Slashdot Mirror


The Destructobot For The Man With Everything

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.

180 comments

  1. As a frenchman I'm furious! by qwerty123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! by Yarn · · 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...

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    2. Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ha! you silly frenchman and your berrets! Go eat your cheese, i for one would not mind a robot of mass destruction!

    3. Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! by Rupert · · 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.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    4. Re:As a frenchman I'm furious! by hawk · · 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

  2. It looks small... by tshak · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... but it weighs in a 315lbs and has an impact of 10,000 ft lbs... YIKES!

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    1. Re:It looks small... by OO7david · · 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!"

    2. Re:It looks small... by Zathrus · · 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!

    3. Re:It looks small... by PONA-Boy · · Score: 1

      I can think of a way possibly alleviate the "spinning after impact" problem. After working on helicopters for Uncle Sam, I have seen some interesting things done with rotary-wing aircraft.

      On most helicopters, there are a series of transmissions connecting the engine to the rotors themselves. Now, with a helicopter you aren't terribly worried about what happens if your rotorblades hit something...if they HIT something you are usually going to be worried about more than the brown stain in the seat of your flightsuit.

      In Whyachi, though, you could use some type of flywheel or clutch arrangement to disengage the direct drive motor from the weapon itself. Once the weapon gets spinning, inertia will help it to continue to spin even with reduced input from the motor.

      This, of course, won't protect you from french keyboards... [;')

      -PONA-

      --
      +that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
    4. Re:It looks small... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of possible solutions to the "kickback" problem :

      1. Have heavy-yet-retractable rubber-coated feet that set down whenever the bot is ready to strike, lending more resistive grip.

      2. Use a counter-gyro system, where there would be another heavy weight on a much stronger rotor, being spun in reverse direction as the weapon strikes, nullifying some of the kickback.

      3. Use a vertically spinning weapon instead, spinning toward the enemy (downward), with a solid base on the rear end to keep from flipping backwards.

      4. Remove all moving parts, install 400lbs of iron footing, use a really big gun :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  3. what? by ElDuque · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does 71 mph mean? How about RPMs?

    1. Re:what? by astafas · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is how many men per hour it can take out :)

    2. Re:what? by inburito · · 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..

    3. Re:what? by Cow4263 · · Score: 0

      http://www.teamwhyachi.com/Son_of_Whyachi.htm

      rpm info in addition to some other factoids bout the bot

    4. Re:what? by hawk · · Score: 1
      >What does 71 mph mean? How about RPMs?


      sigh. so redhat-centric. real men don't use .rpm's; they run *bsd and compile from source.


      hawk, wandering off mumbling incoherently about those who aswsume everyone runs redhat

  4. MUAHAhaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I send it to do battle with the evil Hilary Rosenbot of the RIAA! She doesn't stand a chance!

    GAME ON.

    1. Re:MUAHAhaha by well_jung · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Carl G. Jung
      --
      "With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
    2. Re:MUAHAhaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesbian. Repeat after me, les-bi-an.

  5. Killer robots? by PopeAlien · · 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..

  6. Production values seriously lacking by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Production values seriously lacking by RAruler · · 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.

      --

      --
      Insert Witty Sig Here
    2. Re:Production values seriously lacking by Alien54 · · 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?

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

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    3. Re:Production values seriously lacking by arantius · · 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.

      --
      Health is simply dying at the slowest rate possible.
    4. Re:Production values seriously lacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brit's version of Robat Wars is good. The american version sux. Mankind can barely speak and his hand gesturing is ridiculous.

    5. Re:Production values seriously lacking by fireant · · Score: 4, Informative
      An interesting tidbit about Robot Wars, which some probably already read on Slashback. Just in case not everyone checked this link 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 for a more in depth early history of Robot Wars.

      If you're more interested in Battlebots, check out this FAQ. 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.

    6. Re:Production values seriously lacking by Keeper · · 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. :)

    7. Re:Production values seriously lacking by Psychotext · · 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).

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    8. Re:Production values seriously lacking by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      http://www.radiofreenation.com/rfn_news_titlepage. html

      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.

