Ignition power from receiver?
01-25-2010, 06:27 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BODOE, NORWAY
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition power from receiver?
I wonder: can I use an output from the receiver (Weatronic) to power the 3W ignition, or is this NOT recommended? If so: then one could switch ignition power on/ off via transmitter, thus inhibiting the need for an optical kill switch?
01-25-2010, 06:59 PM
#3
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SheCarGo, Sillynoise, IL
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
This is a pretty good product from TROYBUILT:
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/WRCIBEF4C.html
Do specify that it is for a 3W as some of their engines use
a higher voltage as well as what battery you are using..........
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/WRCIBEF4C.html
Do specify that it is for a 3W as some of their engines use
a higher voltage as well as what battery you are using..........
01-26-2010, 11:33 AM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
I would not power a 3w ignition in any manner that was not specifically approved in their manual. You'll probably find out why eventually.
I would not power a 3w ignition in any manner that was not specifically approved in their manual. You'll probably find out why eventually.
Ditto.
You might get away with sharing the receiver battery for years, but the one day when there is invisible extra noise on the 2.4 GHz band, sharing that battery could get you into a lot of trouble. I just wouldn't take the chance, even though lots of folks have been doing it successfully for a while now.
This may be common practice at some point in the future, but with the current state of 2.4 GHz technology, I wouldn't depend on it just yet. At least not until the radio manufacturers begin telling you that it is okay to share the Rx battery.
Ed Cregger
01-27-2010, 03:55 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BODOE, NORWAY
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: NM2K
Ditto.
You might get away with sharing the receiver battery for years, but the one day when there is invisible extra noise on the 2.4 GHz band, sharing that battery could get you into a lot of trouble. I just wouldn't take the chance, even though lots of folks have been doing it successfully for a while now.
This may be common practice at some point in the future, but with the current state of 2.4 GHz technology, I wouldn't depend on it just yet. At least not until the radio manufacturers begin telling you that it is okay to share the Rx battery.
Ed Cregger
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
I would not power a 3w ignition in any manner that was not specifically approved in their manual. You'll probably find out why eventually.
I would not power a 3w ignition in any manner that was not specifically approved in their manual. You'll probably find out why eventually.
Ditto.
You might get away with sharing the receiver battery for years, but the one day when there is invisible extra noise on the 2.4 GHz band, sharing that battery could get you into a lot of trouble. I just wouldn't take the chance, even though lots of folks have been doing it successfully for a while now.
This may be common practice at some point in the future, but with the current state of 2.4 GHz technology, I wouldn't depend on it just yet. At least not until the radio manufacturers begin telling you that it is okay to share the Rx battery.
Ed Cregger
01-27-2010, 04:01 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BODOE, NORWAY
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: pe reivers
Don't do it in the ground, from the air.
Don't do it in the ground, from the air.
Probably the "best good advice" someone ever tried to give me..Anyway, I'm gonna do it. There are plenty of pilots (I've been told) who are practicing this way of sharing power. Also, ofcourse, one can use the IBEF described via Robby (thx man) above.
01-27-2010, 06:17 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
The proposed system is not a regulator, but a switch with plenty built-in filters. Might work OK since it is designed not to let power ripples and RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) past its terminals.
Being old fashioned, and scarred by experience, "might" just does not make me happy with the idea, unless there is a high power RFI test done on it, which I doubt.
Being old fashioned, and scarred by experience, "might" just does not make me happy with the idea, unless there is a high power RFI test done on it, which I doubt.
01-28-2010, 06:54 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: Mavpro
Heh Probably the ''best good advice'' someone ever tried to give me..
Anyway, I'm gonna do it. There are plenty of pilots (I've been told) who are practicing this way of sharing power. Also, ofcourse, one can use the IBEF described via Robby (thx man) above.
ORIGINAL: pe reivers
Don't do it in the ground, from the air.
Don't do it in the ground, from the air.
