Powering up weapons

[teammad]

At the last few events I have seen that a large number of roboteers are powering up robots with weapons (such as flippers) in the down position. A few times now when powering up flippers they have fired, so far we have been lucky that no one is in the way. I think that every robot with an active weapon should be powered up with the weapon held in fired position by a support and a number of people seem to agree with this. Why is this not checked at events?

[Kenny]

Powering up weapons

i agree alot safer

[geoff]

Powering up weapons

David,
You have raised a very valid point there.
Maybe its somthing that needs to be looked at for inclusion in the FRA safety doument.
e-mail me, and lets see if we can come up with a form of words that covers it.

Geoff.

[ian_humphrey]

Powering up weapons

David

Not having attended many events I cant say that weve ever noticed this problem. Although weve never had any problems with firing whilst arming and also Weird Alice may not be rated by many people as one of the most powerful flippers, but being that it is full bottle pressure and when it does work properly it scares the hell out of me, we always have and always will arm it in up position. Ultimately each team must take responsibilty for there own safety.

Regards

Ian
Team Weird Alice
http://www.weirdalice.co.ukwww.weirdalice.co.uk

[team_ireland]

Powering up weapons

A valid point david and perhaps the activation order should be looked at.

IIRC (cant find it on the new site):
Tx on.
Rx on.
Remove locking pins (unless weapon is locked in fired position in which case this is done last).
Link in.

Now to me that seems wrong. I thought the whole idea of a locking pin was to provent the thing from moving if it accidentally fires. But if they are out before the link goes in then surely there no use.

Have I got teh order wrong or have i miss interprited the use of locking pins?

Regards
Ian

[blazerbotics]

Powering up weapons

For some RC setups the Rx has to go one first. I dont think we can set a fixed order. But maybe as part of the tech-check the roboteer who activates the robot should demonstrate the order. The weapon doesnt have to be in the fired posistion, but as long as it cant move if activated. The locking/holding device shouldnt be removed until the robot is fully powered up and in a stable state.

[big_nipper]

Powering up weapons

We need to turn on the Rx first as well so that when the Tx is turned on it sends the failsafe info quickly, then when the link is placed the weapon usually activates for a split second (dont know why) but for us thats not a problem.

Ive seen this happen a few times as well David and people need to be more careful. For flippers that power both ways I certainly would not like to put my hand in and remove the locking bar, much safer using electric but Im not too clued up on the gas rules.

[m2xt]

Powering up weapons

David, I strongly disagree in the case of M2 and have previosuly failed to get the FRA to realise that not all robots are the same and that the arming sequence varies. Whats safe for one bot may not be for the next. The last thing I remember on the subject was my suggesting that every team should have their arming up sequence in print. This could form part of the tech check to show that the team has considered a safe system, all they need to do then is follow it.

Paul

[team_mute]

Powering up weapons

We arm Mute as follows
RX
Wait for fail safes to transmit
TX
Gas On
Link in
Remove locking pins (Mute front flipper is locked in fire postion)
When door is locked plug in buddy box

This weekend a lot of bots seemed to be have trouble with interference, but with no way of telling what frequences are on we will never know what was going on

[taurus]

Powering up weapons

I would not consider ever removing Tauruss locking pins if the flipper was active.
Each robot is differant, and the method of securing flippers can also vary.

[maddox]

Powering up weapons

For Project II/Hexem , the start up sequence was like this.

activate TX and RX, put in Removable link, open bottles gently, remove locking pin on the flipper.
If there was something wrong, and the flipper would fire already when opening the bottles, it would strain against the locking pin ,and removing it would be next to impossible. So then it was, closing bottles, dump CO2, remove removable link shut down RX and TX, remove robot from the arena, and back to the workbench.

[babeth]

Powering up weapons

I think that each team should have their arming/disarming sequence on paper with a copy for the arena tech responsible and/or the tech check responsible. I vaguely remember having mentioned it once in a discussion but I feel that we should resurrect this idea and put it into action.

So, the suggestion is: arming/disarming sequence on paper in 3 copies. One for the tech check, one for the arena tech and one for the team to show at every inspection.

Maybe a diagram of where the safety pins/bolts/whatevers are supposed to be, with the rx and the link and bottle(s) indicated as well ?

[fluppet]

Powering up weapons

I approve, Babeth. (Not that Im really in a position to have an opinion just yet.)

I can see that people need different initialization sequences, and writing it down would be a good thing, but... Would it be an idea to have a default (with an explanation of why thats the order for newbies like me) suggested in the rules, and then require that anyone deviating from that provide a sheet saying what theyre going to do, and why?

Im just concerned that well either end up with:
a) every powering-up preceded by a rant about why something has to be different from the way someone else is doing it, or
b) someone doing something subtly dangerous and being allowed to because they wrote it down (and nobody scrutinized it closely enough).

Many robots are going to need things done differently in order to be safe, but the more variations there are the harder it is for someone else to keep an eye out for carelessness, or to spot a procedural danger. While, when Im at that stage, I intend to be careful to the point of paranoia whenever powering up a robot, Id like it to be as easy as possible for other observers to have my back.

Just a thought from the fringes.

--
Fluppet

[james...venom]

Powering up weapons

I most definatly agree with Paul.
i think a typed up document should be made by every team witch includes an activation squence.
this shows that the roboteer has properly thought through their safe activation sequence for there machine.

[grafix]

Powering up weapons

I do believe I know what David is refering to. Burkerts have to have air pressure to close. They use equalised pressure to close the valve. If squeeze handles are used on the bottle and the handles are closed too fast then the inrush of gas causes the valve to momentarily leak before the gas has equalised. Although this is rather exciting it should in no way be considered as a full missfire. Many robots now use propper gas taps on their bottles and these are opened in a much gentler manner.

Dantomkias turn on sequence is as follows.

TX on and all switches checked for correct de activated state. ( I have remote kill that a. removes 24v from all valve firing ccts and b. disconnects the RC singal from the speed controller thus causing it to go into failsafe mode )

RX on and robot ACTIVE switch made. A small movement of the robot. forward / backwards and left / right is made to check radio control integrity. ACTIVE switch cct then broken so that robot is deactivated.

Dump valve closed and gas slowly turned on. Cover closed and robot again Activade and tail pneumatics checked. Robot the Deactivated till seconds before the fight starts.

I consider it safe to arm Dantomkia in this way. I wouldnt do it for some others because of their radio methods. ie, Dantomkia actually removes the valves power source physically deactivating it.

As many others have said, its up to the individual robots design as to how they are armed up.

Just a word here. I have been thinking of making a small rule change to the pneumatics section. This is with reference to the 1000psi relief valve. This rule was added not for safety reasons but to to stop people over gassing and cheating on full bottle pressure systems. The burst disk is more than an adaquate safety device.

I propose to alter the ruling to say something along the lines of :-

if all connectors, fittings and regulator are rated above the burst disk pressure (130 bar) and the system pressure is regulated then there is no need for the 1000psi relief valve. However, if any part of the pneumatic system uses gas at the same pressure as the stored gas, ie full bottle pressure, then the 1000 psi relief valve will be required to ensure that no cheating happens.

Thoughts but not a long winded debate is welcome on this.

Cheers.

Mike.