Re: Rules

[David Otten <otten@mit.edu>]

I think we should add the possibility of slots of the size of the ones 
Duncan describes to the specs.  Plastic walls and posts are a big benefit 
to the contest because they make the mazes much easier to acquire and are 
much more consistent than most wooden mazes.

With regard to Duncan's concern, it seems to me that if you keep the sensor 
spot at 10mm you get an average reading that will barely notice the 
slot.  If you reduce the spot size to 3mm you will definitely see the slot, 
I agree.  It seems that at 10mm the slot may make the sensors think the 
wall is 1mm farther away than it actually is.  Do you think it is worse 
than that?

At 08:08 PM 9/20/04 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>         Everyone seems at least reconciled with the existing rule about 
> posts and walls, so I have put it in.
>
>         Now for the one that I have most problems with:-
>
>"5. The dimensions of the micromouse maze shall be accurate to within 5% 
>or 2cm, whichever is less. Assembly joints on the micromouse maze floor 
>shall not involve steps of greater than 1mm. The change of slope at an 
>assembly joint shall not be greater than 4 degrees. Gaps between the walls 
>of adjacent squares shall not be greater than 1mm."
>
>         I have measured one of the plastic posts with the following results:-
>
>         The post is basically 12mm square. The slots in the sides are 4mm 
> wide at the surface tapering outwards to about 4.5mm at their bottom. The 
> slots are 2.5mm deep.
>
>         The problem is that the current rules call for the walls to be 
> 12mm thick with a tolerance of 5% (0.6mm). Alternatively, the maximum gap 
> between wall segments is 1mm. The plastic walls clearly do not meet the 
> existing rules. Should we ban the walls or change the rules?
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Duncan
>