Probably the ''best good advice'' someone ever tried to give me..Anyway, I'm gonna do it. There are plenty of pilots (I've been told) who are practicing this way of sharing power. Also, ofcourse, one can use the IBEF described via Robby (thx man) above.
I wouldn't consider sharing the battery at all on a frequency of less than 2.4 GHz. Sharing with a system on 35 MHz is out of the question, just as sharing the battery with systems on 27 MHz (USA), 50 & 53 MHz (USA) and 72 MHz (USA) is completely out of the question.
I am an RF electronics technician and have been since the mid Sixties, so I am not completely without a clue. But, maybe not much more...
Ed Cregger
01-28-2010, 08:03 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
Ed,
I am with you on this one. I have seen weird things happen to very simple electronics during RF tests on sunroof motors and my own ignition tests. The power that RF signal radiated to the electronics was sufficient to drive the transistors as if they were linear potmeter operated. Also, the power can re-program eeproms and memory banks.
I am with you on this one. I have seen weird things happen to very simple electronics during RF tests on sunroof motors and my own ignition tests. The power that RF signal radiated to the electronics was sufficient to drive the transistors as if they were linear potmeter operated. Also, the power can re-program eeproms and memory banks.
01-30-2010, 03:03 PM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
Hey guys....
There is enough speculation and comments going on in this thread that I though I should probably make a few comments and clarify a few things.
I am the designer and manufacture of the WRC IBEF (product being discussed) and I am always open to discussions and ideas on how to improve our models. (like in the case of this it eliminates the cost and weight of a battery, switch, and maybe even an optical or electrical kill switch).
The units were tested for RFI and EMI emmission under high current draw as well as for interfence with diffent engines and radios. I can tell you that the filter in the IBEF will provide >50db noise attentation at 30Mhz (if you are not an RF engineer 50db is a noise reduction of >>10,000 times). There is more RF noise coming from the sparkplug wire than the IBEF. Still I wanted to be sure so I did a final set of tests before releasing it. In these tests I used know problematic engines and ignitions. In another case I wrapped an IBEF arround a G45 unshielded sparkplug wire. In another case I pulled the plug wire loose from the plug where the spark was arcing to the spark plug. Then for each of these test I range tested with 72Mhz and 2.4Ghz radios with a seperate ignition battery and the IBEF. In no test case was the radio range reduced (i.e. due to interference).
It is an easy test to see if any interference is coming from the IBEF. Simply do a range test and mark the spot. Then replace your ignition battery with an IBEF and repeat the range test. I expect that no one will ever see >5% difference in range and I have not seen any difference in all of my testing.
The IBEF has three major features/sections in it. First it reduces the voltage going to the ignition to be within manufactures' guidlines. Secondly is has an isolated power switch that can turn power on and off to the ignition. Finally it has a set of RFI/EMI filters to prevent any ignition noise getting back to the receiver.
When I have RX interference from engines in the past there was no wire/metal connection between the RX and the engine. It was simply the plug wire was radiating enough RFI energy to cause a problem... if this is your situtation then even an optical cutoff will still have a problem.
With several hundred of these being flown and not a single interference event being reported I think you guys can relax. New technology always comes even though many of us may doubt if it can really do what it claims.
I will be open and honest that with > 750 shipped now I have had 6 reports of slow ignition turn off when used with a Spektrum AR7000 receiver. I found the issue and now it has been corrected on future shipments and those 6 people are either receiving no cost repairs or replacements.
There is enough speculation and comments going on in this thread that I though I should probably make a few comments and clarify a few things.
I am the designer and manufacture of the WRC IBEF (product being discussed) and I am always open to discussions and ideas on how to improve our models. (like in the case of this it eliminates the cost and weight of a battery, switch, and maybe even an optical or electrical kill switch).
