Dump valve access

All of Devastators valves and power switches were located under the robot. When it went to RoboGames last year both the American and British safety guys complained that it wasnt allowed. The argument was what happens if the weapon fires while you have it lifted up, my brothers reply was pee myself. The flipper has fired while he was powering it up during testing and he had his head under the robot. After that experiance we both deemed that it was actually the safest place to be when it happened because if he was powering it up from the other side he would have been hit by the flipper arm, instead the only way he knew it happened was the bang and the recoil of the arms bungee which he said was surprisingly light.
Powering up Devastator at RoboGames after winning the argument can be seen here. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ctibrwicijEhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ctibrwicijE

Of corse it all depends on the robot. No way Id turn Avenger on from the underside.

(Message edited by kkeerroo on May 13, 2008)

Thanks everyone,

We are going to run it with the dump access on the bottom for now but to make sure that it cant fire when is is being turned over we will make sure that the locking bar is in place.

Will

Just 1 point i would like to bring up is

I would like to see all gas bottles with screw top v/v`s
this is because if the weapon does fire it should just fill the ram slowly and thats safe, you then turn gas off and dump then run with no flipper as i have done

You have to know i got kicked out of seris 6 because of that!!

john it doesnt matter, ive always used the squeezey type handles, the way i did it on turbulence mk1 was WAY safer then any other machine ive seen.

big bolt type thing on the outside of the robot with a thread through the armour, and a dial on the outside- as the bolt with the dial on gets screwed in it pushes the handle of the bottle closed.. way safer then having to put your hand inside the machine to turn the bottle on

I still think using a tool to turn the gas on was the safest method which unfortunatly got ruled out- didnt need to be as close to the machine or even have ur hand inside. I wish it was legalised with the rule you must use a 13mm socket or somthing so the marshal has the same tool for all the bots or somthing similar- it got ruled out cos the marshalls were anoyed with everyone having different tools.

Having seen turbulence mk1 miss fire when i gased it up with the dial- yes it shook me up, but no it didnt hurt me.. if there was an access pannel to put my hand in and it miss fired. im sure it would of broken my wrist.

Dave, I have to agree, the tool method of isolating the gas was a safer method in M2 but was removed as requested by event organisers. I am in the process of moving the gas bottle in M2XT and will re-introduce the tool method for me but still allow the option for those marshalls who want to put their hands inside to turn off the bottle. I cant remebed what size nut I put on the regulator but it was probably a M10 so a 17mm socket on a Tee bar should do the job nicely. Standardising on a size would be the way to go if the powers that be would consider the option.

Paul ill put it across to the powers at the next meeting i attend. Or atleast try persuade the other marshalls at the events to use one tool. I myself am a marshall for robotslive! and i dont see a problem, If everyone standardised to an access pannel or an M10 nut thats reachable within.. say 100mm of the bodywork then the marshall could have.. as you suggest a 17mm T-bar 200mm long. i dont think thats un reasonable.

And from a roboteers point of view.. i dont like having a big opening or a hinged flap on my machine.. its just a pointless weakness to the machine.

Pete lale? Alan young? Any other marshalls opinions?

Gentlemen,
The build rules are clear.. without the use of tools
That said, if it can be agreed that one standard tool be used then I dont see a problem (subject to a properly discussed and voted on change to the build rules)
Although if the valve is only accessable with a tool via a hole in the bodywork, how do we get round the potential problem of bodywork damage preventing access to the valve?
However, Im not at all happy with this business of having to turn over or tip a machine on its side to access the valve. Rembember we recently mandated a second removable link on some machines precicely for that reason.
I would be very dubious about passing any pneumatic machine at tech check that required to be turned over to access the valve. In fact, I would more than likely fail it!

Yes guys, more rules will further the creativity involved building robots. Especialy the rule neglected pneumatics are really in need.

I just would think that if a tool is needed to open/close the bottle/dump valve everybody uses the same tool. But dont restict the people to that. Acces hatches or just open holes in the armor do the trick as wel. Those served us for years and baring some stupidities without any serious effect it has proven rather save.

Just make sure the techcheckers and the arena marshal agree on the safety aspect of a bottle/dump valve setup. Thats enough if you ask me.
Of course, sooner or later somebody can turn up with an inherently unsafe setup, and then its to the techcheckers to advise the event organisers that the machine cant compete with that setup.

But dont forget, the machines, even the ants, are build to destroy armored metal machines. Those tools of destruction we create arent cuddly teddybears or RC controled foamcovered bumpercars.

Geoff, if the pannel should become so mashed up that the bottle carnt be shut off then all the gas can still be dumped out of the system via the dumpvalve. Which i have to agree with you, i dont like them being under the machine either as i said earlyer.

People argue about the position of the dump valve during arming up.. i dont care about that.. i close my dump valve when im waiting to be told to arm up, so i dont forget when im in a rush..its not a big safety danger.. Its diss-arming that worrys me.. id hate to go upto a heavyweight thats got gas in it, lift it onto its side then dump it. Id rather flick the valve and stand back while it vents. If we allow feathers to do somthing- its only fair that heavyweights can abide by the same rules.. in my opinion niether weight class should have the dump valves on the bottom of the machine.

Why is it so hard to have a pipe going to the valve accessable from the top of the machine?

I totally agree on standardising a tool ... I really dislike disarming my pneumatic bots by accessing the inside with my hand....my current feather somersaults if it fires and the heavy nearly turns itself over....not nice if your arm is inside the bot.