Pneumatic safety issues

Rather than taking over the build thread for Flow.

Any comments regarding pneumatic safety can be discussed here from now on please.
A polite reminder this is a public forum, and please ensure everyone keeps to the forum rules,

I myself don't have a pneumatic type robot even though I have training to construct pneumatic systems. I think because of the safety rules driven into my head as an apprentice I just don't feel happy doing it in a combat environment.

Anyway if anyone has comments on this subject please post here.

Seems from the other thread that the main thing is build to the rules or let EO decide if robot is ok

I have found it an interesting debate going on in the other thread, but it was brought up years ago and it seemed to fizzle out,

Both sides have there points, pressure vessels should be pressure tested , Parts made with over sized material walls etc

My opionion is that the Event organisers have the last say, its there event and there insurance which is being used, if they turn it down its because they have deemed not fit for purpose, these parts arn't being made for commercial use ( Which would after be pressure tested and stamped by law )

if anything which as been in a environment Robotic combat which the parts are used and a chance of damage in every battle the pressure test Certificate is invalid, unless after every battle the parts are tested and given a new certificate ( which could cost hundreds an event )

I could understand if someone made an CO2 bottle and tried to use it without getting that pressure tested because it is pressurized in a Public environment but like above every single co2 bottle should be tested by law after every battle to be deemed safe in a Public environment and nothing as ever been said about this

I think as has previously been mentioned that common sense takes precedence. Systems that are clearly well built are unlikely to pose a problem and are generally allowed to pass. However, as events grow and safety comes under more and more scrutiny these will become more of an issue. The rules are there specifically to cover these points and don't be surprised in the future if you need to bring a folder with you to events.

Of course there is an easy way around this, use off the shelf components. But obviously this stifles the innovation we love to see.

Even off the shelf components are more likely to fail in combat as they are not being used for the purpose for which they are intended. This is the purpose of the arena.

I think what needs looking at is the use of pneumatics/ hydraulics within the pits area as this poses the greatest risk. Event organisers need to ensure they have a robust policy in place to minimise the risk of these elements.

As I mentioned in the previous thread. As long as its in the arena we do not see an issue as the environment is designed to take impacts and contain projectiles. If you feel that if your robot were to fail in an arena and its not safe then we should either look at the rules or the arenas.

The pits area is the concern. We appreciate bottles need to be filled up prior to the battle, all the bottles we have seen at our events are commercial bottle which will have been tested previously. As has happened in the past, as soon as a bottle receives an impact the robot no longer complies with the tech check and the bottle gets replaced. This has happened a few times at our events.

The issue I feel is when these bottles are attached to the robots as it is difficult to know if the pressure has been released into other components that may fail. There are 2 ways to stop this. 1 dont let people fit the bottles until the robot is in the arena (i feel is impractical), 2 have some form of indication when when the bottle valve is open so EO's can tell straight away when a robot in the pits has pressure in it. Maybe a pressure switch activating an LED? or a mechanical micro switch which switches an LED when the valve is screwed open?

Oh well, there still is basketweaving.

The rules already cover this, dump valves should always be open when in the pits. I only close mine when turning the bottle on in the arena.

Trev

And if you have a push-to-dump valve like I do/you did Trevor?

Not a fan of those hold down to vent dumps...

Also Kane can you make sense of this;

9.7.1 Custom Components
Custom made components, or parts operating above the suppliers maximum working pressure, must be
Independently tested and certified at 120% of the maximum system pressure available at that point.

Key word being independently as mario and team mute have said they test there equipment... I don't blame them if they have the gear to do so them self.... But to comply with the rules wouldn't they need a 3rd party to certify there gear? Not just them... But anyone running a compressed gas system be it air or co2, or can we all say we've tested our gear to 120% and give our self a certificate?

We use BURKERTS which are rated to 50bar aswell, were they tested and certified to handle the higher pressure ?

@ mr_turbulence
Im not a native english speaker, but doesn't it mean separately tested? So not as a whole system but each component a new test?

Independently is meant as in by a 3rd party.

Strictly speaking, those using components in a full pressure system such as a 5404 Burket valve should either have devices fitted to limit the pressure of the system or provide test documentation proving otherwise. For example a pressure relief device set to 50 bar would be suitable, alternatively use a regulator to reduce the pressure.

Valves rated for full pressure are available but I believe the 5404 is used due to the high flow rate capability coupled with the high pressure rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_turbulence

Not a fan of those hold down to vent dumps...

