Scioly.org

This was already asked by jgrischow1, I am not sure about 6f saying "Target and counterweight must be announced only after impound is over and must be the same for all teams." Can anybody explain what this is referring to?

Kordo wrote: ↑February 13th, 2022, 12:12 pm This was already asked by jgrischow1, I am not sure about 6f saying "Target and counterweight must be announced only after impound is over and must be the same for all teams." Can anybody explain what this is referring to?

I think this was mistakenly copied from Division C's Trajectory rules, where the target is variable and is chosen by the supervisor. I could be wrong, though.

Sorry for the double post, but a new FAQ just dropped that apparently puts this to rest:

"(Section: 6 / Paragraph: d. / Line: 3)
02/14/2022
IS WEIGHT TO HAVE AN OPEN HOOK OR EYE HOOK?
It should have an eye hook."

We have had some inconsistent interpretations of what the calculations in the design log should cover. One ES accepted various demonstrated calculations that were used in the building and refining of the trebuchet. Another said they were looking specifically for velocity related calculations. And a third said only calculations that apply to adjustments that can me made at the event would be counted (not say calculations on mass/distance figured out by varying counterweights/projectiles in testing that don't apply the day of an event with a set counterweight/projectile). Is there any clarification somewhere of exactly what calculations are considered necessary for completion of the design log? Also, with satellite events, am I reading the event guidelines correctly that the distance is set by the ES or are students still naming their distance? Thanks!

jgrischow1 wrote: ↑February 15th, 2022, 5:47 am Sorry for the double post, but a new FAQ just dropped that apparently puts this to rest:

"(Section: 6 / Paragraph: d. / Line: 3)
02/14/2022
IS WEIGHT TO HAVE AN OPEN HOOK OR EYE HOOK?
It should have an eye hook."

Since the change from open hook to eye hook is a direct change from the written rules, shouldn’t this have been issued as an official Clarification rather than a FAQ?

To Kordo:
I would agree with jgrischow, you always choose the target distance regardless of competition level in storm. Prob just copied from trajec. CW does change though.

Rule 5d says that the device must return to launch dimensions after firing. Does this really mean that after firing the device can be no more than 65 cm tall? That imposes a real limitation on arm length. I seem to recall height not being an issue in the past.

Flavorflav wrote: ↑March 8th, 2022, 7:55 am Rule 5d says that the device must return to launch dimensions after firing. Does this really mean that after firing the device can be no more than 65 cm tall? That imposes a real limitation on arm length. I seem to recall height not being an issue in the past.

Rule 5d says that the device must return to the launch area, not launch dimensions. This means it cannot be outside of the 1.0m x 1.0m square after launch, not that it cannot extend past the 65 cm cube for launch configuration. So yes, it is allowed to be more than 65 cm tall after launch as long as it does not extend past the 1.0m x 1.0m square.

My kids are working on a rolling arm trebuchet, and they are running up against a seemingly inherent tradeoff between arm ratio and drop distance. If they want to increase the arm ratio to 4:1 or 5:1, the distance on the arm from the counterweight to the fulcrum of the arm gets pretty small, and therefore limits the distance the counterweight can drop. The only way around this they can figure is if the entire arm were to drop, but it would seem that would violate the rule that only the counterweight must contribute substantial energy to the launch. They think the fulcrum of the arm has to stay at the same height throughout the launch to be up to spec.

Is there a way around this issue that we are not seeing?

Does a walking trebuchet have too much starting potential energy besides the counterweight or does anyone think it could be actually feasible in practice?