High Powered Feather Flippers

OK...

Since the likes of DTK, Flip and RIP - there is a new generation of Feather Weight Flippers on their way. Some Full Pressure flippers (even some with FP Buffer Tanks!). There is also the other kind - Low Pressure flippers but with good flow rates good enough to lift heavy weights.

When (and it is soon, if not already!) these flippers are let lose in Open Top arenas, the results could be quite nasty.

Heavy Weight Flippers in a feather weight, 12kg feather weights will fly. Also - this tethering thingy which is going on in heavy weights, would this need to apply for Feather Weigths? Full Pressure flipper, with a 1kg steel flipper, goes flying in the air - results not going to be nice.

Just something to nattery about - anyone else got any views?

Stu

i got a view.

All rpbotic combat be it small avent or big should be run in a an enclosed arena

I braught this problem up at the last FRA meeting, and i think it was decided that as with the feather weight spinners, they would be monitored, and upon a robot causing a risk, then the rules would be ammended to suit.


My personal opinion, is that the same rules should apply, and have considered putting a teather on Rip as i wouldnt like to be smacked in the face by its Titanium scoop if it broke off.

im currently building one of these new generation flippers. It will easily flip a heavy. As the flipper will be large i wondered about teathers. Its not the sort of thing you want to see fly across the arena!

Another, we are building a big flipper featherweight (low pressure) and we tested just the flipper at the weekend. First test was at 20 psi with nothing connected to the arm. With the ram not connected to the arm it flew over 180 degrees and hit the bench. We then fitted a bungee teather (needed anyway), We put a 5kg weight on the arm and put 20psi in it again and it went about 1 foot higher than the arm. After playing with the piviot point position we went upto 100 psi in small steps and got it to hit the roof, about 8 feet. The difference between 50 and 100 psi was not all that great (probably due to flow rate limitations) but found that adjusting the position of the pivot for less power but more speed was better up to a point. The whole thing was clamped to the bench but I would not like to test anymore until a drive system is sorted and we can test in the arena.

By the sounds of it this will not be anywhere near the power of some of the others but put a small piece of shrapnel on the arm weighting only a few hundard gramms and it will go very far. If theres not a top on the arena then even a few hundard grams will do serious harm landing on someones head. The problem is how will organisers ensure that arenas without tops will be safe without testing all filppers, disc etc.. to test their effectiveness. They will have to put alot of trust in the roboteers and limit the type of robots that can compete. RR arena has a top suffient for feathers with all weapon types that exsist at the moment and as most events use this arena then there is not a problem yet.

Tested whiplash mockup self righting on 300psi, it hit my living room roof.

Grew some common sense and tested it outside at 300psi with the buffertank this time, it must have been 15 feet in the air.

The full pressure components are close to finished. Is this the kind of thing that need very careful monitering and teathers?

No,

there is no way on earth Id be happy fighting this anywhere but robotwars (maybe enginuity), and I think if so many people are going to build super flipper feathers they need to realise there is a very real chance you wont be allowed on the live scene, just like the super spinners.

James im sure you can run that at Roaming Robots. We had M2 flipping that Steel Ball (over 10kg easy!) fireing straight up into the roof and with no sign of it looking unsafe.

Stu

Did they recover that steel ball ? Just curious.

James, bring it along and we can have a look, the arena is fully enclosed and stu is correct we have had M2 and Ripper flipping it against the walls and roof.

SO a 12kg feather hitting the roof would be nothing more than spectacular.

If we had concerns about things escaping then the arena would have been upgraded.

JOnno
http://www.roamingrobots.co.ukwww.roamingrobots.co.uk

LOL! Yes Babeth - it bounced back down to the arena floow with a big bang. The arena roof was acting like a sling shoot. LOL Flip - fly - aaa- smash back down to earth. Paul also flipped it full pelt forwards straight into the arena side polycarbonate wall at an incrediable speed - with us standing just 40cm away from the wall - felt more than safe enough.

Stu

I wasnt talking about the roaming robots roof....
I meant the robotwars roof.....
lol.

Cant imaging vortex hitting your roof would make your day Jonno, but if you want to run Im more than happy

Cheers :)

A quick request for clarity please

Having read and re-read the FRA safety guidelines, and with all the troubles at robotwars Im still confused.

I have a featherweight Id like to enter into competition.