The units were tested for RFI and EMI emmission under high current draw as well as for interfence with diffent engines and radios. I can tell you that the filter in the IBEF will provide >50db noise attentation at 30Mhz (if you are not an RF engineer 50db is a noise reduction of >>10,000 times). There is more RF noise coming from the sparkplug wire than the IBEF. Still I wanted to be sure so I did a final set of tests before releasing it. In these tests I used know problematic engines and ignitions. In another case I wrapped an IBEF arround a G45 unshielded sparkplug wire. In another case I pulled the plug wire loose from the plug where the spark was arcing to the spark plug. Then for each of these test I range tested with 72Mhz and 2.4Ghz radios with a seperate ignition battery and the IBEF. In no test case was the radio range reduced (i.e. due to interference).
It is an easy test to see if any interference is coming from the IBEF. Simply do a range test and mark the spot. Then replace your ignition battery with an IBEF and repeat the range test. I expect that no one will ever see >5% difference in range and I have not seen any difference in all of my testing.
The IBEF has three major features/sections in it. First it reduces the voltage going to the ignition to be within manufactures' guidlines. Secondly is has an isolated power switch that can turn power on and off to the ignition. Finally it has a set of RFI/EMI filters to prevent any ignition noise getting back to the receiver.
When I have RX interference from engines in the past there was no wire/metal connection between the RX and the engine. It was simply the plug wire was radiating enough RFI energy to cause a problem... if this is your situtation then even an optical cutoff will still have a problem.
With several hundred of these being flown and not a single interference event being reported I think you guys can relax. New technology always comes even though many of us may doubt if it can really do what it claims.
I will be open and honest that with > 750 shipped now I have had 6 reports of slow ignition turn off when used with a Spektrum AR7000 receiver. I found the issue and now it has been corrected on future shipments and those 6 people are either receiving no cost repairs or replacements.
02-04-2010, 12:19 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BODOE, NORWAY
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
Interesing?
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
02-04-2010, 02:52 PM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: Mavpro
Interesing?
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
Interesing?
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
All I ask of anyone using such a system is to strictly abide by the manufacturer's instructions.
To the one fellow defending his electrical distribution system - what new technology? What have you done that hasn't been done thousands of times before in full scale aircraft? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell by your description. Stop trying to make those of us with concerns appear to be Luddites. I love progress as much as the next guy, but I believe in playing it safe when others' lives and property are at risk.
Frankly, the fact that someone would even consider building a model airplane that is complicated/large/heavy/expensive enough to even consider using such devices has me a bit worried. Maybe the FAA should send someone by to inspect these way over the top models and bestow them with their mandatory stamp of approval before the models are legal to fly? Is that "real" enough for you folks? Come on fellows. Get a PPL and start building your own homebuilt airplane and leave the toys to we folks that don't wish to cave in a house or start a rampant fire in the event of a crash.
Ed Cregger
02-05-2010, 10:32 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: 2lo
70+ flights on mine...works great. using2.4ghz. others where I fly using them as well. no issues
70+ flights on mine...works great. using2.4ghz. others where I fly using them as well. no issues
In the DC world of most folks that play with electricity in this hobby, your description of your experiences sound just fine. But, as I pointed out in a previous post, in so many words, the background noise in the RF spectrum varies from second to second, depending upon a tremendous number of factors. It just isn't as simple as DC circuitry 101. I know folks are getting steamed at me for pointing out the facts, so, I'll just shut up about the topic for now. But remember that when someone is in court due to a fatal crash, THEY are responsible for what has happened, just like the captain of a ship. Blaming the accessory manufacturer won't get them off the hook.
In this day and age, I'm super supportive of anyone starting a new business. Especially someone starting a new business that caters to our hobby.
How about stating your credentials, Mr. Manufacturer. I would love to find out that you are an electronics professional. That would go a long way toward quelling my worries. I might even become your ally. Oh, we technicians use db, watts, volts, amps and a ton of other good words too. Not just engineers.
