Printable View
Hi all
I have recently printed out a tech check sheet from the early thread. And I ahve two questions, it says locking devices and preventing movement of weapon. Would this apply for a lifter?
Also where it says weaponary tehther insatalled would this part apply to a lifter?
Hope this is clear
Alex
Best use common sense - if the lifter is relatively slow and wouldnt pose much of a threat to humans if it went off for some reason then dont bother about a locking pin because you could end up causing much more damage to your bot if a locked down lifter went off than you could ever cause to people around it. For faster lifters it may be worth looking at putting some safety measures in.
Tethers almost certainly do not apply.
ok thanks
um, do NOT listen to that advice Alex!
even a slow lifter can crush a kids arm on retract. imagine the arm is up, and a kid leans on it. for some unexpected reason the arm fires up without control and lowers at full power. kids arm crushes, everyone gets sued, and we all go to jail for being stupid. (ok, so im going to far)
in short, if the rules say it, you MUST do it, doesnt matter if its slow. common sense has killed many people, that is why we write rules. Ignoring them because our common sense tells us we can, is dangerous.
teathers apply to certain robot types only, your lifter is not one of them, so you do not need a teather.
out of interest, who does NOT have locking pins at the moment? we realized at the last event that edge hog did not have a locking pin or teather, so we are fixing that. anyone else not got one? storms the only lifter i can think off regularly at live events, but assume it has one, Ed?
cheers
(Message edited by jamesb on May 07, 2006)
Ahem... Geoff?
From fra rules
1.5.5. All Robots not in an arena or official testing area should have secure safety covers over any sharp edges and restraints on any active weapons or pinch hazards.
notice ALL ROBOTS and RESTRAINTS ON ANY ACTIVE WEAPON
ahem... doesnt need Geoff, its in black and white
Gotta agree with James on this one..
1.5.5. covers it as far as Im concerned.
I rather like the UKRG wording on this subject..
Any moving, swinging or actuating arm, lever or mechanism that could cause personal injury to competitors or others must be fitted with a visible locking pin that shows that the arm/lever/mechanism is securely locked into place when not in competition.
I think this wording should be taken as best practice on this subject.
Geoff
Fair enough I guess
The following is intended to clarify the situation and as this is first and formost a matter of safety it should be regarded as FRA policy.
Part of FRA build rule 1.5.5. requires that any mechanical device, be it a spinning weapon, a flipper arm, axe shaft, or any other type of mechanism be fitted with an appropriate locking device.
Whilst I concede that the rule does not use the actual words locking device It is perfectly clear that this is what is required. That is why I posted the UKRG wording as I think it describes very well the intent of rule 1.5.5.
I am considering, with the permission of UKRG, to incorporate that wording as an amendment to clarify rule 1.5.5.
In addition I would expect event organisers to include a check of locking devices during the technical inspection of machines competing at their events.
In short.... If you have any type of mechanical weapon on your robot, it must be capable of being locked to prevent accidental movement!
Geoff Smith,
Chairman,
Fighting Robot Association.
fully agree, this is one thing though that is rarely policed
It is down to the event organiser to ensure that rules and safety guidelines are undertaken in a manner that promotes a safe environment for all involved.
I rarely see a need at events for organisers to raise this with roboteers as it is already part of the tech check and roboteers have so far policed this themselves.
just had a thought actually.
kan-opener has a locking bar on his claws right. Razer does not.
I am building at the moment both types, a vertical and horizontal crusher. so do i need it on one, both or neither?
they are featherweights.
I would say both, if I was the rule maker, but Im not, so please rule on this for me oh FRA master, and let me know if i need to make locking devices for them. Best practice says do it anyway, but id like a firm rule please.
Again, if I were the rule maker id say all active weapons must be physically locked in place, (so as to limit movement sufficiently so that it cannot move a distance likely to injure, pinch, or damage others (persons or property) under any circumstances) and unable to move, even under full power, when out of the safe arena but then I will simply follow what im told here.
(please note, this rule clarification may effect current robots aswell, so if you have an active weapon and no locking pin, pay attention)
1.5.5. All Robots not in an arena or official testing area should have secure safety covers over any sharp edges and restraints on any active weapons or pinch hazards
you said it yourself in your above post james. all active weaponary needs restraints. but is it completely neccicary though thinking about it? if its electric then once the link is out then it cant operate even on accident. and when the link is in, you put your hands in the dangerous areas at your own risk and only when you absolutly have to. you should be aware of the risks of handleing their own machine?
With Venom when the link is out the arm cant possibley move. in the pits when the link is in its only during the tech check where i need to operate the weapon to show it failsafes so i cant have the restraint on then? I think this only applys to slow moveing weaponary though?
