Dump valve access

I agree that the safest way ive seen i think is on the old turbulence when you had your wheel exposed. That was a simple yet i would imagine prone for damage method.

I think lever bottles should be banned, either drill it and fit a wing nut and bolt, or use a screw valve so they can be turned on slowly.

When i arm ripper... link goes in, bottles are turned on slowly using screw valves... if a burket is stuck it will only go up slowly.... i stand back, and then turn on my tx, and drive away.

If my fire button is in the on, ( it cant as it is default to zero ) but if it did fire im away from it. Ive never had a problem.


The argument for tools came years ago when a roboteer knocked himself out by being silly when arming his robot, we needed to disarm the robot quickly, and didnt know where he had put his tool !!!

Imagine 3 robots upside down in the arena, pete has to disarm them.... IMHO I dont think his job should be made harder by trying to use a tool for each one to turn a bottles off. Now he uses his hand and within a second its turned off and safe.

Bolts get rounded of, they break, threads get damaged etc.... why complicate things ???

I dont see why it is so diffcult for people not to have to use a tool.... one of the principle decisions we make when designing our robots is in the layout.... plan for a link, dump valve, and and access to bottle etc.... if you cant then you need to change your design.


Is it that hard?

I try and push students all the time to plan these kind of things, and not leave it until afterwards.
Saying that, a lot of the time they dont liston, and end up having to chop bodywork away when they realise they cant put their link in !! they learn the hard way.

Ill never use a tool on a robot to disarm, and hope the rule doesnt get changed as it was made for good reason.

My Thoughts

The pneumatics could trigger at any time, whilst the slow turn on covers the already open solenoid valve, it does not cover the spontaneous trigger that could happen when your hand is in side.

Giving a choice between hand inside operating the gas valve or outside with a tool, a standard tool wins every time for me. Hopefully Dave can put something together for the next FRA meeting.

Jonno, the request is about arming up, not disarming. If you want to disarm quikly you are not going to bother with closing the bottle first, you open the dumpvalve and that should always be done without tools.

Ok, its not something which i feel that strongly about. People can always choose what is best for their robot.

Look forward to seing a proposal then.

John

Well if the proposal was to have a tool used for dumping the gas I would be against as well. But optionally using a tool for opening bottles (not mandatory) I see no harm in that.

Ed, if you have a kill switch, and a failsafe LED you have a much safer combination to prevent the weapon firing.

The weapon can only fire when the robot armed, kill switch is off and weapon trigger is on.

You arm your robot with the kill switch in the kill position (illuminating the failsafe light). If the failsafe light is not on then you know there is potential for the weapon to fire accidentally.

Valves, links and LEDs should be clearly marked and easily accessable. They must be out of the way of the weapon. Allowing tools will only lead to people making access more difficult and the potential to being unable to disarm the robot greater.

If you cannot safely reach the valves or links without tools then they need moving to a more accessable position.

I do not see a problem with standardising a tool to aid remote arming, but in my opinion the valves must still be easily accessable without the use of tools.

I Agree kane. :)

If people want to use a tool to arm thats fine, but you should be able to do it without aswell!!

Especially when it comes to disarming..... I dont agree with having to dump a bottle after every fight. What if your weapon doesnt work... still dump a whole 2 kg of gas???

John

It depends on how easy it is to reach the bottle, and that is just as much a matter of circomstance than design.

If the robot is upside down or has another robot parked on top of it and the dumpvalve is the easiest one to reach, thats the one Im going for.


(Message edited by leo-rcc on May 20, 2008)

Leo- i dont suggest a tool is used to dump the gas. Just turning the main reseviour valve on/off

Jonno- why ban lever type bottles just because your using a tool? most people who use leaver valves DO use a bolt with a wing nut on it. It will still gas up slowly as ur turning it at the same speed, but outside of the machine..

Also you said about pete needing different tools etc for different robots.. thats why ive been saying use a standardized tool.. everyone who uses the tool method would have one with them, and if you really want ill make you one to keep next to your arena doors incase you need it incase of emergancy..

Gassing the machine up will take just as much time as normal, maybe even faster. turning the gas of will be the same.

Also. If your machine has a locking pin then it shouldnt matter if your burkets are fired when you gas up or not if your machine complys with the build rules that is.

And no. Im not suggesting this is mandatory. It should be optional. If people like putting there arms in the robot- thats upto them. the tools would be for those who dont want to.

Ive said all of that before.

Paul- ill put somthing together tonight or tomorow if i get time.

Just so everyone who is thinking about the arena marshalls - Ive spoken to the marshalls from robotslive, robo challenge and roaming robots and there all fine with it, so long as the tool IS standardized.

Kane, you describe what should happen to prevent the weapon from firing, not what can potentially happen. I am not aware of any robots electronics that has been designed as fail safe to recognised international standards so you have to assume something can go wrong. Therefore it seems very sensible to reduce the potential for injury to the operator by not having limbs inside the bot by the use of tools is a good starting point from my perspective and that is for both arming and disarming.

Dave, a locking pin is another topic in itself, M2 copied Bigger Brother amongst others by have the flipper locked in the open position until the bot was fully armed and then it was released. This again reduced the potential for injury during the arming process.

