diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index 79cf2b06a..9bc86a298 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-0.md index 1208a4795..e1225ddb4 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:25:34.929290+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:50.652619+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-1.md index c92244ea1..d793bf4a9 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:25:34.929290+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:50.652619+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-2.md index 0939c231b..0403b4e3a 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_awareness_of_science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:25:34.929290+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:50.652619+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/science-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/science-0.md index 85831c4ab..c7f1744d7 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/science-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/science-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/science" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:50:14.081804+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:58.636927+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a998c5582 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +title: "Racial diversity and discrimination in STEM fields" +chunk: 1/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:51.950148+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), women and racial minorities are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Scholars, governments, and scientific organizations from around the world have noted a variety of explanations contributing to this lack of racial diversity, including higher levels of discrimination, implicit bias, microaggressions, chilly climate, lack of role models and mentors, and less academic preparation. + +== Race imbalance in STEM in the United States == + +Racial minorities, with the exception of Asian Americans, are underrepresented through every stage of the STEM pipeline. + +=== Education and degree attainment === +Racial disparities in high school completion are a prominent reason for racial imbalances in STEM fields. While only 1.8% of Asian and 4.1% of White students drop out of high school, 5.6% of Black, 7.7% of Hispanic, 8.0% of Pacific Islander, and 9.6% of American Indian/Alaskan Native students drop out of high school. Among those that graduate high school, 67% of Whites, 62% of Blacks, and 69% of Hispanics enroll in a “degree granting college.” While there is no measurable difference in college enrollment of White, Black, and Hispanic STEM students, only 15% of Black students who initially enrolled in a STEM major received a STEM bachelor's degree at graduation, compared to 30% of White and Asian students. + +=== Employment, occupation, and income === + +According to the National Science Board, which provides statistical data on the U.S. labor force, Asians represent 9%, Whites 65%, Hispanics 14%, and Blacks 9% of the STEM labor force. In particular, white men are 49% of the STEM labor force. Among different STEM fields, Blacks make up only 4% of life science, 5% of engineering, 6% of physical sciences, 7% of the computer science, 9% of math and 11% of health-related sciences. There are also significant wage gaps between women, men, and people of color, especially in STEM jobs. An example of this disadvantage is the gender pay gap and racial pay gap in computer science fields, where women earn about 74% of what men earn and the median income for White workers is approximately 23.3% more than the median income for Blacks. The gender and racial pay gaps in STEM fields are significantly greater than all regular non-STEM jobs with an even greater pay gap between these gender, racial, and ethnic groups. When first being hired, 35% of women of color reported negotiating their salaries, but nearly 50% wished that they had negotiated their salary after starting the job. Many of these women reported being initially satisfied with the salary they had been offered when being hired, but later learned that they were earning much less than other workers at their same level. + +=== Effects of under-representation of people of color in STEM === +Among Black workers in STEM fields, 57% feel that there too little attention being directed toward adding more racial and ethnic diversity in the workplace. This lack of diversity contributes to isolation and a lack of social support in the workplace which can increase anxiety and depression for many people of color in STEM. Black scientists have been at the forefront of some of the most important scientific breakthroughs, from the creation of the GPS to the first successful treatment of leprosy, yet they were denied credit for the discovery, blocked from academic positions, and away from their respective fields due to racial discrimination at the time. + +== Explanations for the under-representation for people of color == +Recently, scholars have begun applying the framework of systemic racism to explain the experiences of racial minorities in STEM. Specifically, research indicates that people of color, especially blacks, experience higher levels of discrimination, incur various microaggressions, and a lack of overall mentorship and support in STEM. + +=== Stereotypes and preconceived notions of STEM === +Scientific racism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries attempted to identify biological, intellectual, and physiological differences among races. Lasting effects of the scientific racism include racial stereotypes about students of color and preconceived notions of STEM as predominantly a white, male field. A study highlighting the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in STEM found that Asian and White candidates were viewed as more competent and hirable than Black and Latino/a candidates. Similarly, survey results from this study show that students were much more likely to recognize and name white male STEM professionals than Black or women STEM professionals. Additionally, students of color on college campus often face prevailing societal misconceptions and assumptions that they are affirmative action beneficiaries, on sport scholarships, and/or “at-risk” students. Students of color additionally must contend with stereotype threat that has been found to lower academic achievement. In particular, high-achieving Black students, attempting to combat prevailing stereotypes about their lack of intelligence, while Asian students combat the prevailing model minority stereotype presuming they are biologically predisposed to mathematical ability. + +=== Stem identity === +The development of a STEM identity increases the overall likelihood that a student will continue to develop scientific literacy and pursue a STEM career. The National Research Council's 2009 report describes students developing STEM identities as learning to “think about themselves as science learners and develop[ing] an identity as someone who knows about, uses and sometime[s] contributes to science.” Black girls are less likely to develop STEM identities in middle school because they have fewer science-related experiences outside of school and less confidence in their scientific ability than Asian-American, Latina, and White middle school girls, making them less likely to enter STEM fields in the future. Additionally, research demonstrates that beyond first-hand experience with science, societal norms, stereotypes, and interactions with peers, teachers, and family contribute to the development of a STEM identity. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a8f0fc731 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +title: "Racial diversity and discrimination in STEM fields" +chunk: 2/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:51.950148+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Microaggressions === +People of color and underrepresented minority groups in science, technology, engineering and math are more likely than whites to experience racial microaggressions. Studies show racial microaggressions that occur on college campus weaken students sense of belonging, make it difficult to form relationships with faculty, and contribute to less cultural alignment with STEM. At predominantly white institutions (PWI) environmental microaggressions are common in shared laboratory spaces among students and during meetings with faculty and advisors. Black female students are especially likely to feel alienated and isolated from their peers in STEM departments. + +=== Implicit bias === +Research on implicit bias demonstrates that as early as preschool teachers are likely to hold implicit bias against students of color, especially Black boys. While Black children make up 19% of preschool enrollment, they account for about half of preschool suspension. Implicit biases among teachers, faculty, and colleagues makes it more difficult for students of color to form relationships, network with professionals in their fields, and find valuable mentors. Judgments placed upon people of color based on implicit biases are incredibly damaging and contribute to stereotype threat, which affects their overall performances. For instance, Black women are often assumed to be under-qualified forcing them to prove that they deserve to be in those spaces as was the case of Katherine Johnson depicted in Disney's "Hidden Figures". + +=== Sense of belonging === +When people do not feel welcome in a place, environment, or institution, they are less likely to feel they belong and more likely to withdraw. In particular, women and people of color often adopt individual strategies of assimilation or patriarchal bargaining in their attempt to gain acceptance. For example, Black male scientists adopt coping strategies to endure racialized interactions with colleagues and managers. Similarly, Black female undergraduates students describe coping with racism on campus by gravitating toward same-race peers, faculty, and staff. When underrepresented groups are forced to adapt or leave the field altogether, it costs STEM valuable talent and perspectives that could be used to advance scientific discoveries and advancements. + +=== STEM pipeline === +The STEM pipeline starts to narrow early as students of color face additional barriers to STEM participation in school. The following are some examples of these barriers. + +==== Primary and secondary schools ==== +Research indicates that racial disparities in science achievement test scores begin as early as third grade. These test score disparities were attributed to both socioeconomic status gaps between races and school qualities. In particular, Black and Hispanic students are more than double as likely to live in low-income neighborhoods compared to White students which directly contributes to less money for local public schools and indirectly less funding for STEM programs. Black and Latino/a may not always have the same access to higher level high school courses that are building blocks for success in College STEM fields. For example, those who have not taken high school trigonometry, calculus, or physics, are put at a disadvantage in terms of graduating with a STEM degree. Beyond academic preparation, experiences with STEM across various settings, including school, home, and out-of-school, help students of color see STEM careers as more possible. STEM researchers Vincent Basile & Kevin Murray both argued that major federal STEM education policy reports have consistently failed to address the need for more teachers of color in K-12 STEM classrooms, despite calling for increased minority student participation in STEM careers. + +==== College ==== +While Black males are twice as likely as their white peers to declare a STEM major upon entering college, they are less likely to graduate with a STEM degree. Scholars point to microaggressions, a chilly climate, and lack of role models and mentors as contributing to students of color being "weeded out” of STEM majors. Additionally, one study examining Black male engineering graduate students found that microaggressions from counselors, mentors, and fellow students resulted non-normative role strain. On top of these microaggressions, Black scientists recieve nationally less funding for federal biomedical research than their white counterpart, in part due to the fact the community-focused research topics they tend to pursue are considered high risk and are extremely systematically undervalued by grant reviewers. These actors increase the likelihood that people of color leave STEM majors. + +==== Mentorship ==== +Because white men are still overrepresented in STEM fields there is a lack of available mentorship from faculty and scientists of color. As a result, students of color in STEM feel unheard, excluded, and lose opportunities to make connections with peers. Research does indicate that students of color at HBCU's are much more likely to perceive their mentors to be supportive and describe more positive interactions with peers. + +==== Work ==== +Underrepresented minorities, including women, people of color, and LGBT individuals are more vulnerable to experience discrimination, isolation, and/or harassment in their workplaces. A Pew survey of men and women in STEM indicates that 50% of women in STEM experienced gender-related discrimination at work and about 62% of Black people in STEM jobs stated they experienced racial discrimination at work. Additionally, 72% of Black STEM workers believe that facing racial discrimination is a major reason why there are not more people of color in STEM fields. + +== Strategies for increasing participation of people of color in STEM == +Under-representation of people of color in STEM is a problem that is rooted to white supremacy and racism. + +=== Bias training === +Many scholars and organization recommend elimination of bias as a means to increase representation in STEM. Specifically, implicit bias, training of students, managers, faculty, and even students is seen as one way to combat stereotypes and reduce microaggressions targeting people of color. Additionally, incorporating implicit bias statements and policies can strengthen a commitment to diversity and inclusion within institutions. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0fc00710a --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +--- +title: "Racial diversity and discrimination in STEM fields" +chunk: 3/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:51.950148+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Protective factors === +Those in STEM fields have recognized that there is an extensive history of poor representation of women and people of color in STEM and are working to close the gap. Addressing this issue requires a coherent and sustained effort across multiple fronts. Many would argue that single intervention does not work, but that sustainable and strategic reform in education, work place, and within our communities would put our theory in to practice. Transforming our perception of STEM in the early education years for students of color necessitates celebration of the distinct contribution that women and people of color bring to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. + +=== Teachers === +While many teachers are highly dedicated to reducing the race gap and actively striving to create equal opportunities in their classrooms, they can actually contribute to the STEM race gap. Researchers suggest that a teacher's attitude toward's their own profession will predict their attitude over STEM education, with emotional readiness, cognitive readiness and self-efficacy all playing part mediating roles. Meaning teachers who have zero confidence in STEM or under prepared are more likely to teach it incorrectly, which could be detrimental to students of color who already face systemic barriers. It is important that teachers understand that their actions impact students’ futures more than they may realize. + +=== Role models === +One of the most promoted solutions is the need for role models. While both female and male role models can be effective in recruiting women in STEM fields there is a lack of role models of color to mentor POC in STEM fields. When individuals have someone to look up to that looks like them, they are more willing to stay in the field and develop a sense of belonging. Opportunities to engage and connect with individuals in STEM allows for excitement to be a part of this community and the development of a stronger STEM identity. + +=== Mentors === +Mentors provide students the academic and social support they need to succeed in STEM, however, having same-race mentorship is an important step in retaining students of color in STEM. Not only do students of color report more positive interactions with same-race faculty, they are also more likely to develop stronger STEM identities. + +=== Organized efforts === +There is a growing number of organizations whose goal is to increase diversity in STEM fields by encouraging girls and women to thrive in STEM environments. An example of one of these organizations is Girls Who Code. Their mission is to successfully close the gender gap in new entry-level tech jobs by 2030. Girls Who Code focuses their work not only on gender diversity but also on young women who are historically underrepresented in computer science fields, including African American/Black, Hispanic or Latina, Bi/ Multiracial, Native American/Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, those who come from low-income backgrounds, specifically free and/or reduced lunch eligible, and those who have had a lack of exposure or access to computer science. Girls Who Code acknowledges and values the intersections of race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, class, sexual orientation, ability, age, national origin, and religious/spiritual identities. +Similarly, Black girls who participated in I AM STEM, a community nonprofit organization designed to increase STEM participation among underrepresented groups, engaged directly in first-hand scientific research which contributed to stronger connections to STEM. +Another great example of organizations for the underrepresented is the Society for advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). SACNAS's mission is to advance the success of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in securing advanced degrees, careers, and positions of leadership in STEM fields. The organization has been working to make sure that those most underrepresented in STEM have the support they need to attain advanced degrees, careers, and positions of leadership. SACNAS also often points out that diverse voices bring creative solutions to our world's most pressing scientific problems and that building a national network that is innovative, powerful, and inclusive is necessary. + +== Important scientists, engineers, and mathematicians == +Katherine Johnson +West Area Computers +Dorothy Vaughan +Mary Jackson +Raychelle Burks +Jedidiah Isler +Ellen Ochoa +Ruby Hirose +Rebecca Lee Crumpler +France A. Cordova +Claudia Alexander +Susan La Flesche Picotte +Alice Ball +Janaki Ammal +Linda Garcia Cubero +Hedy Lamarr +Nadine Caron +Neil deGrasse Tyson +John Herrington +Mary G. Ross +Luis Walter Alvarez +Ella Cara Deloria +Witri Wahyu Lestari +Aaron Yazzie +Nanibaa' Garrison + +== See also == +Racial discrimination +Imposter syndrome +Racial Diversity in United States Schools +Internalized Racism +Institutional Racism +White Privilege +Racial Wage gap +Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science +National Society of Black Engineers +National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers +Stereotype Threat +Microaggressions +Harassment +Gendered Racism +Scientific Racism +Women in STEM +STEM Pipeline +Structural Inequality in Education +Underrepresented Groups in STEM +Implicit Stereotype +Racial equality +Hidden Figures +Marginalization +Affirmative action + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchChannel-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchChannel-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c019e3d99 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchChannel-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +title: "ResearchChannel" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchChannel" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:53.137804+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +ResearchChannel was an American educational cable television network operated by a consortium of universities, foundations, government agencies, corporations, and learned societies. It began broadcasting in 1996, and discontinued operations in 2010. + + +== History == +ResearchChannel was established in 1996 under the name Research TV by a group of American universities. Its studios were physically located at the University of Washington's Kane Hall throughout its existence. Participating institutions produced and provided original programming highlighting their research and innovations to air on the station and also provided funding. +During its early existence, a period which predated YouTube, ResearchChannel partnered with Google to make its programs available for free download. It also collaborated with companies such as Microsoft to help advance what were then new video technologies, such as high definition web streaming. +In March 2010 the University of Washington – which had heavily subsidized the network by providing its physical space, satellite uplink, website maintenance, and studio staff – announced it would end its support of ResearchChannel. The network went off-air at the end of August 2010. + + +== Availability == +ResearchChannel was carried on channel 9400 of the Dish Network as well as cable television channels in select American markets. It also aired over-the-air on several terrestrial television stations: KAMU-TV (College Station, Texas), KWSU-TV (Pullman, Washington), KYES-TV (Anchorage, Alaska), KUJH-LP (Lawrence, Kansas), and WPSU-TV (State College, Pennsylvania). + + +== Governance == +The board of directors of ResearchChannel, as of 2007, consisted of Rita R. Colwell, David L. Evans, Ron Johnson, Ann Moore, James J. O'Donnell, Steve Smith, Ann Stunden, and Marshall Turner. +Member institutions of ResearchChannel included the American Meteorological Society, the National Institutes of Health, Rutgers University, the National University of Singapore, Stanford University, Tulane University, the University of Chicago, Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania, Internet2, the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, the National Science Foundation, Microsoft, IBM, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, among others. + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Research Channel's channel on YouTube \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_Foundation_for_Reason_and_Science-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_Foundation_for_Reason_and_Science-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..de9691d61 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_Foundation_for_Reason_and_Science-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +--- +title: "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_Foundation_for_Reason_and_Science" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:54.589135+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS or RDF) is a division of Center for Inquiry (CFI) founded by British biologist Richard Dawkins in 2006 to promote scientific literacy and secularism. +Originally a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., the organization merged with CFI in 2016. + + +== History == +After Richard Dawkins' success with the book The God Delusion, he created the foundation with its headquarters in the United States to work toward a world in which religion no longer interferes with the advance of science and in which people use their critical thinking skills to evaluate theist claims about the nature of reality. +Dawkins complained of the difficulty he faced in gaining tax-free status, which he attributes to the secular nature of the organization. In contrast to the presumption by officials that religious organizations benefit humanity without evidence (for instance Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption), he points to a letter he received from the British Charity Commission requesting evidence for the claim that the advancement of science is connected to the public good. +Theist author Marion Ledwig suggests that the foundation may have been set up as an atheist counterpart to the John Templeton Foundation, an organization which Dawkins has publicly criticized, especially in The God Delusion, for corrupting science. In a TED talk prior to writing The God Delusion, Dawkins had called for the need for an "anti-Templeton" to step up, saying that if his books sold better, he would take the initiative himself. + +Dawkins describes his foundation's purpose this way:"Critical thinking is the real