Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:47:51 EST
Subject: Fwd: [FRCtech2002] Digest Number 28


------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 20 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: Material Supplier-Acrylic
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
      2. Re: Goal Interaction
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
      3. Re: Wall height
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
      4. Animation
           From: "montyp29420" <montyp29420@yahoo.com>
      5. Animation Submission Format
           From: "hzw202" <frank.a.witt@gm.com>
      6. Re: Animation Submission Format
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
      7. Re: Animation
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
      8. Robotics Teams Survey
           From: "ppperczynski" <ppperczynski@yahoo.com>
      9. Re: Robotics Teams Survey
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
     10. Dragging Defense Limits - Rules of Engagement
           From: Keith McClary <acti@provide.net>
     11. timing belts
           From: "technogentry" <michaelg72@aol.com>
     12. Tire marks on soccer ball???
           From: "jclem3" <jclem3@aol.com>
     13. Additional Relays
           From: "dbuddenbohn" <dbuddenbohn@yahoo.com>
     14. A Question of Interpretation of M13, M14 & C29
           From: "borogroves2002" <lburns@idirect.com>
     15. Active Puppet Decorations
           From: Keith McClary <acti@provide.net>
     16. Fiber Optic emitter and collector
           From: "getbighugeair" <getbighugeair@yahoo.com>
     17. Re: wood
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
     18. Re: Being specific (176)
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
     19. Re: post 462 - Alliance Station
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
     20. Re: Another try at getting through to you...........................................
           From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:41:19 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Material Supplier-Acrylic

> In post 491, you stated that if Small Parts does not carry colored
> acrylic, it could not be used.  Is it permissible, however, under 
the
> rule allowing non-functional decorations?

A) Yes, if it is truly decoration and non-functional.  FIRSTsnow


> --- In FRCtech2002@y..., "frcengineers" <frcengineers@y...> wrote:
> > > Acrylic sheet is available from Small Parts and, therefore, may 
be
> > > used on the robot.  Does it matter whether we get it from Small
> > Parts or another supplier?  We want to use colored rather than 
clear.
> >
> > A) You are supposed to try to get it from Small Parts.  If they 
are
> > backordered or out of stock, you may get it any where.  CAUTION: 
You
> > must get the exact same equivalent as you could have gotten from
> > Small Parts... and that includes color or clear.  If Small Parts
> > doesn't sell the color you would like to use, you cannot use that
> > color.  FIRSTsnow




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:31:01 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Goal Interaction

> We have been flooded with questions regarding interaction with the 
> goal.  We have previously stated that we would allow a robot to 
push 
> on the vertical surface of the stainless steel edge around the 
upper 
> and lower plywood decks.  We will also allow a robot to push on the 
> lower surface (edge) of the stainless steel angle that surrounds 
the 
> upper plywood deck with a surface/device/material angled at 15 
> degrees or more from the horizontal.
> 
> This deviates from our initial thoughts.  Caution is advised, 
> however, because devices like this that damage the goal will be 
> disallowed at the competition.  FIRSTsnow




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:06:52 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Wall height

What is the height of the wall that the human player stands behind?  
> Is it 7 feet?

A) It is actually a bit more than 7 feet.  FIRSTsnow




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:36:31 -0000
   From: "montyp29420" <montyp29420@yahoo.com>
Subject: Animation

Must we use the 3d studio max software to produce the animation?  Our 
school has another animation program that our students are already 
familiar with usin




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:12:07 -0000
   From: "hzw202" <frank.a.witt@gm.com>
Subject: Animation Submission Format

The entry requirements for this year's Autodesk Award for 
Visualization (C4.2) require that the animation be submitted on a 
CD-ROM disc as a 640x480 full uncompressed AVI. Thirty seconds of 
640x480 uncompressed video at 24bit color , not including the title 
screen, credits, or sound, will exceed the capacity of a 700MB CD-ROM. 
Some clarification of the media requirement is needed.

