Scioly.org

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

andrew lorino wrote:

SluffAndRuff wrote:I'm no chemistry person and google is of little help so bear with me on this question...

For 4.xi when you need to "use a thermal reaction which expands a gas" does this mean that the reaction has to be caused by heat or can an exothermic reaction be used? Also for "expanding" a gas, does producing a gas fall under this category? Thanks!

My interpretation is that it can only refer to expanding a gas using heat, without adding any gas via chemical means.

I believe that is what was said at the coaches clinic.

I've heard the same, that it was meant to apply to the expansion of an existing gas only.

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

andrew lorino wrote:
My interpretation is that it can only refer to expanding a gas using heat, without adding any gas via chemical means.

I believe that is what was said at the coaches clinic.

I've heard the same, that it was meant to apply to the expansion of an existing gas only.

Thanks for confirming. I wasn't there so I may not be the best source of information

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote: I believe that is what was said at the coaches clinic.

I've heard the same, that it was meant to apply to the expansion of an existing gas only.

Thanks for confirming. I wasn't there so I may not be the best source of information

I wasn't either, but I heard something about "reaction" intended to be "action" (though I'm not certain whether that's what it was about).

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

Unome wrote: I've heard the same, that it was meant to apply to the expansion of an existing gas only.

Thanks for confirming. I wasn't there so I may not be the best source of information

I wasn't either, but I heard something about "reaction" intended to be "action" (though I'm not certain whether that's what it was about).

That was the light chemical reaction.
So what I was planning on using was UV color changing powder and measuring it with a sensor (this is the complicated one). I would've had to have proven that the change in color causes the next transfer so I would have activated the powder with the UV, turned off the LEDs, then read the color of the powder. To prove it was actually the color change activating the next transfer i was planning on putting white paper in front of the sensor, and then switching to a different color paper to activate the next transfer.

Now that the rules are going to read "action," one can simply use a UV light to make tonic water fluoresce and then have a photocell to register the fluorescence (this was the example given).

I know most people aren't at the point where they would be worrying about this yet, but I do not see a requirement in the rules for ESs to provide tables.

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I know most people aren't at the point where they would be worrying about this yet, but I do not see a requirement in the rules for ESs to provide tables.

Tables can be tilted. Personally, I would rather run a device on the floor.

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I know most people aren't at the point where they would be worrying about this yet, but I do not see a requirement in the rules for ESs to provide tables.

Tables can be tilted. Personally, I would rather run a device on the floor.

In theory a tilted table could be caused by a tilted floor...

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I know most people aren't at the point where they would be worrying about this yet, but I do not see a requirement in the rules for ESs to provide tables.

Tables can be tilted. Personally, I would rather run a device on the floor.

In theory a tilted table could be caused by a tilted floor...

True. There's not much you can do to control for that besides making your device able to handle small tilting I guess.

ScottMaurer19 wrote:I know most people aren't at the point where they would be worrying about this yet, but I do not see a requirement in the rules for ESs to provide tables.

Quite true and some competitions won't have tables.

We've judged devices on the floor, on the edge of a stage, and on whatever is available.

With tables you mostly just have to worry about if someone (perhaps even yourself) jostles the table accidentally during setup and things get knocked down. That's more of a problem if there are two teams on a table. It is also generally more troubling for Div B machines since Div C has fewer dominoes and marbles to worry about.

So I'd say design for reliability by avoiding things that need to be carefully balanced.

At this point, are y'all pushing for 3 mins to get the 2 pt chemical reaction bonus at the cost of the time deduction? Or do you think aiming for the proper target is the way to go?