Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

typodupeerror

## The Destructobot For The Man With Everything180

bewert writes: "Heavy duty metal-ripping hardware is going up for auction on E-Bay next week. The "Son of Wyachi", winner of the Heavyweight Championship on Comedy Central's BattleBots, will be auctioned on E-Bay. The inventor, Terry Ewert, practiced on old washing machines while developing S-W's triple rotating metal meat grinder apparatus. With a 12 hp. electic motor driving three hardened tool steel meat tenderizer points spinning at 71 mph, Son of Wyachi quickly renders most objects into smoking ruins. A must have for your next Halloween bash!" Auction aside, this is a scary robot. Do not use near kids, pets, or anything you like intact.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

## The Destructobot For The Man With Everything

• #### As a frenchman I'm furious! (Score:4, Funny)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:23AM (#2254362) Journal
As a proud frenchman I insist that you rude Americans remove your silly "battlebots" from our ebay. This is clearly a weapon of malicious intent that represses innocent robots and gives robots around the world a bad name!
• #### Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! (Score:2)

I can tell you're not french, as your name is qwerty123 not azerty123 :P

Veering off topic, anyone *want* a french keyboard, I inherited one from a flatmate...
• #### Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! (Score:2)

Trust me, nobody wants one.

I once spent a very frustrating day in Brussels trying to fix a customer's problem. I could have done it in a couple of hours had it not been for the stupid azerty keyboard.
• #### Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! (Score:2)

>Trust me, nobody wants one.

Don't be silly. The frenchwomen want them. If they *didn't* want the frenchmen, they'red be no frenchbabies . . .

oh, did you mean the keyboard?

hawk

• #### It looks small... (Score:2, Informative)

... but it weighs in a 315lbs and has an impact of 10,000 ft lbs... YIKES!
• #### Re:It looks small... (Score:1)

yeah, but it's not too tall, so I can see it's use in long lines.

"Chatty bitch on her phone, DESTRUCTO BOT GO!"
• #### Re:It looks small... (Score:2, Interesting)

Actually, the really impressive thing is that they expect the redesigned Son of Wyachi 2.0 to have an impact of 72,000 ft-lbs next year, along with 15x the rotor strength.

They also speed limited Wyachi to 5 ft/sec, but later tested it successfully at 15 ft/sec. If they can do the same for Wyachi (or if they can move to a stable wheeled platform), then no wonder they think Comedy Central should strengthen the arena (currently uses 1" or so of Lexan, which may not cut it soon).

The real issue I see for them is that with that much impact force you have a problem keeping control of the bot immediately after impact. Even at a "mere" 10k ft-lbs of impact force SoW went spinning off several times during the semi-finals and finals in this year's tournament. Sure, so did the other bot, but now you're talking about a lighter wheeled bot (walkers have higher weight limits) with even more force. I'll be interested to see how they deal with this.

Gotta get home tonight and watch the super heavyweight championship! Thanks TiVo!
• #### Briggs and Stratton Golf Cart Motors? (Score:2)

it weighs in a 315lbs

That's pretty impressive for one 12HP peak motor, let alone two with batteries and the rest of the robot. I was a skeptic when I read "12HP" in the article, but then I read the motor's current ratings: 300A at 48V. 14.4kW. Since 1hp=746W, and given that the motor isn't going to be more than about 75% efficient, that sounds about right. Urk.

Surfing a couple of links, I've discovered that the motors are Briggs and Stratton Eteks [briggsandstratton.com]. Very nice; I didn't know B&S were building electric motors at all. Apparently, they're a new generation of high-tech electric motor for golf carts.

The only golf cart motor I've ever played with was a fairly inefficient series-wound universal motor. It ran off 24 volts (very comfortably off two series-wired car batteries) and it certainly wasn't something that you'd want to mount tool steel hammer to. It would be quite terrifying.

Note also that a loaded series motor would tend to be pretty self-regulating in speed - there will come a point where the reactance of the windings will limit the current (and therefore power) as the commutator frequency increases.

Modern motors are electronically controlled, and depending on control, can be more efficient at a far broader range of speeds.

If these Eteks are anything like what Briggs and Stratton claims (and I love Briggs and Stratton, they make terrific gas motors, so I'd be inclined to believe them), this bot must be insanely terrifying.

Does anyone have any links to photos of this thing doing its destruction?