    9. Re:Production values seriously lacking by well_jung · · 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.

      --
      Carl G. Jung
      --
      "With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
    10. Re:Production values seriously lacking by ahem · · 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.

      --
      Not A Sig
    11. Re:Production values seriously lacking by radish · · Score: 2


      I don't usually reply to AC's, but man - you're right on the money :-)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    12. Re:Production values seriously lacking by Joao · · 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.

    13. Re:Production values seriously lacking by cavemanf16 · · 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.

    14. Re:Production values seriously lacking by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      I take it you are not referring to the recent Robot Wars: Extreme Warriors. This show is just lame. The whole idea of the house bots just rubs me the wrong way, not to mention humilating the losing robot. Blech!! Give me the Battlebox any day!

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    15. Re:Production values seriously lacking by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Have you been watching the new season (3.0)? It is much better this time around, more Bill Nye, no more Shawn whatshisface and the token babe is not that annoying. The new announcer is actually pretty funny at times and works well with Bill Dwyer.

      Plus they actually bothered to give us the actual judges scores on some of the close fights, the Minion vs Orge match being a prime example.

      Biohazard! You shall not be forgotten!

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    16. Re:Production values seriously lacking by bonehead · · Score: 1

      more Bill Nye

      And that's a good thing?

      Thank god I TiVo Battlebots. That way I can skip Nye, the announcers, and just watch the good parts (the matches, and Tracy Bingham). :)

    17. Re:Production values seriously lacking by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure I saw the old anchor on one of the sports channels recently. Maybe that's why the guys this season are more cheerful; they know still there's hope for them.

  7. Plenty of competition by jedwards · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of competition for it that you can pick up on ebay at the same time.
    You might want some first aid supplies as well.

    1. Re:Plenty of competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who finds those server names following links a little annoying? What's the point? I can tell that this link points to ebay.com simply by moving my mouse over it.

    2. Re:Plenty of competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Log in and turn them off in the comments preferences.
      Can't be an AC forever...

    3. Re:Plenty of competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I like 'em. That way when some racist asshole posts a link to "some interesting information" you can see its a link to [kill.all.the.jews.and.niggers.com]... saves me a lot of time filtering bilge.

    4. Re:Plenty of competition by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      True, but it's mainly a warning for people who don't always think (or look) before they click.

  8. Direct Ebay auction link by sheetsda · · Score: 3, Informative
    Did I miss something? wheres the direct link in the story?

    Anyway, the auction is here

    1. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by Ridiculator · · Score: 1
      Who keeps posting all these Ebay links that have nothing to do with the subject?


      I wish I had $25K to drop on BattleBots and parts but I've spent all my spare time and money correcting the spelling of "Ridiculous" on Slashdot this year.

    2. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by dragonfly_blue · · Score: 1
      Who keeps posting all these Ebay Links that have nothing to do with the subject?


      It's probably you, ya troll. Quit doin' it; I paid $2000 for my MPC six months ago. grr

      --
      Free music from Jack Merlot.
    3. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by jedwards · · Score: 1

      Not me.
      I'm not selling anything on ebay at the moment and certainly don't need the extra customers

    4. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Buy bidding on"?

      you can't be serious

    5. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by seann · · Score: 0

      That thing is not worth 38,937.50 Canadian Dollars.

      I'm sorry, cool design, thats about it.
      Unless it's run by a rackmount server, and has a few PCMCIA memory discs, and a PALM top remote control diagnostic unit, it doesn't even come close.

      I can't even think of more things to add up to the price of 38K.

      Can you?

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    6. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't spend that much on it, but I can conceivably see how a fan of the sport with a lot of cash would shell out the money to own a heavyweight champion. It's a definite collector's item.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    7. Re:Direct Ebay auction link by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Can we have a Beowulf cluster of these things?

      Sorry, it had to be done...

