Disabled robots moving

[NWChen]

I think G1 explicitly applies here:

...Uncontrolled motion that cannot be stopped by the DRIVE TEAM.

A disabled robot cannot be controlled by the drive team, in which case the continued motion of an actuator is uncontrollable and thus unsafe and illegal.

Originally Posted by ollien

I was contemplating this on my ride home today. At NYC, an inspector told me about a robot that was DQd because they ran their fan after they were disabled.

This seems counterintuitive to me. A fan should run while a robot is disabled (but still powered on); for it not to run, e.g. in the case of control by a power-regulating device like a motor controller, would have it turn on/off based on the output of said motor controller. That runs contrary to both R52 and general sense.

[Christopher149]

Fans (at least those that are small and cooling motor controllers and motor) are allowed to run all the time by R52 - we've done it this way for literally forever. About all I can imagine is that this was a large motor-powered fan for deflecting boulders, or a miscommunication.

[ollien]

I didn't see the robot personally, but if I remember our conversation correctly, the fan was wired directly to the robot battery.

Thank you all for answering the original question however! I know it's kind of a nitpick, but I do appreciate it.

[NWChen]

Originally Posted by ollien

I didn't see the robot personally, but if I remember our conversation correctly, the fan was wired directly to the robot battery.

Thanks for the clarification, the robot inspector's decision makes sense then by R48. I do recall a case of one robot at NYNY having an improperly connected fan that needed to be rewired to the PDP.