Mission Possible C

[ScottMaurer19]

I don't see anything in the rules against that...though I think that if you use an arduino for the middle, you'll need to use something else for the end?

Keep in mind general rule #1: https://www.soinc.org/code-ethics-general-rules

But if a microprocessor is considered an "adjustable physical device," then general rule 1 wouldn't apply because using it for more than one transfer would violate 3f. I'm sure you guys are very busy, but I'd bet many of us would really appreciate having an answer on this question as you can get to it.

I just thought of something else, too. Say a team uses a temperature sensor which is supposed to trip the microcontroller at a given temperature. If there reaction wasn't taking as much time as they had hoped, they could program the microcontroller to wait a certain amount of time before initiating the next action. It seems the event supervisor would have no way of knowing whether or not the microcontroller is being used as a timer. One could even set it to trip the action a certain amount of time after it was turned on, and the judge might not be able to tell - i.e., ingore the temperature sensor completely so that the device always hits the target time.

Chalker's response is an answer (although it is unofficial). His point is that using a microprocessor to control the transfers is against the spirit of the rules because the point of the event is to build a Rube Goldberg device. If someone used a microprocessor as the intermediate between most transfers then it removes most of the challange from the event and the device at that point would not be or behave like a Rube Goldberg machine.

[Flavorflav]

Keep in mind general rule #1: https://www.soinc.org/code-ethics-general-rules

But if a microprocessor is considered an "adjustable physical device," then general rule 1 wouldn't apply because using it for more than one transfer would violate 3f. I'm sure you guys are very busy, but I'd bet many of us would really appreciate having an answer on this question as you can get to it.

I just thought of something else, too. Say a team uses a temperature sensor which is supposed to trip the microcontroller at a given temperature. If there reaction wasn't taking as much time as they had hoped, they could program the microcontroller to wait a certain amount of time before initiating the next action. It seems the event supervisor would have no way of knowing whether or not the microcontroller is being used as a timer. One could even set it to trip the action a certain amount of time after it was turned on, and the judge might not be able to tell - i.e., ingore the temperature sensor completely so that the device always hits the target time.

Chalker's response is an answer (although it is unofficial). His point is that using a microprocessor to control the transfers is against the spirit of the rules because the point of the event is to build a Rube Goldberg device. If someone used a microprocessor as the intermediate between most transfers then it removes most of the challange from the event and the device at that point would not be or behave like a Rube Goldberg machine.

Was that his point? I interpreted him to be referring to the main thrust of general rule one, which is that an action or item is permitted unless it is explicitly excluded. I might add both of our interpretations are plausible, which again suggests that some kind of official statement on this issue would be very helpful.

[ScottMaurer19]

But if a microprocessor is considered an "adjustable physical device," then general rule 1 wouldn't apply because using it for more than one transfer would violate 3f. I'm sure you guys are very busy, but I'd bet many of us would really appreciate having an answer on this question as you can get to it.

I just thought of something else, too. Say a team uses a temperature sensor which is supposed to trip the microcontroller at a given temperature. If there reaction wasn't taking as much time as they had hoped, they could program the microcontroller to wait a certain amount of time before initiating the next action. It seems the event supervisor would have no way of knowing whether or not the microcontroller is being used as a timer. One could even set it to trip the action a certain amount of time after it was turned on, and the judge might not be able to tell - i.e., ingore the temperature sensor completely so that the device always hits the target time.

Chalker's response is an answer (although it is unofficial). His point is that using a microprocessor to control the transfers is against the spirit of the rules because the point of the event is to build a Rube Goldberg device. If someone used a microprocessor as the intermediate between most transfers then it removes most of the challange from the event and the device at that point would not be or behave like a Rube Goldberg machine.

Was that his point? I interpreted him to be referring to the main thrust of general rule one, which is that an action or item is permitted unless it is explicitly excluded. I might add both of our interpretations are plausible, which again suggests that some kind of official statement on this issue would be very helpful.

I didn't read that part... Well that complicates things.

