Power/failsafe LED

The 10 foot polls will need sharp edge protection.

Mr Stu

I thought it might help to clairy were the conversation has come so far so that people dont have to trawl through the archives:

Power LED- The majority of people accept this is a good idea, on the proviso that:

a) An LED on means there is power in the robot.

b) An LED off is not sufficient to claim that there is no power in the robot- untill the link is quite clearly out (and even then previous posts have suggested that some wiring is sufficiently appalling that there may still be power to the robot) the robot must still be treated as dangerous.

Boats hooks and links- the idea seems to have been thoroughly poo-pood on the grounds that:

a)The plates can get mangled and bent so that they become stuck in the robot.

b)The idea of enforcing a no link attacks rule is very difficult to enforce, and will open up a whole avenue of possible technicalities and appeals to fight outcomes.

Lets not let this get personal, afterall were simply trying to make the sport safer and more enjoyable!

If the failsafe LED only is advisory, then the only thing we need to discuss here is hints about how to fit them. It doesn€™t matter what colour they are, as long as the builder knows what they mean!

But the problem concerning the main power LED is something that we preferably would solve here and now. The way that makes the most sence to me is the following. You connect a normal changeover relay in parallel with the main power circuit, a small LED to the normally open connection, and then feed the LED from a separate battery (possibly the once powering the reciever).

This means that the robot is only safe when the LED is active (which only can happen when the removable link is out). No matter how much you argue about it, if the LED is active, the robot is safe.

Feel free to critisize any of this...

Did you mean the normally closed connection, so the LED is active unless main power is on?

Even so a failure of the relay or a broken wire could cause the light to come on...

Ok, before this LED topic came about, we didnt have too many concerns about robot shut-off safety. Most robots are fine as they are. As long as you can disable a bot in practice, you wont need 10 foot long poles... The LED is a good idea, but wont account for all safety problems. I think we should just keep with the good old fasioned removable link and maybe LED for now.
(Has this topic been resolved yet?)

Jim, youre absolutely correct. The LED should only be active when the main power is off.

hmm not a good idea. we have about 7 LEDs that come on inside the robot when the link is in. If the robot was on, and somebody saw a light from inside the robot they could assume its safe. What would the LED be powered by when the robot is off? as we disconnect our batteries to charge them.

The only problem I see with this is the moment you introduce another component I.E. a relay into the equation you have one more point of potential failure. Let us assume for a moment that this relay is damaged in combat, or just fails, there is the real possibility of you having the situation where you have a robot with an LED that is on (safe in your eyes) but in reality you have a fully powered up robot on your hands!!! As for relying in a separate supply for said LED...yet again, something else to fail.
Ever heard of K.I.S.S. ?...Keep It Simple Stupid!(no offence intended) All that is required is an LED wired across the side of your removable link that is isolated when the link is removed and 0V. As a back up we use 2 LEDs in parallel, just in case one does fail.
Link in.. circuit closed..LED on, robot live! Link out.. circuit open..LED off, robot dead!
I know this is not the perfect solution and there is still the remote possibility that an incorrect indication could occur but there is a lot less of a chance than by using your idea!
We use this principle on both our heavy and featherweight machines and we have NEVER had a problem in the arena or when submitting the machines for tech. checks either at RW or live events.
In conclusion, the whole point of a visible indication of a powered up machine is exactly that...an INDICATION ONLY! There is no substitute for safe working practice and proper observation of ALL safety procedures when arming / disarming your machine. I wouldnt trust my own, or any of my teams safety solely to an LED, on or off!
Just my two pennies worth!
Geoff,
Team Scorpion,

I have to agree with John Frizell & Roger Plant about the power LED - it€™s not a good idea. Despite its intended use, the simple fact of the matter is that over time people WILL become complacent and rely on the LED as a safety indicator. One of the main reasons for having a removable link (apart from being more difficult to damage) was so that people would have a visible indicator of if a robot has power or not and this cannot go wrong like an LED can. If the heat of the moment is enough to cause someone to forget a link they put in only a few minutes ago, I find it difficult to contemplate that theyd even notice the LED was illuminated, and on a bright summer day nobody would be able to see it anyway - not even an ultra bright one.