Thanks




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:03:22 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Animation Submission Format

--- In FRCtech2002@y..., "hzw202" <frank.a.witt@g...> wrote:
> The entry requirements for this year's Autodesk Award for 
> Visualization (C4.2) require that the animation be submitted on a 
> CD-ROM disc as a 640x480 full uncompressed AVI. Thirty seconds of 
> 640x480 uncompressed video at 24bit color , not including the title 
> screen, credits, or sound, will exceed the capacity of a 700MB 
CD-ROM. 
> Some clarification of the media requirement is needed.
> 
> Thanks

We have a question in to Autodesk on this issue now. Any response we 
get will be posted here. You can also email first.entries@autodesk.com 
with an appropriate subject in the header.

-M4




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:01:31 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Animation

--- In FRCtech2002@y..., "montyp29420" <montyp29420@y...> wrote:
> Must we use the 3d studio max software to produce the animation?  
Our 
> school has another animation program that our students are already 
> familiar with usin

Since the criteria for judging the award and comparing your submission 
to other teams' are based specifically on the use of 3ds max and other 
Autodesk software components, yes, 3ds max must be used. The judging 
process can't support submissions from other programs because the 
judges will not have time to learn the capabilities of the other 
programs, to accurately judge your submission.

-M4




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:08:27 -0000
   From: "ppperczynski" <ppperczynski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Robotics Teams Survey

Grand Prairie, 1/23/2002
 
Hello,
 
My name is Piotr Perczynski and I represent the South Grand Prairie 
High School Robotics Team. 
    Probably at this time most of you have established a main 
strategy, designed their robot and built some parts, so have we. But 
there came out some questions that you probably also ask yourselves. 
How many of other robots will be able to do the same what ours? What 
if my partner won't be able to complete this task? What if we are 
matched with robot that doesn't eliminate our weak points? All of 
these questions affect our strategies and they are crucial in process 
of creating fine working alliance. So why shouldn't we exchange some 
general information? What I ask for is to answer a question what are 
you going to concentrate on. Some robots may be able to throw balls 
into the goals but will not be able to compete in furious tog-o-war. 
While other robots might grab a few goals but still won't be able to 
throw balls and in effect they won't score enough points to win. At 
this moment of the letter you probably wonder why should you reveal 
you secrets? But notice that no one requires anything like this from 
you. The only information we all seek is to know general strategy. 
This is not a secret that will decrease your chances to win but it 
might help in establishing new tactics for each of our robot. So if 
you want to cooperate with other teams please answer following 
question and you may be sure that the results of this survey will be 
send to everybody who decided to participate in it. 
    On which task are you going to CONCENTRATE your efforts (which 
strategy will you choose)? :
A. Ball strategy - you hope to throw as many balls as possible to 
yours goal.
B. Tog-o-war strategy - push your goals and opponents to scoring 
zones. 
C. Other strategy - you DO NOT have to specify if you don't want.

I hope that all of you want to win this competition in a good sport 
spirit and that many of you will understand that answering this 
question is harmless for you but might bring some benefits. 
 
                                                                      
              Sincerely,
                                                                      
              Piotr  Perczynski
                                                                      
              (South Grand Prairie Robotics Team representative)
 
 
 




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:07:40 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Robotics Teams Survey

This message is being approved as a service to this team. FIRST 
doesn't have an official set of strategies or guidelines around issues 
like this. If you would like to begin a dialog with this team or make 
suggestions, please email Piotr directly. 

