Printable View
At the last few events I have seen that a large number of roboteers are powering up robots with weapons (such as flippers) in the down position. A few times now when powering up flippers they have fired, so far we have been lucky that no one is in the way. I think that every robot with an active weapon should be powered up with the weapon held in fired position by a support and a number of people seem to agree with this. Why is this not checked at events?
i agree alot safer
David,
You have raised a very valid point there.
Maybe its somthing that needs to be looked at for inclusion in the FRA safety doument.
e-mail me, and lets see if we can come up with a form of words that covers it.
Geoff.
David
Not having attended many events I cant say that weve ever noticed this problem. Although weve never had any problems with firing whilst arming and also Weird Alice may not be rated by many people as one of the most powerful flippers, but being that it is full bottle pressure and when it does work properly it scares the hell out of me, we always have and always will arm it in up position. Ultimately each team must take responsibilty for there own safety.
Regards
Ian
Team Weird Alice
http://www.weirdalice.co.ukwww.weirdalice.co.uk
A valid point david and perhaps the activation order should be looked at.
IIRC (cant find it on the new site):
Tx on.
Rx on.
Remove locking pins (unless weapon is locked in fired position in which case this is done last).
Link in.
Now to me that seems wrong. I thought the whole idea of a locking pin was to provent the thing from moving if it accidentally fires. But if they are out before the link goes in then surely there no use.
Have I got teh order wrong or have i miss interprited the use of locking pins?
Regards
Ian
For some RC setups the Rx has to go one first. I dont think we can set a fixed order. But maybe as part of the tech-check the roboteer who activates the robot should demonstrate the order. The weapon doesnt have to be in the fired posistion, but as long as it cant move if activated. The locking/holding device shouldnt be removed until the robot is fully powered up and in a stable state.
We need to turn on the Rx first as well so that when the Tx is turned on it sends the failsafe info quickly, then when the link is placed the weapon usually activates for a split second (dont know why) but for us thats not a problem.
Ive seen this happen a few times as well David and people need to be more careful. For flippers that power both ways I certainly would not like to put my hand in and remove the locking bar, much safer using electric :) but Im not too clued up on the gas rules.
David, I strongly disagree in the case of M2 and have previosuly failed to get the FRA to realise that not all robots are the same and that the arming sequence varies. Whats safe for one bot may not be for the next. The last thing I remember on the subject was my suggesting that every team should have their arming up sequence in print. This could form part of the tech check to show that the team has considered a safe system, all they need to do then is follow it.
Paul
We arm Mute as follows
RX
Wait for fail safes to transmit
TX
Gas On
Link in
Remove locking pins (Mute front flipper is locked in fire postion)
When door is locked plug in buddy box
This weekend a lot of bots seemed to be have trouble with interference, but with no way of telling what frequences are on we will never know what was going on
I would not consider ever removing Tauruss locking pins if the flipper was active.
Each robot is differant, and the method of securing flippers can also vary.
For Project II/Hexem , the start up sequence was like this.
activate TX and RX, put in Removable link, open bottles gently, remove locking pin on the flipper.
If there was something wrong, and the flipper would fire already when opening the bottles, it would strain against the locking pin ,and removing it would be next to impossible. So then it was, closing bottles, dump CO2, remove removable link shut down RX and TX, remove robot from the arena, and back to the workbench.
I think that each team should have their arming/disarming sequence on paper with a copy for the arena tech responsible and/or the tech check responsible. I vaguely remember having mentioned it once in a discussion but I feel that we should resurrect this idea and put it into action.
So, the suggestion is: arming/disarming sequence on paper in 3 copies. One for the tech check, one for the arena tech and one for the team to show at every inspection.
Maybe a diagram of where the safety pins/bolts/whatevers are supposed to be, with the rx and the link and bottle(s) indicated as well ?
I approve, Babeth. (Not that Im really in a position to have an opinion just yet.)
I can see that people need different initialization sequences, and writing it down would be a good thing, but... Would it be an idea to have a default (with an explanation of why thats the order for newbies like me) suggested in the rules, and then require that anyone deviating from that provide a sheet saying what theyre going to do, and why?