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
  9. RPM's by cascino · · 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

    1. Re:RPM's by b0r1s · · Score: 1

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

      Rotor Speed: 400 RPM

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    2. Re:RPM's by Ziviyr · · 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.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:RPM's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do hours translate to minutes?

      In advanced engineering courses, you learn that there are 60 minutes in 1 hour.

    4. Re:RPM's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But how do hours translate to minutes?
      If you're talking about the ft/m
      ft/m = feet per mile (in this case anyway)

    5. Re:RPM's by ElDuque · · Score: 1

      Way to link, no link!

  10. Techno Empire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you building a Techno Empire again? Or is this your first one?

  11. $$$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $25000 starting price and a higher reserve???
    They've got to be kidding!

  12. Starting bid: $25,000 by Loligo · · Score: 1

    Here.

    -l (it's really not ASCII art, filter, really!)

    1. Re:Starting bid: $25,000 by Telecommando · · 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?

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
  13. "classified" by BierGuzzl · · 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.

  14. These aren't robots by ikekrull · · Score: 4, Troll

    These are radio controlled cars.

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

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    1. Re:These aren't robots by Xibby · · Score: 5, Informative

      So what was it NASA sent to Mars again? Have a dictionary.com definition of
      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?

      --
      I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
    2. Re:These aren't robots by Mister+Transistor · · 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!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:These aren't robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are radio controlled cars.

      Yes, and the Golden Gate Bridge is just some concrete held up by steel.

      You're completely missing the point. The work that goes into building a combat robot is all engineering work. Not programming. Not computer science. Engineering . If you don't know the tolerances of the materials you
      are using, or the PSI of your gas cylinder, you're fried. You have to understand how to use all sorts of engineering principles. If you focus on the least important part of the robot - steering control - then you're completely missing the entire point of the competition. Autonomous robots
      are a POS. They're pissy little 5V motors glued to a circuit board with a bit of Lego. The interest lies in their AI, not their construction. They can be crushed underfoot. They couldn't kill a human being. Completely unlike battle robots.

    4. Re:These aren't robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, does that make these Wireless Remote Control Vibrating Panties robots?

    5. Re:These aren't robots by Brian_Ellenberger · · 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

    6. Re:These aren't robots by Cardinal+Ximinez · · Score: 1

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

      Dr. CowboyNeal von Frankenstein: Would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in? Was it from an AIBO? A Mindstorms set?
      Igor: And you won't be angry?
      Dr. CowboyNeal von Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
      Igor: Abby someone.
      Dr. CowboyNeal von Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
      Igor: Abby Normal.

    7. Re:These aren't robots by Mike1024 · · 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 {
      Read distance from front sensor.
      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
      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    8. Re:These aren't robots by HBD · · Score: 0

      do you really need to worry about PSI when you are using an electric motor?

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    9. Re:These aren't robots by satsuma · · Score: 1

      When robot wars came to the UK I was still working at university. The depeartment was going to enter, but when we got the rules they were very boring. We were working on vision systems for robots at the time so we could have entered something really cool; nevermind.

  15. Embedded by manon · · Score: 1

    If that bot doesn't have a SuperMaxx - 8 Shot or a Bungee Blaster embedded... I don't want it!

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
  16. power requirements by ArchieBunker · · 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?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:power requirements by s_fuller · · 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??

      --
      ---- .sigs are a waste of space
    2. Re:power requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS: One month equals about 4.3 weeks (except Feb.)

    3. Re:power requirements by really? · · Score: 1

      4 weeks = 28 days
      1 month = slightly longer than that, except for February.

      ;-)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    4. Re:power requirements by slashdoter · · Score: 2
      I just found the Auction on E-bay, and they are selling off the 2 battery trays. 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, for those of us with out 25k

      --
      Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
    5. Re:power requirements by Detritus · · 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.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    6. Re:power requirements by Alex_FireStorm · · 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.