Ed Cregger
02-05-2010, 10:09 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: yl5295
Hey guys....
There is enough speculation and comments going on in this thread that I though I should probably make a few comments and clarify a few things.
I am the designer and manufacture of the WRC IBEF (product being discussed) and I am always open to discussions and ideas on how to improve our models. (like in the case of this it eliminates the cost and weight of a battery, switch, and maybe even an optical or electrical kill switch).
The units were tested for RFI and EMI emmission under high current draw as well as for interfence with diffent engines and radios. I can tell you that the filter in the IBEF will provide >50db noise attentation at 30Mhz (if you are not an RF engineer 50db is a noise reduction of >>10,000 times). There is more RF noise coming from the sparkplug wire than the IBEF. Still I wanted to be sure so I did a final set of tests before releasing it. In these tests I used know problematic engines and ignitions. In another case I wrapped an IBEF arround a G45 unshielded sparkplug wire. In another case I pulled the plug wire loose from the plug where the spark was arcing to the spark plug. Then for each of these test I range tested with 72Mhz and 2.4Ghz radios with a seperate ignition battery and the IBEF. In no test case was the radio range reduced (i.e. due to interference).
It is an easy test to see if any interference is coming from the IBEF. Simply do a range test and mark the spot. Then replace your ignition battery with an IBEF and repeat the range test. I expect that no one will ever see >5% difference in range and I have not seen any difference in all of my testing.
The IBEF has three major features/sections in it. First it reduces the voltage going to the ignition to be within manufactures' guidlines. Secondly is has an isolated power switch that can turn power on and off to the ignition. Finally it has a set of RFI/EMI filters to prevent any ignition noise getting back to the receiver.
When I have RX interference from engines in the past there was no wire/metal connection between the RX and the engine. It was simply the plug wire was radiating enough RFI energy to cause a problem... if this is your situtation then even an optical cutoff will still have a problem.
With several hundred of these being flown and not a single interference event being reported I think you guys can relax. New technology always comes even though many of us may doubt if it can really do what it claims.
I will be open and honest that with > 750 shipped now I have had 6 reports of slow ignition turn off when used with a Spektrum AR7000 receiver. I found the issue and now it has been corrected on future shipments and those 6 people are either receiving no cost repairs or replacements.
Hey guys....
There is enough speculation and comments going on in this thread that I though I should probably make a few comments and clarify a few things.
I am the designer and manufacture of the WRC IBEF (product being discussed) and I am always open to discussions and ideas on how to improve our models. (like in the case of this it eliminates the cost and weight of a battery, switch, and maybe even an optical or electrical kill switch).
The units were tested for RFI and EMI emmission under high current draw as well as for interfence with diffent engines and radios. I can tell you that the filter in the IBEF will provide >50db noise attentation at 30Mhz (if you are not an RF engineer 50db is a noise reduction of >>10,000 times). There is more RF noise coming from the sparkplug wire than the IBEF. Still I wanted to be sure so I did a final set of tests before releasing it. In these tests I used know problematic engines and ignitions. In another case I wrapped an IBEF arround a G45 unshielded sparkplug wire. In another case I pulled the plug wire loose from the plug where the spark was arcing to the spark plug. Then for each of these test I range tested with 72Mhz and 2.4Ghz radios with a seperate ignition battery and the IBEF. In no test case was the radio range reduced (i.e. due to interference).
It is an easy test to see if any interference is coming from the IBEF. Simply do a range test and mark the spot. Then replace your ignition battery with an IBEF and repeat the range test. I expect that no one will ever see >5% difference in range and I have not seen any difference in all of my testing.
The IBEF has three major features/sections in it. First it reduces the voltage going to the ignition to be within manufactures' guidlines. Secondly is has an isolated power switch that can turn power on and off to the ignition. Finally it has a set of RFI/EMI filters to prevent any ignition noise getting back to the receiver.
