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