[Private Wang Fire]

But if a microprocessor is considered an "adjustable physical device," then general rule 1 wouldn't apply because using it for more than one transfer would violate 3f. I'm sure you guys are very busy, but I'd bet many of us would really appreciate having an answer on this question as you can get to it.

I just thought of something else, too. Say a team uses a temperature sensor which is supposed to trip the microcontroller at a given temperature. If there reaction wasn't taking as much time as they had hoped, they could program the microcontroller to wait a certain amount of time before initiating the next action. It seems the event supervisor would have no way of knowing whether or not the microcontroller is being used as a timer. One could even set it to trip the action a certain amount of time after it was turned on, and the judge might not be able to tell - i.e., ingore the temperature sensor completely so that the device always hits the target time.

Chalker's response is an answer (although it is unofficial). His point is that using a microprocessor to control the transfers is against the spirit of the rules because the point of the event is to build a Rube Goldberg device. If someone used a microprocessor as the intermediate between most transfers then it removes most of the challange from the event and the device at that point would not be or behave like a Rube Goldberg machine.

Was that his point? I interpreted him to be referring to the main thrust of general rule one, which is that an action or item is permitted unless it is explicitly excluded. I might add both of our interpretations are plausible, which again suggests that some kind of official statement on this issue would be very helpful.

Rule 1 says "Actions and items (e.g., tools, notes, resources, supplies, electronics, etc.) are permitted, unless they are explicitly excluded in the rules, are unsafe, or violate the spirit of the problem." I think chalker is referencing the idea that while a microcontroller acting as an intermediate between each task is not explicitly excluded, it does essentially violate the spirit of the problem for the reasons Scott stated above and should probably be avoided.

[Flavorflav]

That's going to be open to interpretation, though. The essence of a Rube Goldberg device is that it is an machine that accomplishes a simple task in an intentionally or unnecessarily complicated manner. Having a series of tasks feed back into a microprocessor is still significantly more complicated than the most direct way of playing a recording, so the device could still be considered a Rube Goldberg-style device. My point is that if some teams use a central microprocessor and their judge allows it, they would be a a significant advantage over teams that took your advice and avoided it, so a ruling from SOINC would help ensure a level playing field.

[ScottMaurer19]

That's going to be open to interpretation, though. The essence of a Rube Goldberg device is that it is an machine that accomplishes a simple task in an intentionally or unnecessarily complicated manner. Having a series of tasks feed back into a microprocessor is still significantly more complicated than the most direct way of playing a recording, so the device could still be considered a Rube Goldberg-style device. My point is that if some teams use a central microprocessor and their judge allows it, they would be a a significant advantage over teams that took your advice and avoided it, so a ruling from SOINC would help ensure a level playing field.

Agreed. And I know that I personally would like to start building before the first clarifications come out on October 1st. Worst comes to worst you design the transfers and wait until then to know how to connect them.

[chalker]

A couple comments, which as always are unofficial as this is not the place for official FAQs or clarifications (use soinc.org for that):

-It appears you CAN submit FAQs on the website right now. However I don't know that we are looking at them behind the scenes yet. We still have a lot of other tasks to do related to trial events and resources for the events, so I doubt we'll be posting any responses before Oct 1.

-If you look at other rules like Hovercraft or Battery Buggy we explicitly list the electrical components that are permitted. We don't do that in Mission Possible, which should be a strong indication that General Rule #1 applies regarding permitting things that aren't explicitly prohibited.

-3.f. explicitly talks about PHYSICAL objects that are movable OR adjustable. It's my opinion that a battery / wires are NOT movable or adjustable, however a microprocessor is adjustable (i.e. it can be reprogrammed) and clearly a physical object.

-3.i. has an important clause at the end about electrical timers are actions that take more than 10 seconds.

-For those of you who have been around for a while, you'll recall about a decade ago an event called Junkyard Challenge. We made a clarification that allowed for centralized microprocessors, which resulted in the event being trivial for many people and lots of 'perfect' scores at Nationals. A lot of us still remember that lesson and aren't likely to repeat it.....