Im just concerned that well either end up with:
a) every powering-up preceded by a rant about why something has to be different from the way someone else is doing it, or
b) someone doing something subtly dangerous and being allowed to because they wrote it down (and nobody scrutinized it closely enough).
Many robots are going to need things done differently in order to be safe, but the more variations there are the harder it is for someone else to keep an eye out for carelessness, or to spot a procedural danger. While, when Im at that stage, I intend to be careful to the point of paranoia whenever powering up a robot, Id like it to be as easy as possible for other observers to have my back.
Just a thought from the fringes.
--
Fluppet
I most definatly agree with Paul.
i think a typed up document should be made by every team witch includes an activation squence.
this shows that the roboteer has properly thought through their safe activation sequence for there machine.
I do believe I know what David is refering to. Burkerts have to have air pressure to close. They use equalised pressure to close the valve. If squeeze handles are used on the bottle and the handles are closed too fast then the inrush of gas causes the valve to momentarily leak before the gas has equalised. Although this is rather exciting it should in no way be considered as a full missfire. Many robots now use propper gas taps on their bottles and these are opened in a much gentler manner.
Dantomkias turn on sequence is as follows.
TX on and all switches checked for correct de activated state. ( I have remote kill that a. removes 24v from all valve firing ccts and b. disconnects the RC singal from the speed controller thus causing it to go into failsafe mode )
RX on and robot ACTIVE switch made. A small movement of the robot. forward / backwards and left / right is made to check radio control integrity. ACTIVE switch cct then broken so that robot is deactivated.
Dump valve closed and gas slowly turned on. Cover closed and robot again Activade and tail pneumatics checked. Robot the Deactivated till seconds before the fight starts.
I consider it safe to arm Dantomkia in this way. I wouldnt do it for some others because of their radio methods. ie, Dantomkia actually removes the valves power source physically deactivating it.
As many others have said, its up to the individual robots design as to how they are armed up.
Just a word here. I have been thinking of making a small rule change to the pneumatics section. This is with reference to the 1000psi relief valve. This rule was added not for safety reasons but to to stop people over gassing and cheating on full bottle pressure systems. The burst disk is more than an adaquate safety device.
I propose to alter the ruling to say something along the lines of :-
if all connectors, fittings and regulator are rated above the burst disk pressure (130 bar) and the system pressure is regulated then there is no need for the 1000psi relief valve. However, if any part of the pneumatic system uses gas at the same pressure as the stored gas, ie full bottle pressure, then the 1000 psi relief valve will be required to ensure that no cheating happens.
Thoughts but not a long winded debate is welcome on this.
Cheers.
Mike.
Leave the ruling alone..... Just my opinion.
Mikes method of arming the electrics first and testing the drive is what we employ in EWE2. We then very slowly turn on the gas. If the valve was open for some reason, then the flipper would lift relatively slowly as the gas fed into the system. I dont know why all CO2 bots cant adopt this method of arming.
If you put a link in when the gas is armed you will never know 100% if you have full control of the bot, or if a relay is in the wrong position, or if you are going to get some freak voltage spike or interference.
I say make the thing electrically stable first and then turn on the gas.
Ian
What i have seen are robots who have turned on gas last ect but the robot miss fires while their hand is in the robot.
David, check their bottle valve. If they have a pilot valve then this might be a clue. The only robots that reguraly missfire is Ripper and Hassocks Hog. When I am arena manager I arm them up last. Having said that, Jonno seems to have fixed Ripper.
Basically some robots do and some dont.
Mike.
Mike I 100% agree with your idea of removing the 1000psi valve however I do believe a safety relief valve is needed 10% above the working pressure just incase something goes wrong with the regulator and full pressure gets through.
Regards
Ian
For M2 it is:
Mechanical restraints out first - 2 reasons one is that it will be retained later by the pressure to the top of the ram and 2, not to get in close proximity to a live weapon.
Radio next, Rx first then Tx (PCM), check remote kill is on.
Link in
Gas next, close dump and slowly open main gas valve
Then stand back, turn off remote kill. I have long campaigned for a remote kill!
M2 has never mis-behaved whilst arming but the arming sequence still assumes it can and will.
Anyone who removes their weapon mechanical restraint on a fully armed bot, well I certainly would not on M2 but others may well have a safe method.
