Hey, robots have electronic controls, right?

[Rich Grise]

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaaaaaa....

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Leon Sorokin]

having built a battlebot, and gone to the Chicago International Model and
Hobby Expo a few years back, we didnt have any electronics other than a
7-channel reciever and transmitter. everything else used electricity, but i
dont know if you would consider it electronics. i suppose you can add them
for one purpose or other. our super heavyweight spinner. it had 2 counter
rotating blades that had "sharp pointy teeth" on each blade. if you consider
four 12" teeth on each of two 50lb, 1/2" thick hardened toolsteel discs
scary, it also used a 14hp rc aircraft engine an a clutch to power them. we
designed a sun gear system to go in between the blades. the whole bot looked
like an octagonal prism. the lower blade also had 4 extra teeth that
protruded down around the permimeter of the lower disk at a 45 degree angle
outwards, and had gave the bot a ground clearance of about 1". the blades
sat on a fixed 3" dia chromolly shaft. the drive was electric and took A LOT
of juice. we could only run it for 10mins before recharge. ahhh, the good
old days.

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.22.01.35.49.20683@example.net...

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaaaaaa....

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Leon Sorokin]

it's actually against the rules to do anything like an EMP wave, or have any
liquid chemicals that, for example, can eat through armor or electronics, i
would assume there is a rule for glue as well...they have been around for
some time to make a good amount of restrictions. it hink their goal is brute
force, cause they can at least contain that with their lexan bulletproof
walls. once you get into things like thermite, and EMP or tesla, and radio
disruption, suddenly they can no longer contain these things very
well....unless they make the ring a bulletproof chemicalproof glass faraday
cage...oh yeah, and have lead walls for to contain any radiation from the
nuclear reactors these will have attached to them for power. you also cannot
have a projectile that is not attached to the robot. we actually thought of
making something like a tethered "blow all your circuitry" device. but for a
competition which holds mechanical and structural design in such high
regard, i doubt that there would be much of an audience for a giant tesla
coil on wheels that wins in a fraction of a second by rendering useless the
opponent's controls.

"Dan Mills" <dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cl9pok$f4n$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

Rich Grise wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots.
Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

Microwave oven maggie, pulse forming network, big cap, inverter,
thyratron.... No radiation on their control frequencies (against the
rules?) but I have a suspicion that any unhardened electronics would not
like the experience - note the video and lighting guys may get uptight
about this!

A pointed probe (prehaps driven by a captive bolt gun) with two concentric
tubes mounted inside, one is connected to a monomethylhydrzine tank, the
other to a supply of nitrogen tetroxide, once it gets inside the
opposition
the fluids are pumped in. Quite how you make this safe is an interesting
problem. A less poisonous varent would be glycerine and potassium
permagate
(powder)?

Magnetic mines containing say a mix of lead oxide/aluminium powder (this
is
not an explosive - it deflargates but does not detonate), LOTS of heat!
Possibly useful as armour, porcupine style with magnets outward, rig it
ignite when removed from the main hull?

Spraygun with quick setting glue?

Just off the top of my head.

Regards, Dan.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:42:09 -0500, Leon Sorokin wrote:

it's actually against the rules to do anything like an EMP wave, or have any
liquid chemicals that, for example, can eat through armor or electronics, i
would assume there is a rule for glue as well...they have been around for
some time to make a good amount of restrictions. it hink their goal is brute
force, cause they can at least contain that with their lexan bulletproof
walls. once you get into things like thermite, and EMP or tesla, and radio
disruption, suddenly they can no longer contain these things very
well....unless they make the ring a bulletproof chemicalproof glass faraday
cage...oh yeah, and have lead walls for to contain any radiation from the
nuclear reactors these will have attached to them for power. you also cannot
have a projectile that is not attached to the robot. we actually thought of
making something like a tethered "blow all your circuitry" device. but for a
competition which holds mechanical and structural design in such high
regard, i doubt that there would be much of an audience for a giant tesla
coil on wheels that wins in a fraction of a second by rendering useless the
opponent's controls.

I think I hear an inkling here of what I really have in mind - sort of a
competition between brute force and finesse. Can they be combined, and is
it synergistic, as most things are?

I just kinda realized this borders on the electronical - not only the
robot controllers (which could be cogs & stuff, actually), but as a
conceptual model of the duality between, for example, a switching
power supply vs. linear, which they already call "brute force."

I wonder, at times like this, I should give my posts a warning label:
Philosophy: Off Topic, or POT.

Yeah, that fits! ;-)

Cheers!
RIch

 

[Al Borowski]

Rich Grise wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaaaaaa....

Sherman Tank.

Al

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.22.01.35.49.20683@example.net...

