Power/failsafe LED

[big_nipper]

Power/failsafe LED

Rodger, you are right in that at the end of the day it comes down to the insurers who set the minumim standards but I dont see why you are against the light. If all robots require a light and you put the link in during a tech check and it does not come on then it fails. If its on when the link is out then it fails. Even in our robot we have had wires short to the chasis on a number of occasions and if that happened with a wire before the link it is possible for it to become active. A light would indicate this. How else would you know unless you did a full tech check after each fight. We have two power lights one across each speed controller. Whats the point in the FRA if people dont follow thier guidelines. Read some other threads you will find alot of people wanting to standardize the rules for everyone not just the UK. It will take alot of time but hopefully it will happen. I must point out that I dont speak for them but Im sure that they will listen to you as you do have alot of experiance and have been doing this longer that me.

Jim, I would have to check to be certian but I thought it was a couple of mA.

I should also point out that I dont like the failsafe light idea as it stands and using the PCM Rx would not be allowed under this rule as you cannot be sure they are in failsafe without using a dedicated channel and even then its not certain that it will work unless setup very carefully. PCM Rx are the best for rejecting interfeance as they have active error control.

[roger_plant]

Power/failsafe LED

I have nothing against the light as I have already said, if you want to fit one then fine.
At my shows I will not use the light as a reliable power indicator, only a removed link means power off as far as I am concerned.

[Guest]

Power/failsafe LED

Thanks for the rejection of the link socket lamp! Always good to get constructive criticism.

[shredderteam]

Power/failsafe LED

Weve read this with great interest and its causing a fair old bit of debate again amongst the committee.

Please bare with me, Im not a politician so find this stuff quite hard work, but Id like to clarify a couple of things if I can:

We understand Rogers and others point of view, as with every EO the final decision on safety practices is down to him, as its his neck (metaphorically speaking) thats on the line should there be an accident.
Its unfortunate that Roger was not a member of the FRA at the time this rule was introduced, as his view would have undoubtedly then have been taken into account along with all the other EOs.
We hope Roger will join the FRA over time and become a contributor, as has been said above.. theres no question as to his own technical knowledge and he has a perfect right to reject the FRA rules if he wishes.

Saying that.

This wasnt a rule that was introduced for the fun of it, there was and is great concern that at the most dangerous time of roboteering i.e the load and unload of robots, EOs, roboteers and arena staff had absolutely no external way of telling what state a robot was in.

In the instance of the afore mentioned accident last year, a roboteer returned to the robot after placing it into the arena because it appeared to not be working, he then proceeded to fiddle with the internals of the robot without removing the link, something which is very easy to forget to do in the heat of the moment. Due to the lack of exterior indication of power on board, the arena staff were not aware of this and had no means of being aware of this, they just had to trust that the roboteer was looking after himself properly. As it turns out, the link was in and the robots weapon was live.. the flipper fired while the roboteer was leaning over the robot and he was struck fairly soundly in the forehead region and thrown backwards a good 3 foot.
Luckily for all involved the arena door absorbed some of the force of the strike before it got to the roboteer... so the accident was not as serious as it could have been despite giving everyone present a damn good scare, and the roboteer in question a very nice bruise!

Returning to robots after activation is something that as EOs weve all seen on more occasions than we care to mention, and fiddling with robots while the link is still in is equally as common.

We would be extremely silly as live event organisers not to recognise this and try and provide a relatively easy to install and effective solution to the problem, remember that not only could an accident of this type be nasty for the roboteer involved, it could have far reaching ramifications for the event organiser and the growing live sport in general.
There is also the problem that should an accident of this type happen again after we as an organisation became aware of the issue, we could in theory with no solution in place actually be accused of being lax in setting down our best practice procedures.. this would not be a good thing for anyone, especially considering the great progress we have made over the past year or so with live event safety standards.

In closing:

The light has clear plusses for all the event organisers involved in the FRA, they between them run the large majority of the live events in this country and the technical team and roboteers that advised on this solution have all agreed it was the best way to deal with the problem without causing undue technical issues for the roboteers.
If it turns out over time it doesn€™t work, we€™ll undoubtedly re-evaluate but for the foreseeable future the power light is required for all FRA events in order for a robot to be run.