• #### what? (Score:2, Interesting)

What does 71 mph mean? How about RPMs?
• #### Re:what? (Score:2, Funny)

That is how many men per hour it can take out :)
• #### RPM's (Score:2, Troll)

According to the specs:

71 mph * 5280 ft/m = 374880 fph
374880 fph / 60 m/h = 6248 feet per minute

The diameter of the rotor assembly is 5 ft, and thus the circumference is 5 * pi = 15.708 ft

Therefore 6248 fpm / 15.708 ft = 397.759 RPM
• #### Re:RPM's (Score:1)

Or you could have just looked at the page [rotorspeed], and seen this:

Rotor Speed: 400 RPM
• #### Re:RPM's (Score:1)

71 mph * 5280 ft/m = 374880 fph

Ummm, I know a mile is 5280 feet. But how do hours translate to minutes? Is Khan listening in or something?

Well, the result is right anyways.

• #### Re:what? (Score:2)

It propably means the velocity of the the picks around circle. Wouldn't want a sharp object hitting you at 71 mph. Tells you a lot more than just rpms since rpms don't give the slightest idea of impact velocity, just the turning speed of motor which might have a short or a long spinning arm attached to it..
• #### MUAHAhaha (Score:4, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:26AM (#2254371)
I send it to do battle with the evil Hilary Rosenbot of the RIAA! She doesn't stand a chance!

GAME ON.
• #### Re:MUAHAhaha (Score:2)

Um. Hilary is a dude. I suspect Hilary Rosenbot would retain the gender identity of it's namesake.

• #### Killer robots? (Score:2)

They were right! You can find almost anything online, from bomb recipes to killer robots - There ought to be a law!

..Although I'm guessing this thing could come in handy with unwanted house-guests..

• #### Production values seriously lacking (Score:5, Interesting)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:27AM (#2254376) Homepage
Battlebots was a huge relief after being subjected to "Robot Wars". Whoever decided to pitch out the whole old format and go for an ESPN look deserves a medal.

Of course, it is somewhat tough to take the anchors very seriously -- they've got this "God, put me anywhere else, even Fox Sports" look in their eyes the whole time.

It'd be really nice to see them expand the rules somewhat to allow more interesting weapons, however. I'm getting sick of seeing bots push or flip each other -- I want to see sparks and flying metal. Of course, they'd probably have to move that away from the audience, but I think it'd be worth it.

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1)

Yes, the anchors do look like they'd rather be reporting syncronized swimming then robots. They really don't need anything but an annoucer, let the robots speak for themselves.
• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:2)

Well, even the competitors 'merican version of Robot Wars is going to be in for a shock if they see this thing. I happen to see it over the week end (through an intoxicated haze), and it was basically a slug fest throwing out the wimpiest competitor each time, instead of the trial like they have in the British version. With that wacko wrestler guy as the announcer raving on about total destruction. The Bots seemed to abe a generation or two behind the current Battlebots

Son of Wyachi is designed for sheer destruction, and sort of just dares folks to come in an attack. Looks like they'll need something like cast concrete armor to be effective against it

The american version of Robot Wars feels like they are trying to add the flavor of the WWF to it. And they are screwing up. Hype verses content. Where have I heard this before?

- - -
a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:2)

What hell is that crap? Stick your 'license' up your arse... if its for your own legal defence, as a grand CYA (cover-your-ass) I suggest you move onto something a little less 'risky' - try selling soda pop to americans or somesuch.

Leave the freedom to people with a spine, and who are not interested in lashing people with bullshit legal crap.
• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1)

Of course, if you want to look at the site without agreeing to the EULA, link to http://www.radiofreenation.net/ instead.

The license and the site name do leave behind a tingly ironic-licious feeling, though.

• #### Robot wars--yech (Score:2)

I stumbled across that and taped it to watch with my daughter. Battle Bots in the WWF is about right. I was shocked and stunned. If I'd seen it ahead of time, I wouldn't have let her watch it.

Just what do those guys have against classw, anyway? "THere will be other losers today, but you're the biggest loser of all?" And then gratuitiously attacking the disabled bots??? Who needs another show for this; you can already watch Raiders games . . .

Overall, I was disgusted. We'll stick to the other two . . .

hawk

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1)

I SERIOUSLY disagree with your opinion that BattleBots is so much better than Robot Wars. It is a bit exciting to watch, but it's really already gotten blah. There's basically the flippers, and the spinners and that's it. There is no point but destroy.