saviour of humankind. My foundation promotes respect for people who hold critical thinking as a cherished personal value and use it in day-to-day life. The logical counter to religious extremism is people who rely on evidence to make decisions. Yet the voice of secular people is maligned in this country. Forty-five per cent of Americans think you have to believe in God to be moral. Secular voices are considered immoral. They are not listened to on that basis. We must counter this baseless hostility to allow the contributions of secular people in vital national debates to count. Making secular views and people welcome in politics and policy-making will advance human safety, security, health, achievement, prosperity and most of all, science."The organization began accepting members in April 2015. +Among its activities, RDFRS finances research into the psychology of belief and religion, finances scientific education programs and materials, and publicizes and supports secular charitable organisations. +The foundation has been granted charitable status in the United Kingdom and status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit private operating foundation in the United States. RDFRS financed research on the psychology of belief and religion, financed scientific education programs and materials, and publicised and supported charitable organisations that are secular in nature. The foundation also offers humanist, rationalist, and scientific materials through its website. +Dawkins has said the "trend toward theocratic thinking in the United States is a danger not only for America but for the entire world." Connected to this concern, Dawkins invited Sean Faircloth to serve as opening speaker on Dawkins's 2011 US book tour. Faircloth is author of the book Attack of the Theocrats, How the Religious Right Harms Us All and What We Can Do About It. The Richard Dawkins Foundation (United States branch) later hired Faircloth, who has ten years experience as a state legislator, as Director of Strategy and Policy. + + +== Activism == + +RDFRS also invests in creating, producing and influencing the development of entertainment products for general audiences that support secularism and fight scientific illiteracy. + + +=== 2009 === +In March 2009, following proposed anti-evolution resolutions by Oklahoma State Representative Todd Thomsen, including condemning a visit by Dawkins to Oklahoma, he instructed the U.S. branch of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science to donate $5,000 to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. + + +=== 2011 === +In March 2011, the RDFRS along with the Freedom From Religion Foundation began The Clergy Project which is a confidential on-line community that supports members as they move from their faith. + + +=== 2014 === +In 2014 RDFRS joined several similar organizations, including the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, the Secular Student Alliance, and the Secular Coalition for America, to form Openly Secular, an initiative which aims to combat and draw attention to anti-atheist discrimination and to encourage more people to openly self-identify as nonbelievers. Among the strategies is to get celebrities to come forward as openly secular. Videos have been posted by Penn & Teller, Bill Maher, NFL star Arian Foster, Julia Sweeney, John Davidson and others. + + +=== 2015 === +In April 2015, RDFRS launched the Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES) to provide middle school teachers with workshops and free online tools to teach evolution and answer its critics. TIES is led by Bertha Vazquez, an award-winning middle school science teacher in Miami, FL. + + +=== 2016 === +In January 2016, RDFRS announced that it was merging with the Center for Inquiry, with Robyn Blumner as the CEO of the combined organizations. +The merger was completed in December 2016, with RDFRS becoming a division of CFI. +The atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors of the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors. + + +== See also == +Brights movement +Out Campaign +Openly Secular +The Skeptics Society + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Official website +Discussions With Richard Dawkins | Ep. 1 The Four Horsemen Roundtable (2007) on Internet Archive \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..761f05ff7 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 1/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Robot combat is a type of robot competition in which custom-built machines fight using various methods to incapacitate each other. The machines have generally been remote-controlled vehicles rather than autonomous robots. +Robot combat competitions have been made into television series, including Robot Wars in the United Kingdom and BattleBots in the United States. These shows were originally broadcast in the late 1990s to early 2000s and experienced revivals in the mid-2010s. As well as televised competitions, smaller robot combat events are staged for live audiences such as those organized by the Robot Fighting League. +Robot builders are generally hobbyists and the complexity and cost of their machines can vary substantially. Robot combat uses weight classes, with the heaviest robots able to exert more power and destructive capabilities. The rules of competitions are designed for the safety of the builders, operators, and spectators while also providing an entertaining spectacle. Robot combat arenas are generally surrounded by a bulletproof screen. +Competitor robots come in a variety of designs, with different strategies for winning fights. Robot designs typically incorporate weapons for attacking opponents, such as axes, hammers, flippers, and spinning devices. Rules almost always prohibit gun-like weapons as well as other strategies not conducive to the safety and enjoyment of participants and spectators. + +== History == + +Among the oldest robotic combat competitions extant in the United States are the "Critter Crunch" (founded about 1987) in Denver and "Robot Battles" (founded in 1991) based in the southeastern United States. Both events are run by members of the "Denver Mad Scientists Society". + +1987 – The "Denver Mad Scientists Society" organized the first Critter Crunch competition at Denver's MileHiCon science-fiction convention. +1990 – The First Robot Olympics took place in Glasgow, Scotland organized by the Turing Institute and marked a 'peacetime' recreational contest between robots from multiple countries. +1991 – Kelly Lockhart organized the first "Robot Battles" competition at Atlanta's DragonCon science-fiction convention. +1994 – Marc Thorpe organized the first Robot Wars competition in San Francisco. Four annual competitions were held from 1994 to 1997. +1997 – Rights to the Robot Wars name are transferred to British TV production company Mentorn, who produce the Robot Wars television series. Series 1 and 2 feature competitive games and obstacle courses as well as simple combat. In Series 3, the main competition switches to entirely combat. In the United Kingdom, Robot Wars aired 157 episodes across nine series (seven main tournament series and two "Extreme" side-competition series) from 1998 to 2003. Three spin-off series were produced for the United States (2001–2002), two for the Netherlands (2001–2003), and one for Germany (2002). +1999 – Former Robot Wars competitors in the United States organize a new competition, named BattleBots. The first tournament was shown as a webcast, with the second tournament shown as a cable 'Pay-per-view' event. +2000 – BattleBots is picked up as a weekly television program on Comedy Central. It would span five seasons ending in 2002. +2001 – Robotica appears on The Learning Channel as a weekly series. The format features tests of power, speed, and manoeuvrability as well as combat. The show ran for three series, ending in 2002. +2002 – Foundation of the Robot Fighting League (RFL), a regulatory body composed of the organizers of robot combat events in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. The body produces a unified set of regulations and promotes the sport. +2003 – Foundation of the Fighting Robots Association (FRA), a regulatory body managing robot combat events in the United Kingdom and Europe. +2004 – Robot Combat is included as an event at the ROBOlympics in San Francisco, California, with competitors from multiple countries. ROBOlympics competitions including Robot Combat run from 2004 to 2008. +2008 – ROBOlympics changes its name to RoboGames and, while most events are not combat-related, Robot combat is significantly featured. Events run from 2008 to 2013, 2015–2018, and in 2023. Robot combat matches are live streamed to Twitch starting in 2017. +2009 – Three official BattleBots competitions were managed and filmed in the hopes of securing a television sponsorship, though no deals materialized. +2013 – Robot Combat League, a fictional Syfy show themed around robot combat, premieres for one season. +2015 – BattleBots returns to television as a summer series on the ABC television network; it is renewed for a second season, which aired in the summer of 2016. +2016 – Robot Wars returns to British television on BBC2, with two further series in 2017. +2017 – Human-piloted "robot" fight: Eagle Prime (produced by MegaBots) vs. Kuratas (produced by Suidobashi Heavy Industries) +2018 – After a year long hiatus, BattleBots returns to television on the Discovery Channel and The Science Channel. New seasons of BattleBots have been produced for the network yearly as of 2023. The first seasons of King of Bots (KoB), Fighting my Bot, This Is Fighting Robots (TIFR) and Clash Bots are held and broadcast in China. After the cancellation of Robot Wars by the BBC, Bugglebots, a beetleweight competition featuring former BB, RW, and KoB competitors, is broadcast on YouTube. Another season of Bugglebots is broadcast in 2019. Norwalk Havoc Robot League (NHRL) is founded, an organization that hosts and live streams the largest 3lb robot combat competition league in the world. +2021 – BattleBots: Bounty Hunters, a spin-off of BattleBots, premieres on Discovery+. A sequel series, BattleBots: Champions, premieres in 2022. NHRL expands to 12 and 30lb weight classes +2023 – NHRL rebrands as National Havoc Robot League and becomes the biggest robot combat event in the world, with a $2million+ prize pool at their 3lb, 12lb, and 30lb World Championships. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fc055cd15 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 2/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Rules == +Robot combat involves remotely controlled robots fighting in a purpose-built arena. A robot loses when it is immobilized, which may be due to damage inflicted by the other robot, being pushed into a position where it cannot drive (though indefinite holds or pins are typically not permitted), or being removed from the arena. Fights typically have a time limit, after which, if no robot is victorious, a judge or judges evaluate the performances to decide upon a winner. + +=== Weight classes === + +Similar to human combat sports, robot combat is conducted in weight classes though with maximum limits even in the heaviest class. Heavier robots can exert more power and have stronger armor and are generally more difficult and expensive to build. +Class definitions vary between competitions. The below table shows classifications for two organizations: the UK-based Fighting Robots Association (FRA) and the North American SPARC. + +There are also competitions specifically for Lego combat robots. + +Most televised events are heavyweights. It's worth noting that the definitions of each weight category have changed over time - with European (FRA) rules for heavyweights advancing from 80 kg, to 100 kg, to 110 kg over time. Currently Battlebots has a weight limit of 250 lb (113 kg). To encourage diversity of design, rules often give an extra weight allotment for robots that can walk rather than roll on wheels. + +=== Safety precautions === + +Given the violent nature of robot fighting, safety is a central factor in the design of the venue, which is generally a sturdy arena, usually constructed of steel, wood, and bullet-resistant clear polycarbonate plastic. The smaller, lighter classes compete in smaller arenas than the heavyweights. +Competition rules set limits on robot construction features that are too dangerous or which could lead to uninteresting contests. Strict limits are placed on materials and pressures used in pneumatic or hydraulic actuators, and fail-safe systems are required for electronic control circuits. Generally off-limits for use as weapons are nets, liquids, deliberate radio jamming, high-voltage electric discharge, untethered projectiles, and usually fire (allowed at NHRL and Battlebots). + +=== Robot fighting associations === +The sport has no overall governing body, though some regional associations oversee several events in managerial or advisory capacities with published rulesets. These include: + +Robot Fighting League (RFL), primarily U.S., 2002–2012 +National Havoc Robot League (NHRL), primarily U.S., 2018-present. The largest robot combat competition in the world. Hosts 3lb, 12lb and 30lb. +Fighting Robot Association (FRA), U.K and Europe, 2003–present +Standardised Procedures for the Advancement of Robot Combat (SPARC), U.S., 2015–present +The major televised competitions have operated outside of these associations. + +== Combat robot weaponry and design == +An effective combat robot must have some method of damaging or controlling the actions of its opponent while at the same time protecting itself from aggression. The tactics employed by combat robot operators and the robot designs that support those tactics are numerous. Although some robots have multiple weapons, the more successful competitors concentrate on a single form of attack. This is a list of most of the basic types of weapons. Most robot weaponry falls into one of the following categories: + +=== Inactive weaponry === +Inactive weaponry does not rely on a power source independent from a robot's mobility. Many modern rulesets, such as the rebooted versions of BattleBots and Robot Wars, require robots to have an active weapon to improve the visual spectacle, thus eliminating certain designs such as torque-reaction axlebots and thwackbots, and requiring other designs such as wedges and rammers to incorporate some other kind of weapon. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-10.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-10.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d5f71611e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-10.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 11/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +To move, the robot would rely on rapidly braking its spinning ring, which was around the entire robot, while simultaneously turning off five of the six magnets. This, in turn, would force the robot to pivot around the one magnet still on. Hopping – Using pneumatic legs or spikes, robots such as the featherweight Spazhammer were capable of moving around the arena by repeatedly stabbing the floor. Propeller – No Fly Zone, an antweight competing at RoboGames since 2015, drives forwards using thrust generated by a diagonal spinning bar on the front of the robot, similar to an airplane propeller. There is only a single wheel on the back of the robot, used for steering rather than forward movement. A similar heavyweight machine, Crossfire, competed in the first season of King of Bots. + +== Robot-sumo == + +Robot-sumo is a related sport where robots try to shove each other out of a ring rather than destroy or disable each other. Unlike remote-controlled combat robots, machines in these competitions are often automated. + +== See also == +CTF 2187 +National Havoc Robot League +BattleBots +Robotica (TV series) +RoboGames +RoboMaster +"I, (Annoyed Grunt)-bot" – episode of The Simpsons featuring robot combat. +Model Warship Combat – robotic model warship engage in model combat using pneumatic cannons +Robot Arena 2 – Notable robot combat video game +Roborace +Soccer robot +Robot-sumo + +== References == + +== External links == + +Full results of major robotic competitions, including Robot Wars, Battlebots, and Robotica +North America + +Robot Combat League (TV Show) +Robot Fighting League – North and South American rules and oversight organization +Robot Battles +SPARC – Standardized Practices for the Advancement of Robotic Combat, current North American rules organization +NHRL – National Havoc Robot League (formerly known as Norwalk Havoc), major North American organizer. +South America + +Brazilian Robot Combat League +Europe + +Fighting Robot Association – FRA +http://www.dutchrobotgames.nl – Dutchrobotgames Dutch Roboteers Association +http://www.roboteers.org – German Roboteers Association +Australia + +Robowars Australia - National forum and Victorian organisation \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5d4398fd2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 3/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Rammer – Robots employing high-power drive trains and heavy armour can use their speed and manoeuvrability to crash into their opponent repeatedly with the hope of damaging weapons and vital components. Their pushing power may also be used to shove their opponent into arena traps. Rammers (AKA 'Bricks') typically have four or six wheels for traction and stability and are often designed to be fully operational when inverted. Because many modern rulesets require all robots to have a moving weapon, modern rammers are often equipped with other weapon types. Robot Wars Series 6 champion Tornado and Series 7 runner-up Storm II were effective rammers. The former used interchangeable weaponry (usually a small spinning drum) while the latter opted for a lifting arm to avoid disqualification. Battlebots 3.0 superheavyweight champion Vladiator was a rammer armed with a small lifting spike. +Wedge – Similar in concept to a rammer, the wedge uses a low-clearance inclined ramp or scoop to move in under an opponent and break its contact with the arena floor – decreasing its mobility and rendering it easy to push off into a wall or trap. The wedge is also useful in deflecting attacks by other robots. Small wedge-lets are used to lift an opposing bot and feed it to a secondary weapon system. A small wedge may be attached to the rear of a robot with other weaponry for use as a 'backup' in case the main weapon fails. Like rammers, modern wedges must be combined with some other weapon to be legal in some modern competitions. The lower the degree of inclination of the wedge, the higher the chances of lifting the opponent bot from the ground. The 1995 US Robot Wars middleweight champion La Machine was an early and effective static wedge design, as was the Robot Wars Series 1 champion, Roadblock, in 1997. Two-time lightweight BattleBots champion Dr. Inferno Jr. was a low rectangular machine surrounded by hinged wedges. 2018 BattleBots competitor DUCK! utilized a powered lifting wedge. Original Sin is a four-wheeled ramming robot that has won eight heavyweight RoboGames competitions thanks to a combination of durability and hinged wedges. The Panzer series of robots have managed to win several competitions (Robotica season 3 and both seasons of Robot Wars: Extreme Warriors) with six-wheeled drive and a powered or unpowered wedge. +Thwackbot – A narrow, high-speed, usually two-wheel drive attached to a long boom with an impact weapon on the end creates a robot that can spin in place at a high speed, swinging the weapon in a horizontal circle. The simplicity and durability of the design are appealing, but the robot cannot be made to move in a controlled manner while spinning without employing sophisticated electronics (See Melty-Brain Spinner, below). The 1995 US Robot Wars lightweight champion Test Toaster 1 was a thwackbot, as were T-Wrex and Golddigger from the BattleBots series. +Torque Reaction – A variant on the thwackbot is the torque reaction hammer, also known as axlebots. These robots have two very large wheels with the small body of the robot hanging in between them. A long weapon boom has a vertically oriented hammer, pick, or axe on the end. On acceleration, the weapon boom swings upward and over to the rear of the robot to offset the motor torque. When the robot brakes or reverses direction, the weapon will swing forcibly back over the top and hopefully impact the opponent. These robots are simple and can put on a flashy, aggressive show, but their attack power is relatively small and, like thwackbots, they can be hard to control. BattleBots 2.0 middleweight champion Spaz was a torque reaction pickaxe robot, whilst Robot Wars Series 4 Grand Finalist Stinger primarily relied on a bludgeoning mace. BattleBots 3.0–5.0 semifinalist Overkill combined a wedge with a massive swinging blade. + +=== Spinners === +Spinners are weaponry based around blades, cylinders, discs, or bars rotating at high speed around an axis. This is among the most popular and destructive forms of weaponry, thanks to its potential to quickly deliver a high amount of kinetic energy over a small area. + +Saw Blades – A popular weapon in the early years of robotic combat, these robots use a dedicated motor to power either a modified chainsaw or circular saw, or a custom-built cutting disc, usually at high speeds (up to 10,000 rpm). The serrated blade is used to slice through an opponent's armour to try and reach its internal components. These weapons can create spectacular showers of sparks, and are easy to combine with other designs, but can be ineffective against robots with tougher armour. The aforementioned Robot Wars champion Roadblock had a rear-mounted circular saw in addition to its wedge, while Series 4 runner-up Pussycat had a custom cutting disc with four serrated blades. BattleBots 5.0 middleweight runner-up S.O.B. used a wide metal box (a "dustpan") in conjunction with a saw blade mounted on an arm. While true saws are obsolete in higher weight classes, a vertical spinner mounted on an articulating arm has seen renewed popularity in recent years. BattleBots 2023 champion SawBlaze combines a three-pronged dustpan design with a "hammer saw": a spinning blade mounted on a 180º pivoting arm. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4b5dea71d --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 4/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Vertical Spinner – A vertical disc or bar spinner consists of a thick circular disc or flat bar mounted on a horizontal axis. Rather than many small teeth to cut like a saw, most spinners have few large teeth to catch opponents and either throw them into the air or rip off chunks of armour. Vertical spinners are ubiquitous at all levels of competition, especially in the US. A majority of BattleBots competitors use spinning vertical discs or bars, and it is the most successful weapon type in the show. Notable robots using vertical spinners include 1.0 lightweight champion Backlash, its heavyweight brother Nightmare, 2018 and 2019 champion Bite Force, and 2021 champion End Game, among many others. 2022 BattleBots champion Tantrum bears a "puncher", with a small vertical spinner mounted on a sliding mechanism. Vertical spinners are less common in Robot Wars, with Series 5–6 competitor S3, Series 7 grand-finalist X-Terminator, and Series 9–10 competitor Aftershock as three notable exceptions. +Drum Spinner – Drum spinners are a variant of vertical spinners, consisting of a thick, short cylinder resembling a steamroller's wheel with teeth spinning on a horizontal axis. Drum spinners can accelerate faster than vertical discs or bars, but have less reach. Good drum spinners can land a solid hit almost every time they contact another robot and send it flying as high as a normal vertical disc or bar. Drums are also much thicker, meaning almost the entire front of the robot is taken up by a weapon. Drum spinners tend to suffer from extreme drive issues due to the large amounts of gyroscopic forces. Among the most successful drum spinners are designed by the Brazilian Team RioBotz: BattleBots competitor Minotaur and its RoboGames equivalent, Touro Maximus. Four-wheeled drum spinners are a popular design in China, with RoboGames competitor Chiyung Jinlun and King of Bots competitor Xiake (from the same team) as reliable finalists in televised competitions. Drum spinners are also effective at lower weight classes, such as two-time RoboGames lightweight champion UnMakerBot, NHRL champion beetleweight Shreddit Bro, and the commercially available Weta kit beetleweight bots. +Eggbeater – An eggbeater spinner is similar to a drum but uses a broad rectangular frame, rather than a solid cylinder as its choice of weapon shape. Eggbeaters are lighter and have a higher moment of inertia (and thus higher rotational kinetic energy) per unit of mass than drums, but due to their less aerodynamic design, they are usually most effective at lower weight classes. The 3-pound (Beetleweight) robot Lynx has dominated its weight class to such an extent that