No... what i was saying is that the use of lever type bottles ( without using a wing nut ) where you squeeze the trigger to arm shouldnt be used... it is very difficult to control the flow.
With the use of the wing nut then of course its fine.

I see the point of using the tool to arm up, i said before it can be a safer way to arm.
But i think if it is going to be optional, you should be able to arm and disarm your bottle manually as well as with the tool, then everyone is covered.

I think using a tool designed well can be safer.... using a tool on a badly designed system will end up being a complete pain and unsafe as the operator could be focusing more on getting his tool intot a hole rather than what if this robot misfires !!

Something the tech checkers will have to sort out.

John

Hydra uses the lever type bottle. It aint a good thing as Jonno said. The bottle shifted at Colchester and got locked on.

I modified it for Swindon but Pete told me Id made it worse from his point of view.

Ive had a few thoughts on it and will be experimenting with a Bristol ratchet arrangement over the weekend. These have a plastic handle arrangement which you can open/close as you wish manually and also have a slotted screw head to allow you to wind it up with a screwdriver.

http://www.axminster.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=22463&name=bristol+ratchet&user_ search=1&sfile=1&jump=24http://www.axminster.co.uk/product.a...tchet&user_sea rch=1&sfile=1&jump=24

Andy

Paul, I completely agree. What is important is to minimise the risk. Using a kill switch is safer because a failsafed machine cannot be operated accidently from the transmitter without first operating the kill switch. A failsafe light gives indication to the operator that the transmitter cannot accidently fire the weapon.

Im pretty sure none of these rule suggetions will get used outside of Europe. :)

You know what. To make the machines perfectly safe, rename them Teddybears, and the rules are pretty easy.
No hard materials, no small components, no potentialy self moving parts.
All materials used must have a perfect non toxic non irritating record.

Please, help me to get more rules that even the most braindead artritic snail can be perfectly safe with one of our machines.

Mario, this proposal is in fact to make it safer and for some even easier, not harder or more difficult. It is not mandatory so you dont have to change anything if you dont want to.

The proposals from both sides of the argument have 1 thing in common. MORE RULES.

But its beside my point. Our machines are build to destroy simular machines. Not ment to be perfectly safe.

Perfectly safe means sitting in a room with soft coated pastel colored walls, with soft pastel lightning, with soothing music, in a I Love Me Jacket so no mishap can happen at any time.

Not building and operating mechanical gladiators.

Mario, regretfully it is that attitude that can result in personal injury. It is all about taking reasonable precautions, who defines reasonable, normally the courts! Maim yourself if you wish but dont be surprised that others dont want to. I could say more about you and rules but cant be arsed.

quote:

The proposals from both sides of the argument have 1 thing in common. MORE RULES.No they dont. If anything it is an change to an existing rule for the pro side, and no change for the con side of the argument. Either way, no new rule is added.

quote:

Our machines are build to destroy simular machines. Not ment to be perfectly safe.But they are ment to be as safe as possible when you or I or any other human being is standing next to it. Just because a hydraulic press in a factory is designed to push a piece of steel in shape doesnt mean we shouldnt incorperate some safety measures for those who operate them.


(Message edited by leo-rcc on May 21, 2008)

The rules
Chapter 8 Pneumatics. Gives us currently 15 main rules and 8 ammendments.

Chapter 7 Internal combustion Engines. 8 main rules, 2 ammendments.

Paul, I work dayly with machines that can turn people into minced meat. And even with all the CE rules attached to make them idiot safe, the world gives us better idiots.
How reasonably safe can we build and operate a Robot WARS machine, without ending up basket weaving in full armor?

Leo, you give us the example of an hydraulic press. I take another example. How safe is a pistol?

A safe way, and one I think for heavies is a good way, is the remote kill switch. Or a remote dump. Not dragging around some tool to avoid hands nearby one of the machines.

I see main rule 16 with 2 ammedments coming up for Pneumatics.
Im clocking out on this one. No use for me to be here, Im just the town idiot jingling a bell.

Bad example Mario: In a pistol every safety measure is incorperated to ensure the handler of that pistol is safe.

Perfectly safe means sitting in a room with soft coated pastel colored walls, with soft pastel lightning, with soothing music, in a I Love Me Jacket so no mishap can happen at any time.

Even thats not safe because the lack of daylight and the wrong colour of your ambient light may cause the onset of SAD! (Seasonal affective disorder)

I think what helped me more than anything was a safe operating procedure from Dennis which I still run through when arming Hydra (even though it has changed a bit)

Procedural safety measures can often be as effective, if not more so (Using Marios analogy of a gun, point 1 dont point it at yourself even if you dont think its loaded) as physical measures. One of the problems with physical measure is that they are deemed to be effective all the time. People rely on them and dont take account of the fact that faults can occur.

Irrespective of any failsafes and other devices you still need to operate a robot as if the weapons will fire on start up.

Andy

Mario i think you missunderstand. Im not suggesting a new rule. Just a new option .. so instead of making your robots more safe as you obviously dont want- im giving you ANOTHER option on how to gas it up.. not saying you must..

If your happy doing things the way you are at the moment, then keep doing it!