In the Robot Wars of yore though, there were GOALS. Your robot had to be agile, and quick, and able to fight it out a bit. It took a lot of thinking to design a robot that could get the most points across a wide range of competitons, instead of just designing a few spinning hammers on wheels.
• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:4, Informative)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @02:20AM (#2254588) Homepage Journal
An interesting tidbit about Robot Wars, which some probably already read on Slashback [slashdot.org]. Just in case not everyone checked this link [robotcombat.com] that has a timeline on the history of Battlebots/Robotica/Robot Wars.

In case you don't want to check the link, Robot Wars ® was actually begun by an American (USian, Ussie, whatever), Marc Thorpe, in California where the first few competitions were held. Of course, he had to get some funding from some Big Evil Corp (tm) who went behind his back to film the TV event in the UK, back in '97*. Several lawsuits later, the SORC (Society of Robotic Combat) was formed to get away from said Evil Corp and (the name) Robotica was born, after that, Battlebots.

This is a great simplification, so I encourage you to check that link, also check marcthorpe.com [marcthorpe.com] for a more in depth early history of Robot Wars.

If you're more interested in Battlebots, check out this FAQ [robotcombat.com]. Very interesting stuff, IMO. Makes me want to run out to the garage and start tinkering. :)

* This doesn't mean that I don't like Robot Wars, it's just a little behind the scenes action you may not be aware of.

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1)

Actually, due to ongoing litigation, Marc's site is not the best source for this information, since he is not allowed to make any comments regarding his ex business partners. For a better source on the history of Robot Wars and Battlebots, see http://www.robotcombat.com/history.html [robotcombat.com].
• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:2)

I suppose you really havn't watched much of Battlebots ... some of those matches throw out some serious sparks and metal.

Especially the bot being actioned, which tore up biohazard. In the process of tearing up biohazard, sparks sailed through the air from the titanium armor he had on that bot, in addition to ripping pieces of that armor clear off.

It was really cool, in a beavis & buthead "fire fire" kinda way. :)
• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:2)

BioHazard was my hero. I loved that Bot. He ruled the landscape for years. Watching that match broke my heart.

Son of Wyachi proves once again that when it comes to making things that destroy other things, Americans are unequaled. The Metaphysical implications of this reality kinda speak for themselves.

The downward spiral of Western Society notwithstanding, I enjoy watching things destroy other things. Because, I suspect, I have a penis, destroying things is a source of unending entertainment for me. In fact, killing processes is the primary reason I use Linux. I intentionally write bad code, just to kill it when it runs. And laugh maniacally.

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1)

Battlebots is my new favorite sport (besides soccer, futbol for the Ur-a-pee-ans) to watch on TV. I pine for the day that we'll see this go mainstream and have upright 2, 4, & 6 legged creatures running around ripping each other's appendages off.
• #### but can it repeat? (Score:2)

For the next round, everyone knows that it (or a successor, I suppose) is out there. There will of course be knock-offs, but defenses will be geared to that.

[Flash back to 5 years ago in the NFL, when the Cowboys fans whined that the 49ers ad tooled the team just to beat Dallas. Well, *duh*. They could thrash the other 28 teams in the league; of course they targeted to remaining team . . .]\end{flashback}

There's a rule about deliberately entangling with a projectile weapon. I'm not sure that that would apply to attacking the hammer system, but the solution is sytraightforward: a secondary weapon, perhaps a small spike, that has the side effect of fouling the hammers as it attacks.

This bot worked because there was no effective defense in the existing pool, and nothing that could effectively foil its weapon. But *knowing* that that weapon is out there, it doesn't look to hard to beat. Could it have taken any damage once you took out the hammers?

hawk

• #### Re:but can it repeat? (Score:2)

Taking out the hammers is the trick. :) Good luck.
• #### Re:but can it repeat? (Score:2)

Get nearly anything caught in them, and they're done. They took some serious damage in the final round.

If my pick goes down past the hammer, and stays down, the hammers come to a stop. Even minor damage will unbalance the system. . .

hawk

• #### Re:Production values seriously lacking (Score:1, Insightful)

I have to seriously disagree on this point. Having watched pretty much all of the "robot" shows from all over the world I find that I cannot bear to watch "battlebots". Maybe it is that it has the WWF feeling that the short attention spanned Americans enjoy, but I'm more interested in the technology than some drooling & past it sports correspondant working alongside a dumb blonde that couldn't tell the difference between a cafe latte and a capacitor.

However, I agree about the need for more interesting weapons. Then again, when you think that these robots are paid for by the people who build them, how many of them do you think would be happy to have them torn to pieces?