    7. Re:power requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mention that they are drawing 300 A at 48 V. Lead-acid batteries (in the US at least) are typically 12 V. So, 4 12V batteries in series for the rotor makes sense.

  17. We need a doctor! by aufecht · · Score: 0

    My god if I had the money I would buy this thing. I saw it compete on Battlebots the other night. The other robots never had a chance. Absolute carnage. Their web page says they are building a heavier/faster version. They better reinforce those walls or someone is going to get hurt

  18. I like these types by Sloppy · · 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.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:I like these types by tzanger · · 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.

    2. Re:I like these types by dbitter1 · · 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...

      --
      For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
    3. Re:I like these types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yeah, it's no fair that these spinning robots are so good at reducing their opponents to flying bits of scrap metal. They should be banned from the competition, to protect the wimpy robots that don't stand a chance against them. Then we can all enjoy watching wimpy robots bumping ineffectually against each other for the full three minutes without causing any visible damage to anything. Whoooo-eee! Now that's entertainment!

    4. Re:I like these types by tzanger · · 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.

    5. Re:I like these types by Zathrus · · 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.

    6. Re:I like these types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The point is that spinners and wedges are fucking BORING to watch. Yes, they're effective and I'd use one of those two classes if my life depended on the outcome of the match. But that doesn't change the fact the matches are boring. If your entire strategy is to start the spin weapon and sit there, well whoop-dee-fucking doo.


      The coolest bot I ever saw, and the least boring, didn't have a prayer of winning its match and got its ass kicked. But it was still the coolest EVER. It was that long 'snake' bot I saw on the show awhile back.

  19. dammit by jbarnett · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --

    "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
  20. When.... by Slak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:When.... by Mister+Transistor · · 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 are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:When.... by Jon+Burchmore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you seen Mind Rover?

      There's even a Linux version available from Loki.

      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.

    3. Re:When.... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Roboforge is already here. ;)

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
  21. What do you actually buy? by Kris_J · · 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?
  22. You mean Mail Order Monsters by Wee · · Score: 2
    The game was called Mail Order Monsters. You can download it from that link. You need an emulator (like VICE, Come Back 64, or EC64) 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). Someone seems to have liked it enough to make a GNU version, although there's not a lot there yet.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  23. Slashbot? by Mordant · · 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').

  24. Zero cost military R&D program by K8Fan · · Score: 2

    If the usual military-industrial suspects were developing robot prototypes and testing them against one another, they would cost the taxpayers $156 million per. But slip Comedy Central a couple of bucks to create a TV show, and folks will dig into their own pockets to build them! What a bunch of saps!

    Enjoy the show folks!

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    1. Re:Zero cost military R&D program by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      Comedy Central didn't make the show. It picked up an existing tournament created by former competitors in the Robot Wars circuit, which itself was created by a special effects guy.

      Also, these "robots" are really just combination RC-Car/gladiators that would be of little to no use to the military. You can't even use projectile weapons on them.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
  25. Championship Controversy by RainMan496 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone who saw the finals knows what I'm talking about here. The refs called a knockout against Biohazard while both bots were still moving. They decided to send it to the judges from there. This would have been fine, except at the time, one of the braces which keeps the pounding mechanisms at constant distances from one another had come off at one end, so the bot was just spinning beneath it's stationary weapons frame. The odds that Biohazard would have been able to overturn it seem fairly likely. I don't know about anyone else, but I would still like to see a rematch, though I realize this is now impossible.

    1. Re:Championship Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, neither bots were moving, biohazard was barely twitching that last 30 seconds of the fight wouldnt have made much differnce, that was the best battlebots fight i have seen, the two bots were both completely wrecked and barely twitching, which, quite frankly, is how things should be!

      oh the vladiator vs minion was awsome as well. vladiator gets stuck onto the spike, and at the last second (litterally) pulls himself off leaving about a foot long trail of rubber where he had spun to get off the spikes. and then beat down minion who had already started his victory dance ;_)

    2. Re:Championship Controversy by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Carlo Bertocchin (you know, the guy who BUILT and FOUGHT the Biohazard) said after the match he had no problem with the result, Biohazard was pretty beat up anyway.