Although in theory the link plate thing is a good idea, in practice I feel it will be very difficult to implement, especially for beginners and people with odd shaped robots.

Here€™s another option ..........

How about instead of using an LED power indicator, make sure links are placed in an easily visible location, and then protected with clear polycarb so at a glance it will be much easier to see if a robot is powered up or not. This method is also very reliable as the indicator is the link itself and as it does not need to be illuminated to work, it can be seen just as easily on a sunny day as it would indoors or when it€™s cloudy.

As for deactivating robots which have died in the middle of the arena, what Jonno said is exactly what the power LED should NOT be used for, After a fight when robots are immobilised, and a member of my crew has to go in to make them safe, a quick visual check, tells the person which ones are definitely live and which ones are (visually) dead. And so which ones to go for first.

I don€™t know if this has occurred to anyone already but surely for events such as Roaming Robots which are held on a regular basis wouldn€™t it be a good idea to build a large heavy robot with a big scoop/shovel, specifically designed for moving dead robots? Im thinking of something very much like the thing Derek Foxwell built which was used at the Robotwars S7 Qualifiers for the same purpose.

Using an ROV to make robots safe would be far better than sending people in to do it, and much easier than fiddling around with pulling links out with long hooks. It would also be entertaining for the audience to watch. Any dead or out of control robots could simply be driven to the side of the arena and pinned against the wall while the link is pulled out.

I know this would not be suitable for every single event, but I€™m sure it would be feasible for the regular event holders such as RR. As for events without this system in place, there are usually other robots that would be able to do the same task (albeit not so effectively) and of course if that doesn€™t work there is still the option to wait for the robots batteries to run out.


Dominic

http://www.ukrobotics.comhttp://www.ukrobotics.com

Alan, I said that the LED could possibly be fed from the same battery powering the reciever.

Geoff, when a relay fails the odds are that it will spring back to its unengaged position. But the problem with your way is that if the LED should fail, then you dont know wether the robot is safe or if the LED has burned out.

Anyhow, I cant see how my way could increase the risk of an incorrect indication.

but if you are powering the led off the RX supply then the RX may be off yet the link still be in. In THEORY nothing should happen, it should be in failsafe, but theres still the chance of a valve firing etc.

Very difficult to get rovs to scoop robots out of the pit.

This thread is going around in circles.

For the record the ruling for external lamps is now required.(FRA members and Events)1/1/04
The reason for having these lamps was to aid arena operatives to stand a chance of knowing when a robot is dead or alive when disarming in an arena, and not for roboteers themseves. Arena operators are extra careful when disarming robots when there is no light on.
A roboteer must has as always done, only rely on the link for safety disarming purposes.
It was envisaged that link in/ light on, link out light off, and should be powered off the main battery and not off the receiver battery.
It is very easy to wire up. As for colour I use green for go!

Robots stuck in the pit are less of a hazzard as they cant move too far anyway. The ROV would ovbiously be for removing robots that are no longer working but are still on the arena floor, not in the pit.


Dominic

http://www.ukrobotics.comhttp://www.ukrobotics.com

And no matter how knowledgeable you are of your robot or professional training... always be wary. You may also not know every roboteers professional or experience status, do not rely on that anyway as we all make mistakes now and then, but also do not suppose firsthand that one is not knowing what one is doing. A difficult thing maybe.
I would advise caution at all times.
(Knowing very well that people will become complacent anyway but Ill think of wake-up calls...)

Thank you Andy,
I hope that covers it for everyone!
Very sound point there too, Babeth

:) Daniel counldnt have said it better my self.

Andy. I think people should read the FRA rules before commenting anymore so they dont keep making fools of themselves (Says just printing a new copy out).

Dominic, Think theyre safe in the pit. Next time theres 7 robots in jonnos pit (sheffield) well let you stick your hand in there and disarm them all, youll soon change your mind and as for being able to see them in direct sunlight you dont know what your on about take alook at ours, done right its easy to see (LEDs less than 50 pence and a couple of resistors). Even lights the floor up when upside down so you can still see them.

