Power/failsafe LED

[babeth]

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

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

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

[teamchip]

Richard ..(and Roger).

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

I.E replies like these:

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


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

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

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

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

Tom

[maddox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fluppet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Fluppet

[fluppet]

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

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

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

[fluppet]

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

--
Fluppet

[maddox]

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

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

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