      Biohazard was having trouble steering at the end, he had plenty of chances to flip Whyachi. It was a close, great fight and I think the result was correct.

      The horror of seeing Biohazard's front armor ripped off is burned into my mind!

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    3. Re:Championship Controversy by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I re-watched that match a couple more times, and decided that it was indeed a proper ruling. SOW was definitely more aggressive and caused more damage, while BioHazard was just barely staying alive.


      The refs did goof by stopping the match when they did, though it was so close to the end of the second count as to be forgiveable, and BioHazard was clearly doomed anyway. The BioHazard team wholly accepted the ruling, so there's no need to fuss.

      --
      Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    4. Re:Championship Controversy by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      As others have stated, while it was a wacky decision to stop it, it was irrelevant.

      SOW wasn't immobile, and had hit Biohazard several times even after one of the stabilizer bars had become partially detached. Go watch the fight again.

      Regardless, there was only 10 seconds left in the match - Biohazard wasn't going to mystically fix its drive motors and ram and flip SOW in that time period.

  26. Shades of PKD? by brettper · · Score: 1
    Anyone else read 'The Second Variety' by Philip K Dick?

    or the film based on it (think it was called 'Shreikers' or some such. Had Rutger Hauer in it)?

    When will people learn? It's all in good fun until someone gets hurt...

    1. Re:Shades of PKD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Screamers".
      http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114367.

  27. to the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ***Satire***

    Maglev is currently being tested against this ---> Maglev trials in japan

  28. No more watching battlebots for me by etice · · Score: 1

    I am no longer a viewer of Battle Bots. Post the fiasco with battlebots.org, I can no longer, in good conscience, contribute to their "intellectual property". I doubt that they will notice my small protest, but the principle is still there. BTW, is "slashdot" trademarked? If not, they may decide that they don't like my comment here on slashdot and go register "slashdot" as a trademark, shutting this site down! Heck "slashdot" rhymes with "battlebot," maybe proceedings are already underway to prevent anybody from using a domain name that rhymes with their name!

    1. Re:No more watching battlebots for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they went after some cybersquatter who registered the domain after battlebots came on the air. What's wrong with that?

  29. Hillary Rosenbot's effectiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Hillary Rosenbot will win, mostly because of the enormous obstinate money behind it. However, it's really a Pyrrhic victory anyhow.

    RIAA is ticked off because the whole file-sharing thing is here to stay and *they* didn't think of it first. Add the fact that entertainment lawyers are too flipping stupid to act in anything but a knee-jerk way, and now they need to explain to record execs why they can't be making more money than during the record-breaking year that the industry had right about the time when Napster showed up on the doorstep as the ugly little cousin.

    Oh, I'm sorry, we were talking about robots. Non-thinking creatures.

    Hey! I guess we haven't gone Off Topic after all!!!

  30. Son of Wyachi Vs. Hypnodisc by Bowdie · · Score: 1


    Now there's a match I'd like to see. This looks like an 3vil l33t machine, and the UK's Hypnodisc was pretty bloody useful.

    http://freespace.virgin.net/dave.rose/ for more information about the photocopier trashing, breezeblock breaking Hypnodisc.

    --
    yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
    1. Re:Son of Wyachi Vs. Hypnodisc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Hypnodisc would have a hard time. If the arms on Son of Wyachi are spinning, Hypnodisc will have a hard time getting to the actual bot. On the otherhand Son of Wyachi could probably hit and damage Hypnodisc (I don't remember how fast Hypnodisc was).

      I think, if Hypnodisc doesn't get to close to S.o.W., the winner will probably be the one who has the least damageable spinning thing. And since Hypnodisc's disc was dammaged at one time, if I remember correctly, I fear S.o.W. might be victorious.

    2. Re:Son of Wyachi Vs. Hypnodisc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypnodiscs disc only got damaged when one of the house robots stuck a sodding great axe through it, which trashed the drive shaft. Even then, it only got near it cos hypnodisc had a damaged front wheel.

