Thoughts? (on rule points)

[Paradox21]

You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?

Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.

[Flavorflav]

You actually got a reply to an FAQ/Clarification you submitted?

Yes, I have gotten a response to every FAQ/Clarification I have submitted. Including the Mission Possible one. I don't think I am doing anything special, just go to the FAQ page and submit a question for the event you choose.

I haven't even got an acknowledgment of receipt of any of mine. IN previous years those have been almost instantaneous.

[eta150]

They're pretty good about that stuff to everyone, in all events. I e-mailed about an error in the wright stuff scoring sheets last year, so they sent me an email back, and changed the sheet to fix the error I pointed out. They pretty much had too, because most teams there would have been second-tiered unfairly if they hadn't.

[andrewwski]

One year I sent a clarification request in January and didn't get a response until March.

That was extremely helpful, seeing as competition was in February.

[Uncle Fester]

Interesting about the multiple tasks question. While I hotly disagree with the "Parallel paths" reasoning (one in, one out is HARDLY a "Parallel path"), I knew a long time ago that they really wanted "ten steps."

I think that both Dark Sabre and Delta Hat hold the lifetime title of "most points in a single step". I always enjoyed the Missioners that said that if they couldn't advance to Nationals, they could at least get everyone's attention by consolidating steps. Alas, will be sadly missed.

But they want ten steps. So give them ten steps.

[Dark Sabre]

Two clarifications just appeared on http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif_2009

Mission Possible: Section 3.d. should read (see additions in bold): "Electric components shall be limited to batteries, wires, motors, switches, resistors, capacitors, commercial photocells (i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors), mechanical relays, lightbulbs, and LEDs. No computers or transistors will be permitted in the device." (11/9/09)

Mission Possible: Section 4.b. should read (see additions in bold): "Activate a photocell that allows current to flow to a motor, which leads to the next action." (11/9/09)


So you can 100% use lightbulbs, LEDs, and photoresistors now

[fleet130]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

[Flavorflav]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

[gh]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.

[Flavorflav]

So, did they really mean to prohibit photovoltaic cells by the statement: "(i.e.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)", or did they mean to say "(e.g.cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors)"?

Note: CdS cells, photoresistors and light dependant resistors are all the same thing! They gave no examples such as photovoltaic cells or phototransistors.

It would be a very strange thing for a clarification of the term photocells to exclude photocells, but that appears to me to be what the clarification does. This impression is only made stronger by the other clarification, changing "supplies the power for" to "allows current to flow to." It seems like the original committee wanted a photocell, but the clarifications person for some reason has their heart set on a light-dependent resistor.

A photocell is a light-dependent resistor. You're thinking of a photovoltaic cell.

So I am. I had assumed that the terms were equivalent. I now see that I was not correct. So we are left with fleet130's question above.

ETA: I still think that the original conception was for a solar or photovoltaic cell, from the "supplies the power for" line. I suspect that the authors made the same mistake that I did.

[DeltaHat]

My guess is that the clarification person realized after the fact that a photovoltaic cell will not provide enough voltage/amperage to perform any meaningful action on its own in a typical competition setting. Thus, the complete 180 degree turn from photovoltaic cells only to light dependent resistors only.

This brings up two HUGE problems.
1. The rules as written specify photovoltaic cells (photocells) exclusively, but the official clarification specifies light dependent resisters exclusively, effectively banning photovoltaic cells from the event ex post facto. Will teams that use the wrong type of light detection automatically be relegated to 2nd tier?

2. From my judging experience, neither students nor judges (especially at the regional level) consistently read the national clarifications. In fact, I have met many less seasoned judges who are not even aware that the official clarifications exist! What if the judge does not read the clarification and penalizes the teams who do the right thing according the the website? I foresee much angst and gnashing of teeth over this one.

[Flavorflav]

My guess is that the clarification person realized after the fact that a photovoltaic cell will not provide enough voltage/amperage to perform any meaningful action on its own in a typical competition setting. Thus, the complete 180 degree turn from photovoltaic cells only to light dependent resistors only.

This brings up two HUGE problems.
1. The rules as written specify photovoltaic cells (photocells) exclusively, but the official clarification specifies light dependent resisters exclusively, effectively banning photovoltaic cells from the event ex post facto. Will teams that use the wrong type of light detection automatically be relegated to 2nd tier?

2. From my judging experience, neither students nor judges (especially at the regional level) consistently read the national clarifications. In fact, I have met many less seasoned judges who are not even aware that the official clarifications exist! What if the judge does not read the clarification and penalizes the teams who do the right thing according the the website? I foresee much angst and gnashing of teeth over this one.

It makes me feel better that you say "photovoltaic cells (photocells)" as if they are the same, doing the same thing that I did. Apparently, the term "photocell" does not mean photovoltaic cell, and the original rule (whether intentionally or not) specified light-dependent resistors. Since this is bound to be a very common confusion, I think the only reasonable thing to do at this point is to allow both photocells and photovoltaic cells.

BTW, I haven't experimented with it because I didn't want to buy equipment until this whole controversy is settled, but I'm not sure you are correct that a photovoltaic cell would not have enough juice to perform a meaningful action. It does have to turn a motor, but the motor could do something as simple as throw a switch or open a gate. It doesn't have to have much power. You really think room light would not turn a pager motor?

[DeltaHat]

Good point. I think part of the confusion is that photocell is a colloquial word with an imprecise definition. A little googleing shows that photocell can be either a light dependent resistor or a photovoltaic cell depending on who is doing the defining. Without the necessary linguistic precision, confusion will continue.

There is still the problem of interpretation mismatch between students and judges, and the national clarification only adds to this.

[fleet130]

Taken literally, the clarification allows only "cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell, photoresistors or light dependent resistors".

i.e is an abbreviation for the Latin "id est" ("that is" in English)) and includes only those items specifically listed. The abbreviation e.g. {"exempli gratia" in Latin) means "example given" or "for example" in English). Items listed are only examples and do not exclude other items. I really think the author meant to use e.g .

Regardless of what the author meant, most judges have only the rules (as clarified?) to base decisions on. Many, in an attempt to be fair, follow them "to the letter". Others, to be fair, adopt more liberal interpretations. Contestants are presented with the dilemma: If they follow the rules "to the letter", they may be at a distinct disadvantage (in effect "penalized") if judges allow more liberal interpretations. On the other hand, if they follow a more liberal interpretation, they may be penalized for not following the rules "to the letter".

The only safe practice is to question the judges at each tournament. This puts at risk only those who don't realize there may be more than one interpretation. They have no reason to "ask" so their fate is left to the "luck of the draw".

Note added: I have several small "solar powered" cars with motors similar to pager motors and they will not work indoors in ambient light.

[DeltaHat]

In an attempt to clarify, things have only gotten muddier.