When I have RX interference from engines in the past there was no wire/metal connection between the RX and the engine. It was simply the plug wire was radiating enough RFI energy to cause a problem... if this is your situtation then even an optical cutoff will still have a problem.
With several hundred of these being flown and not a single interference event being reported I think you guys can relax. New technology always comes even though many of us may doubt if it can really do what it claims.
I will be open and honest that with > 750 shipped now I have had 6 reports of slow ignition turn off when used with a Spektrum AR7000 receiver. I found the issue and now it has been corrected on future shipments and those 6 people are either receiving no cost repairs or replacements.
Cool Product, I've got one on the way that I could put in a few of my gas planes that could use weight reduction. That is my biggest complaint about gassers, even with EI you need another battery that adds weight. well not any more
I understand others have concerns but I have been in this hobby long enough to hear many concerns (and praises) about many products. So many in fact that as a general rule I use only my own experience with products that I buy.
02-05-2010, 10:50 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
[/quote]
Frankly, the fact that someone would even consider building a model airplane that is complicated/large/heavy/expensive enough to even consider using such devices has me a bit worried. Maybe the FAA should send someone by to inspect these way over the top models and bestow them with their mandatory stamp of approval before the models are legal to fly? Is that ''real'' enough for you folks? Come on fellows. Get a PPL and start building your own homebuilt airplane and leave the toys to we folks that don't wish to cave in a house or start a rampant fire in the event of a crash.
Ed Cregger
[/quote]
Wow Dude! Are you new to this hobby?
Why don't you take that sentiment to the jet forum and see where that gets you? Talk about complicated models.
02-06-2010, 09:22 AM
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (55)
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
ORIGINAL: NM2K
All I ask of anyone using such a system is to strictly abide by the manufacturer's instructions.
To the one fellow defending his electrical distribution system - what new technology? What have you done that hasn't been done thousands of times before in full scale aircraft? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell by your description. Stop trying to make those of us with concerns appear to be Luddites. I love progress as much as the next guy, but I believe in playing it safe when others' lives and property are at risk.
Frankly, the fact that someone would even consider building a model airplane that is complicated/large/heavy/expensive enough to even consider using such devices has me a bit worried. Maybe the FAA should send someone by to inspect these way over the top models and bestow them with their mandatory stamp of approval before the models are legal to fly? Is that ''real'' enough for you folks? Come on fellows. Get a PPL and start building your own homebuilt airplane and leave the toys to we folks that don't wish to cave in a house or start a rampant fire in the event of a crash.
Ed Cregger
ORIGINAL: Mavpro
Interesing?
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
Interesing?
I am using a Weatronic 35 mhz dual receiver, and I found that there was something missing when using these systems - battery monitoring. I got a tip from a friend of mine that Emcotec in Germany have a very nice BMS (battery monitoing system).
http://shop.rc-electronic.com/e-vend...&t=6&c=16&p=16
This is a fantastic unit which tells you everything you'll ever need to know about the on board batteries. I received mine today, and discovered the following, very interesting text regarding my issue which startet this very thread:
As a specialty, both battery circuits in the DPSI BMS are galvanically
separated! This means, no electrical connection between each other
exists. This allows you to use one battery for the ignition system and
another one for the receiver set and operate both without any
influence. Due to the galvanic separation, it is also possible to operate
the DPSI BMS in connection with all battery switches currently
available on the market.
Now, I'm really not afraid to use ignition power from the flight packs.
All I ask of anyone using such a system is to strictly abide by the manufacturer's instructions.
To the one fellow defending his electrical distribution system - what new technology? What have you done that hasn't been done thousands of times before in full scale aircraft? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell by your description. Stop trying to make those of us with concerns appear to be Luddites. I love progress as much as the next guy, but I believe in playing it safe when others' lives and property are at risk.
