| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Matthias Jetleb writes:
> Calum, try not to take any of this too personally. It is intended for
> the purposes of debate and not an attack on anyone's mind set (yours,
> Iian's, whoever)
Okay, don't worry about that. Iain and I aren't taking it too personally
either.
> lubricants? I gather that you feel that it somehow would give some
> people an advantage over others, but how exactly? I presume it's
> because you feel it wouldn't be available to everyone?
Yes, it gives people an advantage, but I'm not against them because not
everyone can get them. I'm against them because when you say lubricants,
that could mean virtually anything and it is unchecked-meaning, one can't
easily measure it, then you open the door to a number of misapplications and
abuse.
Put it this way. Say we let people build homebuilt sensors (Here's the
line, say it in the same whiny tone as the original post: Why should ONE
PERSON dictate that we buy expensive Lego sensors!) What's a sensor? Is it
just a simple touch switch? I could put a embedded PC104 microcontroller
with realtime DSP as a "sensor".
Now, that's an outlandish example. But saying "lubricant" means a whole lot
of things (Hello!) and even if you said "Only WD40 or Brand X and Brand Y"
you'd never know if someone wasn't playing fair. More on this...
> We allow people to use three RCX's for an application where one (and,
> arguably two) would do. Clearly this gives some people a clear
> advantage over those with more limited Lego budgets. Hardly fair, is
> it? To be equitable, we shouldn't allow this anymore.
This isn't my argument, but I'll play along with your copied text. In this
case, it's very obvious that someone has an advantage with multiple RCXes,
because it's obvious by counting how many RCXes there are. With lubricants,
what composition and application is completely unknown.
When you say only Lego parts and "normal" construction, it's VERY CLEAR what
we mean. No one has ever questioned if something WASN'T a Lego part or
"normal" construction. You could be 10 years old and know what wasn't
normal or not a Lego part. The only time we get questions is on exceptions
where people KNOW they're in the wrong versus really being confused.
Monofilament is a great example. Iain knows damned well the "string" rule,
which is, as long as it's no different than normal Lego string.
And those exceptions is where I don't want to get into with lubricant.
Because that begins the slippery slope argument of what kind of lubricant,
and the extension (which we'll NEVER get into, thank you) which is, well if
you allow lubricant, why can't you allow glue, metal, shavings, what have you.
> - 3-in-1 oil, or WD40, or whatever, being sold in every
> Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, Lansing, Revy, Home Depot and even
> Walmart and Zellers for that matter, is too hard to come by for the
> average individual and, hence, affords an unfair advantage to those
> lucky enough to have found a can.
>
> - 3-in-1 oil, or WD40, or whatever, provides an unfair
> advantage to those with sufficient liquidity in their mutual fund
> portfolios, or a suitably steep line of credit, to be able to afford
> the $3.00-a-small-can price tag.
That wasn't the point at all.
> > ..... Making the argument
> > for using lubricants as preventative is weak....
> ...and you thought Iian's argument was weak?!??
Yes. It's a fake argument used to detract from the real goal, which is to
gain competitive advantage with lubrication. You know, if you can't handle
shedding a bit of plastic dust, don't play. Chris himself has told me that
there really isn't that much destruction once you blow the dust off. The
rest (like twisting an axle) is poor design and testing.
> > .... In the same mindset, we don't
> > allow battery box hammers or arcing track points not because we don't want
> Huh? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (I know this is unrelated to this topic, but I do actually wonder what
> this means)
One of the early Mindstorms competitions out there (I think at an E3 demo)
had people doubling voltages up using serial battery boxes and arcing them
with track points held like a welder.
> As I said at the start, none of this should be taken personally, but I
> do share Iian's distaste at the unilateral way you are handling the
> issue. Your argument that this is in the same vein as Chris'
> unilateral decision on when a robot is considered finished doesn't
> compare. Chris made a decision that *needed* to be made, one way or
> the other, since it directly, and significantly effected the way RTL10
> would play out.
Really? The decision was made the night before rtl10. Chris decided anyone
who came in with that strategy the next day would be told to screw off.
Does that change the game significantly? Yeah, if you came in the morning
with that strategy.
Needed to be made? No more or less than whether lubricants are required.
If you knew the strategy change at rtl10, you'd plan around and work on a
faster bot that could complete or a more accurate one versus a strategy
robot. If you know the normal rules haven't changed, then you're not
obviously not going to build something that requires lubrication.
At least this time, I'm letting you all know this isn't going to be changed,
since we've never allowed lubricants from rtl3 onwards, versus Chris stating
in private at 10PM on Friday Feb22 we wouldn't allow "topiary garden"
Project X entries that called early.
> This brings up an interesting experiment: If there is anyone out there
> who still has their robot in one piece, could you please take several
> runs at the anti-X pattern and give us an average time? Be as accurate
> as possible. Then put some WD40 or whatever on the gears and take an
> average of another series of runs. Let us know if there truely is any
> difference, and if so, by how much. I have a suspicion that this whole
> argument is effectively pointless.
It could very well be. But that's an invalid measurement, because most
robots have timing loops or other conditions built into them that limits
their speed.
Also, even if the argument is pointless, that doesn't mean people can use
lubricants. All you prove is that rtl10 robots don't change in that given
condition with lubrication.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: lube....
|
| O.K. I'm going to regret this simply because I usually avoid heated debates and I should know better but.... Calum, try not to take any of this too personally. It is intended for the purposes of debate and not an attack on anyone's mind set (yours, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