I think Ill put a link on every side of the robot that way anyone who comes near us will get disquilified :).

Roger, you dont know Daniel then do you. If memory serves me right you had wooden barriers last year and no enclosed arena, only 4 or 5 robots turned up so as far as I know you have no where near the experiance in running events as roaming robots and are not in a position to insult people on the matter.

As long as theres a rule stating how everything should be done, Im satisfied! But as Geoff said, the rules doesnt forbid you from using more than a single LED.

1 big thing that goes in favour of the Power On led.
All the machines and electrical equipment,that I know of has one way or another to indicate they are on

Anyone an amplifier, a car radio, TV and lots of other things?


Mark, I would call Roger Plants use of words gruff at least. Maybe the mans way.

I personally have no problem with LEDs, but feel that it ia absolutely essential that we achieve some degree od standardisation from the beginning.

This should cover the colours and locations of LEDs, for instance red for main power, green for Rx and yellow for failsafe all in a standard location maybe centre rear of the robot.

Surely the FRA could produce a simple stripboard schematic that we should be working to and list were each LED/lead should be connected. Without some serious uniformity of this standard it is likely to achieve very little and maybe throw in extra risk by creating complacency, yet with just a little more thought and careful regulation it could be a major aid to safety.

Regards

Tim Jones

I was certainly not implying that robots are safe in the pit. But given the choice of removing the robots around the pit with an ROV before approaching the pitted robots has to be a safer way of doing it.

I actually thought that there were plans to make the RR pit open and close hydraulically like the RW one does, in which case that problem would not be an issue.


Anyway, it was only a suggestion :)


Dominic

http://www.ukrobotics.comhttp://www.ukrobotics.com

RR does have a electric operated pit now. it was used at aber...thingy, it broke just before our fight but it did work well.

The inclusion of this link light has caused me some concern and those concerns have been discussed with the FRA. I can only accept that this light is a warning light and does not have a safety function. Its purpose surely is to assist the event officials in their management of the arena / pits. If the majority of event organisers wish to have this light, then it is only right that the FRA adopts this as a requirement as a service to the roboting community.

If an event organiser has alternative procedures to manage the arena / pits then that is their call. If these alternative procedures require specific alterations that are not within the FRA build rules then they may run the risk of having limited numbers of robots attending or having to turn away non-compliant machines.

If I hear an event official say something like €˜that bots safe, the light is out€™ then I will be campaigning for the removal of the light requirement from the rules.

Do not start using relays to drive this lamp, apart from being unnecessary; keep it simple as stated by Geoff. I do support the standardisation on colours, lamp type and circuit.

Just one more thing to say and that is in response to a comment from Roger, just because a ram has been tested to a static pressure test that exceeds the operating pressure does not necessarily make it suitable to use. Consideration has to be given to the dynamic forces that stress the ram when it strokes at violent speeds - the ram assembly on WBC has failed at an open air event and a more recent example is Spawn Again. My recommendation to event organisers is not to accept low pressure rams on high pressure service unless there is a pressure test certificate and action taken to ensure the ram can cope with the dynamic forces.

Paul

Roger, there€™s a huge diffrence between static and dynamic force. For example, take a small hammer and gently put it on one of your fingers. Does it hurt? I doubt it€¦

But what if you would have swung the hammer at high speed? The results speaks for themselves!

WBCs ram has never failed.
The only thing that failed was the knuckle joint where it attaches to the flipper. Nothing came off, the flipper stayed attached by its massive reinforced hinges as it was designed to do.
The ram stayed intact, the full pressure gas charge stayed in it and vented correctly as soon as I released the transmitter €œflip up€ button.

The knuckle joint has been replaced by a stronger one.

If people want to make a fuss about a piece of metal failing on a robot then we must all give up building robots now.

For those of you who keep pointing out WBCs €œterrible€ ram failure and assume I am ignorant about ram design and use, I used to design and use them for the aircraft, offshore oil and submarine industries.
I have also used 50,000 psi hydraulics, 6000 psi gas and liquid oxygen military aircraft and professional diving systems, as part of my normal daily work.
I do know about HP gas and fluid systems. It was a requirement for the job.