Do I need a link (yes as far as I know) do I need a failsafe? (no as far as I know)

Do I need a seperate reciever switch as I run battery aliminators that kill the reciever when the links out.?

Its pnematic, and I know Ill need the full pressure relief valve from technobots, but do I also need the burst valve? I know its better to fit bot, but if I dont need both I can use the weight saved.

Finally, my feather is capable of possibly throwing some heavyweights out of the (rw) arena (yes, really) so do any of the featherweight rules change in this circumstance?

Just want to clarify as Im fighting for every gram soon.

James ...To the best of my knowledge ...ALL co2 bottles have a burst / rupture disc as standard equipment.
Hence ....You wont need to buy or add a rupture disc.

if your running your rx through a BEC, then you dont need the switch as the link will kill the RX.

you will have to have the burst disc, as this will protect the bottle when not connected to the system. A bottle would fail the saftey test without the disc (i would of thought).

All events that i know of require failsafe, due to the danger now concered with fathers (ie vortex, you wouldnt want it running around without a failsafe!). This year and last i got checked for FS at robot wars, im sure they wouldnt have let me in without.

is your system full or low pressure?

I have heard people say that some receivers output a burst of random data when you turn them on. If you use the link to supply power to the receiver and drive/weapon system at the same time, you might get a burst of movement when you plug it in.

A receiver power switch which is independent of the link would eliminate this by giving the receiver time to settle down before power is supplied to the drive and weapon systems.

Actually, a receiver also produces random data if your transmitter is off, unless its PCM ofcourse. Your failsafe should provide plenty protection agains start-up conditions.

Well, no. In my experience a failsafe will not protect agaisnt a startup glitch if power to the system is on before the receiver power is on.

A cheap RC-switch will trigger on power up (or down). But this as nothing to do with random receiver data at startup. Just dont use cheap rc-switches. A mistake is easily made.

do I need a failsafe? (no as far as I know)

Answer is yes James. In the FRA rules and Roaming Robots Rules. I would advise to have one. You will need one at Inspire.

I am worried about that you are boasting you have a powerful feather flipper, able to flip a heavy out of the RW arena - and you think you do not need a fail safe - very worrying James.

Mr Stu

The FRA rules can be found at:

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/buildrules.htmhttp://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/buildrules.htm

For anyone that hasnt read them.
These will be in effect at the majority of live events in the UK from 01/01/04

Regards
FRA admin team

Can I have a go at that steel ball and the RR arena ?

hard hats at the ready!

quote

do I need a failsafe? (no as far as I know)

Answer is yes James. In the FRA rules and Roaming Robots Rules. I would advise to have one. You will need one at Inspire.

I am worried about that you are boasting you have a powerful feather flipper, able to flip a heavy out of the RW arena - and you think you do not need a fail safe - very worrying James.

Mr Stu

a) define failsafe.... it isnt defined in the rules. If I need an FS1 say it. If it is said, please let me know where as Ive read it twice more this afternoon and cant find any requirement for an external failsafe if you meet the criteria of the robot failing safe anyway.

b)the question was is my electronise failsafe enough? no theories please, the rule writers or event organisers can give me a yes/no, and not a you should really have I mean a real yes you can run/ no you cant run

c) not really helpful comment there stu, boasting about my robot is simply pulling a Ewan for fun, if the rules state I need a failsafe, I , like anyone, will go for the lightest legal one. At robotwars filming the tech crew told me straight what I needed to go in the arena, and it wasnt what they said in the rules prior to the event. My flipper will have a failsafe, in that the speed controllers have them and with it being BEC that makes the robot safe, if I need an additional failsafe according to the rules I am not sure which is why I asked for clarification. If someone can clarify just how many lines of defence is minimum as I do not want to enter an 11kg safety device with 1 kg of robot.

d) if people wish to e-mail me any concerns they have about the safety of my robots I will happily address them. I will not however sit quietly and smile when my actions so concern people when they are being asked for clarification on a safety issue that they feel a public put down is neccessary. If you wish to put me down, do it by e-mail, and then I wont have to reply in public.

we do not all have the benefit of robot wars tech crew on our teams. This is what the forum is for, and having read the rules, if someone would be kind enough to clarify if I missed something, I can rest assured I am legal.

link, failsafeing speed controllers which disables reciever when failing. do I need another line of defence to be legal?