--- In FRCtech2002@y..., "ppperczynski" <ppperczynski@y...> wrote:
> Grand Prairie, 1/23/2002
>  
> Hello,
>  
> My name is Piotr Perczynski and I represent the South Grand Prairie 
> High School Robotics Team. 
>     Probably at this time most of you have established a main 
> strategy, designed their robot and built some parts, so have we. But 
> there came out some questions that you probably also ask yourselves. 
> How many of other robots will be able to do the same what ours? What 
> if my partner won't be able to complete this task? What if we are 
> matched with robot that doesn't eliminate our weak points? All of 
> these questions affect our strategies and they are crucial in 
process 
> of creating fine working alliance. So why shouldn't we exchange some 
> general information? What I ask for is to answer a question what are 
> you going to concentrate on. Some robots may be able to throw balls 
> into the goals but will not be able to compete in furious tog-o-war. 
> While other robots might grab a few goals but still won't be able to 
> throw balls and in effect they won't score enough points to win. At 
> this moment of the letter you probably wonder why should you reveal 
> you secrets? But notice that no one requires anything like this from 
> you. The only information we all seek is to know general strategy. 
> This is not a secret that will decrease your chances to win but it 
> might help in establishing new tactics for each of our robot. So if 
> you want to cooperate with other teams please answer following 
> question and you may be sure that the results of this survey will be 
> send to everybody who decided to participate in it. 
>     On which task are you going to CONCENTRATE your efforts (which 
> strategy will you choose)? :
> A. Ball strategy - you hope to throw as many balls as possible to 
> yours goal.
> B. Tog-o-war strategy - push your goals and opponents to scoring 
> zones. 
> C. Other strategy - you DO NOT have to specify if you don't want.
> 
> I hope that all of you want to win this competition in a good sport 
> spirit and that many of you will understand that answering this 
> question is harmless for you but might bring some benefits. 
>  
>                                                                     
  
>               Sincerely,
>                                                                     
  
>               Piotr  Perczynski
>                                                                     
  
>               (South Grand Prairie Robotics Team representative)




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:06:23 -0500
   From: Keith McClary <acti@provide.net>
Subject: Dragging Defense Limits - Rules of Engagement

You've ruled that it is allowable for robots to grab 
and drag other robots.  That is extremely distressing, as
you now force us to DEFEND our personal space in a new way.

For the record, we wish to concentrate on the ball scoring game.
However, we consider any reaching into the volume of our machine 
and/or the seizing of it with the intent to latch on to drag us
to be a serious social violation of our machine's personal 
space, and justification for strong defensive actions.

We now need to know the Rules of Engagement as to the LIMITS
of DEFENSIVE ACTIONS if another machine has the gall to assault 
our robot by grabbing it & refusing to let go, and/or 
attempt to drag us home with them.

1) Do we "own the personal space" within the volume of our 
   robot?  If so, can we deal with opponent devices intruding 
   INTO that space as we wish?  

2) Action questions:
  A) I know we can't amputate their gripper for their sheer
     audacity <wink>, but are we allowed to lever them off?
  B) Are we allowed to torque their gripper?
  C) Are we allowed to force a wedge toward them to separate us?
  D) Are we allowed to forklift their machine back?
  E) Since they opened the door, may we insert things BACK
     into or under THEIR machine to break THEIR traction
     and/or interfere with their intentions and allow us 
     to drag THEM home with US?

3) Penalty/DQ questions:
 A) If we, in the act of defending or trying to extricate ourselves, 
    somehow happen to either flip them, damage, or shatter their 
    "opponent gripper" because they simply REFUSED to release us, 
    are WE penalized?  For example, spinning or jerking our robot 
    may accidentally shatter their seizing gripper if they stuck it 
    within our volume.  
B) If that IS a penalty to US, what ARE we allowed to do in defense
    that will NOT be a penalty?

IMHO, I would hope that you simply rule there is a "personal space"
for each robot such that either the deliberate clamping a part of, 
or insertion into the internal volume of another machine is a 
"personal violation", and removes rule protection against damage 
of the offending part.  That allows us all to DEFEND ourselves without
fear of DQ, and should make everyone MUCH more cautious about BattleBot 
style strategies, bringing this back toward what I hope is the original
intent of this competition.

Please advise us ASAP, as it may mean machine modifications.
Thanks!

- Keith McClary, Advisor, Huron High Rat Pack Team 830
ACTI - Automation Computer Technologies, Inc.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:48:04 -0000
   From: "technogentry" <michaelg72@aol.com>
Subject: timing belts

A review of the parts rules came up with the following interpretation 
on timing belts.
We are allowed up to 20 feet of timing belts under unlimited hardware 
and we can use an unlimited length of timing belts purchased from 
Small Parts. Is that correct?
Mike Gentry
michaelg72@aol.com




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:38:46 -0000
   From: "jclem3" <jclem3@aol.com>
Subject: Tire marks on soccer ball???