I did all the calculations concerning the strength of the cylinder wall and other parts, rod, seals, retaining bolts, flow rates, energy and safety margins.
The energy calculations were confirmed as accurate by a professor of applied mathematics using data taken from WBC flipping Axe Awe in RW series 5.
I was 2% out on the energy calculation, everything else, force, speed and acceleration was spot on.

WBCs ram has adjustable dynamic gas cushions at both ends to decelerate it, and its load, well within the safety limits of the materials it is made from.
They are not just bits of rubber or springs as I have seen on several other robot flippers.
These are regularly inspected and serviced as is the whole ram and gas valves.
The person most likely to get hurt if WBCs ram goes wrong is me, when I am testing it in my workshop, so you can see I have a particular interest in its integrity.

The general attitude seems to be to €œnit pick€ at peoples work and highlight their failures without knowing much about them or the failure itself.

If we all made robots that never broke we would be making boring dinky toys.

Robots do fail and fall apart, that is what makes the entertaining.
If they never broke then every battle would end in a draw after five minutes.

It is only when they nearly hurt people that we must question their design.

When they fly apart in the RW fight box they are doing exactly what the RW producers wanted them to do.

WBC and most of the top robots were designed to work specifically within the RW bullet proof fight box.
That was designed to contain them whatever failed, or was smashed, and always has.
WBC has rarely been used in public outside of RW and only when I considered it safe to do so.
I withdrew during one event as I considered its arena unsafe to use.
I have not gone to many more for the same reason.

Nothing has ever flown off WBC or hurt anyone so I have judged it right so far.

WBC is now retired from active service because I am fed up with the whimpering of those who are afraid of it.

Christian Fredriksson lecturing me about the difference between static and dynamic force in a hammer is just the sort of un-called for sniping that I am getting fed up with.
Its often called €œteaching your Granny to suck eggs€.
In my workshop I would tell him where to go in no uncertain terms, but this is a public forum.

I even had a telephone complaint that a WBC pull back toy hurt some little boy€™s finger when he fired its flipper.

All machines with moving parts eventually break and those like robots, which are pushed to their limits, generally break the soonest.
If you want an example of the worlds finest machines too often going wrong and bits falling off then just look at F1 motor racing.
If they, with their multi million pound budgets, can€™t get it right then it€™s a bit much to expect robot designers to.
Plenty of people watch F1, many of them just to see them crashing. As soon as they make them super safe their audience will get bored and stop watching.

Those who €œcry wolf€ every time something breaks on a robot are just showing their ignorance and fear of things mechanical.

We must be safe and not hurt anyone, but for heavens sake stop your boring niggling complaints and get on with the real safety issues.

If you keep sniping at people they will get fed up with you and just give up on RW.

I personally think Roger is entitled to his point of view, as are we all. His robots are almost as safe as you can get, its just us that people seem to want to point out the weak bits. Why doesnt Roger point out the weak bits on everyone elses robots, well he doesnt because hes got some brains unlike some of you...
But Roger, I wouldnt give up WBC because of the odd swine, come-on you know your better than most of em...
Cheers, Ewan

I thought this was about Power lights?

but Im sorry to say this but at what point rodger did u deside your the only one qualified to tell us how to build robots
Ill be quiet happy to say your robots are fine pieces of work but yours are not the only well made machines and until the start handing out degrees in fighting robot building your not better qualified then anyone else, yes you may have a great deal of experience but so do alot of other people

Ewan your right everyone is entitled to there own point of view but WBC is as safe as every other robot whos builder actually read the rules which I think some people should do before critasising whats already in place
as for your 10ft pole rodger- I dont know about you but my link is pretty tight to get in and out you put it on a 10ft pole and pull it out nd all youll do it roll the robot back. and personally i wouldnt let anyone near my robot with a 10ft pole all it takes is one slip and you could wack my electronics, and dont tell me thats a risk I take when fighting my robots its quiet a differnt thing when someones poking inside your robot with a pole. and how do u plan on opening the doors on some robots where the link is? mines closed with a wing nut i cant see anyone undoing that with a 10ft pole

I agree that a 10ft pole is abit over the top, but again its only an opinion. And come on, aint we all gelous of a fully titanium FP heavyweight flipper, with 249mhz radio (I think)... I know I am...
Cheers, Ewan

Craig, read my posts more carefully before you wing nuts at me.
There aint no wing nuts allowed in my arena.

you wont see me in your arena then Rodger

I go by the FRA rules if they put it in the rules then Ill do something about it until then Ill stay well clear

Roger, I was not trying to lecture you about the difference between static and dynamic force. Do you want to know why? Because I already know that your knowledge about this subject is far greater than mine!

