|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Separate Powered Flashlights?
Marshall,
I agree with you. I think that those questions need answering and that the definition of when non-robot batteries is something that needs to be revised, specified, and re-thought. But for now, I think that the solution FIRST will be going with is relying on LRIs to make the distinction. Yes, this can lead to a robot being legal at one event and not at the next. Yes, this is not a good solution. Yes, something should be done to remedy this. But I have trouble believing that those upstairs will make this distinction this season. My interpretation of the rule on whether it is integral or not are to ask the following questions: Can I power this device without using it's battery and without plugging it into the wall? A cellphone that requires the battery to be inserted to run would be allowed to use its battery. A drill where you can just power the terminals with a motor controller would not. If it is possible to power without it's battery or plugging it into a wall, is it safe to do so? I cannot think of any examples where it would not be safe but still possible off the top of my head but I'm sure one exists. A Raspberry Pi can be powered without a battery pack very easily and it is perfectly safe. So in this case you would have to power it with the robot battery. I know, it doesn't solve everything. Even though the manual does not use these words here, it appears that they expect a "reasonably astute observer" to be able to say whether or not it is integral. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|