it temporarily retired to give other teams a chance to win. Robots in heavier weight classes have started to adopt eggbeaters despite high fabrication costs, with Riptide reaching the quarterfinals in its 2022 BattleBots debut and the following season. +Vertical discs, bars, drums, and eggbeaters are continuous with each other to the point where it can be difficult to cleanly define each weapon type. For example, BattleBots 2019 and 2022 runner-up Witch Doctor has used a two-toothed "drisc", which is narrower than a drum but broader than a disc. BattleBots competitor Copperhead uses a broad steel drum with notches cut out, giving it similar properties to an eggbeater. Brazilian Team Ua!rrior has fielded successful drisc and eggbeater bots at multiple weight classes, including Federal M.T. (four-time RoboGames lightweight champion), General (two-time RoboGames middleweight champion), and Black Dragon (2019–present BattleBots competitor) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dd47f88b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 5/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Horizontal Spinner – Horizontal spinners rotate around a vertical axis, with the rotating blade or disc typically mounted below, under, or at mid-height on the front of the robot. Undercutters have a spinner low enough almost to scrape the ground. Thanks to their broad reach, horizontal spinners can impart large impacts and may throw other robots across the arena floor. Tombstone, a spinner armed with a horizontal bar, was the champion of BattleBots 2016, and its sister machine Last Rites has been a renowned competitor in RoboGames since 2005. Notable British horizontal spinners include Hypno-Disc (a grand finalist in Robot Wars series 3–5) and Carbide (champion of Robot Wars series 9). Some robots have a bar-shaped horizontal spinner mounted above the center of a low rectangular chassis. Horizontal spinners with this design include three-time BattleBots middleweight champion Hazard, American mid–late 2000s competitor Brutality, and modern Battlebots competitors Icewave and Bloodsport. +Full Body Spinner – Taking the concept of the spinner to the extreme, a full-body spinner rotates a massive horizontally spinning mechanism around the entire circumference of the robot as a stored energy weapon. Other robot components (batteries, weapon motor casing) may be attached to the shell to increase the spinning mass while keeping the mass of the drive train to a minimum. Full body spinners require more time to spin the weapon up to speed, typically cannot self-right without the assistance of stabilizing bars, and can be unstable — the original BattleBots competitor Mauler was an infamous example in its first few years of competition. +Shell spinner – Shell spinners are the most common variety of full-body spinner, encasing the robot in a spinning shell powered from below by an electric motor. These shells may be cylindrical, conical, or dome-shaped. The 1995 US Robot Wars heavyweight co-champion Blendo was the first effective shell spinner, with its weapon derived from a metal wok. Among the most successful shell spinners are three-time BattleBots lightweight champion Ziggo and Robot Wars Series 7 champion Typhoon 2. Some shell spinners have competed nearly continuously since 2001, including Team LOGICOM's Shrederator series and Team Robotic Death Company's Megabyte. Both teams have seen success in untelevised and televised events in the United States and China. +Ring / Rim spinner – Robots with ring or rim spinners impact opponents with a ring-shaped blade or battering surface spinning around the circumference of the chassis. These designs have the advantage of invertibility, at the cost of complexity, since they rely on a series of gears to translate motor power to the external ring. BattleBots 2016 competitor The Ringmaster is an example of a ring-spinner. +Cage / Overhead spinner – A cage spinner impacts opponents with a spinning open frame resembling a helicopter rotor rather than a solid shell. These spinners are particularly uncommon. The most notable example is BattleBots 3.0 heavyweight champion Son of Whyachi, armed with bludgeoning hammerheads attached to a triangular spinning frame. +Full-body drum spinner – A full-body drum spinner is similar in construction to a thwackbot, with a tubular two-wheeled chassis encased by a vertically spinning cylindrical shell. These designs are rare and notoriously unreliable despite their high damage potential. Examples include Robot Wars competitor Barber-Ous and BattleBots competitor Axe Backwards. +Melty-Brain Spinner (also known as Tornado Drive or Translational Drift)– A variation of the full-body spinner designed to operate without an independent weapon motor. These robots utilize a complex combination of rotational sensors and fine motor control to drive in such a way that the entire robot can simultaneously rotate on the spot and move across an arena in a controlled manner. The drive is usually implemented with an LED light system that indicates to the driver the direction the robot will move when commanded to move forward. This kind of design tends to be incorporated into invertible builds and requires a spin-up time like other spinners. One of the earliest known examples of this kind of robot is BattleBots lightweight Herr Gepoünden, a thwackbot that reached the quarter-finals of season 3.0 and persisted in untelevised competitions until 2024, long past the heyday of other lightweight thwackbots. The most successful heavyweight melty-brain spinner is Nuts 2, which had chains connected to two "flail" weapons on either side of the machine. Nuts 2 ultimately finished joint 3rd (with Behemoth) in Series 10 of Robot Wars, ending the dominant run of Series 8 finalist and Series 9 champion Carbide along the way by breaking the robot's weapon chain. Additionally, NHRL competitor Project Liftoff has also seen a considerable degree of success with melty-brain technology. + +=== Control bot weaponry === +Lifter – Using tactics similar to a wedge, the lifter uses a powered arm, prow, or platform to get underneath the opponent and lift it away from the arena surface to remove its maneuverability. The lifter may then push the other robot toward arena traps or attempt to toss the opponent onto its back. The lifter is typically powered by either an electric or pneumatic actuator. Lifters were most effective in older competitions when self-righting mechanisms and high-power weaponry were less common. Two-time US Robot Wars and four-time BattleBots heavyweight champion Biohazard used an electric lifting arm to great effect. Lifting forks were utilized by Robot Wars series 2 champion Panic Attack and two-time BattleBots heavyweight champion Vlad the Impaler. Thanks to their narrow profile and simplicity, lifters are often combined with other weaponry. Sewer Snake, four-time RoboGames heavyweight champion, was a six-wheeled rammer with a lifting wedge. Modern BattleBots competitor Whiplash has seen success by combining a small spinning disc and lifting arm into a single weapon. In recent years, robots across multiple weight classes have employed the use of "cam lifters", which are thin blades that rotate axially to high-center opponents. This lifter variation was first employed in 2020 and has been employed by the NHRL 2023 Finals beetleweight runner-up Supreme Ruler to great effect. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5b9704b44 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 6/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Flipper – Although mechanically resembling a lifter, the flipper uses much higher levels of pneumatic power to launch a lifting arm or panel upward at high acceleration similar to a catapult. An effective flipper can throw opponents end-over-end through the air, causing damage from the landing impact or, in Robot Wars, toss it completely out of the arena. Flippers use a large volume of compressed gas and often have a limited number of effective attacks before their supply runs low. +CO2-powered flippers are among the most abundant weapon types in UK heavyweight competitions. The two-time Robot Wars champion Chaos 2 used a flipping plate powerful enough to throw other robots out of the arena. Other successful Robot Wars flippers include Series 5 runner-up Bigger Brother, Series 8 champion Apollo, and Series 10 champion Eruption, among many others. Behemoth, armed with a flipping scoop, has been competing continuously since Series 2 in 1998 and finally reached joint 3rd place in Series 10 in 2017. Some British flippers have been significantly more successful in untelevised competitions, such as Ripper, Kronic, and the Iron Awe series. British flippers have also competed in China, including Vulcan (from Team Apollo) and Tánshè (TIFR runner-up, from Team Hurtz) +While most flippers operate with the flipping mechanism hinged at the machine's rear, Robot Wars' Firestorm achieved remarkable success with a front-hinged flipper, placing third in Robot Wars on three separate occasions (Series 3, 5, and 6) and never failing to advance to the series' semifinal rounds. Robot Wars Series 2 runner-up Cassius also utilized a front-hinged flipping arm. +Most American flippers utilize Nitrogen gas, though carbon dioxide was also used back in the old Battlebots, but this gas has been banned now. Team Inertia Labs has had great success in BattleBots with robots utilizing a characteristic flipping arm design. Their machines include BattleBots 4.0 superheavyweight champion Toro, BattleBots 5.0 middleweight champion T-Minus, and BattleBots 2015 semi-finalist Bronco. A similar flipping mechanism was used by 2006–2010 RoboGames superheavyweight competitor Ziggy, a machine so dominant that it has been attributed as one of several factors responsible for the retirement of the superheavyweight class. Ziggy's heavyweight successor, Ziggy Jr., competes in BattleBots under the name Lucky. +Experimental flippers have seen some success in recent seasons of BattleBots. Hydra, introduced by Team Whyachi in 2019, is able to store a huge number of powerful flips by relying on compressed hydraulic fluid rather than pneumatic gas. Blip, introduced by Team Seems Reasonable in 2021, powers its flipping plate using energy stored in a cord wound by an electric flywheel. +Stabber – Mechanically similar to the flipper is the stabber, a rare weapon type that throws or stabs opponents forward with a pneumatic spike. An effective stabber can penetrate into the opponent, damage vital inner parts. When they fail to penetrate, they throw their opponent back across the arena into walls or traps. Stabbers typically use a large volume of compressed gas, which limits the number of times they can fire their weapon in a fight. Classic BattleBots superheavyweight competitor Rammstein was a stabber. +Clamper / Grabber – Clampers and Grabbers are an example of robots oriented around controlling and grappling their opponents rather than direct damage. They make use of an arm or claw that descends from above to secure the opposing robot in place on a wedge or lifting platform. In some clampers, the entire assembly may lift and carry the opponent wherever the operator pleases: these were called grapplers. Diesector, the superheavyweight champion of BattleBots 2.0 and 5.0, combined an electric clamper with smaller hammer arms. Middleweight BattleBots 4.0 runner-up Complete Control was another successful lifting clamper. Big Nipper, a horizontal grabber/lifter, won several untelevised championships in the UK after the end of Robot Wars. Bite Force won the 2015 season of BattleBots using a grabbing arm as its only form of weaponry, though in subsequent series its design was modified into a vertical spinner on a four-wheeled chassis. +Crusher – Crushers are similar to grabbers, though they emphasize damage via one or more piercing hydraulic arms. Like flywheels, crushers can be separated into horizontal and vertical variants. Robot Wars Series 5 champion Razer was the first vertical crusher, and by far the most successful of its era. Another UK-built vertical crusher, Spectre, won the first King of Bots tournament in 2018, and has competed in BattleBots 2019 and 2023 under the name Quantum. Two-time Robot Wars Annihilator champion Kan-Opener was armed with a pair of horizontal crushing claws, one of the few examples of a successful horizontal crusher. + +=== Hammers and axes === +Swinging an overhead axe, spike, or hammer at high speed onto an opponent offers another method of attacking the vulnerable top surface. The weapon is typically driven by a pneumatic or electric actuator via a rack and pinion or direct mechanical linkage. The attack may damage the opposing robot directly or may lodge in their robot and provide a handle for dragging them toward a trap. Several successful hammerbots have been designed by UK's Team Hurtz: Battlebots 1.0 heavyweight semi-finalist Killerhurtz was armed with a spike-headed pneumatic axe, Robot Wars Series 6 grand finalist Terrorhurtz possessed a two-bladed pneumatic axe, and Battlebots 2016 quarter-finalist Beta utilized an electric hammer. Robot Wars Series 2 grand finalist Killertron was one of the earliest effective examples of an axebot, with a two-headed electrically powered pickaxe. Other successful hammerbots include Deadblow (BattleBots 1.0 middleweight runner-up), FrenZy (BattleBots 2.0 heavyweight semi-finalist), Dominator 2 (Robot Wars series 4–6 competitor), Thor (Robot Wars series 6–10 competitor), Chomp (BattleBots 2016 quarter-finalist), and Shatter! (BattleBots 2021 quarter-finalist). Chomp is a rare example of a combat robot with autonomous technology, with hardware and software integrated so that it always faces its opponent during a match. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-6.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..10ea49791 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-6.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 7/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Interchangeable weaponry === +It is increasingly common for robots to have interchangeable weaponry or other modular components, allowing them to adapt to a wide range of opponents and increasing their versatility; such robots are often referred to as "Swiss army bots", in reference to Swiss army knives. Arguably the earliest example was Robot Wars Series 1 contestant Plunderbird, which could change between a pneumatic spike and a circular saw on an extendable arm. Successful Swiss army bots include Robot Wars Series 6 champion Tornado, BattleBots 2016 runner-up Bombshell, Battlebots 2020 quarterfinalist and 2023 semifinalist Ribbot, and top-ranked US Beetleweight Silent Spring. +Sometimes, robots that were not originally Swiss army bots have had their weapons changed or altered on the fly, typically due to malfunctions. In BattleBots 2015, Ghost Raptor's spinning bar weapon broke in its first fight; builder Chuck Pitzer then improvised new weapons for each following fight, including a "De-Icer" arm attachment which it used to unbalance and defeat bar spinner Icewave in the quarter-finals. + +=== Prohibited weaponry === +Since the first robot combat competitions, some types of weapons have been prohibited either because they violated the spirit of the competition or they could not be safely used. Prohibited weapons have generally included: + +Radio jamming +High voltage electric discharge +Liquids (glue, oil, water, corrosives...) +Fire (except in the new BattleBots and National Havoc) +Explosives +Un-tethered projectiles (except in BattleBots from 2018 season onwards) +Entanglers (except in Robot Wars from series 10 onwards) +Lasers above 1 milliwatt +Visual obstruction +Halon – a specific fire-extinguishing gas effective as a weapon in stopping internal combustion engines. Note that current rules do not specifically ban Halon as it is no longer commercially available. +Individual competitions have made exceptions to the above list. Notably, the Robotica competitions allowed flame weapons and the release of limited quantities of liquids on a case-by-case basis. The modern series of BattleBots also permits the use of flamethrowers and, as of 2016, untethered projectiles, provided that the latter are merely for show. Competitions may also restrict or ban certain otherwise legal weapons, such as banning spinners and other high-power weapons at events where the arena is not able to contain these weapons, and the new Battlebots recently banned usage of carbon dioxide gas. A well-known example of this is the Sportsman ruleset. +Arena traps have also been granted exceptions to the list of prohibited weapons. Robot Wars in particular used flame devices both in the stationary traps and on one of the roaming "House Robots". + +=== Unusual weaponry and tactics === + +A very wide variety of unusual weapons and special design approaches have been tried with varying success and several types of weapons would have been tried had they not been prohibited. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-7.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..89b1fce36 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-7.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 8/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +SRiMech – Many robots are incapable of driving inverted (upside-down), due to their shape, weaponry, or both. However, others risk immobilization if turned over off of their wheels. A SRiMech (self-righting mechanism) is not inherently a form of weaponry, but rather a design element that returns an inverted robot to mobility in the upright state. The SRiMech is typically an electric or pneumatic arm or extension on the upper surface of the robot which pushes against the arena floor to roll or flip the robot upright. Most flippers, some lifters, and even some carefully designed axes or vertical spinners can double as SRiMechs. Team Nightmare's lightweight vertical spinner Backlash was designed such that when flipped it would hit the ground with the spinning disc and kick back upright (though this never worked). The first successful unaided use of an SRiMech in competition was at the 1997 U.S. Robot Wars, when the immobilized Vlad the Impaler used a dedicated pneumatic device to pop back upright in a match against Biohazard. The first competitor to use a SRiMech in a televised competition was Cassius, using its front-hinged flipping arm to right itself in Robot Wars series 2. +Entangling weapons – Several early US Robot Wars competitors sought to immobilize their opponents with entangling weapons. Nets and streamers of adhesive tape were both tried with mixed success. Entangling weapons were prohibited in Robot Wars and BattleBots from 1997 onward, but the Robotica competitions allowed nets, magnets, and other entanglers on a case-by-case basis, and Robot Wars allowed limited use of entanglers in Series 10. One of the more infamous recent usages of entanglers was a BattleBots fight between Complete Control and Ghost Raptor in the first reboot season, where a net was hidden in a "present" held by Complete Control and rammed into Ghost Raptor, jamming the spinner and other mechanics. The match was stopped, but Derek Young, the driver and captain of Complete Control, mentioned that entanglers weren't explicitly forbidden in the new ruleset, which was true, but a rematch was scheduled with the explicit note of nets being forbidden from then on. +Flame weapons – Although prohibited for use by competitors in Robot Wars and the first edition (2000–05) of BattleBots, the rules for Robotica, the Robot Fighting League, and the post-2015 version of BattleBots do allow flame weapons under some circumstances. RFL super heavyweight competitor Alcoholic Stepfather (unique for using mecanum wheels for movement around an arena) and Robotica competitor Solar Flare, as well as the later BattleBots series competitors Free Shipping and overhead pneumatic-pickaxe armed Chomp employing gaseous flamethrower weapons. Gruff is a BattleBots competitor that competed with its main weapon solely as a high-power flamethrower (two as of season 5) with the help of a lifter, with moderate success. Flamethrowers are seldom effective weapons, mainly due to their effectiveness being limited for safety reasons, but are audience favorites. However, flamethrower robots have seen recent success at National Havoc Robot League since plastic is a common building material, with robots like Dutch Oven and Mixtape regularly making deep runs in qualifying events and both making the knockout phase of the 2024 NHRL World Championships. The most successful flamethrower robot at NHRL is undoubtedly Clyde, which has earned multiple podium finishes at Championship Qualifier events and won the June 2024 Golden Dumpster. +Smothering weapons – The BattleBots and Robot Wars lightweight competitor Tentoumushi used a large plastic sandbox cover shaped like a ladybug ("tentoumushi" being Japanese for ladybug) on a powered arm to drop down over opposing robots, covering and encircling them. Once covered, it was difficult to tell what the opponent was doing and who was dragging whom around the arena. One version of the robot had a circular saw concealed under the cover to inflict physical damage, another had a small grappling hook. +Tethered projectiles – Although tethered projectiles are specifically allowed and discussed in major rules sets, their use is quite rare. Neptune fought at BattleBots 3.0 with pneumatic spears on tethers, but was unable to damage its opponent. During a friendly weapons test, Team Juggerbot allowed the builders of Neptune to take a couple shots against their bot. One of two shots penetrated an aluminum panel below the main armor, while the other bounced off the top armor. +Multibots (clusterbots) – A single robot that breaks apart into multiple, independently controlled robots has appealed to a few competitors. The Robot Wars heavyweight Gemini and the BattleBots middleweight Pack Raptors were two-part multibots that had some success. The rules concerning clusterbots have varied over the years, either stating that 50% of the clusterbot has to be immobilised to eliminate the robot from the tournament (in the Dutch version of Robot Wars, there was a 3-part multibot named √3, and although one of its parts was tossed out of the arena by Matilda, the robot as a whole was still deemed mobile, and the other 2 parts of √3 did enough to win the match), or that all of a multibot's segments have to be incapacitated before a knock-out victory can be declared, and members without active weapons no longer count. Current Robot Fighting League match rules require the latter to be achieved. In recent years, successful heavyweight multibots include Thunder and Lightning (a pair of vertical spinners that came in 4th place in King of Bots season 1) and Crash n' Burn (a pair of wedgebots competing in RoboGames). Multibots have seen great success at NHRL because the ruleset grants them a 33% weight bonus, with beetleweights Booty Brigade and Repeater winning the 2023 and 2024 Finals respectively. +Minibots (nuisancebots) – Similar to the concept of multibots, minibots are small robots, typically no larger than a featherweight, that fight alongside a larger main robot with the aim of harassing or distracting opponents. They are often sacrificial in nature and have minimal weaponry. BattleBots 2015 competitor Witch Doctor was accompanied by a featherweight minibot named Shaman which was equipped with a flamethrower, and which gained significant popularity for its spirited performances during battles. Other Battlebots competitors also successfully used minibots such as Son of Whyachi in 2016, and 2018 competitor WAR Hawk and their beetleweight minibot WAR Stop, which was equipped with a wedge. The cam lifter minibot Needle debuted alongside Tracer in 2020 and has since competed with Jackpot under the alias Ace. +Halon gas – Rhino fought at the 1997 U.S. Robot Wars event with a halon gas fire extinguisher, which was very effective at stopping internal combustion engines. Gas weapons of this nature were promptly prohibited from future competitions. +Pneumatic Cannon – First implemented by season eight Battlebots competitor Double Jeopardy, the robot fired off a 5-pound (2.3 kg) "slug" at 190 mph (310 km/h), exerting 4,500 pounds-force (20,000 N) upon impact. This robot, however, did not perform well during its competition, as it only had one shot at landing a good hit: from there, it would have to rely on pushing its opponents, at which it failed. It subsequently upgraded its cannon to be more powerful and added the ability to fire more than one shot, though as of its last appearance in 2021, it has only one win under its belt. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-8.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-8.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5927c9750 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-8.md @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 9/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Unusual propulsion == + +The great majority of combat robots roll on wheels, which are very effective on the smooth surfaces used for typical robot combat competition. Other propulsion strategies do pop-up with some frequency. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-9.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-9.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d5832f3e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat-9.md @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +--- +title: "Robot combat" +chunk: 10/11 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_combat" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:55.912995+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Tank treads – Numerous combat robots have used treads or belts in place of wheels in an attempt to gain additional traction. Treads are generally heavier and more vulnerable to damage than a wheeled system and offer no particular traction advantage on the types of surfaces common in robot combat. Most uses of treads are for their striking appearance. The Robot Wars competitors Track-tion, 101 and Mortis along with the BattleBots super heavyweight Ronin used treads. Biteforce, the winner of the 2015 Battlebots Competitions, originally used magnets embedded in its treads in an attempt to gain extra downforce without extra weight. Current users of treads include 2022–2023 NHRL champion and BattleBots contestant Emulsifier and BattleBots fan-favorite Rusty. Walking – The spectacle of a multi-legged robot walking across the arena into combat is a big audience favorite. Robot combat rules typically have given walking robots an additional weight allowance to offset their slower speed, the complexity of the mechanism, and to encourage their construction. What the event organizers had in mind was something like the spider-legged robot Mechadon, but what most often was produced were simple rule-shaving propulsion systems that attempted to save as much of the extra weight allowance as possible for additional weaponry. Attempts at more restrictive definitions of "Walking" have effectively eliminated walking robots from competition. BattleBots heavyweight champion Son of Whyachi used a controversial cam-driven "Shufflebot" propulsion system, which was promptly declared ineligible for additional weight allowance at subsequent competitions. The most recent true walker to appear on BattleBots was the 2020 iteration of Chomp, a 500 pounds (230 kg) robot that moved using six legs and was equipped with a hammer and flamethrower system on a turret. The enormous walker still retained similar autonomous technology as its predecessor, but it was extremely slow and had a below-average win record. Gyroscopic precession – Used in the Antweight robot Gyrobot, as well as the Battlebots competitor Wrecks, this system uses a gyroscope and stationary feet that lift as the entire robot rotates due to gyroscopic precession when the gyroscope is tilted by a servo motor. This design can use the gyroscope as a spinning weapon (horizontal or vertical) which allows for efficient double-usage of the gyroscope mass. Although Gyrobot and Wrecks appear to be walking as it translates across the arena, they are not classified as walking robots under current rules. This unusual drive train produces strange and often unpredictable movements, though has shown to be successful in combat. Torque reaction - Torque reaction has seen use in lower weight classes for both weaponry and locomotion. A famous example of this is in the beetleweight Droopy, which alters the speed of its two angled horizontal spinners to waddle forwards and turn via self-induced gyroscopic precession and the conservation of angular momentum. Full-bodied beetleweight drum spinner robots Noob Tube and Bee Roll use two powerful motors to simultaneously drive their wheels and weapon as a result of this principle. Suction fan – Several competitors experimented with the use of fans to evacuate air from a low-clearance shell to suck the robot down onto the arena surface and add traction. Robotica competitor Armorgeddon used a suction fan to increase traction and pushing power, and Robot Wars and Battlebots competitor Killerhurtz experimented with use of a suction fan to counter the forces from its hammer/axe weapon, a system that was demonstrated as giving the robot the ability to climb walls but was never utilised in combat. Similar designs have appeared in robot-sumo competitions where traction is a key factor. Magnetic Wheels – Another approach to gaining traction and stability involves the use of rare-earth magnets, either ring-shaped as wheels or simply attached to the robot's base. This is, naturally, only effective in arenas that have magnetic metal surfaces. Due to the expense of large ring magnets, this trick has been used almost exclusively in three-pound and under "insect class" robots, although a lightweight battlebot General Gau tried implementing them. A multibot named Hammer and Anvil would later use magnets in the lightweight category, with some success. Heavyweight Robotica competitor Hot Wheels attempted to use a large chassis-mounted magnet to gain traction and apparent weight, and Beta unsuccessfully attempted to use an electromagnet to counter the reaction forces of its massive hammer weapon at the BattleBots competition. This however was removed for future competitions as the power of the magnets rendered the robot unable to move. Mecanum wheels – Together with a specialized motor control system, mecanum wheels allow controlled motion in any direction without turning, as demonstrated by Alcoholic Stepfather in a 2004 match, and by the hammer-wielding Battlebots competitor Shatter! in 2019. Flying – The 1995 US Robot Wars event had a flying competitor: S.P.S. #2 was a lighter-than-air craft buoyed by three weather balloons and propelled by small electric fans. It attempted to drop a net on the opponent. Nearly invulnerable to attack, it won the first match against Orb of Doom (see reference below), but ventured too close to the arena floor in the second match and was dragged down and "popped". Starting in 2016, BattleBots permitted the use of drones as "nuisance bots"; these typically proved hard to control, and one was memorably swatted out of the air by a rake that competitor HyperShock had attached to its lifting forks. These drones are usually armed with flamethrowers, but there is no evidence that these have ever had an effect on the opponent, and as of World Championship VII, only one drone, named Spitfire, remains, and it is used very infrequently. Rolling sphere – The aforementioned Orb of Doom was a featherweight competitor at the 1995 US Robot Wars. It consisted of a lightweight, rigid shell made of carbon fiber-kevlar cloth and polyester resin, applied over a foam core pattern. Inside was an offset-weight mechanism made from a battery-powered electric drill. A similar-looking robot named Psychosprout appeared in the UK Robot Wars. Rolling tube – Snake competed at Battlebots and the US Robot Wars using a series of actuators to bend its triangular cross-section tubular body to roll, writhe, and slither across the arena. Shuffling – refers to the movement of robots that are propelled by a cam-driven system. See Walking +Brush Drive – Similar to Gyroscopic precession, brush drive uses brushes affixed to the bottom of the robot, akin to non-combat bristlebots. These work in tandem with a pair of vertical spinning weapons to make the robot slide across the arena. This form of locomotion has been utilized by RoboGames 2017 competitor Clean Sweeper. Alternatively, brush drive has been shown to work with slightly-offset horizontal spinners, as the infamous NHRL featherweight Depth Charge could vibrate across the arena via two massive steel discs that were powerful enough to breach the arena's inner layer. Magnets and Rapid Deceleration – While it has never been done, an entrant to Battlebots' seventh season, titled Bad Penny, had planned on using a magnetic system combined with a braking system to move their robot around the arena. Six magnets would pull down on the floor with over 2000 pounds (~909 kilograms) of force. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a16bae94b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "SCALE-UP" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:57.382361+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +SCALE-UP, Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies, is a classroom specifically created to facilitate active, collaborative learning in a classroom. The spaces are carefully designed to facilitate interactions between teams of students who work on short, interesting tasks revolving around specific content. Some people think the rooms look more like restaurants than classrooms. + + +== History == +Originally developed in 1997 by Robert Beichner at North Carolina State University to help with large enrollment physics courses. At this time, SCALE-UP stood for 'Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Physics.' Although originated at North Carolina State University, more than five hundred colleges across the US and around the world are known to have directly adopted the SCALE-UP model and adapted it to their particular needs. When SCALE-UP was incorporated in different disciplines then the name was changed to 'Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs.' Now, because of the increasing number of pre-college installations, plus to draw attention to the instruction pedagogy as well as the space, the name has become "Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies." +The basic idea is that students are given something interesting to investigate. While they work in teams on these "tangibles" (hands-on measurements or observations) and "ponderables" (interesting, complex problems), the instructor is free to roam around the classroom–--asking questions, sending one team to help another, or asking why someone else got a different answer. There is no separate lab class and most of the "lectures" are actually class-wide discussions. The groups are carefully structured and give students many opportunities to interact. Three teams (labelled a, b, and c) sit at each round table and have white boards nearby. Each team has a laptop in case they need web access. The original design called for 11 round tables of nine students, but many schools have smaller classes while a few have even larger ones. + + +== Components == +Tables that encourage group collaboration and interactions +Tables can have multiple shapes. The original SCALE-UP tables called for a decagon shaped table where students sat on one side of the table in "pods." There are modifications to the original tables which were D-shaped tables that sit six students (2 on each side) all facing the front of the classroom or the main projector. There is another option in which the tables are round and students can sit in groups of 3 (3 groups at the table). +Technology +Technology includes: video screens, computers for the students, instructor station, document camera, projectors. In a high-tech classroom there are individual computers that can be plugged into mounted monitors that can show the table or the whole class. In a low tech classroom there is only a main projector at the front of the classroom. +Student Whiteboards + +There are whiteboards given to each table. These whiteboards can be mounted on a wall or a board that can be placed on the table in the middle. + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_advice-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_advice-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0777aa7ac --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_advice-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +title: "Science advice" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_advice" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:59.887715+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Science advice is the process, structures and institutions through which governments and politicians consider science, technology and innovation information in policy- and decision- making. Across different national governments and international bodies, there are a variety of structures and institutions for scientific advice. They reflect distinctive cultures and traditions of decision-making, which Sheila Jasanoff has termed the 'civic epistemology' through which expert claims are constructed, validated or challenged in a given society. +Science advice can also be called "science for policy", indicating the flow of information from scientific to policy domains with the intention of informing decisions. This is distinct