---

Shouldn't be a problem.
After the fight the arena marshal dumps all the gas.
Robot retrieved, owner removes bottle, tries to get it refilled asap-to have a very cold bottle is a boon for the decanting filling methode-.
Bottle gets remounted in the machine, and only opened during link up.

Quote:

---

Also Kane can you make sense of this;

9.7.1 Custom Components
Custom made components, or parts operating above the suppliers maximum working pressure, must be
Independently tested and certified at 120% of the maximum system pressure available at that point.

Key word being independently as Mario and Team Mute have said they test there equipment... I don't blame them if they have the gear to do so them self.... But to comply with the rules wouldn't they need a 3rd party to certify there gear? Not just them... But anyone running a compressed gas system be it air or co2, or can we all say we've tested our gear to 120% and give our self a certificate

---

Ah Dave, according to me, it's not that old a rule. The independent part of it at least.
On the other hand, my certification expired early 2010, and every hi pressure pneumatic system I distributed since then (al 6)under the PID prototype agreement was independently tested at a steam generator building plant. The original paperwork is still at that factory, and only the digital variants are in my possession.

On the other hand, how independent is a tester? (I worked at that steam generator production plant 12 years ago, that is why I had that certificate, and still know the right people there)
Also, the PID rules are rather funny in some respects.
I can perfectly test Gasbots or Xtremes pneumatics ;write up a prototype document, and put my own name on the line in case the materials fail and cause injury. And they can do exactly the same for my stuff. Perfectly legal, with the only caveat that we personaly are responsible if it goes wrong, unless we can prove it was a failure of the end-user.
And that is simple enough. Just one sentance in the test report.

Quote:

---

Only to be tested/used in a controlled enviroment, as stipulated by theFRA Arena Rules.

---

Have you got one of those documents you can scan and show us as a template?

Mario, according to me i know what a dump valve does...and how to fill a bottle...ive done it a couple of times...In that heavyweight i made that won the uk champs, back in 2006, when i was 17?.. im 23 now and ive done more since. I dont need a lecture.

The reason i dont like the push buttons is due to the fact you have to hold them down while the gas runs out... slows down an arena marshalls job between fights, just personal opinion.

You seem to take things very personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

Independently is meant as in by a 3rd party.

---

That is what I make of that phraze.
On the other hand, when changed the rules to that exact wording?
And, it's only recently people start to worry about it. Strange I have to admit.

Quote:

---

Strictly speaking, those using components in a full pressure system such as a 5404 Burket valve should either have devices fitted to limit the pressure of the system or provide test documentation proving otherwise. For example a pressure relief device set to 50 bar would be suitable, alternatively use a regulator to reduce the pressure.

---

Funny, Project Two suffered that problem during an event. The PRV started to vent pressure when a sun heated pump-filled bottle was opened. meaning the pressure was over the set limit. After losing 100 gram of CO2 the system was a tad chilled, and the pressure was below the treshold. Meaning it will freak out people opening a fresh bottle because the PRV starts to vent.
POP-POPPOPPOP... Pop.......pop.......po..p

Quote:

---

Valves rated for full pressure are available but I believe the 5404 is used due to the high flow rate capability coupled with the high pressure rating.

---

Actualy it's a tad different.
The Burkert 5404 is used by a lot of us, because it's the only affordable , commercialy available valve that can do the job. Albeit for dependability, overvolting a 24V coil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terry

We use BURKERTS which are rated to 50bar aswell, were they tested and certified to handle the higher pressure ?

---

The Burkert 5404 is rated at 50 bar for reliable duty cycles. The real pressure rating goes way above that.

Bigger Brother and Dantomkia were among the first machines using that valve, way back during the BBC series, and Spitfire in Battlebots.
To get accepted by the more rigorous Battlebots pneumatic rules, Mike Lambert had the Burkert 5404 pressure tested. The results were simple. The body can take pressures over 1500 psi without failing. The 24V soleno¯d on the other hand isn't reliable over 750 psi @ 24V. Meaning it sometimes won't open the valve. (shit, a flip that didn't go off)
The solution to that is to overvolt the soleno¯d. That coil it ment to take 24V for months, even years, so bursts of 36V won't hurt nor burn it. And even it would burn trough, it just ends up with a non working weapon. What outside the arena should be pressureless according the rules.

I will point out that non of the Burkert 5404 failures were the result of a non damaged body. Most of the times it was lack of power in the solenoid to pull the plunger against the pressure-drop; or by swarf/dirt between the shuttle and bodyseat.

Another pneumatic weapon failure is rather electronicaly. If the RC switch passes electricity the valve can be open. But that too can't be blamed at the Burkert.

Even a full hit of Little Hitter on the stainless steel solenoid tube in Hannibalito 1s Burkert didn't cause any leakage nor catastrophic failure of the valve.
It just didn't work anymore, the valve stayed open when pressure was applied. Rasing the flipperarm gently and blowing off CO2 trough the dump home when the bottle was opened and the buffertank filled.

We replaced the solenoide/plunger tube, and H1 was ready to rock again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_turbulence

Have you got one of those documents you can scan and show us as a template?

---

Hmm.... I tought I did type I have only digital scans.
And if you want, I can post a document I write 10 minutes from now. Still as legal.
What reminds me. I have the paper originals from 2002, from the stainless steel main frame-tanks of Project 2:Hex'em. One of the reasons Derek Foxwell cursed me. And probably the reason Mentorn posted that only 1.1 and 2 kg commercial CO2 bottles were allowed for series 6. (but that would be to boastfull to my opinion) . I can mail a copy to you by snail-mail. Even with official copy stamps on those documents.


I believe Behemoth suffered from that rulechange too. In Series 5 600 gram paintball bottles were used.

Quote:

---

Mario, according to me I know what a dump valve does...and how to fill a bottle...ive done it a couple of times...In that heavyweight i made that won the uk champs, back in 2006, when i was 17?.. im 23 now and ive done more since. I dont need a lecture.

---

You don't need a lecture.

Quote:

---

The reason i dont like the push buttons is due to the fact you have to hold them down while the gas runs out... slows down an arena marshalls job between fights, just personal opinion.

---

True, but if that is a problem, what about robots with bashed in Removable Links? Stuck relais? Burnt trough SSR's? Blown Mosfets?

Quote:

---

You seem to take things very personal.

---

Yes, I do. Especialy if my competence and experience is questioned without reason.

Yeah scan it in, be good to look at.

As i said its just my opinion on the push button dumps, but unlike a bashed in link etc thats a one off, you have to deal with it after every round. But there not against the rules, so it doesnt matter.

I didnt quetion your experiance etc.

As the burkert is officially tested by Mike lambert, cant we al use the same test results ?

Unfortunatly, no.

Because the rather custom application, and the time involved (12 years?),official recertification is needed.

And who is eager to spend money on something currently accepted?

Also, with the years of experience, is it needed?
Unless Burkert changes something radicaly in the 5404 valve I don't see a reason.

Mute got hit by the robot wars rule change too, we argued for some time with Derek but never got anywhere, but it did work out ok in end with a lot of mods.

Mutes stuff is tested by a LTD company which carries its own insurance etc, therefore it would be classed as a 3rd party.

The Type 0255 Burket is rated by Burket for 100barg but im guessing you arent going to get the same flow as a Type 5404, havent got a clue on the internal bores so im not sure

Bit of info about Water testing and Gas testing, much safer to test stuff with water rather than put it in your robot and gas up.

Quote:

---

Pressure testing of pipelines should normally be carried out using water. Only in exceptional circumstances should pneumatic pressure testing using compressed inert gas or air be used, and then only under carefully controlled conditions. The reason for this is because water is virtually incompressible (as are other liquids) and only a small quantity of energy needs to be introduced to increase the pressure significantly. Air, however, (like all gases) is compressible and, as a result, much more energy has to be put into the gas to raise its pressure. In fact, at the pressure ranges normally used for testing water-piping systems 200 times more energy is stored in compressed gas compared to water at the same pressure and volume. So, should a joint, pipe, or any other component fail under test pressure when using compressed gas, the energy can be released with deadly force

---

I think the rule's it's quite clear what's supposed to be tested and how, but be totally honest there's only a select few that can afford to do that.
My other concern would be that any certification would be invalid legally as it's used in an combat situation where a slight dent by a spike or axe that has no ill effects would deem it not safe for use in a commercial environment.

That being said, my personal opinion is that the main CO2 bottles need to be off the shelf and always in good condition as they do now, but the custom parts after the bottle/regulator should not need full certification. Obviously we need to keep a close eye on things so that people aren't being stupid with material thicknesses etc - but that's no different to how things are at the moment.
The arena's are built to take any misshap's with these sorts of systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

I believe Behemoth suffered from that rulechange too. In Series 5 600 gram paintball bottles were used.

---

We didn't suffer, just had to get some approved cylinders. It was a sensible and logical approach, especially given the number of competitors and the high levels of HSE participation.

What do the Americans do? I believe they run Nitrogen at well over 1,000psi so it may be worth looking at how they deal with the safety and regulation issues.

They also run flame throwers, and Li-Pos & Spinners in the HW category.
Perhaps taking a look at how they run could answer some questions, provide some inspiration for solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

I believe Behemoth suffered from that rulechange too. In Series 5 600 gram paintball bottles were used.

---

We didn't suffer, just had to get some approved cylinders. It was a sensible and logical approach, especially given the number of competitors and the high levels of HSE participation.

---

Ok, you adapted. Just like Team Warlock did. We replaced the frame-main tanks with recertified 2L Oxygen bottles, rerated as 1.5 kg CO2 bottles , but restamped as 1.1 kg bottles to satisfy Mentorn.

BTW, the main bottles that were welded in the frame untill the rulechange hit us. Here are the relevant test sheets.

http://users.telenet.be/P3/2012-06-01/001.jpg
http://users.telenet.be/P3/2012-06-01/002.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grant_ploughbot

That being said, my personal opinion is that the main CO2 bottles need to be off the shelf and always in good condition as they do now

---

Agree fully but i do find the five year rule a bit strange. Only that it is adopting part of the legislation in that they are also supposed to be retested between fills (ie: every fight). Stick Tiberious through a co2 bottle and it doesn't matter if it's a week old or fifteen years old it'll burst and we contain it well enough.

I would be a little cautious with the idea of using pressure vessels that have been used for more than say 5 years.
I think you may find over their life the bottles being filled and exhausted many times may suffer from material fatigue, they may appear OK. But on a microscopic level may have started to break down undermining their integral strength.
This in turn means they could fail with disastrous consequences, when they are in the process of being filled after a fight when they are still very cold! This is when the material would be most brittle, and when you people are holding the things. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: and I could be standing close to you at the time. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig_colliass

I would be a little cautious with the idea of using pressure vessels that have been used for more than say 5 years.
I think you may find over their life the bottles being filled and exhausted many times may suffer from material fatigue, they may appear OK. But on a microscopic level may have started to break down undermining their integral strength.
This in turn means they could fail with disastrous consequences, when they are in the process of being filled after a fight when they are still very cold! This is when the material would be most brittle, and when you people are holding the things. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: and I could be standing close to you at the time. :shock:

---

That is why main pressure vessels need to be certified; if one blows up then, it's the fault of the certifier.

How many times did we have a catastrophic failure with a commercial CO2 bottle? (most btw, are 200 bar bottles, pressure tested at 300 bar, equipped with a 195 bar burst disk)

Also, not many steel tanks around anymore. Most are ali. Surprise, gas bottle ali doesn't get brittle at -80°C, that is why it is used for LNG tanks on large tankers....


And, with 6 events a year, 4 fights an event. 24 fillings a year. Even doubling that...
Avarage Scuba tanks get more use. And people carry those on their backs, in constantly changing pressure regimes. I don't get a lot of exploded scubadiver stories , not even on the internet as a spoof or Darwin Award nominees.

Thanks for the reply I'm not sure dose that mean you agree? also is your computer OK as some times the words go really small. :proud:

The thing I agree upon is that storage bottles need to be certified. By the book preferably.


But fatigue seems not the foremost of our concerns.
How many fights has a robot before a full overhaul or even retirement?

Just been looking at the five or six (in service) ally bottles we have here. Test pressure range from 200-212 Bar, with the max service/design pressure of approx 170 Bar - but they vary slightly by manufacturer. If the burst disk is roughly set at 195 Bar, then on the ones I have to hand the margin is pretty slim - although this might be different in other parts of the world. This probably explains why portable extinguishers end up as a PED Cat III as a minimum (via the module H route though I would guess) - which also possibly explains why there haven't yet been any failures in the extinguisher vessel. After all a notified body isn't going to sign off on any old bit of metal.

I still think its a good idea to get home made components pressure tested though. In my own little world it strikes me as common sense - even more so if the pressure boundry isn't being proved by calculation. In my view I don't see any difference between storage bottles and valve bodies, rams, pipework etc - they are all the same.

Again in my own little world, the only reasons that seem to be on offer for not pressure testing home made pneumatic components is we don't want to do it or we can't do it. Is that a valid reason?

There may not have been any failures yet, but who knows what the future will bring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

Just been looking at the five or six (in service) ally bottles we have here. Test pressure range from 200-212 Bar, with the max service/design pressure of approx 170 Bar - but they vary slightly by manufacturer. If the burst disk is roughly set at 195 Bar, then on the ones I have to hand the margin is pretty slim- although this might be different in other parts of the world. This probably explains why portable extinguishers end up as a PED Cat III as a minimum (via the module H route though I would guess) -

---

Strange, Except the CO2 oldest bottle I have around, all are actualy pressure tested to 300 bar, have a working pressure of 200 bar, and a 195 bar burst disk.
And the one that doesn't have the 300bar TP/200bar WP stamp is an old UK ali 1.1kg bottle I exchanged for one of the steel ones I got during the Dutch series 2. That one is TP 200bar WP 135bar, and had a 135 bar burst disk. Never could get it refilled over here.

Quote:

---

which also possibly explains why there haven't yet been any failures in the extinguisher vessel. After all a notified body isn't going to sign off on any old bit of metal.

---

It's also perfectly possible that the test pressure doesn't even come close to the burst pressure. If the same safetymargins as for hoses are held, a bottle won't burst untill reaching 600 bar +

Quote:

---

I still think its a good idea to get home made components pressure tested though. In my own little world it strikes me as common sense - even more so if the pressure boundry isn't being proved by calculation. In my view I don't see any difference between storage bottles and valve bodies, rams, pipework etc - they are all the same.

---

Let me rephraze myself then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox

The thing I agree upon is that storage bottles need to be certified. By the book.

---

Reasoning behind this. Bottles wil be transported, and not always in the robot. Filled. If something goes wrong during transport, the concequences can be a lot higher than a failing bottle in the arena.

Also, and that is a very valuable point. The only other critical time is during filling.
There was a reason Mentorn had Fireman Pete in his workshop to refill the bottles. Nobody was allowed to enter that. The first Dutch events I took that task upon me.
Maybe food for thought?

Quote:

---

Again in my own little world, the only reasons that seem to be on offer for not pressure testing home made pneumatic components is we don't want to do it or we can't do it. Is that a valid reason?

---

The can't do it is ony for a part correct.
Most of the time it's: we can't afford a test rig and a robot at the same time.
Or we can't afford to pay a firm to do it.
Independents over here did quote prices up to ‚1000 to test a Robots pneumatics. I'm lucky I know people at an independent firm.

The don't want to do is plain stupidity. If anybody working with pneumatics (or any high energy storage) acts like that, we have a potential Darwin Award contender.

Quote:

---

There may not have been any failures yet, but who knows what the future will bring?

---

If you have enough time and changing circumstances, something will go wrong.
I suggest a nice rubber room and soothing music to avoid most of the process called life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

It's also perfectly possible that the test pressure doesn't even come close to the burst pressure. If the same safetymargins as for hoses are held, a bottle won't burst untill reaching 600 bar +

---

And its also possible the bottles aren't the same as hoses so could burst at 225.3 Bar. Who knows... After all the construction and diameter of both are rather different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

Let me rephraze myself then.

maddox wrote:
The thing I agree upon is that storage bottles need to be certified. By the book.

---

I wasn't refering to bottles, I was refering to home made components, thats why I said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

home made components

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

The can't do it is ony for a part correct.
Most of the time it's: we can't afford a test rig and a robot at the same time.
Or we can't afford to pay a firm to do it.
Independents over here did quote prices up to ‚1000 to test a Robots pneumatics. I'm lucky I know people at an independent firm.

The don't want to do is plain stupidity. If anybody working with pneumatics (or any high energy storage) acts like that, we have a potential Darwin Award contender.

---

Cant Do - Won't Do - whats the difference? The end result of both is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

we can't afford a test rig and a robot at the same time.

---

Like cars and car insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

Independents over here did quote prices up to ‚1000 to test a Robots pneumatics.

---

1000 euro for an hours work, I should set up a shop where you are :D

Maddox, let me ask you a question - how do you quantify your pneumatics components? What kind of certification do you give out with the pneumatics you sell? You've been making pneumatics for people for as long as I can remember, pressure testing & certification should be run of the mill by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

something will go wrong

---

Glad we agree on something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

I suggest a nice rubber room and soothing music to avoid most of the process called life.

---

:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

And its also possible the bottles aren't the same as hoses so could burst at 225.3 Bar. Who knows... After all the construction and diameter of both are rather different.

---

Correct, depends also on type of hose. Don't try liquid CO trough a standard airhose. Most of the time it will fail immediatly at the connections.
But yes, the larger the diameter the thicker the wall etc etc...

Quote:

---

I wasn't refering to bottles, I was refering to home made components, thats why I said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

home made components :)

---

---

I do understand.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

we can't afford a test rig and a robot at the same time.

---

Like cars and car insurance?

---

You don't want to see how many uninsured cars there are... but yes.
It doesn't get better because the current rules.
Several people on the forum can assure the stuff is up to snuff. Unfortunatly, with the current rules those roboteers can't be seen as independents.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

Independents over here did quote prices up to ‚1000 to test a Robots pneumatics.

---

1000 euro for an hours work, I should set up a shop where you are :D

---

It's obvious that those quotes didn't come from firms who were interested in the extra work.
The cheapest was 15 000bef (‚372) for Project One (back in 2001), and that guy (one man firm specialising in CO2/halon server-room protection) was rather clear. It's good for your own machine, look at it as a kind of sponsoring.

Quote:

---

Maddox, let me ask you a question - how do you quantify your pneumatics components? What kind of certification do you give out with the pneumatics you sell? You've been making pneumatics for people for as long as I can remember, pressure testing & certification should be run of the mill by now.

---

My licence did run from 2000 to 2010 (didn't realise at first my certificate as pressure tester and safety inspector from my then employer covered it), so every prototype setup I made after march 2010 was tested by my aquintance at the steamgenerator building plant.
But before, it was easy enough. Assemble the component , fill it with light oil, raise pressure with hand or electric pump to 1.75 times work pressure and measure the expansion. If the expansion was lower than what the computer with the FIN calculations prognosed, it was good for me. (I have to admit, the FIN tests weren't done by me. Sometimes by other Dutch roboteers tough, not independents.)Full setups were done likewise, but the pressuretest was done at 1.5 times the working pressure.
To setup the PRV's I first did a pretest with oil, and afterwards with nitrogen to set it at 1000psi.

Dissassemble, rince with a degreaser, assemble, call it a day.

I never tested storage bottles myself. And I have only 1 deviation on the bottle setups. The composite divetank. I had those recertified from 4500 psi diving mix to 3000psi , coupled with a CO2 twist valve- neck is M18*1.5. The valve is a reworked tapered neck twist valve.

I even have a story about such tests.
TAN. When it was a wee infant barely capable of recieving a TX/RX command, we tested the whole setup with a bottle filled at 135 bar Nitrogen. The results were impressive.
But I needed a night to clean up the results on the enviroment.
Nothing failed, except the PRV, what got recalibrated afterwards. But at 2/3ths the originaly designed pressure, but a speed way beyond normal hydraulics....
Let us say the poor bolted down 2 steel tube fence needed some straightening and remounting.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

something will go wrong

---

Glad we agree on something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

I suggest a nice rubber room and soothing music to avoid most of the process called life.

---

:roll:

---

It's robot wars, not bumper cars nor a knitting class. We build machines to go head to head, with the intention to immobilise the oppenent. And we don't want to do that by trowing rosepetals.

Every fight I expect to see a bottle shattered, a combination of HDPE armor and LiPo fire, or even worse mishaps and every fight that doesn't happen I feel a relief.

I have kept out of this Pneumatic safety issues thread up until now, first off because it shouldnt really have been started cos its pointless and going nowhere and secondly its just pathetic with all the arguing and twisting peoples words etc.
Im only posting this now because its quite obvious a few comments have been pretty much aimed at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

So just because a ram passes gas it shouldn't be tested - that is quite frankly idiotic.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

The don't want to do is plain stupidity. If anybody working with pneumatics (or any high energy storage) acts like that, we have a potential Darwin Award contender.

---

Its quite clear its aimed at me beacuse I was the one that said I thought it was pointless pressure testing the ram, I said id get the full system tested but i just thought the ram was pointless as it isnt been tested in the way its going to be used.
As the EO's have said and Kane has said these machines are being used in an arena made to contain anything that might go wrong with the robots. CO2 bottles should be checked/tested/certified because they are being used outside the arena. And also like has been said before, the way your carrying on about it each individual component would have to be retested every fight.
Plus we went to thorite to get some fittings, if you tell the guy what there being used for he will tell you that they are not designed to be used in the way we are wanting to use them, and if they fail while being used in the way we are using them they or the brand are not responsible for any damage or injury. So as soon as you put them in your robot and in the arena any test certification that off the shelf parts have is invalid. Also with off the shelf rams and valves, mainly low pressure stuff if you tell them your using CO2 they say you cant. There designed to run compressed air.
So really even your off the shelf parts arnt covered.
No matter how much you argue about it you cant get round the fact that we are pretty much using these systems in a way that they shouldnt be used so even though in an ideal situation we would all have tested and certified systems the fact is as soon as your robots in the arena and that door is closed all that certification and the paper work means nothing.
I will have my system tested for my own piece of mind, basically so I know im not going to show up to an event turn the gas on and it leak.
Also James mentioned in an earlier post about pressure switches to show if the gas is on. I have a pressure switch for flow anyway, We had been playing around with the idea just as a cool feature.


Mario I dont want to get into a big argument, Your rams are proven to work and stand up to the pressures and punishment, You build good rams and thats why people use them, I expected people who havent built pneumatic robots or people that dont own a pneumatic robot to complain about this stuff, It happens all the time when sombody doesnt have what sombody else does. Both this subject and the lipo subject are quite similar in a way, They are been pushed and brought to more peoples attention by people that dont run pneumatics or lipos and people that personally dont feel confident with pneumatics or lipos, and once the subject grabs a few peoples attention more people jump on it, Its not just this community/forum it happens in almost any hobby/competition/sport. but even with them complaining I wouldnt have expected it from you because your doing exactly what im doing pretty much, If anything we should have been siding together but you was the first one to start quoting rules in the previous thread, but its ok making it sound like all of your rams and custom components are fully tested, but truth is there not really are they, Do all of your rams and other custom pneumatic components individually independently get tested and certified and released with certification papers to everyone that buys one of your rams? No. So when it comes to the person with one of your rams going through tech check and I say show me the paperwork that goes with that ram to prove its been tested and passed to be used at whatever pressure they are running. What happens then?
(I'd obviously never do that, but if people keep pushing thats whats going to have to happen)

We need to help the hobby/sport progress, These are things that could potentially hold us all back.

Hey cant we all just get along :kiss:

I have kept out of this Pneumatic safety issues thread up until now, first off because it shouldnt really have been started cos its pointless and going nowhere and secondly its just pathetic with all the arguing and twisting peoples words etc.
Im only posting this now because its quite obvious a few comments have been pretty much aimed at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

So just because a ram passes gas it shouldn't be tested - that is quite frankly idiotic.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

The don't want to do is plain stupidity. If anybody working with pneumatics (or any high energy storage) acts like that, we have a potential Darwin Award contender.

---

Its quite clear its aimed at me beacuse I was the one that said I thought it was pointless pressure testing the ram, I said id get the full system tested but i just thought the ram was pointless as it isnt been tested in the way its going to be used.
As the EO's have said and Kane has said these machines are being used in an arena made to contain anything that might go wrong with the robots. CO2 bottles should be checked/tested/certified because they are being used outside the arena. And also like has been said before, the way your carrying on about it each individual component would have to be retested every fight.
Plus we went to thorite to get some fittings, if you tell the guy what there being used for he will tell you that they are not designed to be used in the way we are wanting to use them, and if they fail while being used in the way we are using them they or the brand are not responsible for any damage or injury. So as soon as you put them in your robot and in the arena any test certification that off the shelf parts have is invalid. Also with off the shelf rams and valves, mainly low pressure stuff if you tell them your using CO2 they say you cant. There designed to run compressed air.
So really even your off the shelf parts arnt covered.
No matter how much you argue about it you cant get round the fact that we are pretty much using these systems in a way that they shouldnt be used so even though in an ideal situation we would all have tested and certified systems the fact is as soon as your robots in the arena and that door is closed all that certification and the paper work means nothing.
I will have my system tested for my own piece of mind, basically so I know im not going to show up to an event turn the gas on and it leak.
Also James mentioned in an earlier post about pressure switches to show if the gas is on. I have a pressure switch for flow anyway, We had been playing around with the idea just as a cool feature.


Mario I dont want to get into a big argument, Your rams are proven to work and stand up to the pressures and punishment, You build good rams and thats why people use them, I expected people who havent built pneumatic robots or people that dont own a pneumatic robot to complain about this stuff, It happens all the time when sombody doesnt have what sombody else does. Both this subject and the lipo subject are quite similar in a way, They are been pushed and brought to more peoples attention by people that dont run pneumatics or lipos and people that personally dont feel confident with pneumatics or lipos, and once the subject grabs a few peoples attention more people jump on it, Its not just this community/forum it happens in almost any hobby/competition/sport. but even with them complaining I wouldnt have expected it from you because your doing exactly what im doing pretty much, If anything we should have been siding together but you was the first one to start quoting rules in the previous thread, but its ok making it sound like all of your rams and custom components are fully tested, but truth is there not really are they, Do all of your rams and other custom pneumatic components individually independently get tested and certified and released with certification papers to everyone that buys one of your rams? No. So when it comes to the person with one of your rams going through tech check and I say show me the paperwork that goes with that ram to prove its been tested and passed to be used at whatever pressure they are running. What happens then?
(I'd obviously never do that, but if people keep pushing thats whats going to have to happen)

We need to help the hobby/sport progress, These are things that could potentially hold us all back.

