Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
Some remotes Like the Spectrum remotes have full channel failsafe. This means that at low battery voltage or loss of radio signal they will go to the failsafe position on all channels. This could be used to kill the tank in these situations. They also make an add on failsafe to control 1 channel. these are usually used to kill the throttle on RC cars so they don't run away when they run out of radio range or low battery. Tod - Original Message - From: Jacob jacobweber2...@hotmail.com To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:53:25 PM Subject: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch This is where a league rules have to be determined as to how many tanks are to be in a battle. Its not hard to come up with a remote control, 10 or 12 channel switch, that could be individually installed into each tank (up to 12 tanks).. Here is a 12 channel remote control: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DC12V-12Channel-Relay-RF-Switch-Remote-Control-Transmitter-Receiver-315MHz-/151373480251?pt=Home_Automation_Controls_Touchscreenshash=item233e90013b On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, TyngTech wrote: This is something I'd like to see but it needs to be expanded to a global remote to kill all tanks in an event. Though our tanks are supposed to have external kill switches, the fact is that I doubt any of our battlers could easily shut their vehicles down (manually) while it was running full bore over uneven ground. I know I'd have an issue killing an errant Cromwell. ST On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:22:51 PM UTC-4, Replicant wrote: blockquote Long time lurker here. I thought this was an interesting idea. Not exactly how viable it is with all the radio controls and interference. Remote Kill Switch Christopher 'lots of ideas yet to start' Crabb /blockquote -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout . -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
Way back in the stone age, my doctoral thesis was on the design of fault-tolerant electronics. A lot has changed in the 25+ years, but reliability theory hasn't changed much since Roman times when the historian Juvenal coined the phrase Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? (i.e., But who will guard the guardians themselves?) and an anonymous sanitation engineer coined the phrase Custodite Hoc est simplex stultus (i.e., Keep It Simple Stupid). So, I ask the question: Is it more reliable or less reliable to add a secondary RC-based control system to a vehicle as a safety cut-off for the primary RC-based control system? Typically, the following topics are addressed when trying to answer such a question: 1) Will the RC-based kill system handle all of the same fault scenarios as the manual cutoff system? 2) Will the RC-based kill system introduce additional fault scenarios that must be handled? 3) Will the RC-based kill system use electro-mechanical parts that are more or less reliable than both the primary RC-based control system and the manual kill system? -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
All excellent points. At our current mobilization level, a hobby standardized kill system is a moot point anyway. Besides, the Cromwell's remote kill system has already been tested and validated. I just have to make sure Marty's van is parked at the correct spot when something goes wrong! ;-) ST On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:38:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: Way back in the stone age, my doctoral thesis was on the design of fault-tolerant electronics. A lot has changed in the 25+ years, but reliability theory hasn't changed much since Roman times when the historian Juvenal coined the phrase Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? (i.e., But who will guard the guardians themselves?) and an anonymous sanitation engineer coined the phrase Custodite Hoc est simplex stultus (i.e., Keep It Simple Stupid). So, I ask the question: Is it more reliable or less reliable to add a secondary RC-based control system to a vehicle as a safety cut-off for the primary RC-based control system? Typically, the following topics are addressed when trying to answer such a question: 1) Will the RC-based kill system handle all of the same fault scenarios as the manual cutoff system? 2) Will the RC-based kill system introduce additional fault scenarios that must be handled? 3) Will the RC-based kill system use electro-mechanical parts that are more or less reliable than both the primary RC-based control system and the manual kill system? -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[TANKS] Re: can anyone positively ID this?
The Swiss basically turned their entire country into a Maginot line. On Sunday, November 16, 2014 6:34:05 PM UTC-5, jvragu47 wrote: Very nice Steve. On Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:57:38 PM UTC-5, TyngTech wrote: Chris, That's one of the Swiss hidden bunkers. http://atomictoasters.com/2012/11/the-labyrinthine-history-of-secret-swiss-bunkers/ ST On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, odyssey...@aol.com wrote: there is no information on it on the site it was posted on so i was wondering if anyone could positively ID this chris -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
The “Marty’s Van” kill switch technique worked for me, too. It must be a magnet for out of control RCTC vehicles. From: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com [mailto:rctankcombat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of TyngTech Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:45 AM To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch All excellent points. At our current mobilization level, a hobby standardized kill system is a moot point anyway. Besides, the Cromwell's remote kill system has already been tested and validated. I just have to make sure Marty's van is parked at the correct spot when something goes wrong! ;-) ST On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:38:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: Way back in the stone age, my doctoral thesis was on the design of fault-tolerant electronics. A lot has changed in the 25+ years, but reliability theory hasn't changed much since Roman times when the historian Juvenal coined the phrase Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? (i.e., But who will guard the guardians themselves?) and an anonymous sanitation engineer coined the phrase Custodite Hoc est simplex stultus (i.e., Keep It Simple Stupid). So, I ask the question: Is it more reliable or less reliable to add a secondary RC-based control system to a vehicle as a safety cut-off for the primary RC-based control system? Typically, the following topics are addressed when trying to answer such a question: 1) Will the RC-based kill system handle all of the same fault scenarios as the manual cutoff system? 2) Will the RC-based kill system introduce additional fault scenarios that must be handled? 3) Will the RC-based kill system use electro-mechanical parts that are more or less reliable than both the primary RC-based control system and the manual kill system? -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com mailto:rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [TANKS] Re: can anyone positively ID this?