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

A Hopper - based on that one-cylinder petrol powered device road workers use
to stomp sand with ;-7

Stomp, Stomp, Stomp ....."run, like the insects you are, muahahahaah"; maybe
that will be unpopular.

failing that maybe one can build a wheeled robot that drives around, then
when an opponent tries to ram it, it launches itself in the air timing, by a
RADAR sensor, it so that it will land on and flatten the opponent - three
cylinders and some timing will provide limited directional jumping - maybe
stick the wheels on some Citroen GX shock absorbers (the ones that are
actively controlled)??

car bits are often very cheap & available, especially used.

 

[ChrisGibboGibson]

"Rich Grise" wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

A 4 inch thick walled, hollow steel ball, driven by weights.

No weapons, but I doubt anything could hurt it. In fact they probably couldn't
even catch it.

Gibbo

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rich Grise wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

Tesla coil plus an EMP generator.
Any bot without hardened electronics gets toasted

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2tsls0F23jkg5U3@uni-berlin.de...

Leon Sorokin wrote:

it's actually against the rules to do anything like an EMP wave, or
have any
liquid chemicals that, for example, can eat through armor or
electronics, i
would assume there is a rule for glue as well...they have been around
for
some time to make a good amount of restrictions. it hink their goal is
brute
force, cause they can at least contain that with their lexan
bulletproof
walls. once you get into things like thermite, and EMP or tesla, and
radio
disruption, suddenly they can no longer contain these things very
well....unless they make the ring a bulletproof chemicalproof glass
faraday
cage...oh yeah, and have lead walls for to contain any radiation from
the
nuclear reactors these will have attached to them for power. you also
cannot
have a projectile that is not attached to the robot. we actually
thought of
making something like a tethered "blow all your circuitry" device. but
for a
competition which holds mechanical and structural design in such high
regard, i doubt that there would be much of an audience for a giant
tesla
coil on wheels that wins in a fraction of a second by rendering
useless the
opponent's controls.

Ok then.
How about a steel spike than can be 'fired' electromagnetically over a
shortish
stroke at very high energy?
If the rules are like the UK ones, this can only be done, if the bolt is

'caged'. So if you have a system where the bolt shoots out (say) a foot,
and is then slowed by a anchor cable, and drawn back into the robot, it is
legal, but if the 'bolt' leaves the robot, it is not allowed.

Best Wishes

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:11:06 +0100, Dan Mills wrote:
[about atomic powered bots]

Naa the geometry is too critical with civilian grade fuels and the power up
time for a plant operating in delayed criticality would be problematic...
Sure you could power up in a prompt mode far more quickly but even the navy
doesn't like trying that trick!

This is something I wasn't aware of - I had the impression that you could
take some suitable reactor fuel and graphite block, and pull the control
rods out, and it would just start making heat and just keep making heat.
Like, I saw a picture of a guy next to a beer barrel - '40's vintage photo -
that the caption claimed was a reactor. That's a little big for a bot,
but in theory, couldn't you get a little slug of plutonium that would
just sit there and exude 500 watts or something? Of course, you'd have
to contain the neutrons and stuff.

And this kinda relates to the NERVA thing, at least in the bowels of
my mind.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:29:44 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

See one of the many sites about this:

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Dan Mills]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:11:06 +0100, Dan Mills wrote:
[about atomic powered bots]
Naa the geometry is too critical with civilian grade fuels and the power
up time for a plant operating in delayed criticality would be
problematic... Sure you could power up in a prompt mode far more quickly
but even the navy doesn't like trying that trick!

This is something I wasn't aware of - I had the impression that you could
take some suitable reactor fuel and graphite block, and pull the control
rods out, and it would just start making heat and just keep making heat.
Like, I saw a picture of a guy next to a beer barrel - '40's vintage photo
- that the caption claimed was a reactor. That's a little big for a bot,
but in theory, couldn't you get a little slug of plutonium that would
just sit there and exude 500 watts or something? Of course, you'd have
to contain the neutrons and stuff.

There have been a few incidents where Pu has accidentally gone critical and
indeed you can end up with a small ball of Pu putting out 500W or so. It
has happened twice that I know of most recently in the soviet nuclear
program.

The problem is that the difference between delayed criticality (where the
neutron gain is unity only because of reaction products undergoing
spontaneous neutron decay, with a half life of seconds to days), which is
where all civilian plants live (typically a few percent of the difference
between delayed and prompt criticality above the delayed criticality
threshold).

Now with delayed criticality the power comes up slowly and the control
problem is fairly simple especially in a situation where you are working
with thermal neutrons (standard civilian reactor).

IIRC The original experimental reactor had such a long time constant that
they pulled the rod and graphed the activity ramping up by hand over some
hours!

This is not the case with a core above prompt criticality, especially with
Pu of highly enriched uranium where fast (un moderated) neutrons are doing
the biz, here the rate of increase in power output is limited only by the
mean time of flight of a Mev neutron within a small core. This same
consideration is why bomb cores use highly enriched fuels (or Pu), you need
the short time constant.

In one of the incidents I know of (accident with a Pu bomb core), the thing
stabilised at several hundred watts output due to thermal expansion of the
core increasing its surface area. It had to be disassembled by remote
control.