Thanks
James

just re-read that now Im not so offended.
appologies, it was a more aggressive response than I should have posted.

as long as the robot shuts down during its tech check, as far as im aware i see no problems. Its up to the event organisers, seeing as you have organised an event yourself, ask yourself the question Would i be happy with running the robot in the arena being used. If yes then you should be fine, if no, then i suggest you re-think your design. If you are not happy with the safety of your robot, then the organisers wont.

Exactly!
Thank you Alan.

I think its fine with just electronise CPUs, but if anyone can say yes or no, its Jonno, or the FRA safety authors, or for inspire (I assume its) Stu.

Unless otherwise told I will not invest in an FS1, and I will rely on my elecronise as failsafes. If this is not enough, please tell me asap so I can do something about it.

I also wish to avoid the robot wars situation, whereby a feather with nothing but hope and killalots claw as safety measures where mine was heavily worried about. A safety requirement should be consistent, ie, not sufficient for robot x, but robot y is better so they need more failsafes.

If Trinity/Tantrum need additional failsafes for Inspire, Im happy to put them on, after all Stus the boss, but if they are required I assume everyone will have them?

Likewise with the links.

i believe inspire is Eds event (not certain tho). Most featherweights i know of only use the failsafes within the controllers (we only use these), i dont see the requirement of additional ones.

As far as the rules go, we dont state specifics as this would close down the available solutions.

Put very simply though:

Featherweights, Middleweights and Heavyweights drive and weapons systems must failsafe under the following conditions.

Loss of TX signal (e.g switched off, batterys dead, Interference etc..)
Loss of RX reception (e.g batterys dead, damage, Interference etc..)

Basically any situation where the robot is no longer under your control.

These scenarios are testable under Tech check conditions by the well established transmitter off procedure, and now with the addition of the receiver on/off switch by turning this off and making sure the robot failsafes.

How the desired effect is reached is entirely up to you, but it must work reliably or youre liable to find youre asked not to run by the event organisers.

I hope this clarifier€™s any misunderstanding somewhat.

Regards
FRA Safety Executive

I see one problem with the rx on/off procedure. If the tx is off when this takes place there could be mega movement due to possibality of other robots on frequencies surrounding the frequency in use.

If the tx is on then this should be no problem. Could the safety executive please clarify this for me

Regards
Ian Mc Donald

Ooook here we go - dont shoot the messenger-
Fail Safe - I assumed you were on about fail safe for your flipper not drive. If you use the CPU electronize Speedos - yes they do have some sort of failsafe. If it works - great. But SOMETIMES they don€™t seem to work, if they don€™t work while doing your tech check, then well you have not fail safe - then you have a problem.

€œWe do not all have the benefit of robot wars tech crew on our teams.€ - That was a personal attack comment - and my answer to that is - when it comes to €œfailsafe€ I don€™t need to speak to Alan about that- it€™s just common sense James.

At Robot Wars - the were asking for failsafe on weapons - im not sure if they allowed PCM to act as a failsafe - will check on that, but they WERE asking to physically see the fail safe unit on WEAPON systems. They know a Vantec will failsafe, and us feather roboteers know (most of the time) electronize will fail safe, but they physically wanted to see a failsafe unit of some kind for the weapon system, which is what I thought you was on about - for your flipper. If you turn your TX off, and nothing happens at the pit table, it might be a different story in the arena with noise etc happening and other robots on frequencies near you and all sorts, hence why they ask for a fail safe to make sure nothing will happen.

As for Electronize Speedos to failsafe - not sure about that.
Like I said - they are accepted at all events as a failsafe IF they fail safe.
If they don€™t fail safe during a tech check - then there is a problem - ive seen it done, a robot not able to failsafe using those Speedos - then in deep water.

As for weight for a safety device - Technobots are selling a failsafe unit which is smaller than a hmm, well just very small. Just connects inline with the servo wires. So maybe an 11kg Safety Device and 1kg robot is a slight execration.

Mr Stu

Weight should never be a consideration for whether or not to include failsave devices in your robot. You should always -and I mean ALWAYS- think about safety first and worry about the weight afterwards. Even a feather weight can be dangerous enough to harm bystanders hence I would personally advice using failsafe devices, especially if your robot has a powerful weapon as you say. I do hope you also have your activation area (removable link, switch for the receiver and gas bottle tap) away from your weapons reach ? All these are supposed to have been considered when building your robot.

Call me a nitpicker but it is a lifetime habit to think up doom scenarios in any situation. Bad influence from my late stephfather there I suppose...