I was only pointing out that just because a ram has been tested at 150 bar doesnt mean that it will survive the static forces involved in a pneumatic system.

I apoligize if you feel offended by this, as it wasnt my intention.

There has been a lot of petty and personal criticism aimed at Roger in this thread which saddens and bewilders me. It was all quite unnecesary!

The argument is will the FRAs proposed power-on lamp rule lead to complacency and from that to accidents?

Some of us, including Roger, took one viewpoint.

Other people took another viewpoint.

At no time did Roger directly criticise any other robot. He made clear his opinion that the proposal was flawed, and gave very good and well-informed arguments to back his opinion.

He did NOT name or attack any robots or roboteers - so why were attacks made against his experience and expertise, not to mention his robot?

I know that people dont like it, but Rogers experience in Safety-Critical engineering are HIGHLY relevant to this issue. YOU DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM. But what he says is well worth listening to!

I think we need to agree to differ on this issue.

I did not agree with Rogers point of view but I only asked him a question he could easily clarify for me. In a way he did but it was not nice.

I still think people should install a LED as an indicator that the robot is on, but not to rely on it to heavily. Removable links should be as accessible as possible: I do not like them behind panels that must be removed first (like with wing nuts... too slow !).

I would like people to be able to come to a live event with their first robot and undergo a tech check where some roboteers will point out -politely- that some things could be done better, might be done on the spot, and have a good time anyway getting to know people and learning some tricks of the trade while having a good look around. Nothing beats a gaggle of roboteers talking shop when it comes to technical hands-on education ! (Well, maybe a course of engineering at university might... but then... naaaaahhh...)

Richard ..(and Roger).

Aside from all the arguments about LEDs, long poles, etc (who is right? who is wrong?)I just think its the way Roger replies to critisism that gets people annoyed.

I.E replies like these:

1) Daniel, dont worry, you will get over it.
With your disparaging attitude you would not have made it onto one of my bomb disposal or mine clearance teams. Several like you tried, but we rejected them.
You should give some thought to the possibility that some people do know what they are doing, even if you don€™t know that.


2) Gary, you would porobably have to call the AA, I would just get in and sort it.
Experience

3) Craig, read my posts more carefully before you wing nuts at me.
There aint no wing nuts allowed in my arena.

As Elisabeth says...not nice...just sounds arrogant to me.

Will I get a similar reply? ...who knows.

Tom

Richard, you are correct, Mr Plant dint name any one robot in special to be faulty or dangerously build. But ....
*************************
[quote]
Far too many robots are badly built and their wiring does not conform to the lowest of any standards.
Solder joins are often horrible and the wires just fall off the connections, crimp joints are made with the wrong tools and the wires just fall out, wire sizes are wrong, and insulation too soft for the harsh environment, I have seen too many poor jobs, even on robots built by experienced engineers.
The €œpower€ lamp fitted or retro-fitted in a hurry will, in too many robots, be of this low standard of installation.
It seems such a simple task to some of us to fit a lamp or LED and two wires but some builders will make a mess of this simple task. [quote]

*******
I would say, that this means that a roboteer needs at least a college degree in electrical instalation, the non excisting Full Pressure technology-if used(or the industrial equivalent is or to small, or way to heavy),mechanical engineering, material sciences(like knowing how to weld grade 5 Titanium), electronics, with a speciality in high amp low voltage applications(not common either)and several others not mentioned in my uneducated and ravingly non essensial reply here.

In other words.Most of us can stop doing our hobby and go for basket weaving.