from "policy for science", the institutions, rules and norms governing how science is funded, conducted, and communicated. +At the national level, countries have diverse models for how to connect scientists and policymakers. In some countries, the president of the National academy, an elected organization of distinguished researchers in natural and social sciences, engineering, medicine, and the humanities, serves as a government science advisor, while other countries have an advisory committee or civil servants perform this role. National academies are often commissioned to write reports advising government on the state of scientific knowledge to inform policy-relevant questions, such as the risk from chemicals or disease. +Other countries, such as the UK, have a wide range of sources of expert scientific advice which draw on several of these sources. +At the international level, there is an increasing movement to bring together national science advisors to share best practices and form a network to deal with global challenges (e.g., pandemics, climate change). The first global Science Advice to Governments meeting was held in Auckland, New Zealand on August 27–28, 2014. This meeting brought together high-level science advisors, scientists, and practitioners to discuss the relationship between science and policy. A new network of European science academies was established at the European Open Science meeting in Copenhagen in June 2014, which now includes 20 countries. +The International Council for Science (ICSU) is a major international organization with a program in science for policy. + + +== Science advice structures == +A briefing paper, described four of the most commonly used science advice structures for jurisdictions: advisory councils, advisory committees, national academies, and chief scientific advisors. These structures are most commonly employed at the national level, but may also be used in sub-national jurisdictions like Quebec, or supra-national bodies like the European Commission, which has an in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre. +Science advice also occurs at sub-national levels, where structures may include departmental scientific advisors (for example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and at the international level, where networks such as the International Council for Science coordinate science for policy, for example through serving as the science voice in the United Nations. +For any of these structures, individual experts may be asked for advice in specific circumstances. + + +== Science advice by jurisdiction (nation-state, sub-national jurisdictions, and supra-national bodies) == + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Engineering_Challenge-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Engineering_Challenge-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..aafffbbb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Engineering_Challenge-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: "Science and Engineering Challenge" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Engineering_Challenge" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:21:01.112424+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Science and Engineering Challenge (SEC) is a non-profit, STEM outreach program run throughout the schools year in Australia. The goal of the program is to challenge student’s perception of science and engineering and experience aspects of those fields that they normally would not encounter in a school environment. +The SEC focuses on inspiring students in year 10 to consider a future career in science and engineering by choosing to study science and mathematics in years 11 and 12. The SEC also includes other events such as Discovery Days and the S.M.A.R.T outreach program. + + +== History == +The SEC began at the University of Newcastle as an initiative of the Faculties of Engineering and Built Environment, and Science and Information Technology. Initially, information nights were conducted aimed at giving students and parents from rural areas the opportunity to find out about careers in science and engineering. Based on the success of these information nights, the first SEC event was held on the Central Coast in the year 2000, as an activity for National Science Week. Throughout 2001, events were held around the Newcastle area and other parts of NSW. +2002 saw the first Challenge Days held outside of NSW, this took place in Canberra. Over the next three years, Challenge Days were conducted in Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. In 2005 the winners from each state competed at the first National Final. +In 2017 there were 110 SMART events, 49 Discovery Days for primary-aged students, and 99 Challenge Days for year 9-10 students. Overall more than 50,000 people were involved in one or more SEC programs. Almost 2,100 teachers and 3,600 other volunteers were also involved. +Since 1998 over half a million people have taken part in a SEC event. + + +== Discovery Days == +In 2005 the Challenge expanded yet again to include events for primary school students, called Discovery Days. These are largely the same as regular challenge events; however, the actives are simplified and typical run for a shorter period of time. + + +== Programs == +The Little Scientists program: Train preschool teachers to incorporate STEM into their lessons +SMART program of science shows and workshops: Infants and Primary-aged students +Discovery Days: Mini-Challenge Days for students in years 5-6 +Build a Future Days: A fascinating on-campus experience for year 7-8 students +Challenge Days (our premier event): National STEM competition for year 9-10 students +Casual work and Internships with the SEC Team +Teacher Professional Development: For School Teachers + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_capital-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_capital-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b559889eb --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_capital-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +--- +title: "Science capital" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_capital" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:21:02.278509+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Science capital is a conceptual tool developed by Louise Archer and colleagues at King's College London. It uses the theoretical frameworks created by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to summarise an individual’s science-related habitus and capital. It can be used to help understanding how social class affects people's aspirations and involvement in science. The concept comes from research in education but is also used more broadly in practice and policy, for instance in the work of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons in the UK. + + +== Definition == +Science capital can be defined as the sum of all the science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences and resources that an individual builds up through their life. This includes what science they know about, what they think about science, the people they know who have an understanding of science, and the day-to-day engagement they have with science. +Science capital is made up of science related cultural and social capital (institutionalized and/or embodied through knowledge, consumption, credentials, and social networks) as well as habitus. Researchers have suggested that science capital does not exist in isolation but has its value determined by someone's wider context and environment. +Science capital has been framed around eight key dimensions, drawing on statistical analysis of survey data from UK school students: + +Scientific literacy +Science-related attitudes, values and dispositions +Knowledge about the transferability of science (that science 'open doors' to many careers) +Science media consumption +Participation in out-of-school science learning contexts +Family science skills, knowledge and qualifications +Knowing people in science-related roles +Talking about science in everyday life +These eight dimensions collapse into four 'types' of science capital: what you know (scientific literacy); how you think (attitudes and dispositions); what you do (science-related activities and behaviours); and who you know (social contacts and networks). The first three 'types' include habitus and cultural capital and the fourth, social capital. Research shows that measuring science capital provides a better prediction of science aspirations than a general measure of capital. + + +== History == +The concept of science capital draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s work about capital and social reproduction. Science capital builds on, but is distinct from, how Pierre Bourdieu used the terms scientific, technical or technological capital. Science Capital is not a new or separate form of capital. Instead, science capital is a way to think about grouping different kinds of science-related social and cultural capital, particularly those that people could use or exchange to support their attainment, engagement and/or participation in science. +Science capital was first developed by Louise Archer and colleagues in the ASPIRES project. Building on five years of research with youths aged 10–14 and their families, ASPIRES found that children from families with more science related-resources (such as parents with scientific hobbies or careers) were more likely to want to pursue science at school and as a career. The concept of science capital was developed as a way to understand why these science-related resources, attitudes and aspirations led some children to pursue science, while others did not. +Science capital was developed conceptually and empirically through the Enterprising Science project and the ASPIRES 2 project. The Enterprising Science project developed a survey to measure science capital and extended the concept of science capital beyond homes and into schools and museums. Science capital is being used to develop strategies for teaching in primary and secondary schools and to develop measures of science capital for adults. + + +== ASPIRES == +ASPIRES, currently based at UCL Institute of Education, is a 10-year longitudinal research project studying young people’s science and career aspirations. The first ASPIRES study (2009-2013) tracked young people's science and career aspirations from age 10–14. ASPIRES 2 continues to track young people until age 19, to understand the changing influences of the family, school, careers education and social identities and inequalities on young people's science and career aspirations. Key findings include: + +Students with low Science Capital are unlikely to see science as ‘for me’. In the first phase of our project, we introduced the term Science Capital to refer to someone’s science-related qualifications, understanding, knowledge (about science and ‘how it works’), interest and social contacts (e.g. knowing someone who works in a science-related job). +Enjoyment of Science doesn’t translate into science aspirations. +Current careers education is not just ‘patchy’ but patterned, particularly in terms of social inequalities. +The stratification of science at Key Stage 4 may be contributing to the STEM skills gap. +Girls pursuing the physical sciences post-16 are exceptional. +This project was first based at King’s College London, having moved to the UCL Institute of Education in March 2017. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. + + +== Science capital in practice == +Science capital is used across a variety of educational settings to support science learning, particularly for children. For instance, one British school aims to help students to develop science capital through taking part in science clubs, while on a larger scale, the Science Museum Group uses science capital as a concept to inform their strategy and work across all their partner institutions. In Ireland, Science Gallery Dublin aims to increase visitors’ science capital through their exhibitions. Similarly, in the US the Science Museum of Minnesota is working with science capital to combat inequalities in access to, and participation in, science learning. +In October 2017 the Science Capital Teaching Approach was launched at the National STEM Learning Centre in York, England. The approach was co-developed and trialled over four years between Enterprising Science researchers and secondary science teachers in England. + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file