Frankly, the fact that someone would even consider building a model airplane that is complicated/large/heavy/expensive enough to even consider using such devices has me a bit worried. Maybe the FAA should send someone by to inspect these way over the top models and bestow them with their mandatory stamp of approval before the models are legal to fly? Is that ''real'' enough for you folks? Come on fellows. Get a PPL and start building your own homebuilt airplane and leave the toys to we folks that don't wish to cave in a house or start a rampant fire in the event of a crash.
Ed Cregger
Wow - I don't think I have ever heard a fellow modeler suggest that the government should be called in to make things better - but, don't worry because you can still keep your own insurance if you choose to. I read you comments several times and I could not find a reference to any actual evidence that you have that the Ignition Battery Eliminator does not work. There is a difference between having and opinion and being informed. I think you are concerned because you have an opinion not because you have any facts just personal feelings. That is ok, you are entitled, but please don't represent your opinion as a counter argument for the real world testing results that yl5295 conducted. Cave in a house, start a rampant fire, you must be talking about charging LiPo batteries.
Based on the narrative written by yl5295 I just orderd a new WRC IBEF and look forward to using it.
Howard
02-06-2010, 07:34 PM
#24
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
This is in response to post #19 from NM2K...who questioned my credentials...
I would love nothing more than to post my position, responsibilities and company/companies I work/worked for and my resume... but large public semiconductor companies do not like their "Principal Engineers" with large "revenue responsibility" being involved with things outside their day job...especially ones with majority world market share of things like 2.4Ghz radios and BPL.
What I can tell you is I am a former ASIC design engineer and have been working for silicon valley semiconductor companies for about 20 years now. For 3 years I commuted from RDU to SJC monday-friday every day of the week. So that public semiconductor company must have thought I knew something about it if they flew me from Raleigh to SanJose every week to deal with the hottest problems arround the world. I think I may have more FF miles than Neil Armstrong. All to fly to some big company to solve very complex electonic problems.
So when a big company like Motorola, AT&T, DishTV, Alcatel, Lucent, Dell, Cisco etc. hits a problem their engineers can't solve that is using my company's silicon I am they guy they send in. That is why I have been on a plane the last three weeks and just landed back in NC from San Jose, Ca at midnight last night... four years ago my design win quota was over $1B dollars worth of chips... That's a lot of chips at $10/ea...
So no, I am not a technician... I am not knocking them in any way and respect what they do and have met some talented ones over the years.
The product has been tested in more ways than you can imagine...
I would love nothing more than to post my position, responsibilities and company/companies I work/worked for and my resume... but large public semiconductor companies do not like their "Principal Engineers" with large "revenue responsibility" being involved with things outside their day job...especially ones with majority world market share of things like 2.4Ghz radios and BPL.
What I can tell you is I am a former ASIC design engineer and have been working for silicon valley semiconductor companies for about 20 years now. For 3 years I commuted from RDU to SJC monday-friday every day of the week. So that public semiconductor company must have thought I knew something about it if they flew me from Raleigh to SanJose every week to deal with the hottest problems arround the world. I think I may have more FF miles than Neil Armstrong. All to fly to some big company to solve very complex electonic problems.
So when a big company like Motorola, AT&T, DishTV, Alcatel, Lucent, Dell, Cisco etc. hits a problem their engineers can't solve that is using my company's silicon I am they guy they send in. That is why I have been on a plane the last three weeks and just landed back in NC from San Jose, Ca at midnight last night... four years ago my design win quota was over $1B dollars worth of chips... That's a lot of chips at $10/ea...
So no, I am not a technician... I am not knocking them in any way and respect what they do and have met some talented ones over the years.
The product has been tested in more ways than you can imagine...
02-06-2010, 10:25 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ignition power from receiver?
SWEEET! I got my ignition battery eliminator today and I have just decided it is going into an airwild extra 260 29%, and it is going to be LIGHT!
It will be a week or two but I'll report back when range checks with engine running and off are completed.
It will be a week or two but I'll report back when range checks with engine running and off are completed.