Hey cant we all just get along :kiss:

I have kept out of this Pneumatic safety issues thread up until now, first off because it shouldnt really have been started cos its pointless and going nowhere and secondly its just pathetic with all the arguing and twisting peoples words etc.
Im only posting this now because its quite obvious a few comments have been pretty much aimed at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gasbot

So just because a ram passes gas it shouldn't be tested - that is quite frankly idiotic.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddox10

The don't want to do is plain stupidity. If anybody working with pneumatics (or any high energy storage) acts like that, we have a potential Darwin Award contender.

---

Its quite clear its aimed at me beacuse I was the one that said I thought it was pointless pressure testing the ram, I said id get the full system tested but i just thought the ram was pointless as it isnt been tested in the way its going to be used.
As the EO's have said and Kane has said these machines are being used in an arena made to contain anything that might go wrong with the robots. CO2 bottles should be checked/tested/certified because they are being used outside the arena. And also like has been said before, the way your carrying on about it each individual component would have to be retested every fight.
Plus we went to thorite to get some fittings, if you tell the guy what there being used for he will tell you that they are not designed to be used in the way we are wanting to use them, and if they fail while being used in the way we are using them they or the brand are not responsible for any damage or injury. So as soon as you put them in your robot and in the arena any test certification that off the shelf parts have is invalid. Also with off the shelf rams and valves, mainly low pressure stuff if you tell them your using CO2 they say you cant. There designed to run compressed air.
So really even your off the shelf parts arnt covered.
No matter how much you argue about it you cant get round the fact that we are pretty much using these systems in a way that they shouldnt be used so even though in an ideal situation we would all have tested and certified systems the fact is as soon as your robots in the arena and that door is closed all that certification and the paper work means nothing.
I will have my system tested for my own piece of mind, basically so I know im not going to show up to an event turn the gas on and it leak.
Also James mentioned in an earlier post about pressure switches to show if the gas is on. I have a pressure switch for flow anyway, We had been playing around with the idea just as a cool feature.


Mario I dont want to get into a big argument, Your rams are proven to work and stand up to the pressures and punishment, You build good rams and thats why people use them, I expected people who havent built pneumatic robots or people that dont own a pneumatic robot to complain about this stuff, It happens all the time when sombody doesnt have what sombody else does. Both this subject and the lipo subject are quite similar in a way, They are been pushed and brought to more peoples attention by people that dont run pneumatics or lipos and people that personally dont feel confident with pneumatics or lipos, and once the subject grabs a few peoples attention more people jump on it, Its not just this community/forum it happens in almost any hobby/competition/sport. but even with them complaining I wouldnt have expected it from you because your doing exactly what im doing pretty much, If anything we should have been siding together but you was the first one to start quoting rules in the previous thread, but its ok making it sound like all of your rams and custom components are fully tested, but truth is there not really are they, Do all of your rams and other custom pneumatic components individually independently get tested and certified and released with certification papers to everyone that buys one of your rams? No. So when it comes to the person with one of your rams going through tech check and I say show me the paperwork that goes with that ram to prove its been tested and passed to be used at whatever pressure they are running. What happens then?
(I'd obviously never do that, but if people keep pushing thats whats going to have to happen)

We need to help the hobby/sport progress, These are things that could potentially hold us all back.

Hey cant we all just get along :kiss:

It seems my point is lost somewere.

To clarify.

If the current rules are enforced, we can forget using Pneumatics, except for a happy few.

Thanks for all the responses to this subject

The question I would ask now is, what if anything, we need to do to improve the procedure for making, testing and operating of the pneumatic equipment in robots?

Do the current rules make sense?

If not can they be changed to be practical and so enforceable?

Do we need to change filling the procedure of Co2 bottles?

Now we have discussed the potential problems, let's look at solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig_colliass

Now we have discussed the potential problems, let's look at solutions.

---

I think the starting point has to be that we actually have a very good safety record. Maybe we have a 'if it aint broke don't fix it' situation.

OK maybe we look at new rams and check wall thicknesses etc but there's not a lot else I can see which needs to be changed.

The bottle rule is a wierd one in my view. The BS requires cylinders to be retested every ten years (the certification lasts five but the testing interval is ten). It just doesn't seem to follow that we talk about standards and testing requirements and then just make up our own. That said, it's not really an issue as you do have to draw the line somewhere.

Lipos are slightly different as they are to some degree an unknown quantity and we just have to know how to deal with them (and make sure safety equipment such as lipo bags are from a reputable supplier as there are some fakes on ebay which simply don't do the job).

Question to be asked: when was the last accident involving pneumatics? I have seen burkerts misfire with the locking mechs in when armed but no explosions not related to combat etc.