That is quite an interesting point as the rule that this thread refers to does not specify a physical restraint. So technically a complete lack of power to the weapon is a restraint although not physical.
Perhaps some clarification or rewording of the rule is required?
Below is a proposed wording for rule 1.5.5....
I think it leaves no doubt as to the intent of this rule.. Please feel free to comment.
1.5.5
When any robot is not in compertition any sharp or pointed edges must be coverd to prevent injury.
In addition, any moving, swinging, rotating or actuating arm, lever or mechanism must be fitted with a visible locking device that clearly shows that the arm/lever/mechanism is securely locked into place and incapable of accidental movement.
The only exception to this would be a mechanism that by its design is incapable of movement without electrical supply I.E. a mechanism powered by a lead screw or similar. In which case the removable link would be regarded as the locking device
sounds good but I still think that everyone should be encouraged to have the visible locking pins even if their weapon is able to be disabled by the removable link. It doesnt take much more than a hole and a metal pin.
just out of interest, how do we stand legally if faulty wiring results in an accident where a lead screw mechanism activates due to sustained battle damage?
my example being, if i made something similar to big nipper, and fought kan opener. i sustain damage, and a power line is crushed to the chassis. the robot remains fully powered with the link out (can happen) and as i put it on the table, without a locking device, it cuts someones bits off.
my point being, for the sake of exempting lead screws, are is it worth risking a freak, but feasable accident.
I suggest taking the wording as is, but removing the lead screw exemption, as if this is kept in we should also exempt hydraulic robots, as they have no acumulators and so cannot operate without electric power.
any thoughts?
I agree with Gary.
A locking pin is a great device to use while dis-arming the robot... The weapon can be locked when it is not possible to get to the link.
The new wording would leave a lot of room for abuse... I dont know of any robot that could have its weapon activated without power... Everyones radio gear is electrically powered.
1.5.5
All weapons much incorporate a manual locking device to prevent movement when the robot is not in the arena.
and possibly
Event organisers may request a demonstration of the safety device in a controlled situation.
Or should it perhaps be down to the organiser of the event to say if they require physically removable pins or other physical devices to ensure that a weapon is disabled?
Valid point about hydraulic robots there James, must admit, that one got past me!
Yours, Garys & Kanes other comments are duly noted and equaly valid. (Kanes wording is nice, short and to the point)
Im wondering if this debate really belongs in Safety Discussions rather than here?
(Message edited by scorpion on May 13, 2006)
a hypothetical example, razer uses a bike starter motor to run the hydraulic pump. These can be easilly imaginged in a lead screw application. These are body earthed, and many robots are body earthed.
A link is removed, in doing so, a loose wire falls on the terminal of the motor, it fire up, and the weapon moves, it can happen, it has happened, and will happen again.
i pulled the link from one of my feathers, unity, at the tendering show, and it carried on running at full power because of my then team mate incorrectly wiring it. Simple mistake, but then if he can do it, so can others.
rather than say, I think this will occur and others say no it wont i suggest we just make it compulsory for all active weapons without exception be physically locked in position when out of the arena. for storm 2 for example, this takes only a strut of the correct length bracing the arm to the back of the chassis in the open position. If there is a failure that results in weapon movement, i would rather see smoking motors than falling fingers.
Slightly off-topic but sort of related to the hydraulic weapons mentioned above. With hydraulic (and pneumatic) systems theres always the danger of the hoses/connections bursting. The pic below I found on the Scrapheap Challenge forum and was the result of an hydraulic hose connection bursting when the system was pressurised to 6000p.s.i (I know the robot limit is around 3000p.s.i - but thatll still be pretty deadly)
http://www.steamscenes.org.uk/ttu/00001694.jpghttp://www.steamscenes.org.uk/ttu/00001694.jpg
Urgh!!
Thats gross!..But I think it should serve as a warning to all of us who play with any type of combat robot....
To quote a line from thay exellent 1980s US police series Hill Street Blues
... Lets be careful out there!
ouch ouch ouch ouch! Used an old rotting pipe from a JCB or somthing i pressume?
Turns out he was testing aircraft components.
Taken from the Scrapheap forum:
quote:
He was testing an aircraft component to max pressure, when a pipe to the test rig pressure gauge sprang a pin hole leak, when his hand passed in front of the jet of aircraft hydraulic fluid, it was injected through the skin with a fair quantity of oil.
At the time there was very little visible damage, and all that damage you can see in the photos is the result of the hospital cutting away contaminated flesh. They also cut into his forearm to let it bleed to flush out the oil, and at one stage his hand and forearm was looking like it was at risk of being lopped off!
After all the operations and a bit of time (the accident happened a few years ago now) hes made a good recovery, with only the little finger and the ring finger next to it being still damaged, and some loss of flesh and muscle on his hand between little finger and wrist.