trotskymurphy wrote:but for the students, especially in trial 5 the student is given a range it can be in but doesn't know exactly when it is so wouldn't that count as an unexpected event
An "unexpected" event would be if you are watching television and a meteorite comes crashing through the roof into your living room. Reaction time decreases as the expectation for the event increases.
In this event, both the start and stop signal are certainly expected by the contestants. In fact they should be focusing their attention on that expectation in order to reduce their reaction time as much as possible. Since the reaction in both cases is in response to a stimulus, they should offset each other, reducing the overall error.trotskymurphy wrote:one possible solution is to add bonus points for certain aspects like output mechanism or being able to start and stop it.
It is also important to keep the event simple for judges to run and score. This simplicity also serves to reduce scoring errors. The complexity of the event rules was one of the reasons for the backlash against Mission Possible.trotskymurphy wrote:if the middle one is the most accurate then have three timers and use the middle one, don't have just one timer.
This falls under the category of "they ain't gonna do it". It is pointless to write requirements in the rules that will not be followed. Many tournaments just don't have the manpower and other resources. Rule complexity is also an issue here.trotskymurphy wrote:understanding the way it works is the judge tells everyone to start, then when the desired time for him is reached he calls stop as he stops his watchAt the start time the event supervisor will simultaneously start a master timer and give a
signal for the teams to start their timing device.
The rules do not state what type of signal will be given. If I were running this event, I would use signals produced by the master timer itself, not verbal. There is no requirement (or need) to stop the master timer.
It is expected that event supervisors will understand (or will investigate) the subject matter and the problems involved with implementing the event. Providing that understanding is beyond the scope of the rules.
trophymursky wrote:but the problem is you can't use electricity.
sean9keenan wrote:I would like to also see some way that perhaps electricity could be implemented, not in use as a timer mechanism (ie a 555 timer) but rather some buzzer or electrically based timer that could be attached to the machine. It would be significantly more difficult to convert the energy in order to press a button at a specific time, which would in turn either stop a timer or make a noise. One of these types of circuits could be standardized. Such a feature added to the event would allow teams to work harder if they wanted to reduce their error. This might increase the competitiveness in the event, and reward hardworking teams. It would also not require more resources from event supervisors, or more organization, teams building such a device would have to be able to without a question prove their legality to the event supervisor. Since such devices would be conceivably rare, it might be up to the teams to provide the expertise not the judge, if not the circuit would be removed and where the device would trigger the button they would simply use it as the normal sign for the time to end.
A simple way to allow for such a circuit would be to eliminate all semi-conductor based elements, no programming and certainly no timers...
Just an idea in order to make the event more fun and competitive! (<-ie, please don't hurt me )
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests