t-and-f: Heisenberg, Chip Timing
I haven't read about this yet, and since there is no college cross to talk about, what the hell. Heisenberg said, "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa." Heisenberg was talking about sub atomic particles, but this has some bearing on this chip timing discussion. Chip timing at certain intervals gives incomplete information, necessarily. One can determine the exact instant that each runner crosses a certain point, and possibly determine that person's position within the race, but one can never know exactly, with chip timing, what the team score is. By the time the 5th runner gets to a given point, the runners ahead of him may have and probably will have changed positions. Chip timing mixes each runner's split(cross section) with the team's result, wich is taken over time(longitudinal). Because a team has five scorers who don't all finish at the same time or cross a given point at the same time, we cannot figure their total score by merely adding their positions at some fixed geographical point. The team exists across time and space. We can know the score at a given time, but not at a given point. We can know each member's place and split at a given point, but that won't necessarily give us the team score. Runners do change positions over time. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing that I know of. But there was so much esoteric crap going around that I figured another piece of it would have a negligible marginal impact on the list. Once I go back to school next week, I won't have enough time to write about things like this anymore, so don't hold your breath waiting for my next post. Since I didn't mention this earlier, we need some indoor meets and a new thread. Keeping it real. Out, Robbie Howell
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
Disposable chip technology. We're almost there (for accurate XC use.) Greg Hipp wrote: > > > I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the > torso > > (attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. > > leading leg problem. > > I've been researching using chips for the Great American XC Festival for > 2002. Our meet director told was told that a Japanese Company has developed > a new chip system that is built into the race number and it can time in > increments down to the 10th of a second. This seems like it would solve > some of the issues with accuracy. I wonder if the chips would not be > reusable if they were built into the number.
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
The current system has trouble picking up the chip that high above the mat. However, some work is being done to move the system up chest high (such as the poles in a department store that is used to detect shoplifting). I was at one race in which a group of runners picked up the #'s the night before. A few could not make it to the race. They sent their chips back with a friend who put them in her pocket. When she finished, 6 out of the 8 chips she was carrying registered them as finishing. - Original Message - From: Eamonn Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Athletics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:06 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships > I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the torso > (attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. > leading leg problem. > > Anybody know if this presents technical difficulties? > > Eamonn Condon > WWW.RunnersGoal.com > > > Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today > Only $9.95 per month! > http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
> I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the torso > (attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. > leading leg problem. I've been researching using chips for the Great American XC Festival for 2002. Our meet director told was told that a Japanese Company has developed a new chip system that is built into the race number and it can time in increments down to the 10th of a second. This seems like it would solve some of the issues with accuracy. I wonder if the chips would not be reusable if they were built into the number.
t-and-f: NJ Millrose qualifiers
Netters: The New Jersey trials for the suburban 1600MR races were held today at Seton hall University with Pleasantville and Camden making the boys' race and Willingboro and Trenton the girls. The Pleasantville-Camden race was a sizzler with the teams hitting the finish line together in 3:26.3, Pleasantville got the bod, but it was a moot point with both advancing. Camden had a 56.3 opening leg, which left it some 30 yards bacj, but then get a 50.2 from Maurice Young, a 51.3 from Erik Levinson and a 48.7 from anchor Jade Smith. Pleasantville was anchored by Keko Goldman in 49.7. Janar Ervin, Camden's indoor Nike Invitational 60M winner last winter, is ineligible at this time, but will be able to run after Feb., 1 and will probably lead off at the Garden., Willingboro had a 57.5 anchor from Okechi Ogbuoniri to win the girls event in 3:58.2 with Trenton 15 yards back in 4:01.1. But Trenton will add Keneisha Oldacre to its lineup for the Garden race---she becomes eligible next week after sitting out a 30-day transfer penalty and this could take as much as three seconds off their time. Trenton was also 3rd in the boys race in 3:28.6, while Washington twp finished 3rd among the girls at 4:04.3. Ed Grant
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
on 1/2/02 10:06 AM, Eamonn Condon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the torso > (attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. > leading leg problem. > > Anybody know if this presents technical difficulties? The chips aren't able to "broadcast" that far consistently. What you want is a digital result. The runner has not crossed the finish; now the runner has crossed the finish. If the chip is strong enough to be detected 3+ feet off of the ground, it might be strong enough to be picked up before the runner reaches the mat. You end up with a range of detected signals where the runner is near the mat, he may be crossing the mat or he may just be near the mat. Casio looked at a gate antenna system back in the mid 80's where a watch would be the signal and the runner would be consider across the line when he passed through the detection loop (the antenna was overhead, on both sides and below). It died in development. I think chip technology has a ways to go before it replaces the human judged system (with the aid of cameras) for close important finishes. bd -- Benji Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
In a message dated Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:14:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Eamonn Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the torso >(attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. leading leg >problem. Anybody know if this presents technical difficulties?> How about problems inherent in the chip being where a runneris able to remove the chip--which is tough to do on a moving shoe!--and and manipulate the result (if it doesn't get caught on photo) by either diving across the line with chip in hand, or even throwing it? gh
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
I don't think I've seen anybody suggest placing the timing chip on the torso (attached to race number?). This would seem to solve the trailing vs. leading leg problem. Anybody know if this presents technical difficulties? Eamonn Condon WWW.RunnersGoal.com Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
t-and-f: Test
Test
Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships
The crucial fact about chip timing for XC (Winning Time or ChampionChip) is that the resolution of the chip is about a tenth of a second. At the recent NCAA DIII Championships, with a little over 200 finishers in each race, 12 finishers were recorded by the chip system out of order in one race and 14 in the other, as determined by FinishLynx examination of their positions at the finish line. In most of these cases the difference in finish time between the runners whose finishes had to be reversed was 0-0.2 seconds. In some cases the difference was greater, which I attribute to one of the chips not being recorded at the primary mat (even in road races the runners cross two sets of mats); they were instead picked up at the backup mats (about 3 m past the primary). I examined the pictures to see what would happen if the rule were changed so that a finish would be recorded when any part of the runner's body (including the foot) reaches the finish line. In one race seven of the 12 reversals would still have been necessary; in the other all but one of the 14 reversals would still have been made. There has been some discussion of changing the definition of finishing a race to accommodate what people think is the capability of a chip system. It wouldn't do any good. You'd still need visual verification of the order of finish. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:49:20 EST > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships > > > In a message dated 12/31/01 4:39:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> A runner could have his torso cross first but have the transponder on his >> back >> leg and lose several places. > > I think S.O.P. in transponder timed Xc races is to have the competitors where > a chip on EACH shoe, to lessen (though admittedly not eliminate) such > occurences. > > Jim Gerweck > Running Times >