Are black tire marks on the soccer ball considered damaging the 
ball?   Our team is planning to use a wheel supplied from the kit to 
toss the soccer balls.  Tire marks are left on the ball.  Is that 
acceptable? 




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
   Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:09:19 -0000
   From: "dbuddenbohn" <dbuddenbohn@yahoo.com>
Subject: Additional Relays

Can we use two relays (standard type) connected from the pressure 
sensors to the air compressor motor? i.e. we will not be using the 
robot controller to turn the pump on and off. Also, can we use the  
standard relays available from Smallparts or Digikey?





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
   Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:04:00 -0000
   From: "borogroves2002" <lburns@idirect.com>
Subject: A Question of Interpretation of M13, M14 & C29

My question is one of interpretation of the above rules:

Rule M13 states, in part, that "only parts from the kit can be used to 
store, generate or transmit compressed air ... with the following 
exceptions:
..... tubing may be compressed to block the flow of air...Not allowed: 
custom-made pneumatic components ..."

Rule M14 states, in part, that "Pneumatics Components supplied with 
the kit may not be modified except ... Tubing may be cut.  ..."

Rule C29 states, in part, that "Inputs to the circuit board _may_ be 
connected to.... (a list of "sources")..." (emphasis mine)

If we take the view that what is not specifically prohibited is 
allowed, a view held, I understand, by the framers of the US 
constitution, I would make the following interpretation:

1. A pressure sensor from DigiKey (pages 851-853) could be mounted on 
the circuit board, and connected to the pressure system by tubing from 
the kit, into which a hole is _cut_ to fit on the pressure sensor's 
input connection, and the end of the tubing is compressed or folded to 
block the end. Any material used to reinforce the tubing at this 
interface (if such became necessary) would be a fastener, and allowed 
under the additional hardware rules. 

2. a. Since the sensor is by no interpretation custom-made, and is not 
being used (IMO) to store, generate, or transmit compressed air, it 
being the sole item on the tubing, and 

2. b. Since the tubing is "cut", which is allowed by M14, and 

2. c. Since you don't say that connections are limited to the 
enumerated sources in C29, but only that the sources _may_ be used, so 
connection to the pressure system must be acceptable,

the scheme of paragraph 1., above, must be allowed.

Is my conclusion in error ? if so, how do my interpretations clash 
with your own ?




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
   Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:02:42 -0500
   From: Keith McClary <acti@provide.net>
Subject: Active Puppet Decorations

Last year, one team had a robot whose ramp tilter consisted
as a hand on an arm.  It "waved to the audience" from the
balanced ramp position, causing great crowd excitement.

We thought that was EXTREMELY cool, and are considering
something similar, but DISJOINT from a game action widget.

We wish to consider "animatronic" decorations.
Rule M9 DOES allow for "non-functional" decorations.
BUT... Is "non-functional" in this sense referring to 
the decoration's action WRT the GAME, or ANY motion 
in general?  

In other words:

1) Does gearing a random decoration to a game device for 
motion power (like the old "lawn wind propeller powered 
animations"), or using a spare kit motor now require the 
decoration to be made from allowed materials, or can 
it still be anything?   Ex: Can we attach a commercial
doll to a crank driven by a kit motor to make it APPEAR 
for entertainment value that it is "winding up the machine"?
Dolls aren't on the AHL.

We were concerned that because it ONLY moves (or 
poses) in certain ways when other specific actions 
or robot machine states occur, its mere presence 
MIGHT be forbidden as some kind of "illegal indicator 
or active game device not on the Additional 
Materials List", like having one too many LED.

2) If active decorations ARE allowed, do we HAVE to 
use kit/AHL parts to move it? Since it is a mere
decoration, for example may we add more servos 
(or motors not in the kit) JUST for that purpose? 
They would not be involved in game action, 
and would still be triggered by an allowed power 
control device (Victor, Spike, spare PWM outputs 
running RC servos, etc.).

