|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
I can answer this one.
Way back when, you could do just about anything on mechanical but you were highly restricted on electrical. Those of us electrical types petitioned FIRST, through the feedback process, to give a little more leeway in electrical design by allowing more vendors. The current list is a progression of that request and further year's changes. By limiting the number of vendors, all teams are somewhat restricted to using the same components that are readily available to everyone. Inspectors are more able to make rational decisions when they see components that are available from a small list of vendors. Any questions as to availability can be easily answered on line or by phone. Everyone benefits! Add to this list, parts that are available through regular suppliers, i.e. McMaster-Carr and you have a lot of electrical stuff at your fingertips. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
One other thought that occurred to me was enforcement. I've watched many teams "fudge" numbers on price costs. Who's to say that the "flux capacitor" you have on your robot didn't cost you 18 dollars through ebay, while it's 600 dollars to any other team. By limiting the items to whats in the catalog, it makes it much easier to enforce the rule.
EDIT: Hmm..kinda repetitious of Al, sorry. I guess it helps to read the latest posts before just going on and posting the new thought. Last edited by Specialagentjim : 30-12-2004 at 01:40. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
I should add here that limiting the electrical vendors also accomplishes something else. An unlimited vendor list allows teams to use substandard parts and assemble electrical devices from non electrical parts. This is a safety issue that I am fully behind. I have stated before that the battery can be a source of personal harm and as such electrical devices need to be restricted. The current list is smaller than I would like. Mouser and MCM Electronics are two high quality vendors that jump to mind as added vendors. All of the vendors on the list carry similar parts and it allows teams a wider choice of inventory. That being said, I can live with the list as it stands.
Last edited by Al Skierkiewicz : 30-12-2004 at 20:53. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
However, how many teams can take a chunk of stock steel and run it in a lathe to create a shaft? Most of them. How many teams can build gears? A good deal of them. It's level because a part one team can manufacture themselves another team should be allowed to buy. It's much easier to build non-electrical parts from stock. Placing silicon in layers is still rather difficult for high school students. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
lol no kidding. I would love the facilities to make our own ICs.
Random thought of the day. Sparks |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
Putting in a large-scale IC fab operation is somewhat on the same scale as building a modern power plant, and those cost well over 1 billion. This year, we hit a milestone by making about 20 "perfect wafers" (5") in our fab here at Delphi. In the IC fab world, a "perfect wafer" with zero defects is a pretty big deal. We have been making 5" wafers for a long time (older technology), but recently have been making 8" wafers for the past couple of years. The air filtration system in these types of places runs a single digit ppm, and has 10x the flow of air that a domed stadium has. Cool stuff. (sorry to get off topic, but this IC fab stuff intrigues me) Andy B. Last edited by Andy Baker : 05-01-2005 at 01:22. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
Andy B. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How Many FIRST shirts do you own? | Joe Ross | General Forum | 81 | 31-08-2004 10:36 |
| A Real Transformer? (the robots, not the electrical component) | Nick Seidl | Chit-Chat | 2 | 02-04-2004 12:23 |
| BLOWN COMPONENT! In need of 2004 Robot controller to borrow for 2 days | Michael Luedtke | Electrical | 9 | 22-02-2004 22:15 |
| Looking for unusual electrical component | JamesJones | Electrical | 11 | 08-07-2003 20:36 |