Then again, my favourite bot so far has been one called hypnodisc (Check the UK robot wars website).
• #### the end of the wedge.... (Score:2, Interesting)

It used to be that all the robots did was push and flip each other. Robots like "Vlad the Impaler" and "Biohazard" ruled the arena. The robots that had piercing, grinding, or other weapons were never designed/build well enough to break the steel/lexan/titanium shell of the other robots to win. That is, until Son of Wyachi.

That robot had an average KO time of about a minute and a half. It destroyed the other robot in 90 seconds. I watched the semi-finals and the finals of the Heavyweight division and SoW dominated. There were some other robots that had efective spinning disc weapons too. The days of the flip and push battlebots are numbered. It's obvious that the judges and fans like to see physical damage and sparks. More importantly, how do you take out a bot like SoW? You can't get in close enough to push or flip it. Can't add thick heavy armor, because that would effect the weight class you are in. Only thing left is to take it out with a stronger, better weapon. SoW is just the beginning.

• #### Plenty of competition (Score:1)

There's plenty of competition [ebay.com] for it that you can pick up on ebay [ebay.com] at the same time.
You might want some first aid [ebay.com] supplies as well.
• #### Direct Ebay auction link (Score:3, Informative)

<doug...sheets@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:31AM (#2254388)
Did I miss something? wheres the direct link in the story?

Anyway, the auction is here [ebay.com]

• #### Re:Direct Ebay auction link (Score:1)

Who keeps posting all these Ebay links [ebay.com] that have nothing to do with the subject?

• #### Re:Direct Ebay auction link (Score:1)

Not me.
I'm not selling anything [ebay.com] on ebay at the moment [ebay.com] and certainly don't need the extra customers [ebay.com]
• #### Starting bid: $25,000 (Score:1) Here [ebay.com]. -l (it's really not ASCII art, filter, really!) • #### Re:Starting bid:$25,000 (Score:1)

This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions.

With restrictions like this, why would you want it? Just to sit in your garage and gather dust?
• #### "classified" (Score:2)

Classified rotating weaponry. Hmmm That must be where those weeks of engineering (which by the way are counted in the total cost of manufacture) come into play.
• #### These aren't robots (Score:4, Troll)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:41AM (#2254422) Homepage

If the machines had to be totally autonomous, now that would be interesting.

• #### Re:These aren't robots (Score:5, Informative)

<zibby+slashdot@ringworld.org> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:46AM (#2254431) Homepage Journal
So what was it NASA sent to Mars again? Have a dictionary.com definition of [dictionary.com]
robot:

robot (rbt, -bt)
n.
1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.
3. A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others.

I'd say the vehicles on Battle Bots qualify. Now if you think AI design is easy, why don't you go program one?
• #### Re:These aren't robots (Score:2, Insightful)

The Mars rovers have several decades of AI in them. The amount of time it takes for a signal to get from Earth to Mars is way too long for NASA engineers to be able to run the rovers around realtime. By the time they would get the signal that the robot was about to crash into a big rock, the robot would have already crashed. So they used behavior-based robotics research pioneered by Rodney Brooks at MIT to deal with the low-level don't-kill-yourself AI and then gave the robot highlevel mission parameters. Basically NASA told the robot to go to (x,y) and the robot got there without killing itself.

One paper you might want to look at is Fuzzy Behavior-based Navigation for Planetary Microrovers. I found an abstract here: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/1415.html

• #### Re:These aren't robots (Score:2)

Hey,

So what was it NASA sent to Mars again?

A remote controlled mars lander?

Sorry, just my little joke.

Now if you think AI design is easy, why don't you go program one?

It's actually not as difficult as you make it sound. It doesn't have to be turing-test AI; you just need some motor management subroutines, a set of snesors with code to counteract the robot's own movement, and a centeral section to call the subroutines, and respond. A Pseudocode example:

front_distance {
Return distance
}

front_movement {
If Movement = True {
return True
} else {
return False
}
}

front_movement_sub0 {
OldDistance = front_distance()
While 1=1 {
call front_movement_sub1()
wait 10ms
}
}

front_movement_sub1 {
If OldDistance is not equal to (front_distance() + Distance_moved_in_10ms){
OldDistance = front_distance()
Movement = True
} else {
OldDistance = front_distance()
Movement = False
}
}

main_routine {
Spawn front_movement_sub0() as child process
While 1=1 {
If Front_Movement() AND (front_distance is less than 30cm) {
SetSpeeds(0,0)
Use_Weapon(Forwards)
SetSpeeds(-30,-30)
}
Wait 20ms
}
}