      None of the other competitors robots have ever really touched it, it lost in the previous series when it was flipped over - hence the self-righting mechanism in the last series.

    3. Re:Son of Wyachi Vs. Hypnodisc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's its (Hypnodisc's) speed?
      As for it being a tough robot, I didn't disagree. I didn't say it wouldn't be a long battle, either.
      It's just that it would have to attack S.o.W. in the very beginning of the battle. Or evade S.o.W. and/or hope that it's disc can withstand a, or several, direct blow(s) of 70 mph.

    4. Re:Son of Wyachi Vs. Hypnodisc by Bowdie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but by the look of SoW, you'd only have to bend one of those swing arms, and it would probably shake itself stupid.

      --
      yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
  31. I was gonna post that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was gonna post that, Hypno-disk seems to be able to destroy everything in sight, and I'd take great pleasure in seeing it destroy some american upstarts! Gr8... clips on the website from the previous post also, well worth a look!

  32. nice petbot by psych031337 · · Score: 1

    Set it up against Sony's AIBO petbot - not really a fair fight, but something I'd love to watch.

    Are there any streams of this thing in action available?

    --
    +++ath0
  33. i hope the buyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...puts some tank tracks on it!
    watching it inch along while being circle strafed is agonizing...

  34. Here's the EBay link by magicsquid · · Score: 1

    http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem& item=1186599868 They're looking for an opening bid of $25,000. I'm sure they'll get it too.

    --


    "Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
    1. Re:Here's the EBay link by jmauro · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Here's the EBay link by skbenolkin · · Score: 1

      you might be able to enter it under a different name and win the right to enter it in court.

      Are you kidding? With this type of weapon in my possession, your insignificant little "legal system" has no power over me. Rule of law will be annihilated, as will all of you fools! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      --
      "Frederick, is God dead?" --Sojourner Truth
  35. Am I the only one thinking HOME SECURITY? by VT_hawkeye · · 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. ;-)

    1. Re:Am I the only one thinking HOME SECURITY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and just imagine, if you changed it, like, so it was made out of liquid metal it could change form and look like different people and things and would be really, like, almost invincible!!1! That would be so COOOL! Huh? Huh???? WOULDN'T IT??!?!?!?

    2. Re:Am I the only one thinking HOME SECURITY? by mikey504 · · Score: 1

      I think you could solve the computer hunting and fatal attack problems making it cue on motion detection rather than heat. If they stop moving, it stops whapping them. You're right about the cat not appreciating it, though. That's what slows me down.

      I guess you would also have to be careful not to leave the ceiling fan on, or it might destroy the house. Maybe we need heat and motion detection?

  36. the end of the wedge.... by way2slo · · 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.

    1. Re:the end of the wedge.... by sir99 · · Score: 1

      Maybe We'll start to see robots that throw nets at the spinning robots to screw them up. Son of Whatever couldn't have worked too well if it was all tangled up, methinks.

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
    2. Re:the end of the wedge.... by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      More importantly, how do you take out a bot like SoW? You can't get in close enough to push or flip it.

      Yep, and this is what the arena hazards are for: to nail bots like this. I remember Mauler(?) used a similar idea, and almost won its match, until the killsaws caught it on its unprotected underbelly. This brings home the importance of having a well rounded bot; ideally, you should have a design such that your robot can survive even if the main weapon stops working.

      This will be even more important once we start to see more bots of Wyachi's calibre in the ring. Imagine two Wyachi clones fighting each other; one of them is going to do damage, and the other is going to get its weapon damaged and/or its motor overloaded. That second bot better have something else up its sleeve, or it's going to get slaughtered.

    3. Re:the end of the wedge.... by Zagadka · · Score: 1
      Entanglement is specifically disallowed by the rules:
      8. Entanglement Devices - Any device specifically designed to entangle another BattleBot shall be forbidden. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
      • Any type of net.
      • Fishing Line, String, etc.
      • Tape
  37. Re:These aren't robots - Troll by codepunk · · 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.

