Separate Powered Flashlights?

[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).

[rich2202]

I don't see the power issue as "safety" per-se. More as equalizing the available power.

I can see how batteries for COTS computing devices are allowed, otherwise, you would have to allow for a boot-up period for those devices. They are also more sensitive to brownouts, which the internal battery solves.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by 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).

I personally told a team last year to rewire a battery powered flashlight last year, and had another LRI who was acting as a RI concur with me. Unfortunately inspectors miss things.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by 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).

If you say to an inspector "But it passed at my last competition" they are allowed to smack you upside the head. It's there in the game manual if you look hard enough.

[arichman1257]

This is one of those times where the ever important quote about robot design comes it. Never build your robot around a loop hole. There is no way to justify a flashlight as a COTS computing device. Flashlights draw so little current anyway so I don't really see why you would want/need to power it without using the robot power. Also, I assume that this is for vision so may I recommend these? They are ring lights. they come in 7 colors and 4 sizes and are very bright so they should suit most vision needs.

https://www.superbrightleds.com/more...lights/49/304/

[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!

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Retired Starman

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!

I thought about responding to you by picking apart your post piece by piece... believe me, I can. However, at the core of your post is the reason I keep posting rants about outdated rules. You seem content with blindly accepting specifications and rules. Not just content, you want FRC to become about that by forking the manual into specifications for a design.

The problem is that your blind acceptance is the very reason we're able to find loopholes to begin with. If FRC never gets around to explaining why rules are written the way they are or having to clarify the intent because no one questions them then loopholes will be found.

Not only that but most of the engineering that I admire comes from people who examine the specifications closely and find loopholes. The Colin Chapman quote in my signature is there because I admire what Chapman was able to do with pushing the limits of what was thought possible in Formula 1. I teach my students to question everything. It's written in our team handbook that our students can question decisions and ask why or why not. Sometimes the answer is "because that's someone else's poorly written rule and we have to follow it" but at least I give them an answer.

As frustrated as you are as an inspector that has to deal with the shenanigans of a particular team, remember that teams act on the information presented to them. If the manual says custom circuits are legal then custom circuits are legal. Teams can (and I feel rightly that they should) get frustrated when they find a loophole and then have additional restrictions placed on them that weren't written. Obviously there are exceptions for personal safety but when new rules are made up on the spot and applied to a team for pushing the boundaries then it certainly appears to be enforcement of unwritten rules for the sake of not losing an authoritative face. If you explain the intent then it becomes more clear for all involved given the distributed nature of FRC.

And while you might think I'm picking fights with inspectors, remember that FIRST has no official presence on CD so what I post here and how I argue for or against something has no bearing at all on the rules for the game (Unless someone wants to drop the pretense and admit that CD is actually an official forum in some way but that would be another golden cow that gets murdered).

[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

[marshall]

Here you go:

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/183

All I can say is I hope the LRIs have fun with this one.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by marshall

Here you go:

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/183

All I can say is I hope the LRIs have fun with this one.

I read that Q&A as saying, in other words: If a COTS computing device requires a battery to function normally, then the battery is legal. Otherwise, it is not.

I would probably insert "particular" in front of "battery" as well, but it's harder to pull that in. Now, if we discuss your proposed flashlight/COTS computing device... I think there's going to be some very "interesting" discussion there. Just don't make them call a C01 conference--have them call Al instead.


BTW: I've had a couple similar-type discussions. I hear you on needing clarity. But what is also needed is uniformity in enforcement. (Let's see how many old-timers pipe up here...) Anybody wince at "tape-measure tether"? How about "welding on the minibot"? "Load-bearing surface touching the triangle"?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by EricH

I read that Q&A as saying, in other words: If a COTS computing device requires a battery to function normally, then the battery is legal. Otherwise, it is not.

I would probably insert "particular" in front of "battery" as well, but it's harder to pull that in. Now, if we discuss your proposed flashlight/COTS computing device... I think there's going to be some very "interesting" discussion there. Just don't make them call a C01 conference--have them call Al instead.


BTW: I've had a couple similar-type discussions. I hear you on needing clarity. But what is also needed is uniformity in enforcement. (Let's see how many old-timers pipe up here...) Anybody wince at "tape-measure tether"? How about "welding on the minibot"? "Load-bearing surface touching the triangle"?

Well, anyone else who wants to complain about how I give the inspectors a hard time, just remember that I played fair and asked the question in a respectful manner through the official channel. They chose not to answer and continue the ambiguity.

Most laptops do not require a battery to function. They can be plugged in. They can even be run off of the robot using a simple regulator since most are DC powered.

EDIT: Also, point of serious bitterness for me right now, they were asked to clarify intent and meaning, not to rule on any hypothetical components.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by marshall

Well, anyone else who wants to complain about how I give the inspectors a hard time, just remember that I played fair and asked the question in a respectful manner through the official channel. They chose not to answer and continue the ambiguity.

Most laptops do not require a battery to function. They can be plugged in. They can even be run off of the robot using a simple regulator since most are DC powered.

EDIT: Also, point of serious bitterness for me right now, they were asked to clarify intent and meaning, not to rule on any hypothetical components.

Yeah, I hear you on that. Actually, I have a relevant story...

A few years ago, in a non-FIRST competition, the organizers were asked multiple times if "all power must turn off when Big Red Button is pressed" meant that "no electrons are flowing at all including in computing devices". The answer, multiple times, was "yes, that's what it means". My team spent a lot of time getting our onboard laptop to run off one of the two onboard 12V batteries (IIRC, that was our method for complying with the rule--meant removing the battery). Anybody want to guess why the rule was changed at competition to allow the computers to run after the button press?

At least FIRST doesn't do that very often...