[ScottMaurer19]

A couple comments, which as always are unofficial as this is not the place for official FAQs or clarifications (use soinc.org for that):

-It appears you CAN submit FAQs on the website right now. However I don't know that we are looking at them behind the scenes yet. We still have a lot of other tasks to do related to trial events and resources for the events, so I doubt we'll be posting any responses before Oct 1.

-If you look at other rules like Hovercraft or Battery Buggy we explicitly list the electrical components that are permitted. We don't do that in Mission Possible, which should be a strong indication that General Rule #1 applies regarding permitting things that aren't explicitly prohibited.

-3.f. explicitly talks about PHYSICAL objects that are movable OR adjustable. It's my opinion that a battery / wires are NOT movable or adjustable, however a microprocessor is adjustable (i.e. it can be reprogrammed) and clearly a physical object.

-3.i. has an important clause at the end about electrical timers are actions that take more than 10 seconds.

-For those of you who have been around for a while, you'll recall about a decade ago an event called Junkyard Challenge. We made a clarification that allowed for centralized microprocessors, which resulted in the event being trivial for many people and lots of 'perfect' scores at Nationals. A lot of us still remember that lesson and aren't likely to repeat it.....

Thank you for (unofficially) clarifying.

I'm guessing that most people will end up just using one microprocessor for the final action.

[Flavorflav]

A couple comments, which as always are unofficial as this is not the place for official FAQs or clarifications (use soinc.org for that):

-It appears you CAN submit FAQs on the website right now. However I don't know that we are looking at them behind the scenes yet. We still have a lot of other tasks to do related to trial events and resources for the events, so I doubt we'll be posting any responses before Oct 1.

-If you look at other rules like Hovercraft or Battery Buggy we explicitly list the electrical components that are permitted. We don't do that in Mission Possible, which should be a strong indication that General Rule #1 applies regarding permitting things that aren't explicitly prohibited.

-3.f. explicitly talks about PHYSICAL objects that are movable OR adjustable. It's my opinion that a battery / wires are NOT movable or adjustable, however a microprocessor is adjustable (i.e. it can be reprogrammed) and clearly a physical object.

-3.i. has an important clause at the end about electrical timers are actions that take more than 10 seconds.

-For those of you who have been around for a while, you'll recall about a decade ago an event called Junkyard Challenge. We made a clarification that allowed for centralized microprocessors, which resulted in the event being trivial for many people and lots of 'perfect' scores at Nationals. A lot of us still remember that lesson and aren't likely to repeat it.....

Thank you, I do think your reply makes sense and clears up the single microprocessor issue. The fact that you brought up 3.i raises another question, though.. I would have agreed with the previous poster who suggested that a sand timer which closes an electrical circuit is not a violation of this rule, and would have thought that a chemical reaction causing a change in temperature which is read by a sensor would fall into the same category. Are you suggesting that you do not agree?

[daydreamer0023]

A couple comments, which as always are unofficial as this is not the place for official FAQs or clarifications (use soinc.org for that):

-It appears you CAN submit FAQs on the website right now. However I don't know that we are looking at them behind the scenes yet. We still have a lot of other tasks to do related to trial events and resources for the events, so I doubt we'll be posting any responses before Oct 1.

-If you look at other rules like Hovercraft or Battery Buggy we explicitly list the electrical components that are permitted. We don't do that in Mission Possible, which should be a strong indication that General Rule #1 applies regarding permitting things that aren't explicitly prohibited.

-3.f. explicitly talks about PHYSICAL objects that are movable OR adjustable. It's my opinion that a battery / wires are NOT movable or adjustable, however a microprocessor is adjustable (i.e. it can be reprogrammed) and clearly a physical object.

-3.i. has an important clause at the end about electrical timers are actions that take more than 10 seconds.

-For those of you who have been around for a while, you'll recall about a decade ago an event called Junkyard Challenge. We made a clarification that allowed for centralized microprocessors, which resulted in the event being trivial for many people and lots of 'perfect' scores at Nationals. A lot of us still remember that lesson and aren't likely to repeat it.....

So if there are two separate microprocessors to run two separate actions, that is still legal (assuming there's enough power for them)?