Just a personal opinion but i would not trust the electronize as a failsafe judging from what i have read above I want to know that the failsafe is going to kick in EVERY time it is needed.

I am just about to start my feather once we have repaired the damage to Thorak and i was planning to use the Electronize on their own but now i think ill be buying some FS1s or Pauls version to go inline. Better safe than sorry i feel.

I think Tech checks can be worrying enough especially on a new robot without having to worry about weather your failsaf will work or not.

Elizabeth :
A main concern of mine would be that if you have to many failsafes in a circuit they might start to cancel each other out? However you are apsolutly right about having failsafes, I think most people can spair those exstra 10grams or so for 3 small failsafes.

Stu:

If you were talking about the Ripmax Xtra Failsafes there dimentions are 25x10x4mm.

If people out there are short on weight (like James) I belive these would probably be a better investment than the FS1s as (acording to Paul cooper) no 1 has yet come back from robotwars auditions saying they werent robotwars legall, All that event organizers check (or should check for) is weather or not the robot failsafes...Brand names shouldnt make a differance. Have fun:).

Regards
Dave moulds
Team Turbine/PLF

I agree with dave, We have a PCM Rx and this does as the failsafes for robotwars fine but we also have a failsafe built into the interface board incase the Rx stops working or we use the PPM Rx.

if a ripmax xtra failsafe is legal, could someone at the fra please give us a yes or no?

if we have a list of accepted failsafes, then people can be sure theirs are legal, this is a solution should failsafes be sold out at any patricular vendor, it gives people options.

James, one thing I dont agree with is limiting what compaines you have to use. Ive had no problems with ours and dont see why I should be forced into 1 or 2 models. Recommending them is fine though just make sure people know that if they find something else it can still be used providing it works of course.

with fail safes should it not be the case that if it works on the day and the people in charge are happy that it works then the robot should run?

no, I dont mean limit it, I mean put up a list of approved failsafes, so if you are shopping you can either buy an unlisted one, or buy one you are 100% sure is legal.

for your machine, it may not be on the list but its legal.

what Im suggesting is a list to help those first time buyers

Cheers
James

My experience with Electronize controkllers and their built in failsafes has been 100% positive. I have had robots using these failsafes tech checked at Robot Wars a total of 8 times and have never failed. Older Electronize controllers have an annoying built in glitch that lightly pulses the motor every couple of seconds but this was fixed a couple of years ago and any you buy from Technobots wont have the glitch (which was not enough to move the robot in any case).

There has been any number of failsafes used in Robot Wars and I would guess that the majority have passed the rather basic tech check. Many of these failsafes are home made and typically only check for valid pulse width. The FS1 according to Ripmax was replaced by the Ripmax Xtra but it does not offer the same performance as the FS1. It lacks one check and that is for battery level. However, if the battery level falls to such a level that the receiver begins to output garbage, then you would expect the Failsafe to detect this and act accordingly. So the lack of battery monitoring should not be an issue. A Ripmax Xtra was sent to Derek Foxwell by Ripmax for testing but no results were forthcoming to my knowledge. Technobots has sold hundreds of the Xtra failsafes so it would be reasonable to assume that many of these were used in S7 machines and I have not had any negative feedback from any customer about them.

The time has probably come where we should move on from the Mentorn led techical rules and allow the FRA to lead the way with the new standards. Perhaps the FRA could specify the requirements of the failsafe along with a selection of off the shelf ones that meet the criteria.

Electronize analogue controllers / switchers regretfully do not have the best failsafe logic. When a transmitter is turned off as part of the tech check, many receivers are known to still give out spurious pulse that the basic analogue controllers accept as genuine signals resulting in sparadic operation. The microprocessor based controllers have a much better failsafe routine that to my knowledge is effective. Electronize have developed a new PIC based switcher that also has an effective failsafe built in, this was developed for Technobots originally for one of our commercial customers but I hope to make it generally available.

It is quite possible that the tech check will not spot an inadequate failsafe as the level of testing is not thourough enough. This then tends to lean towards only pre-approved types being used. Should this approach be taken, then custom made failsafes would be excluded which is rather unfair. We should also re-visit many of the rules we have had to comply with over the years and decide on their purpose and validity today with the current breed of bots / arena.

As always, nothing is ever straight forward. Perhaps one for the FRA electronics advisor to comment on.

Paul