Printable View
For Project II/Hexem , the start up sequence was like this.
activate TX and RX, put in Removable link, open bottles gently, remove locking pin on the flipper.
If there was something wrong, and the flipper would fire already when opening the bottles, it would strain against the locking pin ,and removing it would be next to impossible. So then it was, closing bottles, dump CO2, remove removable link shut down RX and TX, remove robot from the arena, and back to the workbench.
I think that each team should have their arming/disarming sequence on paper with a copy for the arena tech responsible and/or the tech check responsible. I vaguely remember having mentioned it once in a discussion but I feel that we should resurrect this idea and put it into action.
So, the suggestion is: arming/disarming sequence on paper in 3 copies. One for the tech check, one for the arena tech and one for the team to show at every inspection.
Maybe a diagram of where the safety pins/bolts/whatevers are supposed to be, with the rx and the link and bottle(s) indicated as well ?
I approve, Babeth. (Not that Im really in a position to have an opinion just yet.)
I can see that people need different initialization sequences, and writing it down would be a good thing, but... Would it be an idea to have a default (with an explanation of why thats the order for newbies like me) suggested in the rules, and then require that anyone deviating from that provide a sheet saying what theyre going to do, and why?
Im just concerned that well either end up with:
a) every powering-up preceded by a rant about why something has to be different from the way someone else is doing it, or
b) someone doing something subtly dangerous and being allowed to because they wrote it down (and nobody scrutinized it closely enough).
Many robots are going to need things done differently in order to be safe, but the more variations there are the harder it is for someone else to keep an eye out for carelessness, or to spot a procedural danger. While, when Im at that stage, I intend to be careful to the point of paranoia whenever powering up a robot, Id like it to be as easy as possible for other observers to have my back.
Just a thought from the fringes.
--
Fluppet
I most definatly agree with Paul.
i think a typed up document should be made by every team witch includes an activation squence.
this shows that the roboteer has properly thought through their safe activation sequence for there machine.
I do believe I know what David is refering to. Burkerts have to have air pressure to close. They use equalised pressure to close the valve. If squeeze handles are used on the bottle and the handles are closed too fast then the inrush of gas causes the valve to momentarily leak before the gas has equalised. Although this is rather exciting it should in no way be considered as a full missfire. Many robots now use propper gas taps on their bottles and these are opened in a much gentler manner.
Dantomkias turn on sequence is as follows.
TX on and all switches checked for correct de activated state. ( I have remote kill that a. removes 24v from all valve firing ccts and b. disconnects the RC singal from the speed controller thus causing it to go into failsafe mode )
RX on and robot ACTIVE switch made. A small movement of the robot. forward / backwards and left / right is made to check radio control integrity. ACTIVE switch cct then broken so that robot is deactivated.
Dump valve closed and gas slowly turned on. Cover closed and robot again Activade and tail pneumatics checked. Robot the Deactivated till seconds before the fight starts.
I consider it safe to arm Dantomkia in this way. I wouldnt do it for some others because of their radio methods. ie, Dantomkia actually removes the valves power source physically deactivating it.
As many others have said, its up to the individual robots design as to how they are armed up.
Just a word here. I have been thinking of making a small rule change to the pneumatics section. This is with reference to the 1000psi relief valve. This rule was added not for safety reasons but to to stop people over gassing and cheating on full bottle pressure systems. The burst disk is more than an adaquate safety device.
I propose to alter the ruling to say something along the lines of :-
if all connectors, fittings and regulator are rated above the burst disk pressure (130 bar) and the system pressure is regulated then there is no need for the 1000psi relief valve. However, if any part of the pneumatic system uses gas at the same pressure as the stored gas, ie full bottle pressure, then the 1000 psi relief valve will be required to ensure that no cheating happens.
Thoughts but not a long winded debate is welcome on this.
Cheers.
Mike.
Leave the ruling alone..... Just my opinion.
Mikes method of arming the electrics first and testing the drive is what we employ in EWE2. We then very slowly turn on the gas. If the valve was open for some reason, then the flipper would lift relatively slowly as the gas fed into the system. I dont know why all CO2 bots cant adopt this method of arming.
If you put a link in when the gas is armed you will never know 100% if you have full control of the bot, or if a relay is in the wrong position, or if you are going to get some freak voltage spike or interference.
I say make the thing electrically stable first and then turn on the gas.
Ian
What i have seen are robots who have turned on gas last ect but the robot miss fires while their hand is in the robot.
David, check their bottle valve. If they have a pilot valve then this might be a clue. The only robots that reguraly missfire is Ripper and Hassocks Hog. When I am arena manager I arm them up last. Having said that, Jonno seems to have fixed Ripper.
Basically some robots do and some dont.
Mike.
Mike I 100% agree with your idea of removing the 1000psi valve however I do believe a safety relief valve is needed 10% above the working pressure just incase something goes wrong with the regulator and full pressure gets through.
Regards
Ian