Thanks!

- Keith McClary, Advisor, Huron High Team 830 Rat Pack
ACTI - Automation Computer Technologies, Inc.




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
   Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:04:04 -0000
   From: "getbighugeair" <getbighugeair@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fiber Optic emitter and collector

Can a fiber optic 'wire' be used to emit and receive signals from 
remote areas of the robot where they would be analyzed within the 
housing of the custom PCB ?  

Where is the line for external and internal and wire being drawn ?

Help?





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:52:32 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: wood

No it does not mean that. It means you can use any length of 1x4 
(meaning 3/4" x 3.5") lumber. 

--- In FRCtech2002@y..., "hurdler544" <hurdler544@y...> wrote:
> according to the kit of parts list, it says you can use any length 
of 
> wood that is 3/4" by 3' 1/2".  Does this mean you can use a piece of 
> wood that is a perfectg square, say 3.5 by 3.5 by 3.5?  Also, does 
> this mean you can use a piece of wood which is 10' by 3' by 2.5'.




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:36:22 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Being specific (176)

> 1. If the robot was to grab the goal in between the two levels and 
> lift it from the bottom of the top level, would this be legal?

A) No... unless you were grabbing the pipe nipples that are between 
the 2 levels and you can push on the vertical and bottom edge of the 
upper deck's stainless steel border... but never the plywood.  
FIRSTsnow



> 2. Could the robot pull the goal up a wedge shaped side with the 
> casters resting on the face of the robot?

A) No.  FIRSTsnow



> 3. If the casters were to accidentally touch the robot during the 
> lifting process in Q#1, would this be illegal?

A) If you comply with the way you can lift, then yes.  FIRSTsnow




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:31:23 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: post 462 - Alliance Station

Ok, more specifically then: Rule S4, page A1 of The Game. "The 
Students and Mentors must remain in the alliance stations during the 
match."

--- In FRCtech2002@y..., Carl Hansen <CARL_HANSEN@I...> wrote:
> The second part of Post 462 is: a) a confusing question and b) the 
answer
> didn't clear up the confusion the question poses. 
> 
> Becasue of the way the original question was asked, I am expecting 
that
> they meant that - Blue Alliance Team 1 members can't step foot into 
Blue
> Alliance Team 2's side of the "Blue Alliance Station", and the 
answer "NO"
> would seem to concur with that possibility.
> 
> What I think was meant by the question is: "Are Alliance Team 
members (all
> eight, team 1 and team 2) allowed in the Alternate Match Alliance 
Station",
> and the answer to that question is clearly NO. 
> 
> 
> Please clarify, especially in light of the following from page 4 of 
"THE
> GAME", to wit:  "The Students and Mentors are permitterd free 
movement
> within the alliance station."
> 
> *************************************
> ORIGINAL Question:
> 
> > 2. Is one team in the alliance allowed to move into the other
> > alternate station of the other team member?
> 
> A) No.  FIRSTsnow
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Hansen
> Team 87
> Rancocas Valley Regional HS
> 
> In a perfect world without walls or fences........
>   .....................why would we need Windows or Gates?
> 
>          ........... Only a True Jedi Master can touch the dark side
>                                           ............ and remain 
untainted!




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 20
   Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:54:01 -0000
   From: "frcengineers" <frcengineers@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Another try at getting through to you...........................................

> With electrical power management being so important 
> to us this year, I want to use the Victor speed controller 
> to limit the start-up inrush current to the compressor. 
> 
> I have a program that ramps the compressor up to speed instead 
> of applying full power at start-up (a 'soft-start' concept).
> 
> In trying it out, I can see no reason why the Victor pwm should 
> not be allowed in this application. 
> 
> It works fine on my prototype. 
> 
> Would the 30 amp breaker on the pwm be too large? 

A) No, it is ok.  We will update rule C12.  FIRSTsnow


 
> Could I use the pwm to power the compressor if I use a 20 amp 
> breaker to protect the air compressor motor?

A) Yes.  FIRSTsnow








________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/