Use_Weapon(HitDirection) {
Point weapon in HitDirection
Activate Weapon
}

SetSpeeds(lspdA,rspdA) {
LeftMotor(lspdA)
RightMotor(rspdA)
Distance_moved_in_10ms = ((lspdA + rspdA)/2) * [Multiplier]
}

LeftMotor(lspd) {
Set left motor running at lspd
}

RightMotor(rspd) {
Set right motor running at rspd
}

Clearly, this is just an example, but the point it illustrates is: Driving a robot can be broken down into a finite number of logical steps. In the above example, if an item is in front of the robot, within 30cm, and moving, the robot stops, hits at it once, and reverses at speed 30. Other functions coud easily be added, i.e. "if there is nothing within 150cm in any direction, spin left or right for a random time, then move forward" or "If front is within 10cm of a non-moving object (i.e. a wall), run backwards for one second, then turn 180 degrees plus a random number between -45 and 45 degrees, and run forwards".

Granted, working out all the requisite functions of a robot driver would be challenging, but I think it could be fun. Plus your robot could have really fast reactions, and that would be cool. It could make for an interesting program, certainly.

That's my $0.02, anyway. Michael • #### Sample AI program for a Battlebot (Score:2) Now if you think AI design is easy, why don't you go program one? Heh. I think for something with a high-tech golf cart motor spinning sharpened tool steel anvils, it would be very easy; here's a simple flowchart which could be implemented in the language of your choice: 1. Turn on rotating anvil motor. 2. Seek out anything which moves. 3. Chase anything which moves. 4. If anything still moves, goto #2. 5. Shut off rotating anvil motor. Just make sure you don't accidentally turn it on when you've got it in the workshop. Or, worse still, when you're enjoying your new-found celebrity by showing it off in a booth at the local shopping mall. Granny probably couldn't out-run it, even with her walker. (Can't you just imagine the CNN coverage for that kind of shopping mall carnage?) • #### Re:These aren't robots (Score:3, Informative) They tried something like what you are suggesting. Instead of interesting it proved to be, as the English say, "a crashing bore". The truly autonomous robots had to take the time to map the arena area, and search around for the other bots hit-or-miss. Each match took MANY hours to complete, most a draw. Yawn! • #### Re:These aren't robots - Troll (Score:1) Yes and that is why my bot runs 4000 lines of custom code. If it is just a rc car try and build one. I will bet you get humbled rather quickly. Controlling 100s of amps with a pic microcontroller requires a good bit of knowledge my friend. To be a successful builder requires many skills machinist, welder, electronics, programming, mechanical design. • #### Word origins (Score:2) Robot is originally from the Czech word 'robota' meaning compulsory labor, ie slave. So in this sense they are robots - in this case they are modern gladiators, and gladiators if I remember rightly were slaves for the most part. The online Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] is a good place to check your word definitions. • #### Embedded (Score:1) If that bot doesn't have a SuperMaxx - 8 Shot [thinkgeek.com] or a Bungee Blaster [thinkgeek.com] embedded... I don't want it! • #### power requirements (Score:1) I'm just wondering where he gets 300 amps to drive that 12hp motor. That should drain a deep cycle lead acid battery in a minute and I don't see two automotive alternators listed anywhere. Also whats the difference between the design time of 1 month and build time of 4 weeks? • #### Re:power requirements (Score:1) Ummm.. 1 month to figure out how you want to build it and hook it up, and 4 weeks to actually manufacture the parts and screw them together. Or was it the change in units from months to weeks that confused you?? • #### Re:power requirements (Score:1) 4 weeks = 28 days 1 month = slightly longer than that, except for February. ;-) • #### Re:power requirements (Score:2) I just found the Auction [ebay.com] on E-bay, and they are selling off the 2 battery trays [ebay.com]. They look like they could hold 2 or 3 batteries each, giving it 4 to 6 total and by your math giving it 4-6 mins. Matches are 3 min as I recall, leaving some room for rounding. BTW check out the other auctions [ebay.com], for those of us with out 25k • #### Re:power requirements (Score:1) You can get more power out of nicad batteries. They have lower internal resistance than lead-acid batteries. When I was in the military, I saw them used for high current applications like starting helicopter jet turbines and rotating turrets on armored vehicles. • #### Re:power requirements (Score:2, Informative) WEll the Hawker genesis batteries are quite popular here in the UK for robotwars (we use panasonics but thats becasue we get them free), they are rated at 17Ah and so could supply 300A for 3 minutes (possibly a little longer). Also the motor is unlikely to be drawing 300A continuously. I would imagine once the weapon is spun up, unless it is very unbalanced (not likely looking at the quality of machining on the thing) then the current requirements would be much less. Alex http://www.firestorm2.co.uk p.s. Design is different from building, if you don't design your build goes wrong see our robot groundhog for an example of not what to do, and Firestorm for a robot we actually spent ime desiging. • #### I like these types (Score:1) Those earlier vehicles with just two opposite rotating wheels that could only spin (and not laterally move) really sucked. They just sat there and waited for the other guy to come over and commit suicide. But then the vehicles like Mauler, this one, and Ziggo came in and showed how to kill! I bet we see a lot more of these types appear -- they're winners. • #### Re:I like these types (Score:3, Insightful) Those earlier vehicles with just two opposite rotating wheels that could only spin (and not laterally move) really sucked. They just