|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
OK - here's a specific example of the issue.
I have been working away on an optical mouse based navigation system. The mouse speaks the PS/2 protocol. While it may well be possible to get the PIC to be able to interface to a PS/2 device, there will undoubtedly be a fair amount of work involved in getting the bi-directional communications established and working reliably. I happened to find a nifty little chip & resonator on the web that is specifically designed to interface between a PS/2 device and a microprocessor. It costs all of $30. I'd be willing to bet that the chip is in fact a PIC - but that's not the point. The point is that the chip/resonator kit is not sold by any of the vendors in the list. So - using a strict interpretation of last year's rule R71 (i.e. what I believe FIRST intended) - I can't use it. The kit *is* available to anyone who wishes to buy it however so, assuming the vendor can handle the demand, the playing field is level. So if it's all about there being a level playing field and staying within reasonable cost boundaries, I think those criteria have probably been met. I have indeed asked FIRST whether, looking in retrospect, they would have allowed use of the chip last year had I asked. The answer was that the Director of Engineering at FIRST "did not know if it would have been allowed last year." And of course they would not say whether rule R71 would be changed this year or not. That's no surprise of course and an entirely reasonable position to take. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
Back to the original topic for this thread...
Given my reading of the message from FIRST today regarding parts suppliers, it seemed clear to me that the supplier I used for the PS/2 interface chip may now be legal. Hallelujah!!! So I sent a message off to Al Williams, Inc. - the supplier for the chip. My question to him was simple: Did he feel that his company would meet the specified criteria? I'll post his response here once I get it. |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
You used to have to build your entire robot out of the Small Parts catolouge, the Kit of Parts, and the additional parts list. We outgrew Small Parts, so we can buy things anywhere. They limit us to what Digi-key, Future Active, Radio Shac and Newark InONe offer so as to level the playing field.
I suspect that it will be back. Wetzel |
![]() |
| 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 |