Separate Powered Flashlights?

[7698q]

Can we have a separately powered battery on a flash on the robot or is that not allowed? It says in the rules on page 82 it is fine for cameras, but does a flashlight count as a COTS?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by 7698q

Can we have a separately powered battery on a flash on the robot or is that not allowed? It says in the rules on page 82 it is fine for cameras, but does a flashlight count as a COTS?

I have a theory that this is allowed if the flashlight is programmable because then it is a COTS computing device.

[rich2202]

A solo "flashlight" is not COTS computing device.

A cell phone is a COTS computing device. Using the flashlight function on a cell phone is ok. You can also use a USB flashlight powered off a COTS computing device.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by rich2202

A solo "flashlight" is not COTS computing device.

A cell phone is a COTS computing device. Using the flashlight function on a cell phone is ok. You can also use a USB flashlight powered off a COTS computing device.

Prove it. This flashlight is a computing device: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1196

The fact that you can use a light on a cell phone as a flashlight but not a flashlight is absurd and is yet one more piece of evidence that the rules around batteries for devices that are not part of the control system are outdated.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by marshall

Prove it

Actually, the onus is on the Team to prove that it is. This is the closest the game manual gets to defining "computing device":

R96 Teams are permitted to use a portable computing device of their choice (laptop computer, tablet, etc.) ...

[marshall]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Actually, the onus is on the Team to prove that it is. This is the closest the game manual gets to defining "computing device":

Says "etc" and Mr Turing defined them in such a way that that flashlight counts and so do many others. It's an argument I'm willing to have with an LRI.

[Leav]

Originally Posted by marshall

Says "etc" and Mr Turing defined them in such a way that that flashlight counts and so do many others. It's an argument I'm willing to have with an LRI.

"It's not a flashlight! it's an arduino with a really strong status LED! "

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Leav

"It's not a flashlight! it's an arduino with a really strong status LED! "

Now that's a phrase a LRI would understand. I had to go read the Sparkfun article to see what a programmable flashlight was. And in both code examples they were using it to flash a status out. So Leav is spot on with his description.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Stand alone flashlights have always been required to be powered by the robot battery.
Please read
R37. The only legal source of electrical energy for the ROBOT...

In addition under R07
M. High intensity light sources used on the ROBOT (e.g. super bright LED sources marketed as ‘military grade’ or ‘self-defense’) may only be illuminated for a brief time while targeting and may need to be shrouded to prevent any exposure to participants. Complaints about the use of such light sources will be followed by re-inspection and possible disablement of the device.

R96 refers to the Driver Station only.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Stand alone flashlights have always been required to be powered by the robot battery.
Please read
R37. The only legal source of electrical energy for the ROBOT...

In addition under R07
M. High intensity light sources used on the ROBOT (e.g. super bright LED sources marketed as ‘military grade’ or ‘self-defense’) may only be illuminated for a brief time while targeting and may need to be shrouded to prevent any exposure to participants. Complaints about the use of such light sources will be followed by re-inspection and possible disablement of the device.

R96 refers to the Driver Station only.

R37 has exceptions for batteries that are integral to and part of a COTS computing device. If I call it a microcontroller with a bright status LED is that not a COTS computing device? It's definitely not "military grade".

This is legal:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834234171

But yet this might not be:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13896

And this might not be either:
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13276

Al, I love you guys a lot (seriously, the LRIs have like the worst job because of people like me who constantly needle them) but these battery rules are broken. They've been broken for several years since portable USB battery packs became very prevalent.

I can use the same basic technology if it is inside of a cell phone but yet it's not legal if the battery isn't sold with the widget as is the case with this carrier board for a TX1 that has an integrated charging/discharging circuit: http://auvidea.eu/images/auvidea/pro...top_bottom.jpg

And I haven't even talked about super-capacitors which can be used as part of a custom circuit and that seems perfectly legal.

I get that you don't want to encourage teams to play with batteries and start fires. I really do. BUT the battery rules need to move to the paradigm that many of the other rules have adopted of "allow and explain".

It makes no sense to me that a team can use a kangaroo PC with a battery built in to it because it is assumed that it is somehow safer than the above linked TX1 carrier that we would need to add a battery to ourselves. If neither is part of the control pathways for the robot and the robot can be safely disabled then what is the harm? Obviously the current rules don't prevent robots from catching on fire as it is.

Part of the issue is that the intent of this rule isn't clear. Is it to prevent a fire? Then why allow other batteries at all? Why allow capacitors?

Or is it to prevent teams from creating a robot that can't be disabled? Great, then make it so batteries other than the "one true source of power" are legal provided that when the robot is disabled all motor activity must stop... or wait, we can't actually do that anymore because of the spinning LIDAR systems that are now legal and will likely keep spinning even when the robot is disabled.

EDIT: Also, a note to inspectors. The current rules allow for the Galaxy Note 7 to be used on a robot.

[rpappa]

I've seen a flashlight powered by it's own battery used on at least 2 robots, both of which passed inspection for elims (just an anecdote).

[Retired Starman]

[quote=marshall;1628484]R37

And I haven't even talked about super-capacitors which can be used as part of a custom circuit and that seems perfectly legal.

I get that you don't want to encourage teams to play with batteries and start fires. I really do. BUT the battery rules need to move to the paradigm that many of the other rules have adopted of "allow and explain".


Part of the issue is that the intent of this rule isn't clear. Is it to prevent a fire? Then why allow other batteries at all? Why allow capacitors?


Part of the value to students in FIRST is learning to design and build a robot to meet specifications as set by our client., which in this case is FIRST. This is how it is done in the "real world" where designers may see much better ways to accomplish a task, but often these "better ways" don't meet the needs of the customer, who has his own reasons for writing the specifications the way he has done.

(I've said for years, that FIRST needs to separate Robot Rules into Rules and Specifications. A rule might be that a team can only enter one robot in the competition. A specification might limit the size, weight, or allowed motors.)

Specifications don't have to make sense to the builders, but they still need to be met. So if FIRST wants all the power to come from one battery, kids build them that way, and we Inspectors inspect them that way.

If you want to change things, don't go picking fights with the Inspectors. Petition FIRST for changes through other less confrontational routes that might be more successful.

And by the way, those super-capacitors better be charged by the one allowed battery when I inspect them!

[flemdogmillion]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

In addition under R07
M. High intensity light sources used on the ROBOT (e.g. super bright LED sources marketed as ‘military grade’ or ‘self-defense’) may only be illuminated for a brief time while targeting and may need to be shrouded to prevent any exposure to participants. Complaints about the use of such light sources will be followed by re-inspection and possible disablement of the device.

Would an LED ring count as high-intensity in this rule?

[DonRotolo]

Depends on if there are complaints or not. If you are uncomfortable staring at it for 5 seconds, I'd re-think it

[Dwight_2]

Originally Posted by 7698q

Can we have a separately powered battery on a flash on the robot or is that not allowed? It says in the rules on page 82 it is fine for cameras, but does a flashlight count as a COTS?

I haven't read truly deep into the rules this year but last year they didn't have a problem with it as long as it didn't distract drivers.... (which it did in most cases) but other than for alignment ( for lining up the robot before a match) purposes I believe they are allowed. But don't quote me make sure you read carefully.