I went many times to Switzerland with “Youth Groups”, and we slept in their underground nuclear bunkers – which was a cheap way to get a hotel room. They have a fascination for WW III meltdowns. As to comparing it to the Maginot line? Switzerland has a natural defense that is much more efficient than the border between Germany and France… It’s called the Alps! Even Steve’s awesome Cromwell would have problems driving over the Matterhorn!! -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. attachment: Loic Anthian.vcf
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
For the record, I must note that the out of control examples cited by both Mr. Tyng and Rocket Man were both operator malfunctions. In both cases, the RC systems were working as designed :-) To my knowledge, in 10+ years of battling, we've never had a situation where the tank was running across the field in a manner that required the kill switch to stop it. Of course, we've had numerous examples where the kill switch was inadvertently activated during a battle, thereby rendering the vehicle a sitting (aka. dead) duck. On 11/17/2014 12:15 PM, Doug Conn wrote: The “Marty’s Van” kill switch technique worked for me, too. It must be a magnet for out of control RCTC vehicles. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
Then we need to solve the correct problem. I propose a remote-controlled device be attached to each operator with the capability to remove said operator from the control process. For testing purposes the phasers should be set to Stun. On Monday, November 17, 2014 12:36:57 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: For the record, I must note that the out of control examples cited by both Mr. Tyng and Rocket Man were both operator malfunctions. In both cases, the RC systems were working as designed :-) ... -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
True Story: Before the Internet existed, a company called Tandem Computers was started by some database exports on the West Coast for the purpose of developing and selling fault-tolerant computer systems to support non-stop database applications. One of the pioneers of such work was Dr. Jim Gray and he conducted a series of real-world studies based on *all* problems cited by Tandem customers over multi-year periods. The overwhelming conclusion of those studies was that people, not hardware, were the cause of most problems. Bear in mind, disk drives crashed in those days relatively often, compared to modern disk drives, so Tandem computers had duplicates of everything, including disks, CPUs, power supplies, back-planes, etc. In many situations, the trained maintenance personnel themselves were responsible for crashing the system. More often than not, the person shutting down half the system to replace a failed disk or power supply (which was routine back then) would shut down the wrong half. The ironic solution was to eliminate certain types of routine maintenance and just let the system keep running. For example, they might need N disks to run, but started with N+4 disks. When the first and second disk fails, they do nothing, waiting until the 3rd disk fails to replace all three. That way, they reduced the likelihood of stupid mistakes, without compromising system reliability. Based on those studies, we should remove all humans from the equation and just let the tanks battle each other. Unfortunately, that means that the Pittelli X-Prize Problem (i.e., autonomous tank operation) needs to be solved and that probably won't happen anytime soon :-) On 11/17/2014 12:57 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: Then we need to solve the correct problem. I propose a remote-controlled device be attached to each operator with the capability to remove said operator from the control process. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: can anyone positively ID this?
Hitler reportedly wanted to invade Switzerland but his generals convinced him that armer couldn't manage the terrain(it couldn't).The alternate plan was to win the war, then lay seige to the entire country of Switzerland and starve them into submission.It might have worked if they could have talked him out of invading the U.S.S.R.. / Never get involved in a land war in asia Vizzini / DSmith - Original Message - From: loic Anthian To: rctankcombat@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 12:18 PM Subject: RE: [TANKS] Re: can anyone positively ID this? I went many times to Switzerland with “Youth Groups”, and we slept in their underground nuclear bunkers – which was a cheap way to get a hotel room. They have a fascination for WW III meltdowns. As to comparing it to the Maginot line? Switzerland has a natural defense that is much more efficient than the border between Germany and France… It’s called the Alps! Even Steve’s awesome Cromwell would have problems driving over the Matterhorn!! -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4189/8587 - Release Date: 11/17/14 -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
I'm invoking the Skynet clause of our friendship agreement. On Monday, November 17, 2014 1:43:31 PM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: ... Based on those studies, we should remove all humans from the equation and just let the tanks battle each other. ... -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [TANKS] Re: Remote kill switch
Skynet? That's like a dial-up modem network from the late 70's compared to the Tri-Pact Battlefield Management Network scheduled to become self-aware sometime in 2015. On 11/17/2014 7:39 PM, Mike Lyons wrote: I'm invoking the Skynet clause of our friendship agreement. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the R/C Tank Combat group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups R/C Tank Combat group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
