latest response as allowing "U" shaped appendages where the solid portion is facing outwards. No big surprise there. Those cross the frame perimeter in two places but are contiguous when outside of the frame. There's nothing about this that allows "H" shaped appendages (during deployment) in my estimation. My original question to GDC mentioned that specifically and they disallowed it.
__________________
2016 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2016 Winner Oregon City District, 2015 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2015 PNW District Engineering Inspiration; 2015 PNW District Finalist; 2014 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2014 Championship Innovation in Controls; 2013 Chairman's (Oregon); 2013 Finalist (OKC); 2012 Winner (OKC); 2012 Chairman's (OKC); 2012 Woody Flowers (Oregon); 2011 Volunteer of the Year (Oregon); 2011 Finalist & Captain (San Diego); 2011 Innovation in Control (San Diego); 2010 & 2007 Chairman's (Oregon); 2010 Regional Champions (Colorado); 2010 Innovation in Control (Colorado); 2009 & 2008 Engineering Inspiration (Oregon); 2008 Regional Champions (Oregon); 2007 Regional Finalist (Oregon); 2005 Rookie Inspiration (PNW)
  #85   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 19:34
RRLedford RRLedford is offline
FTC 3507 Robo Theosis -- FRC 3135
AKA: Dick Ledford
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 286
RRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I zeroed in on this dilemma earlier in this thread, when I questioned how the contiguity test would be applied. My "common sense" told me that any "appendage contiguity test" would ONLY make sense if it was applied EXCLUSIVELY to ONLY those portions of a deploying appendage that were progressively crossing and occupying the OUTSIDE SPACE of the boundary of the frame perimeter.

The only portions of a robot component that can be considered or evaluated as an appendage, are those portions which HAVE EXTENDED BEYOND the frame perimeter, and their contiguity assessment CANNOT consider ANY PORTION of the(se) component(s) that REMAINS INSIDE the frame perimeter -- only what PROTRUDES BEYOND.

The reason that the contiguity test "path" COULD NOT be allowed to be traced crossing back INSIDE of the frame perimeter, is that, since all parts of a robot are normally contiguous to the robot inself, there has to be an imaginary demarcation PLANE to merely establish the concept of discontinuity. It is then in relation to this demarcation plane of the frame perimeter that we can evaluate the contiguity of what has protruded beyond it.

This was how I came up with the lightsaber test concept, that artdutra04 has so nicely illustrated in the image below:



I like the suggestion that no appendage be assessed for contiguity until it contacts the field, field elements, or an item (non-robot) that is in contact with the field or field elements. Otherwise, LEGAL appendages have just become a whole lot less capable than what we thought they could be!

-RRLedford
  #86   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 19:56
arizonafoxx's Avatar
arizonafoxx arizonafoxx is offline
Registered User
FRC #4395 (T-Rex)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Fort Mill, SC
Posts: 96
arizonafoxx is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Here is the definition of contiguous from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contiguous

1
: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point
2
of angles : adjacent 2
3
: next or near in time or sequence
4
: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence <contiguous row houses>

Could we use definition 3 to solve this whole problem. "Next or near" would solve all the problems of not touching when taking cross sections and "in time or sequence" would help with the deployment process as a whole. If the appendage moves all parts touching or not in the same sequence it would be considered contiguous. It seems to me if we have this definition on hand as proof at competition no inspector or head ref would be able to rule against us.
  #87   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 20:20
MrForbes's Avatar
MrForbes MrForbes is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jim
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 6,012
MrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
I read this latest response as allowing "U" shaped appendages where the solid portion is facing outwards. No big surprise there. Those cross the frame perimeter in two places but are contiguous when outside of the frame. There's nothing about this that allows "H" shaped appendages (during deployment) in my estimation. My original question to GDC mentioned that specifically and they disallowed it.
This is what I thought all along...it's pretty obvious to me....
  #88   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 20:32
RRLedford RRLedford is offline
FTC 3507 Robo Theosis -- FRC 3135
AKA: Dick Ledford
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 286
RRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arizonafoxx View Post
Here is the definition of contiguous from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contiguous