sat there and waited for the other guy to come over and commit suicide. You don't think this is just the same idea? Personally these types of bots should be in a separate class -- there's no real point to trying to battle something with an impenetrable defense shield whirring around it waiting to hit anything with 10kf/p of torque. I'd classify this bot as purely defense. It can run around and defend. There's no real offensive tactic involved (spin up the rotor and attack? Please...) I agree with some of the other posters -- the UK television show where the robots had to have good offense, defense and manouvre abilities was best. This show is simply "make it last and try to hurt the other guy" -- bo-ring. • #### Re:I like these types (Score:1) I agree that certain types of Bots will usually beat other types; (I also feel that the wedge-only bots are really lame. No offensive capability by anyones definition, no fight, no fun....) but how could you realistically define multiple types of competition in the same weight class? Anyone could enter and win by default if they were the only stomp-bot with six alternating hammers, gas drive, CO2 flipping-arm-equipped, kevlar _AND_ lexan _AND_ titanium shielded wedge with battery backup. The goal is to fight against ALL the types of robots... The finals this year were actually really close... Biohazard's judge's premature judgement made it a entertaining fight (not-so-picture-book) and Biohazard did put up a decent fight... suffered damage but not as much as most of the other robots Wyatchi stomped on the way up there... • #### Re:I like these types (Score:2) I agree that certain types of Bots will usually beat other types; Yes, but that's not my complaint. My complaint is that if you build a bot capable of EMP it will always win, barring its own mechanical/electrical failure. You're no longer battling in the sense of "true" battle -- it's an unfair advantage. In fact, I believe that EMP armed bots are already disallowed. (I also feel that the wedge-only bots are really lame. No offensive capability by anyones definition, no fight, no fun....) I agree. This is the basis for my disapproval for the super-offensive bots: You pit bots of close calibre together for a real fight. It's no fun watching some$8000 superBattleBot go against a $400 robot built by a parent for his kids so they can get on the show. but how could you realistically define multiple types of competition in the same weight class? Anyone could enter and win by default if they were the only stomp-bot with six alternating hammers, gas drive, CO2 flipping-arm-equipped, kevlar _AND_ lexan _AND_ titanium shielded wedge with battery backup. My point exactly. And this is exactly what this battlebot is: A super-engineered robot killer. It should only be pitted against other super-engineered robot killers! They aready have weight classes; why not damage classes within the weight classes, and then the winners from the various damage classes battle each other regardless of weight? I think that would be far more fair and (at least to me) far more entertaining. Yes it'd be more difficult to classify but then again that is why you have your weight classes and experience levels win martial arts (at least I believe this is so) -- the lighter, more experienced guy is still capable of trashing the heavy, inexperienced martial artist. • #### Re:I like these types (Score:1) My point exactly. And this is exactly what this battlebot is: A super-engineered robot killer. It should only be pitted against other super-engineered robot killers! Uh, so you're entering a competition called BattleBots with a robot designed for what? House cleaning? Sorry, but this is just whining that you can't engineer or spend as much money as someone else. BattleBots isn't the place for you then, go to a lower weight class or another competition or learn how to engineer. There are defenses against any offense - flip a spinner and they're toast. You could design a bot specifically for use against Wyachi (and son, etc) by having a long flipper arm with one hell of a powerful motor/piston behind it and flip him before he can hit you. Game over - there's no righting mechanism. You can design a flip-proof bot, or one that has a quick self-righting mechanism, but then you may be vulnerable to spinners. Choose your poison. The fact is, BattleBots is a pretty serious competition now. Win a title, get$6400. And then everytime they air a show with your bot, get a check in the mail for an additional $1600. As for splitting the competition up even more - hell, there were over 500 bots there this year. Comedy Central showed a very small percentage of all the matches (too lazy to do the math right now). I'm rather annoyed about that, since they didn't even show all the regular matches, much less the prelims. • #### There's some ways around this class of beast... (Score:2) There's loads of things that could withstand the abuse of a 10kf/p impact at least once. Biohazard lost because it wasn't built heavily enough and it sheared off the armor skirts at the hinge points. The impact stops the hammer wheel long enough to buy you purchase to attack the inner part of the bot with a vengeance. There's some design ideas my friend and I ran through while discussing the final match in detail this weekend. Right now, we're in the design/shopping for a sponsor stage (There's no way we could afford the gear we'd need for this beast we came up with... :-) • #### dammit (Score:5, Funny) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:54AM (#2254449) Homepage The inventor, Terry Ewert, practiced on old washing machines while developing S-W's triple rotating metal meat grinder apparatus. Just because it was an Old washing machine, does 1) make it his to destory 2) mean that it doesn't funcation correctly. Grrr, you know how hard it is to get a date when you clothes smell funky? and while we are on the subject, what about the$250 for his half of the security deposit and where the hell is my dog?

