I fully agree that a reminder that the link is still in is a very good idea, BUT it must be reliable.
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.

To be sure of the reliability of the lamp installation, my event technical inspections would have to include the inspection of the quality of all connections on all wires within the robot that could affect the safety lamps reliability. This would require too much time, and the partial dismantling of some robots, to be practical.


There is another problem with the light, if the event is held outdoors in bright summer sunlight the LED/lamp will, inmost cases, not be bright enough.

You may think that I am being too severe in my criticism of the power indicator and that I want it to too high a standard.
But a wallop by a good flipper or getting hit in the head by an axe such as Axe-Awe€™s will seriously injure or kill you just as quickly as any of the nasty military devices that I have worked on most of my life.

As an event organiser I must be aware that this €œsafety feature€ lamp may not work reliably so I cannot therefore use it as a safety device.
My insurers know I am an experienced supervisor and have been responsible for overseeing inexperienced engineers work, so will reject the excuse €œthe light was out so we thought it was safe€.
It was my certified experience that got me the insurance in the first place.

Inexperienced roboteers will undoubtedly rely on the light working correctly and so will be caught out and get €œwalloped€ by their robot in the same way as the one who caused the incident in the first place.

The last thing we want is our insurance companies to start investigating the poor build quality of some of the robots that they are insuring at our events.
Normally all wiring that is part of something that they insure has to be to a recognised standard.
This applies whether it is low voltage car wiring, domestic wiring and so on, nothing is exempt.

The simplest of investigations by them will show how bad some of the robots are.

They will probably then insist that all robots that are at their insured events are subjected to much stricter technical inspections, probably by an independent agency.

The costs and hassles of such an €œMOT€ style test for all robots would decimate the numbers of them and the shows that they can go to.


May I suggest an alternative indicator.

The power link is placed in the back of the robot behind an obvious red plate.
It is attached to the plate by a strong pull cord which extends through the plate to a loop on the outside so it can be easily pulled out by hand.
This plate is retained by spring clip fasteners that allow it to be removed by a sharp tug on the loop.
The presence of the red plate means that the link is in place and the robot dangerous. No plate means no link, no power.

The plate and link removal action is very simple to test during the technical inspection, a lot easier than checking wiring standards.
It is simple and obvious in operation and requires no electrical power to indicate €œSafe€ or €œDangerous€
It is also just as visible in sunlight.

If it also allows access to the gas bottle tap that is even better, but that may not be practical in some robot designs.
If the robot gas bottle tap is the original fire extinguisher lever type, then it can also be held open by the €œsafety pin€ that is normally fitted to stop it being operated by accident.
This €œsafety pin€ could also be attached to the plate by a pull cord.

In the same action as removing the power link, the gas could be turned off as well in one operation.

Given sensible standardisation as to size and position of the plate, it would be easy to install in all robots.

It should satisfy the insurers and stop them from leaning on us for a more expensive solution.
They are only interested in how much our robots may cost them, they aren€™t bothered by how much their imposed safety measures may cost us.

I know this makes the link vulnerable to attack in battle.
We can overcome this disadvantage by outlawing €œlink attack€ during battles.
The link on the back of a robot is reasonable safe from attack by axes, but not by spinners. However,not many, if any shows can at the moment accommodate serious spinners.

I have a long handled pole with a €œboat hook€ type fitting on the end, as used to open and close the sun blinds over shop windows.
With it I could pull away the red plate by its eye or loop, and the attached links, of a suspect robot from a safe distance.
If the robot is lying such that its link plate is not visible it can be pulled over to a suitable position by the boathook on the pole.

These poles are not hard to get and could be standard equipment at all shows.

Pulling the link out with a long hooked pole would also amuse the audience and point out to them just how dangerous robots can be.

This is not yet to be taken as a requirement for robots attending my show but it needs serious consideration by all event organisers.
I will probably introduce it as a requirement for next years show.