[YMTC]: How many Co-Opertition Points?

[qzrrbz]

Although we haven't seen an "aircraft carrier" type of robot yet, the interpretation of all robots fully supported by bridge extended to all robots must have all wheels on the bridge would make that technique useless.

I would prefer believing that all robot mass is ultimately supported by the bridge, which means you obviously can't have have your wheels on the ground, you can't be touching the ground, but doesn't rule out the you can be sitting completely or partially (as is this case) on top of somebody else technique.

Here, remove 2952 from the picture, and the answer is clearly "+2 coop" even though 488 is partially atop 3743. The restrictive idea of "not all of 488 is supported (directly) by the bridge" negating this is not "a reasonable observer's" interpretation. Add 2952 back in, and place 488's bumper on 2952's bumper as it seems to be, and you get some physics component of 488's mass directed to the floor through 2952's frame and bumpers == 0 CPs. That'd be my call.

[Madison]

For what it is worth, 2952 was not touching us at all.

I was there.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Madison

For what it is worth, 2952 was not touching us at all.

I was there.

I defer to your physical presence...I had only the photo and webcast to go off off. So, in that case, 1 CP (two fully-supported robots on an unbalanced bridge) is the right call—and the discussion Eric and I were having is not material to the outcome of the situation.


As for Eric's point, I think it's fundamentally a matter of interpreting the rules in a way that lends itself to consistency, rather than one that feels familiar. The rules and the Q&As propose no threshold for recognizing the support of a robot's weight, and I don't believe it is a good idea to pick an arbitrary threshold that doesn't at least have some physical or practical significance.

In terms of physical significance, I feel that contact implies at least an infinitesimal degree of support, in essentially all conceivable situations. (That's the idea that at a microscopic level, there's adhesion, irregularity and deformation—some of which is bound to be slightly weight-bearing.) So that's one standard we could use—and it's very easy.

Another option is for the referee to observe the conditions that could lead to weight being transferred (any member is deforming under contact and its own weight; any tilted member in contact implies there is a weight component in the normal force), even if the referee can't estimate the amount of weight involved or even if the amount of weight is minuscule. Static indeterminacy makes this somewhat more complicated, but you can still conceive of a probability distribution that implies that in all but the edge cases, there is at least a modicum of weight transfer through all members. This is a valid standard as well, because it's reasonably easy to enforce with minimal scrutiny, and has both practical and physical significance.

I think this rule is enforceable in a systematic way—indeed, the real problem with the rule is not in its construction, but in its interpretation.

[Peck]

If u want to get really technical:

The gravitational attractions the robot causes and any magnetic forces provided by the robots near location might be causing an upword acceleration to the robot thereby holding weight.

Of course, The same argument could be used to say that the earths magnetic field and the gravitational attractions of the roof, and everything above it as well as the magnetic attractions caused by the lights and the wires...

Might I recommend not trying to get down microscopic in your arguments so this all doesn't come into play since the roof could very well be lifting as much weight as any robot.