What standards? CE, British standard(problem here with US or Main land regulations),DIN , ISO 9001?
Petrochemical Industry? Nucleair standards?Or thesame standards as for RC cars?

*************************************

On topic again.
And Yes, a power on LED/Lamp can fail. But a machine that fought ,and stands there without power on light is or linked up, or delinked in battle, making those unsafe in any way to approach.Even with a 10 foot pole.
The thirth possiblity is just plain drained batteries. But still capable to twitch or using some functions, like firing a valve.Still dangerous.
Maybe an idea to use scuttle charges when the safety is in danger?The robot twitches in the arena , oh my god, run for the liferafts.
If the LED/lamp fails during linking Up, it is an indication something is wrong in the robot, and than it can be removed before a fight.So to stop waisting time with dead machines in the corner from the start.
*************************
This lamp/LED is still nothing more than an indication the activating procedure is acted upon, and that the robot should be capable to do what is build for, Fighting its kin.

I felt this lack of power on light was a problem in my first robot Project I, and I rectified that in project II, where the power on lights where a part of the image of the machine. I even fitted them with a futaba FS1 failsafe so I could see when the radiosignals went away.
2 50W halgenic lightbulbs from a car.Behind red painted polycarb. Very visible and a good indication about the current drawn.(not efficient I must add)

Also Tough As Nails is fitted with a power on LED, to say the link is in/batteries are connected.
And that is visible, even upside down in the strangely illuminated Mentorn arena.

Way before anyone was thinking of making this mandatory.
Because I like the idea I can see what went wrong, without having complete radiosignal feedback and telemetry.What wasnt allowed according the Mentorn Rules.

Paul:
If I hear an event official say something
like €˜that bots safe, the light is out€™ then I
will be campaigning for the removal of the
light requirement from the rules.

Id suggest removing the official from the event
instead. I may not yet be a roboteer, but Im not happy as a crowd member with the thought of watching a clueless official autodarwinating themselves on a robot; at least by saying this theyd identify their incompetence by vocal stupidity rather than actually spilling blood. Wouldnt it be wiser for people approaching robots to do so in pairs anyway? (To double-check safety procedure, and to drag the injured party out of the way if anything goes wrong.) For the clueful, if the light is on at least you dont have to get close enough to the robot to tell if the link is in. If someone is careless enough to approach a robot without the proper safety precautions, somethings going to happen to them eventually light or no light.

Mario:
I would say, that this means that a roboteer
needs at least a college degree in electrical
installation, the non existing Full Pressure
technology-if used(or the industrial equivalent
is too small, or way too heavy),mechanical
engineering, material sciences(like knowing how
to weld grade 5 Titanium), electronics, with a
speciality in high amp low voltage applications
(not common either)and several others not
mentioned in my uneducated and ravingly non
essential reply here.

You dont have to have a degree in electrical engineering, electronics, pneumatics, mechanical engineering, material sciences and high power application to fight here, but it helps?

Doesnt mean we shouldnt listen when an expert in a given area does pass on information, but the fact that theres a lot of self-learning going on out there means that the assumed level of anyones knowledge HAS to be low - Id rather be told something I already know than not be told something I needed to know. Id feel safer standing next to one of Rogers machines than next to that of someone whose qualifications I dont know (however much I respect all roboteers for their achievements). The ability to suffer fools gladly isnt in the requirements list of the FRA rules; if we want to have the pleasure of seeing Rogers machines fight again (along with Rexs, for example, since he has expressed similar feelings about different issues in the past) the development of a thick skin is just going to be obligatory for everyone involved in this full and frank exchange of views. Being underestimated is a good thing, especially when one of your creations has the chance to attack that of the person whos underestimated you (so long as you can prove them wrong, of course). :-)

Incidentally, I have two masters degrees in computing fields; if someone tells me I dont know what Im doing in the electronics of a robot (the bits relevant to my field, anyway) Ill politely listen to them before telling them why theyre wrong. Experts can make mistakes too, and Id certainly never have a problem with someone suggesting a possible improvement (safety or otherwise) to a robot, even if theres a reason Im not doing it. For example, Id also (from an unexperienced viewpoint) be concerned about removing a wing nut to get the link out of a robot, but Im prepared both for someone to prove to me that its a good solution (either way someone will learn something), and for someone to suggest a better one which fits the requirements of this specific robot. In the meantime, I dont think either side of the argument should judge.