He better sell that dam machine, he owns me a ton of cash that deadbeat roommate from hell.

Grrr

• #### Washing machine carnage - pics and info where? (Score:2)

Just because it was an Old washing machine, does 1) make it his to destory 2) mean that it doesn't funcation correctly

I know the Slashdot article mentions the washing machine carnage, but I have yet to find any references to it on the bot's website.

I wanna see pictures! I wanna see pictures!

• #### When.... (Score:4, Interesting)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:55AM (#2254453)
Does the video game come out? I'm thinking a game along the lines of that old (Commadore?) game where you "built" monsters and faught other monsters.
• #### Re:When.... (Score:1)

Your wish is their command... The Market-roids are already lining up an onslaught of the Battlebots R/C action figures and happy-meal inserts as we speak. I saw tonight's Battlebots and they are selling the crap already. One semi-cool thing, though, the builders of the bots they are modelled after supposedly get some cut from the profits. Hmm...
• #### You mean Mail Order Monsters (Score:2)

The game was called Mail Order Monsters [lemon64.com]. You can download it from that link. You need an emulator (like VICE [cmu.edu], Come Back 64 [cb64.com], or EC64 [uni-halle.de]) to run it. You'll have to make a blank "disk" to save your stuff on when you play the game, so be sure to read up on the emulator of your choice on how to do that (I usually overwrite the contents of a coped disk file, but YMMV).

On a whim I did a Google search for a more recent version (kinda like what these two great guys did with Xscorch [chaos2.org]). Someone seems to have liked it enough to make a GNU version [sourceforge.net], although there's not a lot there yet.

-B

• #### Re:When.... (Score:2, Interesting)

Have you seen Mind Rover [cognitoy.com]?

There's even a Linux version available from Loki [lokigames.com].

It's a little different than Battle Bots; you construct a robot, and then "wire" it to compete in different arenas. Kind of a cross between Robotica and Lego Mindstorms.
• #### Re:When.... (Score:1)

Roboforge [roboforge.com] is already here. ;)
• #### What do you actually buy? (Score:1)

"This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions"
So apparently after you "buy" it you've got to throw it into a black hole incase anyone dares to look at it? You also can't tell anyone what it is in any meaningful way 'cause you can't mention it's old name. Are you allowed to reverse engineer it, or is it protected by the DCMA?
• #### Slashbot? (Score:1)

What the hell is the deal with all these robot stories, lately? Is it time for a name-change? Are these robots even running embedded Linux or -shudder- *BSD?

I have slashbot.com, slashbot.org, and slashbot.net available for -free- to anyone who can authoritatively guarantee me that John Katz will no longer have the ability to post his pretentious, pseudo-intellectual rants on subjects of which he is completely ignorant (which pretty much rules out everything he writes, including 'and' and 'the').

