ET2020 wrote:nicholasmaurer wrote:ET2020 wrote:
I think they would have a very tough time saying a magnetic field counts as attachment. Technically, the battery is constantly being influenced by magnetic forces, since the Earth emits a magnetic field (not to mention the magnet task that requires you to have a magnet somewhere within the same device as the battery).
You are talking about magnetic forces on the battery that differ by several orders of magnitude - those are not fair comparisons in my opinion. How do you define attachment? How is a strong magnetic force practically different from other methods of attachment?
A strong magnetic force is different because there is no physical connection between the atoms in the battery with any atoms of the magnetic source. Attaching is defined as "fastening, joining or connecting"- a magnetic field does none of those things.
If the ES want to ban this, they will have to specify either a maximum allowed strength of magnetic field that can be exerted on a battery (very difficult to measure) or a minimum distance that all sources of a magnetic force must be from the battery. Either one is clunky and difficult to enforce.
I agree that is one valid interpretation of attachment. I am of a similar opinion personally.
However, I have also spoken with experienced ES in this event who strongly disagree with you. They have a different, and (in my opinion) equally valid interpretation: if they attempt to remove the battery from the platform, are they going to have to overcome more than gravity (and negligible forces such as the Earth's magnetic field) to do so? If they face added resistance in removing/moving the battery, they would argue it is attached (although perhaps poorly). While I agree with you on the physics, I think their argument is more in line with the spirit of the rules here.
If you want to use a magnet be my guest. But without an FAQ I expect it to be hit or miss with supervisors.
