Al's 2016 Inspection Thread

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by dradel

Ok I'll bite, why would the regulator be set to zero?
...
How are teams going to be able to figure out what one persons opinion is going to be?

When in the pit & I don't want to dump the air out of the accumulators, but i don't want an actuator moving. Or if I want to release pressure on a cylinder. I will grant that the normal case is to have some working pressure, but you asked for a reason. Some teams have a lot of stored pressure. In that case it is fairly important to have the dump on the high side. In other cases maybe not so much.

I was not your RI. I do not walk away from questions & am always willing to review the rules and the reasons for my interpretation. I try to read the rules not as I what I would like, but what I think the GDC intends. Which is generally pretty literal. I will also suggest that they ask the LRI if they don't like my answer.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

When in the pit & I don't want to dump the air out of the accumulators, but i don't want an actuator moving.

If you change the setting of the Pressure Regulator, wouldn't that be a reason to be re-inspected to make sure the robot is in compliance with the pneumatic rules?

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by rich2202

If you change the setting of the Pressure Regulator, wouldn't that be a reason to be re-inspected to make sure the robot is in compliance with the pneumatic rules?

Depends on where the regulator is in the system.
For instance, we've had robots that adjust the pressure on the fly.
What made them safe is the adjusted regulator was a secondary regulator downstream from the 60psi max regulator, so it couldn't have pressure greater than 60psi under any circumstances.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by rich2202

If you change the setting of the Pressure Regulator, wouldn't that be a reason to be re-inspected to make sure the robot is in compliance with the pneumatic rules?

No. That is an adjustment not a modification. If you replaced the regulator with a different model regulator then that would be an modification that would require re-inspection. When checking robots in the queuing line, one of things inspectors look at is the air pressure.

[ToddF]

This is why it's important to have quality bumpers.

https://goo.gl/photos/kiyM4gCH4qp42hXKA

[dradel]

Part of the issue is that the students don't want to come off as rude by pushing back against the inspector.
Don't want the proverbial target on their backs for the rest of event.
I was unable to be at the event this weekend, and would have pushed back and asked for LRI to come to pit had I been there.
They were able to replumb the system with the help of another team, but that time spent was really wanted to be spent on the practice field or in practice matches.

[Jon Stratis]

I can understand not wanting to be rude, and it can be difficult to come off gracious while tSelling an inspector he's wrong. I suggest a simple wording of "we've interpreted that rule differently, would you mind getting the LRI for a second opinion?" Train your students on that, and you should be golden

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by dradel

Part of the issue is that the students don't want to come off as rude by pushing back against the inspector.
Don't want the proverbial target on their backs for the rest of event.
I was unable to be at the event this weekend, and would have pushed back and asked for LRI to come to pit had I been there.
They were able to replumb the system with the help of another team, but that time spent was really wanted to be spent on the practice field or in practice matches.

The best way to not seem rude is to ask the inspector which rule they are enforcing when they request something. Then look up the rule and see if they are correct or if it is a difference of interpretation. With the rule book in hand, feel free to discuss the inspector's ruling.

Most differences can be worked out with the rules in hand.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by dradel

Part of the issue is that the students don't want to come off as rude by pushing back against the inspector.
Don't want the proverbial target on their backs for the rest of event.
I was unable to be at the event this weekend, and would have pushed back and asked for LRI to come to pit had I been there.
They were able to replumb the system with the help of another team, but that time spent was really wanted to be spent on the practice field or in practice matches.

As an inspector I love it when the students show me I'm wrong. It's a great learning experience for both of us.

[dradel]

That is my plan for this weeks meetings. I really rather not have to bring legal counsel to the events. Lol

[dradel]

So is it safe to say based off of the responses that it is in fact legal to have the dump valve either on the high or low side?

[dradel]

Originally Posted by dradel

So is it safe to say based off of the responses that it is in fact legal to have the dump valve either on the high or low side?

Shall I take it no one wants to make an actual ruling on this?

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by dradel

Shall I take it no one wants to make an actual ruling on this?

I would rule it has to be on the high pressure side based on R78.

R78 If pneumatic COMPONENTS are used, the following items are required as part of the pneumatic
circuit and must be used in accordance with this section, as illustrated in Figure 4-15.

Figure 4-15 shows the dump valve on the high pressure side of the system.

[rich2202]

IMHO, as long as the Dump Value empties the entire system within a few seconds, it would be ok on either the high or low pressure side.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by dradel

Shall I take it no one wants to make an actual ruling on this?

Keep in mind although I inspect, I am not the GDC, Al, or even a LRI so mine is just an opinion. Q & A would give the official answer. I read to rules to mean on the high pressure side assuming the regulator is not off board (no storage pressure on the robot) for reasons previously stated. I see the other side of the argument & would cheerfully refer it to the LRI if it was an issue for the team. I also think it is a minor thing with little impact on safety and no competitive advantage.