It€™s been suggested that we provide a guideline and suggest acceptable parts for roboteers so as to take some of the confusion out of the issue, I€™ll make sure it€™s discussed at the next committee meeting and that progress is made on this as soon as is possible.

Thanks once again for the feedback, this is after all part of what the FRA was about right from the start, we€™re not here to dictate but to garner opinion and try and take informed decisions on what is best for the sport.. I hope to see this long continue

Regards
Samuel Jones
FRA safety executive

[Guest]

Power/failsafe LED

How big and bright would a lamp have needed to be to be visible to the arena staff under those circumstances?
quote:

the arena staff ... just had to trust that the roboteer was looking after himself properlyIm sorry, I dont agree. The arena staff dont have to assume the roboteer isnt being daft through adrenaline - - they have to insist they SEE the link before allowing him to proceed. And insist loudly if need be!

What all events need is an officious, anal-retentive safety officer who has the presence of mind to yell LINKS OUT!!! as roboteers approach their machines.

[storm]

Power/failsafe LED

Richard, sadly thats not always as simple as it sounds. With robots spread around the arena at the end of the fight - and most robots without visible links this is a good ADDITION.

No-one is suggesting that people dont do what you say, and no-one is suggesting that a light being out says a safe robot.

What people ARE suggesting is that whether or not a roboteer is near a machine, if someones left their machine at arenaside whatever the case, if the light is ON, the robot is dangerous. Whether you can see the link in or not (and with links behind doors thats usually impossible).

I really cant see the problem that this has caused. This is an ADDITION to all common sense, not a replacement for it. I have no idea why it is causing such a fuss.

Ed
http://www.stormrobot.comhttp://www.stormrobot.com

[roger_plant]

Power/failsafe LED

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.

[mute]

Power/failsafe LED

What if the plate at the back of the robot takes a heavy hit, bends and locks in? Having a link/retaining cover will lead to more questions about how to build it strong enough and reliable enough to undo 100% of the time.

Lets face it, if someone cant fit a LED to come on when the link is pushed in, then they are going to have serious problems wiring up the rest of the electronics.

I honestly dont see what the problem is with a simple LED. Its a power indicator, not a your robot is safe indicator.

[babeth]

Power/failsafe LED

Richard C. Weir wrote:

quote:

What all events need is an officious, anal-retentive safety officer who has the presence of mind to yell LINKS OUT!!! as roboteers approach their machines.

Oh Richard how well you describe me !
Sadly I can tell you that the Dutch/Belgian roboteers would lynch me if I would insist again on safety issues during the shows. They just dont like someone loudly repeating the obvious over and over again, I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is needed, but the roboteers that heard me doing so only became very thoroughly and clompetely annoyed with me. My heart is warmed by a single soul agreeing with my views...

Roger, I do not agree with you fully. I happen to be one of those incomptents you have been describing (yes, I am a lady of many qualities) and for me the rule of having a light that indicates the robot is live makes sense. I see it as an indicator that will give me additional security, not as a fool-proof safety signal, but an indicator. If the light is on without the link in then my robot is in serious trouble. If it stays off with the link in then the light is in serious trouble and must be replaced immediately. If the light goes off during a fight and the link is still in then my robot is in serious trouble and liable to become a great hazard to all. See... it is an indicator.

As to your suggestion for removable links: sorry but I see it diffirently. I have seen many a removable link removing themselves because the fastners or tighteners werent good anymore, so they need to be fit in really tight. If you want to remove such a link with a hooked pole wont you be pulling the entire robot towards you because of the force you need ? You need a counterforce: Who ? What ? And I do absolutely NOT agree with using plates to hide or protect the link, the removal of such a plate means you need more time, especially when it is bent or lopsided. (Yes you roboteers who use plates, I DO NOT consider your system safe.)

As to using specific industrial-like equipment or parts: bulls leave huge piles of this stuff that I do not want to name but wanted to use here to describe my opinion of the above-written. Everybody who starts with a hobby requiring electronics will soon find out what is fit and what isnt and we all learn by example and failure. It is a long road but eventually we get there. Building guides for beginning roboteers already describe such parts, if people wont heed the advice then it is their problem. Do you wish to introduce industrial standards here ? Might as well drop the tools and start basket-weaving. Its less dangerous anyway. Half of the industrial stuff is even un-usable for us: too heavy, too clumsy, too specialised, too expensive and not really easy available for the private person. You do know that there is good stuff in the hobby stores. As every roboteer knows: just do your duty as an experienced roboteer and gently steer the newbies towards the proper stuff. Available affordable proper stuff.