    --


    Got Code?
  38. Forcing robots to fight is all well and good... by Snar+Bloot · · 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?

    1. Re:Forcing robots to fight is all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should probably exterminate Leopards and Impalas too, since the Leopards just keep trying to fight. It's just too barbaric.

  39. Auction not so cool. by Penrif · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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:

    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:

    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)

    1. Re:Auction not so cool. by Rathian · · 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.

    2. Re:Auction not so cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably enter it in Robot Wars or any robot battle competition, though.

  40. Very cool by mrfiddlehead · · Score: 1

    But damn those shirts are ugly. Yeeks!

    I'm not about to complain to that robot though.

    --
    :wq
  41. Cost of Patent... case of beer by datapt · · 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).

  42. Word origins by Midnight+Thunder · · 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 is a good place to check your word definitions.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Word origins by The+Panther! · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I recall of my Isaac Asimov readings, in several of his book jackets (probably in the Robots Series) he goes about describing the origins of the word Robot. Asimov is attributed to the first ever use of the adjective word 'robotic'. If someone has that handy, it may be worth transcribing for us.

      --
      Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
  43. Consider the PR potential by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Consider the PR potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Better yet, skip the BMWs and just lend me a baby. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

  44. link to the auction by Mr.+Punch · · Score: 1
    Karma whoring link to the auction itself

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

  45. How to fight SOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC SOW only hit Bio twice, and while those two hits did a lot of damage IMHO Biohazard did much worse to SOW. Bio stopped SOWs rotors, nearly flipped it, and maneuvered it under the pile driver where it became stuck. Of course, the judges decision is final, but it is hard to argue with the fact that Biohazard had the best showing ever against SOW.

    Just for discussions sake, Id like to hear other people s ideas about how to fight that bot. The best that I could come up with is a very heavy detachable mass affixed to the front of a bot. (something like a bowling ball held on with a drop of superglue) when hit by SOW, the mass would absorb the stored energy in the SOWs rotating weapon stopping it for an instant but would not transfer that energy to the attacking bot because the mass would detatch.

    1. Re:How to fight SOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You my friend, I agree with.

      Biohazard in my mind was more aggressive. He basically drove right into SoW on purpose, and that's when the hits came. And all those hits with the pulverizer. it was only at the very end when Biohazard lost control of a motor that the match evened out.

    2. Re:How to fight SOW by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      A hammer might work, if you could position it so that the hammer's end hit the spinning supports close to the base (where they're not moving as fast) without having the outer parts of the spinner hitting the hammer's shaft. Alternately, you could just send in another spinbot, with hard and sharp blades on the end, trying to rip apart SOW from the outside in...

  46. For those with 25k to burn by Nimion · · Score: 1

    http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem& item=1186599868

    They're also auctioning off miscellaneous pieces of him as well.

  47. Woo! by DaRiachu · · Score: 1

    Let's ship that on a plane over China (a plane that's a clunker but we put "Secret spyplane" in Chinese on it so that they want to shoot it down), and then, they see the weird bot, they try to reverse engineer it, and we turn it on! WOO! See what happens when you mess with us Americans!

    ...But seriously, folks, I think we should have some semblance of order in this day and age. How come we have to deal with these sorts of things cluttering up eBay? I mean, this doesn't fall under free speech or anything. I mean, this thing could potentially (if not already) be a deadly weapon. But hey. I guess it could get those cows off of your lawn easily. Hehe.

    ::bounces off:: ...Or it may be that I'm just high on Jolt Cola.

  48. Battlebots game simulation? by WyldOne · · Score: 1

    It would be cool to go at it in virtual space and see if your favorite bot could win hte match it might have lost in real life(tm) Wait for it it will come.

