It's About Time C

[trophymursky]

what do you guys think of the event. I looked at the 1997 rules and think that for the building aspect its easy to do well but to get it accurate to .1 second is really hard. and reaction time accounts for a lot. to me too much.

[dickyjones]

I completely agree that it seems reaction time will count WAY too much. Hopefully the rules will make reaction time less of a factor (maybe longer time periods to measure to .5 seconds?). The test (from trial event rules) seems lame, but hopefully they can put more advanced physics in it to make it more fun.

[gh]

Do you guys actually realize how long 100 milliseconds is? Almost anyone can time to that precision (not accuracy, since that really depends on the stopwatch more) with 20 minutes of practice. Three practiced timers' median time should almost always time well enough—within +/- 50 ms is necessary, because of rounding—to score fairly.

[dickyjones]

I think you're confusing this with Electric Vehicle timing. Measuring to a tenth of a second might be slightly less easy to do with one homemade hourglass or pendulum system. And since you obviously aren't have no idea when the end of the time period will be, there's likely to be some sort of delay. Hopefully someone on our team has amazing reaction time. But you're probably not going to miss more than 5 points total (w/ trial scoring system) due alone to bad reaction time (and inability to compensate for it), and if you're good, you'll make up for that on the written test.

[fleet130]

It's About Time!

[gh]

Oh, you mean the time recorded by the student.

I don't really see how that's a problem. Isn't it up to the student to build an accurate device and use it correctly? I know reaction time plays a big part in this. But, timing things is necessary skill, and it will always invariably depend on human reaction.

I could see a problem if the event sup doesn't call out the time accurately, causing everybody to be off from the accepted time.

As an addendum: I hope the event sups try to eliminate human error, and more importantly, accusations of human error, on their end by using electronic timers and buzzers or something. That would save everyone a lot of trouble.

[trophymursky]

but the problem is you can't use electricity.

[fleet130]

From the Rules Discussion Forum:

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.

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.

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.

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 watch

At 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.


And finally:
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.

Worst case reaction time error should be in the 30-50 millisecond range. Combining the start and stop errors should reduce this significantly.

[trophymursky]

most of your arguements about not being able to do it don't hold up at the national or most state levels. Its about time with 2 bonus will still be no where mildly near mission so comparing them is flat out wrong. reaction time still is an uncertainty and if you are gonna be judged to the nearest 10th and get some pretty hard penalties for it then it just seems wrong for reaction time to have a factor like that.

[gh]

but the problem is you can't use electricity.

Of course not. I suggested that the judges should use electronic means to reduce human error and responsibility on their side. If an electronic timer buzzes to signal the students to start and stop, then nobody can argue that the judge did not signal correctly.

[trophymursky]

sorry about that, i misread what you said.

[sean9keenan]

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 )

-Sean K

[trophymursky]

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 )

-Sean K

hurts sean

honestly i like the mechanical clock idea, output mech's without electricity isn't that hard and also it would pretty much be pointless, i think the purpose of the event is to make mechanical clocks the old fashoned way and the science behind that and to show you don't need fancy circuits for it.

[sean9keenan]

OK. Fine. I admit it, I actually just want circuit lab back, and am looking for any excuse to use electronics.

[tad_k_22]

I still agree with sean's idea.
Though the reaction time from the judges is eliminated (they chose to use the timer system), it's going to be a lot of reaction time to the competitors to time it correctly.