[ewan]

Power/failsafe LED

If LEDs are so important, why dont use them on featherweights aswell? They coundnt be used on antweights for simple weight problems, but seeing as some featherweights are as powerful as middleweights, they should really be used in featherweights aswell. I agree with some of you that a LED should not be a main way of telling if the robot is active or not, but it would make a useful way of seeing if your power is on at the start of a battle.
One solution would be that someone makes a removable link that is much clearer than the standard red links, one that makes you clearly see if the link is in, or not
A robot is never really safe, as there could be fused together wires inside the robot, due to high currents. This would still make the robot active. There is NO way at all of truly telling if the power supply is on/off, so we should all look for common sense in most tricky robot scenes.

[robotwars]

Power/failsafe LED

At the moment it is advised that they are used in feather weights, but at the next fra meeting, i will be insisting they are manditary for feather weights aswell.

Jonno

[fwsorg]

Power/failsafe LED

Agreed.

[roger_plant]

Power/failsafe LED

Elisabeth van Son, I did not suggested that we have to use industrial components but I have yet to find a €œhobby based€ link that will carry 100 plus amps and work safely as a disconnect device.

We must use components that the insurance companies accept as of suitable quality.
There is not much in a serious heavyweight that you can find in a hobby store.

Our shows are already large public events and must be insured, at least here in the UK.
If we EOs dont get our act together then the insurers will impose their rules on us.

As for not being able to pull the link out by hand, or a hand extended by a long pole when the robot is dangerous, then what are you using for a link?
If you read my post again you will see that the cover plate is removed by the same pulling action, it does not have to be removed first.
If you don€™t want a cover plate, then fine, leave the link uncovered with its rope loop hanging out.


I have used the Anderson (now called Rema) 160 amp welding connectors for my robots for some time.

I have fitted them with a rope loop and a swift pull on the rope removes them every time.
They do not fall out on their own ever, and I find them ideal for the job.

They are rated at 160 amps continuously and considerably more than that for several minutes.

They cost about £7 or 10 Euros each, retail, so can be afforded by all. They are easily available and many of the UK robots use them as standard. The 50 amp ones cost about £3 (5 Euros) each but will not carry the current required for a heavyweight robot.

It is these that I based my idea upon, but it would work just as well with the big fuse holders that some roboteers use.


Daniel, I have already covered your point about damaged links or cover plates by disallowing attacks on the link or its cover plate.
The link is our primary safety device, so it must be protected from attack.

Any robot that deliberately attacks the link would be disqualified, if it is damaged by accident then the fight is paused while it is inspected or fixed.

If we want to have fighting arenas in public then we must make concessions to safety and therefore protect our safety devices.

If we don€™t then we soon won€™t be able to get insurance cover and have to stop the events.

It looks extremely likely that RW on TV is on its last series so the future of robot fighting is in our hands at our public events.

[fwsorg]

Power/failsafe LED

Quote :

Daniel, I have already covered your point about damaged links or cover plates by disallowing attacks on the link or its cover plate.

That counts for virtually nothing. Even if not deliberate, it is inevitable that a link plate will take a hit. For many robots the link is on the back- presumably your rule would also rule out reversing into your opponent? This rule is both hard to enforce, will probably cause a lot of bother and arguements, and when it comes to a choice between that and an LED, I know which Id choose.

[typhoon_driver]

Power/failsafe LED

Ive been following this thread with great interest and i have come to a few conclusions (Please feel free to correct me). The LED idea sounds great and should be a requirement. I think the point that Roger is trying to make is that the LED may make some roboteers rely on it more than an actual visual check of the link. Babeth i think that every event should have someone like you, to yell and ensure that everything is done safely even in the heat of the moment.

if it is damaged by accident then the fight is paused while it is inspected or fixed.

How would a safe inspection be carried out in the middle of a fight if the link appears to have been damaged?