    --

    make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  49. battlebots = duh by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    if the goal for the form-factor of robots is defined as 'survival of the fittest' - then you will have machines progressively better suited to destroying each other - i.e. battlebots.

    but it is the superior machine that can go beyond mere brute force, and is able to improve along the axis of SUBTLETY. i.e. it is the harder task to create a robot with REFINEMENT.

    http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner

    1. Re:battlebots = duh by WyldOne · · Score: 1

      I was playing with the idea of a battle bot for the show, It would have been subtle - but most of the weponry is classed as illegal. Eg how do you 'poison' a robot - simple Coke injector... I had a adia for a black widow bot - webs , 'poison', and sting (shock) is all illegal damn! It would have been a walking bot too - *sigh* too bad

      --

      make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  50. There's some ways around this class of beast... by Svartalf · · 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... :-)

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  51. Robot wars--yech by hawk · · 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

  52. Not tethered... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    Something like that has to be tethered- otherwise it's against the rules.

    Now lamelar armor plates that would shear off under SOW's assault but not under anything else, on the other hand...

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Not tethered... by randomgeek · · Score: 1

      The rules allow "detachable" bots. You could make this mass an actual controllable bot that detaches from the main bot, and it would be allowed by the rules.

  53. um... by 56ksucks · · Score: 0

    Has anyone gone to the actual auction and read what it says. It says if you buy the robot you don't have the right to enter it in any BattleBots competitions. So I ask this question. Why would I want something I can't use for the purpose it was intended to be used? It'll just sit there and collect dust.

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  54. but can it repeat? by hawk · · 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

    1. Re:but can it repeat? by Keeper · · Score: 2

      Taking out the hammers is the trick. :) Good luck.

    2. Re:but can it repeat? by hawk · · 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

    3. Re:but can it repeat? by Sagarian · · Score: 1

      With a pick long enough to get around the hammers, would it not operate slowly enough to make you vulnerable to a speedy wedge or flipping bot (which would then get beaten by a Son of Wyashi knockoff n rounds hence)
      Using a tired rock, paper, scissors metaphor, is sheer angular momentum (and its inherent power / weight ratio advantage), basically the best all three?

  55. I dunno . . . by hawk · · Score: 2
    >You're right about the cat not
    > appreciating it, though. That's what slows me down.


    If this is indoors, on the cat's home ground, I think I'[d put my money on the cat. There's only so many times you're going to come home and clean up what the catled it to.


    *never* underestimate a threatened cat . . .


    hawk

  56. but a *distributed* petbot . . . by hawk · · Score: 3, Funny
    Just think of how many of those you can fit in under the weight limit. Tie them together with a redundant mesh. Surround your opponent. dance under his feet. Call it,


    "Revenge of the Lilliputians"!


    hawk

  57. Briggs and Stratton Golf Cart Motors? by BigBlockMopar · · 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. 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?

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  58. Sample AI program for a Battlebot by BigBlockMopar · · 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?)

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  59. Washing machine carnage - pics and info where? by BigBlockMopar · · 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!

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  60. Re: match was more even than judges called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say the final match between biohazard and SoW was fairly even. Both robots were more or less helpless by the end, and Biohazard was really the aggressor (he just straight ran into SoW, cuz he knew that's all he could do). So, I don't think the wedge is necessarily over yet, especially after I saw Vladiator last night. Power by 2 10 HP motors, this things was so GOD DAMN FAST. The bot did cool skids and spins, even burnout to get itself un wedged from the wall. I say a fast bot like that with some kind of wedge and decent armor might be able to drive at SoW like mad and get thru the weapon.

    That, at if you can survive the first blow and be fast enough to attach right after, you've got a chance, cuz the hammers take awhile to get up to speed.

  61. Darwin Award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a Darwin Award in the future of the winner of this auction.

  62. Reminds Me Of An Old Joke by Self+Bias+Resistor · · 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.

    --

    ----------
    When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.

  63. Son of Whyachi no longer for sale by Chuk · · Score: 1

    Checked the news page for it and the first item mentions how the robot is not for sale.

    --
    chuk