I doubt they'll even get one bid. Since the robot cannot be entered into the competition $25,000 dollars is a little much. If the Battle Bots is just a fad, their would be little collectable value. Since it cannot be entered into another competition, it's just a really expensive paperweight. There isn't much reverse engineering that needs to be done on it, just what you see on TV. I didn't think their could be clauses to a sale on Ebay though, you might be able to enter it under a different name and win the right to enter it in court. • #### Am I the only one thinking HOME SECURITY? (Score:2, Funny) Of course, you couldn't use it if you had pets or kids, but just imagine... give the thing infrared sensors to find heat sources, radar to keep it from running into cold objects, all the necessary AI to control movement, and an RF on/off switch similar to the keyring unlock switches that come with most new cars now, and you've got the home security system from hell. Just imagine the look on your unfriendly neighborhood criminal's face when he breaks into your house or apartment, only to be pursued by a vicious-as-hell robot. The only problem you'd ever have would be explaining to the cops what had happened to the perp after you got home and found the mauled body on your carpet (perhaps the AI would be able to figure out when it "scored" and back off so as to avoid killing the guy?). Actually, cleaning the blood out of the carpet and off the walls would be a bit of a pain, too. Now if I could just figure out a way to keep it from attacking my Athlon, I'd be set. ;-) • #### Forcing robots to fight is all well and good... (Score:1) ...until somebody comes along and decides that we need to stop forcing the poor dears into mutilating each other. Metal brother against brother, the tin-lovers will say, is akin to cock fighting. And dear God....what if as they become more advanced one or more of them become sentient? • #### Auction not so cool. (Score:3, Insightful) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @09:32AM (#2255121) Homepage Yikes. That sure is a$25,000 auction. Massivly over-priced if you ask me... What are the uses for such a machine? 'Bout all I can think of is silly destructive weekend adventures (can be done for cheaper), and competing in BattleBots. However, with this handy clause from the Auction Page [ebay.com]:

This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions.

That kinda takes the competition thing away. But that begs the question, why are the auctioning it, and not competing it next season? I'm taking a guess here, but here's a quote from their FAQ [teamwhyachi.com]:

5) Why build a walking bot?

The rules for Treasure Island allowed walking bots to be 50% heavier than the wheeled bots in each weight class. If you can design and build a walking bot that is maneuverable and somewhat fast, without adding much weight for the walking assemblies, you end up with extra weight for motors, batteries, and weapons.

...

7) Now that BattleBots changed the walking rules for the next competition what's next?

We were in favor of changing the rules so that there is no weight advantage for a walking bot. The cost of building a competitive walking bot is very high. We have a new design that uses wheels which will be much more destructive.

So, there you are...recouping costs on a robot they can't compete with next time anyway. I'm a bit disillusioned with Whyachi now...it's walker really didn't work all that well, but it gave 'em an extra 50% of weight. I wonder what the bonus is for a bot that doesn't move at all...(a valid strategy for a spinner like Whyachi)
• #### Re:Auction not so cool. (Score:1)

I'm a bit disillusioned with Whyachi now...it's walker really didn't work all that well, but it gave 'em an extra 50% of weight. I wonder what the bonus is for a bot that doesn't move at all...(a valid strategy for a spinner like Whyachi)
Actually during the competition the rubber feet had problems - this combined with floor debris further hampered SOW's ability to move around.

Even then, considering the rule changes, a bot like SOW can't compete again. It qualified as a walker but the rules were made a bit more explicit to qualify what a walker truly was (Wyachi/SOW are often described as "shufflebots"). For SOW to be entered - the locomotion system would have to be redesigned.

This offer does not include rights to the name, ranking or image of the bot, therefore it cannot be entered into any future BattleBots competitions.
Notice the "BattleBots" part... there are other smaller competitions for robots of this type you could probably enter it into. Though really I'd want to make my own if I were to compete.

• #### Very cool (Score:1)

But damn those shirts are ugly. Yeeks!

I'm not about to complain to that robot though.
• #### Cost of Patent... case of beer (Score:1)

PATENTS

Design patent pending on Whyachi and Son of Whyachi including the caged 3 armed spinning weapon. This patent is not intended to discourage any bot builder from using this design. If you are a bot builder, feel free to use any part of the design for nothing (case of beer).
• #### Consider the PR potential (Score:4, Funny)

on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @10:14AM (#2255262)
Lend me this baby and two minutes at the local BMW dealer and I'll personally increase the viewing audience of BattleBots by an order of magnitude. Guaranteed.
• #### link to the auction (Score:1)

Karma whoring link to the auction itself [ebay.com]

I wonder if anyone will actually shell out \$25k+ for this puppy.

• #### Reminds Me Of An Old Joke (Score:2)

Well, you know what they say. What do you give the man who has everything? A Son Of Wyachi to smash it all into tiny pieces.

#### Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...