Also the size of that slug cannot be reduced below a certain size - think
volume to surface area ratio (ignoring neutron reflectors and such like).

Some of the research reactors are pretty much a single fuel rod & a single
control rod in a tank of D2O.

Some of the navy plants can (IIRC - is there a nuke operator in the house
who can confirm?) be taken up into prompt criticality to allow a very fast
power up in an emergency, bloody dangerous because there is no reaction
time if something goes wrong.

Regards, Dan.

BTW: This is all in the civilian literature if anyone really wants to look.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:59:11 +0100, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:29:44 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent any
enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe a
thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

See one of the many sites about this:

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/

Thanks, but I didn't want links - I wanted people to lay the nuts and
bolts of their mind on the table. ;-)

Of course I mean, anybody who wants to play. Please don't feel obligated,
but do feel more than welcome to present your ideal autonomous fighting
machine. Well, its design, anyway. ;-)

I'm thinking lots of armor, because those other guys are going to have
cutters and pokers and whackers and bompbompers and everything - maybe
I should have said - it's not good enough to just blow up the battlefield
by self-destructing - you have to leave the arena under your own power.


But I think my basic design could still be sooper dooper pooper scooper.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Chaos Master]

Quoting Rich Grise [rich@example.net], that posted to sci.electronics.design on
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:29:44 GMT under article
<pan.2004.10.22.01.35.49.20683@example.net>:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

An intelligent robot, using a FAST CPU as brains, that could learn what to
attack and "automagically" select best weapons and tactics.


--
Chaos MasterŽ, posting from Brazil.
"I know the difference between myself and my reflection. "
-- Evanescence, "Breathe No More"
http://marreka.no-ip.com | http://tinyurl.com/46vru | http://renan182.no-ip.org

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:03:25 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

I'm thinking lots of armor,

Well don't! It's nice, of course, but adds enormously to the weight.
The limit for heavyweight non-walking robots in the European
competitions is 220 pounds, which sounds quite generous until you
start to add amour! Walkers are allowed double that at 440 pounds. The
220 pound limit is about the most two fit guys can 'comfortably' lift
and chuck into the back of a van, though.

because those other guys are going to have
cutters and pokers and whackers and bompbompers and everything - maybe
I should have said - it's not good enough to just blow up the battlefield
by self-destructing - you have to leave the arena under your own power.

The 'sport' such as it is has seen quite a few dominant weapons
systems over the years. As far as it's evolved to this day, the
current winner is the spinner type with a fast revolving armoured
exoskeleton. The best ones are *awesome* to see in action and
incredibly destructive. They're also very hard to mount an attack
against. Go to a live event if you can; the TV shows just don't
capture the sheer, shuddering violence of heavyweight robot clashes.
Expect to be dumbstruck!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:42:09 -0500, "Leon Sorokin" <lsorokin@tds.net>
wrote:

i doubt that there would be much of an audience for a giant tesla
coil on wheels that wins in a fraction of a second by rendering useless the
opponent's controls.

Which is precisely why EMP/Jammer weapons are banned. It doesn't make
for good TV.
Likewise all liquids are banned as weapons for the same reason, as are
nets. It's sad, however, that explosive charges are also blacklisted.
It would be interesting to see low-brisance, propellant explosives
deployed. Extremely efficient, very loud and violent!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Dan Mills]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:42:09 -0500, "Leon Sorokin" <lsorokin@tds.net
wrote:
Which is precisely why EMP/Jammer weapons are banned. It doesn't make
for good TV.

Likewise all liquids are banned as weapons for the same reason, as are
nets. It's sad, however, that explosive charges are also blacklisted.
It would be interesting to see low-brisance, propellant explosives
deployed. Extremely efficient, very loud and violent!

Indeed, abalative armour also has amusing possibilities.

Now, how do they define explosive? Is it for example a detonation vs
defrargation (sp?) thing? If so thermite (which does NOT explode might be
allowable.

Regards, Dan.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:50:24 +0100, Dan Mills
<dmills@spamblock.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Now, how do they define explosive? Is it for example a detonation vs
defrargation (sp?) thing? If so thermite (which does NOT explode might be
allowable.

Only "small, pyrotechnic flashes" for novelty purposes are permitted.
Thermite's out too. Not that it would work anyway in practice in a
combat situation.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

What would be your approach to a "battle-bot"?

Please Go Nuts - you have an infinite budget and an infinite stockroom,
albeit you'll still have to make up any parts or assemblies that aren't
on the shelf today.

I'm thinking something very low and dense, with skirts that prevent
any enemy appendages from overturning Scuttlebot1, and for weapons, maybe
a thing that sticks out like Klatuu's ramp, to tip over the other bots. Or
maybe a thing on the end like that alien-like tongue-thing, that opens up
like barbs and eats out the soft underbelly of the enemy bot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaaaaaa....

A truly competent walker, built along the lines of the Id
Monster from _Forbidden Planet_, except with
soldier-termite-style jaws.

Mark L. FErgerson