I say yes to the light, undecided about regulating the details (so long as something can be arranged which doesnt crimp innovation of oddly shaped robots; if Ive got space, Id rather have a diplay which lights up and says this robot is switched on than be forced to use a small green LED which might be missed...) and definitely dont allow a moron to make any safety assumptions based on it. How about the FRA publish some more detailed guidelines on robot handling procedure for officials? Follow the letter of the rules and people cant get careless without someone noticing.

Lets all get along. A given safety device may not be deemed necessary by a given EO, but the fewer reasons for concern anyone may have about your robot the better for all concerned.

Some people feel the LED makes the robots safer; those who disagree, humour us, unless you really think they make them more dangerous. If it makes no difference itll still make people feel better - for which a few pence worth of LED is a small price to pay. Everyone, of course, should be ensuring the officials know what theyre doing - and Im sure no FRA-associated event would have an official obstinate enough not to listen to a roboteer warning about a light, or not standing behind a pneumatic spike when powering up, for example. If you run an event and dont believe in LEDs, tell the officials to ignore them; the rules for an event are the responsibility of the EO, but keeping everyone aware of the dangers of your robot is necessary whether or not theres a little light on it.

Oh look, Ive had a long rant again. Thats never happened before. :-)

--
Fluppet

I have been to most of the Roaming Robots events from the start and never ever seen any of the staff take any robot for granted . Even dead bots in the pit are treated with great care. i have two flashing red leds for weapons live and a green 24v led for link in but it is for my own sake to tell me they are live as i normaly forget to turn the b!!!!!y weapon on like in wales but too late to do any thing about it :sad: at the end of the fight i ignore the lights and go through the saftey mode to make it safe

Yup, I suspect most officials actually do know what theyre doing. Ive only seen three minor incidents in the two Robot Rumbles Ive been to (its all hidden from the crowd at Mentorns events, other than arena damage), and in each case it was the roboteers, not the officials, who were inconvenienced.

For context: in 2002, a black axe-bot (whose name I should really remember, my profuse apologies to the roboteer that its temporarily slipped my mind) fired the axe while the roboteer was holding the arm. I dont know whether the link was in (the weapon may have fired due to a mechanical fault) - if it had been, the LED would have been clearly visible and people would have made a fuss. Last year, Hammerhead (IIRC) went a bit funny in the arena, but because links were inserted from behind the railings no harm was caused. Finally, Vader (IIRC) dropped onto its roboteer whilst being carried from the arena, which just shows that even a deactivated robot with its wheels off the ground isnt necessarily a safe one. :-)

Lets idiot proof things, but keep an eye out for a better quality of idiot. A LED doesnt stop someone doing something dumb, but it does give you a chance to spot them doing it. Ideally itll never come up, of course.

Whoops, not quite quick enough to amend that. Meant to say that I in no way mean to criticise the roboteers involved in the above incidents; weird stuff is going to happen when your delicate machinery is under deliberate attack, and accidents happen under the best of circumstances. I still think the more safety features a given robot has, the better, though.

--
Fluppet

The pressure put on roboteers by the crew at nottingham last yr S7 could be a reason for some incidents i know the pressure put on us by a crew member every 10 to 15 mins when we tried to fix leveler was a bit over the top .so i can understand some mistakes being made. I think Dave Mac kept his temper very well

Andrew, the Hammerhead allmost incident was cleared out, after the 2 idiots driving RC cars next to the hangar stopped. They where spot on Hammerheads frequency.

That is something no roboteer ,with 700 safetydevices and a battery of precaution can prevent.

Also, my reaction about degrees in several engineering fields,was just a reaction on Mr Plants remarks that a lot of us roboteers are basicly seen so incompetent that we are even a danger basketweaving.
I do not see it mandatory. The only thing I want to see is robots that are build, and can be operated inside the rules ,as safe as possible,as long the people using them are no morons of total idiots treating the robots as a cheap toy car.