Mike, with regard to the 1000 psi PRV, the burst disc on an extinguisher is higher than 130 bar. I have always felt that for bots like M2, the valve is not necessarily there for safety as all HP components far exceeded the extinguisher burst disc pressure. It was included to satisfy the Mentorn requirement and to ensure fair play and negate the need for pressure gauges or test points (USA). Even LP bots can gain an advantage by running with storage pressures over 1000 psi. It is probably time to review all of the rules because a number are based around Mentorn and they are no longer in the equation.
Paul
Paul
I was told by someone that the reason why the 1000psi relief valve was needed was because the crew mentorn had were not allowed to handle gasses above 1000psi and this was the easiest way to ensure this.
Also how would a LP bot gain an advantage by running over 1000psi? I would asume regulated pressure would remain fairly constant but maybe i am wrong?
Thanks
Regards
Ian
Ian, the greater the differential pressure across the regulator, the higher the flowrate, thus a quicker refill of the buffer tanks and the sooner the system is back to normal operating pressure. M2 takes 4 seconds to recharge at the start of a fight but 8-10 seconds at the end with a cold bottle. So, to cheat, all you need do is warm your bottle so you have a higher starting temperature and pressure which will delay the above effect. This can be the difference between winning and losing a fight!
In reality, I feel the FRA could ignore any concern over teams taking any advantage such as warming their bottle (although outside events in the summer can easily raise the pressure above 1000 psi) and simply look at the safety aspect. As for Mentorn, does it matter now if they had any such restrictions unless there is something to be learned from them?
Paul
Thanks Paul I was un aware of that.
Regards
Ian
As RoamingRobots Arena Marshall I Take Pride In Knowing How Each And Every Robot Fighting In The arena is Armed And the procedure for doing so as most of you know when im peering over your shoulders as you do so ..... Because its down to me to make them safe in the aftermath that you leave in the arena after a good fight ... as far as a printed sheet thats a great idea in triplicate 1 for the team 1 for the techcheck and 1 for the arena staff ..... I TOTILLY AGREE .... i try to run a safe arena and to the best of my knowledge i do ....... as for robots firing on gassing up i think i can count on 1 hand the number of times this has happened, and as for not being aware of the procedure it has only happened once at folkston when splinter tried to part my hair head and shoulers with his axe only managing to hit my hand ouch!!!! ... As for who decides the procedure the teams know there bots better than anyone so its down to them to do it in the safest way possible so the procedure should be written and supplied by them. BUT ALL IN ALL A VERY GOOD IDEA LETS RUN WITH IT AND LETS ALL BE SAFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The arming sequence for my heavy (now it has a wepon) is pretty much the same as m2s As it has a pressured retract the locking pin has to be removed first, Would be abit silly to let it crush my hand, Also I like the idea of fitting remote kill switches as standard into heavyweights, How far would other agree?
Not that Im yet at the stage of having a heavyweight to fit it in to, but Id strongly approve. It might be wise to have it externally visible that its activated, though - the distinction between a robot breaking down/being broken and having its failsafe activated by someones mobile going off is one I think should be clear, in the interests of fairness.
--
Fluppet
Andrew,
M2 has 2 LED cluster lamps, one for link in and one for remote kill off (i.e lamp on) and they were different colours!
Dave,
The remote kill operated relays that interrupted the battery supply to speed controller and weapon solenoids. My view is that whilst consideration is given in the rules to limiting the effect of a bot moving or a weapon operating when they shouldnt, more consideration could be given to ensuring it doesnt happen in the first place (as far as reasonably practicable). Those mechanical restraints should be considered a last resort and are useless when safety restraints are out and the bot is off the cradle (arming / disarming). Still it is up to the individual, there is nothing stopping any team from taking additional precautions over and above the existing rules.
Paul
I have my arm sequence written on the lid of my robot. Having it written down and visable when arming means I follow it, Keep It Simple because I really am Stupid. I also have my weapon in the fired position when arming so that the worst that can happen when putting on the gas is that it trys to close on the safety prop.
This may seem OTT but having experianced a misarmed one I dont want to ever do it again.
This has happened with Toro once. And something was on his flipper - a pair of pliers :proud:
Team Gore - revolutionizing the vapourbot world
they went flying im guessing since i send stuff flying during physics and know what something like that can do to something or someone