1
: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point
2
of angles : adjacent 2
3
: next or near in time or sequence
4
: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence <contiguous row houses>

Could we use definition 3 to solve this whole problem. "Next or near" would solve all the problems of not touching when taking cross sections and "in time or sequence" would help with the deployment process as a whole. If the appendage moves all parts touching or not in the same sequence it would be considered contiguous. It seems to me if we have this definition on hand as proof at competition no inspector or head ref would be able to rule against us.
#3 def is more related to temporal considerations with a touch of motion implied. There is a concept of "contiguous motion" that might be applied.
#4 is more related to the connecting physicality of objects assembled together.

-RRLedford
  #89   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 23:09
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,633
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
The last week of build, iirc.

If you're depending on getting the "right" wording on the inspection checklist for a mechanism on your robot to be legal, you might want to redesign the mechanism NOW
Thanks. We're legal (it's more a "D" than anything else), but for anyone who is looking only to the robot rules or inspection checklist, don't forget G21. As a ref, this is all very painful. At least inspectors get to slowly look at one robot however they'd like. I shudder at what could be required of refs in terms of G21. Will the inspectors take care of it all, or do we need eagle eyes to tell which edge/component crossed the perimeter first? What if I see a partially obscured Y/V/U and mistake it for two "1"s?

Quote:
Originally Posted by artdutra04 View Post
What this means: if you follow these two Q&A rulings strictly, all wheels, gears, sprockets, rollers, or any other type of rotary motion device (with an axis of rotation parallel to the frame perimeter) on an appendage are now illegal.
Note that this only applies if the shaft is parallel to the frame perimeter plane (or angled but not long enough). Perpendicular shafts should be fine. (This also applies to H's that are vertical or I-shaped crossing the perimeter.) Well, both should be fine, but perpendicular shafts are fine even accepting ridiculousness.
__________________
  #90   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-02-2012, 23:15
Dale's Avatar
Dale Dale is offline
Head Coach & Mentor
AKA: Dale Yocum
FRC #1540 (Flaming Chickens)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 504
Dale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud ofDale has much to be proud of
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I'm just adding these two new Q&A responses here for those who aren't following Q&A's on the topic. Nothing really new:


Q. It seems the appendage definition Q&A started out innocently requesting clarity, but led to being over-scrutinized. I suspect the intent of G21 is that an appendage is simply “a contiguous assembly of parts originating from inside the frame and can extend beyond one frame edge 14”.” Please confirm.

A. There is no formal definition of appendage. All pieces of an appendage outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter.



and


Q. The appendage confusion stems from two conflicting replies: 1) “an appendage is a contiguous assembly that may extend beyond the frame”, and 2) “an appendage, when extended beyond the frame, is a contiguous assembly”. It seems reply #1 is your intent and in the spirit of the rules. Please confirm.

A. Both answers are the intent of the Rule.
__________________
2016 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2016 Winner Oregon City District, 2015 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2015 PNW District Engineering Inspiration; 2015 PNW District Finalist; 2014 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2014 Championship Innovation in Controls; 2013 Chairman's (Oregon); 2013 Finalist (OKC); 2012 Winner (OKC); 2012 Chairman's (OKC); 2012 Woody Flowers (Oregon); 2011 Volunteer of the Year (Oregon); 2011 Finalist & Captain (San Diego); 2011 Innovation in Control (San Diego); 2010 & 2007 Chairman's (Oregon); 2010 Regional Champions (Colorado); 2010 Innovation in Control (Colorado); 2009 & 2008 Engineering Inspiration (Oregon); 2008 Regional Champions (Oregon); 2007 Regional Finalist (Oregon); 2005 Rookie Inspiration (PNW)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:57.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi