Also included in this column:
• A123 stuff
• What should the AMA do?
• What size wire?
• CBA II Upgrade
• The Cellpro Multi4 is coming
“AN ELECTRIC car that goes
250 miles per charge at speeds
up to 80 mph is expected on the
market in about a year (now
where have we heard this
before?)
“Unlike current electric cars
that take hours to recharge, the
new ZENN car (Zero
Emissions—No Noise) will
recharge in less than 5 minutes.
Key to the car’s success are the new ‘ultra capacitors’ that store the
electrical power. They are made by ZENN’s partner, EEStor, Cedar
Park TX. www.zenncars.com.”
—Farm Show Magazine (Volume 32, Number 5)
What a breakthrough for electric-powered modeling, even full-scale
electric flight. But now for a sanity check.
I did a bit of research and came up with some figures. The power
required for a typical hybrid car going 60 mph is 14 kilowatts (kW) per
hour. Assuming that this is within the realm of reality, for a range of
240 miles it would consume 14 Kw for four
hours, or 56 kWh (kilowatt hours).
To recharge in the quoted five minutes
would require a source capable of 56
multiplied by 60 divided by 12, or 672 kW;
this assumes 100% charge efficiency. Let’s
say that the battery is a 240-volt system. This
means we would need nearly a 3,000-amp
service (roughly 15-20 times your normal
residential service).
I typed “EEStor” into the Google Internet
search engine and found a bit of controversy
about this revolutionary technology. The most
significant is that EEstor has not revealed
even a prototype at this time. There is a great
discussion; see the “Sources” listing for the
Web site address.
While on the subject of breakthrough
batteries, it seems that the one that has
already made its mark in our little world of
electric-powered flight has attracted the
attention of General Electric (GE). The
company announced that it would invest $30
million in Li-Ion battery manufacturer
A123Systems.
That makes GE the largest cash investor
in A123Systems, with a 9% ownership. In
addition to receiving capital from GE,
A123Systems will get access to research and
technology of GE Global Research to design
battery-system components for automotive
programs.
Also, the word on the street is that
Panasonic might buy Sanyo for Panasonic’s
battery technology and Sanyo’s solar-energy
business.
On the other side of the world, according
to British modeling magazine RCM&E
(Radio Control Models & Electronics), in
September 2008 it became illegal to place Ni-
Cd batteries on the market for RC use. I
won’t risk even speculating on what this
means to the modeling world in general.
Letters From Readers: The following is
from Gary Zabriskie.
“I do wish to clarify one question about
your November article; it is my understanding
that while A123 (Enerland) is a LiFePO4
technology as other batteries sold are
identified, the difference is that A123 uses a
patented nano-phosphate technology rather
than a more typical phosphate compound.
“As far as I know, only the genuine A123
batteries have this technology and they are
also the only LiFePO4 chemistry battery
capable of the extremely high continuous and
burst discharge rates one might usually get
only from a good quality Li-Poly battery.
“All other LiFePO4 technology batteries
I’ve seen where the vendor actually advertises
discharge rates, show those other brands to be
capable of a substantially lower discharge
capability rate than the A123 brand.”
Thanks for your note. You are right about
the LiFePO4 technologies. There will be a
number of vendors jumping on
A123Systems’ coattails, claiming the same
chemistry. The modelers will have to sort out
the good from the not so good, as we have
had to do with Li-Poly and even some of the
Nickel technologies.
Unless the modeler has access to honest
specifications, he or she will have to use the
time-honored technique of going by the
reputation a particular vendor establishes for
the products it offers. This is difficult to
address without a lot of test data other than on
actual A123Systems products.
A123 Autopsy: On the subject of
A123Systems technology, which many others
and I have been using successfully for the
past three years, I finally had a chance to
dissect an A123 cell. A fellow club member
had the misfortune of a nasty crash that drove
the battery pack into the rear of an AXi
motor, where the shaft penetrated the negative
end of one cell—not pretty.
When the small amount of smoke cleared,
I was given the battery for an autopsy. As I
suspected, the construction is similar to that
of Ni-Cds, where the plate is wound in spiral
form with separator material between the
plates. That is where the similarity stopped.
Looking at the negative end of the cell,
three current collector tabs were welded to the
negative terminal. The positive end was
identical. When unwound, the plates and
separator material, a 0.5-mil-thick plasticlike
material, were approximately 60 inches long
by 3.25 inches wide.
I was unable to discern much difference in
the plates—only that they were different
thicknesses; the positive side was 7 mil and
the negative side was 2.5 mil. The can
(aluminum) was 14-mil thick. The cell was
relatively free of liquid, but I used the proper
protection for eyes and hands during the
teardown. (Notice the gloves in the photo.)
I was unable to disassemble the vent
system, but it appears to be some sort of
fusible plug to relieve pressure from
overheating, which these cells were, as
evidenced by the burn marks left by the
interconnecting tabs.
Individual charge and discharge of the
intact remaining three cells indicated one to
deliver full capacity after the ordeal, while the
other two delivered less than half; even at a
2.3-amp discharge. This indicates that
whatever high discharge they experienced had
taken its toll.
What should the AMA do about perceived
safety issues with poor-quality products? A
letter was forwarded to me in which the sender
was concerned about the quality of some RC
products that are being sold and questioned
the AMA’s role in protecting its members
from such products.
My response to a particular incident with a
charger was:
“Your concern over ‘Cheap Li-Poly
Dangers’ is probably justified to some degree
as I have personally seen some disasters
waiting to happen, not so much from the cells
themselves but from the assembly techniques
or more frequently how the users apply them.
“The case you state where the battery burst
into flame a couple of minutes after being
disconnected, points to a weak point in the
way the connections (internal to the pack) are
made by some manufacturers or assemblers.
The act of disconnecting the pack could easily
account for the incident you report.
“Any stress on marginal connections or
insulation techniques on the PC board or
whatever was used for the cell
interconnections could have caused a short on
one or more cells which would result in what
your friend encountered.
“While this is not applicable to all Chinese
products, the low-end ones have had a
reputation for questionable quality. It is a
given. We all know that and should consider it
whenever we are buying components for
critical applications.
“When I see servos selling for $3.50 I have
to wonder what sane person would risk an
airplane to use them. The same for cheap lowball
priced batteries.
“While the AMA is concerned with safety
I don’t see what they could do, with the
resources available, about marginal RC
products short of banning them all together,
and you know that would never fly with
modelers that are notorious for cheaping it out
at every opportunity. Along the same line I
have been tracking incidents for some time
and in the majority of cases I can usually
pinpoint the cause of the incident and it is
seldom the ‘quality’ of the product.
“I really don’t see any more of a safety
issue with today’s shoddy products than we
saw in the early days when people were
building their own receivers and transmitters
with very little expertise in electronics, or the
skills associated. Somehow we survived.
“Again you fault a new and unflown
NiMH pack made in China for a crash of a 35
pound, 1/4 scale model. Without examining the
way the pack was installed and isolated from
the high vibration level encountered in models
of this size I would be very reluctant to
attribute the crash to the pack opening when
the crash itself could have caused the pack to
open.
“Was any kind of a careful post crash
examination made to determine why the pack
was opened? Was anyone present with the
expertise to make such a determination?
“Secondly, anyone flying a demonstration
with a quarter-scale model in an air show for
nursing home residents with an unproven pack
is certainly another topic for discussion. This
should be something that has been rung out at
the club field where there is less risk should a
crash happen.”
The AMA is unable to function as a
“watchdog” of the industry. It would be nice,
but it would require more money to staff a
department for this job.
Also, how would we enforce it? We can’t
make a company change anything unless it is
breaking some law. Shabby items will cull
themselves out when modelers try them and
are disappointed.
Unfortunately, items that can lead to an
accident are everywhere, from an engine that
quits at the wrong time, to a model that has a
structural failure in flight, to a radio system
that is less than reliable. Nothing is 100%,
even for the best of companies.
What size wire do I need? I’m frequently
asked this question. The “Sources” list
contains a Web address that will lead you to a
chart that answers that question well.
CBA II Upgrade: West Mountain Radio is
offering a free software upgrade for its CBA II
battery analyzer that the user can download
from the company’s Web site. I have found
nothing that compares with this computercontrolled
discharge module for keeping track
of how battery packs are performing.
FMA Direct Takes Another Big Step: I’m
expecting the new Cellpro Multi4 charger any
day for evaluation. If it lives up to the
other FMA Direct charger offerings, it will
be worth the wait; it addresses all the
chemistries we use and charge balancing
function for Lithium systems.
All that is available for $79.95. You
can get the details at the FMA Direct Web
site. MA
Sources:
EEStor discussion:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/11/15552
2/905
Wire size specifications:
www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
West Mountain Radio
(203) 853-8080
www.westmountainradio.com
FMA Direct
(800) 343-2934
www.fmadirect.com
The Battery Clinic
12219 NW 9th Ln.
Newberry FL 32669
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 94,95,96
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 94,95,96
Also included in this column:
• A123 stuff
• What should the AMA do?
• What size wire?
• CBA II Upgrade
• The Cellpro Multi4 is coming
“AN ELECTRIC car that goes
250 miles per charge at speeds
up to 80 mph is expected on the
market in about a year (now
where have we heard this
before?)
“Unlike current electric cars
that take hours to recharge, the
new ZENN car (Zero
Emissions—No Noise) will
recharge in less than 5 minutes.
Key to the car’s success are the new ‘ultra capacitors’ that store the
electrical power. They are made by ZENN’s partner, EEStor, Cedar
Park TX. www.zenncars.com.”
—Farm Show Magazine (Volume 32, Number 5)
What a breakthrough for electric-powered modeling, even full-scale
electric flight. But now for a sanity check.
I did a bit of research and came up with some figures. The power
required for a typical hybrid car going 60 mph is 14 kilowatts (kW) per
hour. Assuming that this is within the realm of reality, for a range of
240 miles it would consume 14 Kw for four
hours, or 56 kWh (kilowatt hours).
To recharge in the quoted five minutes
would require a source capable of 56
multiplied by 60 divided by 12, or 672 kW;
this assumes 100% charge efficiency. Let’s
say that the battery is a 240-volt system. This
means we would need nearly a 3,000-amp
service (roughly 15-20 times your normal
residential service).
I typed “EEStor” into the Google Internet
search engine and found a bit of controversy
about this revolutionary technology. The most
significant is that EEstor has not revealed
even a prototype at this time. There is a great
discussion; see the “Sources” listing for the
Web site address.
While on the subject of breakthrough
batteries, it seems that the one that has
already made its mark in our little world of
electric-powered flight has attracted the
attention of General Electric (GE). The
company announced that it would invest $30
million in Li-Ion battery manufacturer
A123Systems.
That makes GE the largest cash investor
in A123Systems, with a 9% ownership. In
addition to receiving capital from GE,
A123Systems will get access to research and
technology of GE Global Research to design
battery-system components for automotive
programs.
Also, the word on the street is that
Panasonic might buy Sanyo for Panasonic’s
battery technology and Sanyo’s solar-energy
business.
On the other side of the world, according
to British modeling magazine RCM&E
(Radio Control Models & Electronics), in
September 2008 it became illegal to place Ni-
Cd batteries on the market for RC use. I
won’t risk even speculating on what this
means to the modeling world in general.
Letters From Readers: The following is
from Gary Zabriskie.
“I do wish to clarify one question about
your November article; it is my understanding
that while A123 (Enerland) is a LiFePO4
technology as other batteries sold are
identified, the difference is that A123 uses a
patented nano-phosphate technology rather
than a more typical phosphate compound.
“As far as I know, only the genuine A123
batteries have this technology and they are
also the only LiFePO4 chemistry battery
capable of the extremely high continuous and
burst discharge rates one might usually get
only from a good quality Li-Poly battery.
“All other LiFePO4 technology batteries
I’ve seen where the vendor actually advertises
discharge rates, show those other brands to be
capable of a substantially lower discharge
capability rate than the A123 brand.”
Thanks for your note. You are right about
the LiFePO4 technologies. There will be a
number of vendors jumping on
A123Systems’ coattails, claiming the same
chemistry. The modelers will have to sort out
the good from the not so good, as we have
had to do with Li-Poly and even some of the
Nickel technologies.
Unless the modeler has access to honest
specifications, he or she will have to use the
time-honored technique of going by the
reputation a particular vendor establishes for
the products it offers. This is difficult to
address without a lot of test data other than on
actual A123Systems products.
A123 Autopsy: On the subject of
A123Systems technology, which many others
and I have been using successfully for the
past three years, I finally had a chance to
dissect an A123 cell. A fellow club member
had the misfortune of a nasty crash that drove
the battery pack into the rear of an AXi
motor, where the shaft penetrated the negative
end of one cell—not pretty.
When the small amount of smoke cleared,
I was given the battery for an autopsy. As I
suspected, the construction is similar to that
of Ni-Cds, where the plate is wound in spiral
form with separator material between the
plates. That is where the similarity stopped.
Looking at the negative end of the cell,
three current collector tabs were welded to the
negative terminal. The positive end was
identical. When unwound, the plates and
separator material, a 0.5-mil-thick plasticlike
material, were approximately 60 inches long
by 3.25 inches wide.
I was unable to discern much difference in
the plates—only that they were different
thicknesses; the positive side was 7 mil and
the negative side was 2.5 mil. The can
(aluminum) was 14-mil thick. The cell was
relatively free of liquid, but I used the proper
protection for eyes and hands during the
teardown. (Notice the gloves in the photo.)
I was unable to disassemble the vent
system, but it appears to be some sort of
fusible plug to relieve pressure from
overheating, which these cells were, as
evidenced by the burn marks left by the
interconnecting tabs.
Individual charge and discharge of the
intact remaining three cells indicated one to
deliver full capacity after the ordeal, while the
other two delivered less than half; even at a
2.3-amp discharge. This indicates that
whatever high discharge they experienced had
taken its toll.
What should the AMA do about perceived
safety issues with poor-quality products? A
letter was forwarded to me in which the sender
was concerned about the quality of some RC
products that are being sold and questioned
the AMA’s role in protecting its members
from such products.
My response to a particular incident with a
charger was:
“Your concern over ‘Cheap Li-Poly
Dangers’ is probably justified to some degree
as I have personally seen some disasters
waiting to happen, not so much from the cells
themselves but from the assembly techniques
or more frequently how the users apply them.
“The case you state where the battery burst
into flame a couple of minutes after being
disconnected, points to a weak point in the
way the connections (internal to the pack) are
made by some manufacturers or assemblers.
The act of disconnecting the pack could easily
account for the incident you report.
“Any stress on marginal connections or
insulation techniques on the PC board or
whatever was used for the cell
interconnections could have caused a short on
one or more cells which would result in what
your friend encountered.
“While this is not applicable to all Chinese
products, the low-end ones have had a
reputation for questionable quality. It is a
given. We all know that and should consider it
whenever we are buying components for
critical applications.
“When I see servos selling for $3.50 I have
to wonder what sane person would risk an
airplane to use them. The same for cheap lowball
priced batteries.
“While the AMA is concerned with safety
I don’t see what they could do, with the
resources available, about marginal RC
products short of banning them all together,
and you know that would never fly with
modelers that are notorious for cheaping it out
at every opportunity. Along the same line I
have been tracking incidents for some time
and in the majority of cases I can usually
pinpoint the cause of the incident and it is
seldom the ‘quality’ of the product.
“I really don’t see any more of a safety
issue with today’s shoddy products than we
saw in the early days when people were
building their own receivers and transmitters
with very little expertise in electronics, or the
skills associated. Somehow we survived.
“Again you fault a new and unflown
NiMH pack made in China for a crash of a 35
pound, 1/4 scale model. Without examining the
way the pack was installed and isolated from
the high vibration level encountered in models
of this size I would be very reluctant to
attribute the crash to the pack opening when
the crash itself could have caused the pack to
open.
“Was any kind of a careful post crash
examination made to determine why the pack
was opened? Was anyone present with the
expertise to make such a determination?
“Secondly, anyone flying a demonstration
with a quarter-scale model in an air show for
nursing home residents with an unproven pack
is certainly another topic for discussion. This
should be something that has been rung out at
the club field where there is less risk should a
crash happen.”
The AMA is unable to function as a
“watchdog” of the industry. It would be nice,
but it would require more money to staff a
department for this job.
Also, how would we enforce it? We can’t
make a company change anything unless it is
breaking some law. Shabby items will cull
themselves out when modelers try them and
are disappointed.
Unfortunately, items that can lead to an
accident are everywhere, from an engine that
quits at the wrong time, to a model that has a
structural failure in flight, to a radio system
that is less than reliable. Nothing is 100%,
even for the best of companies.
What size wire do I need? I’m frequently
asked this question. The “Sources” list
contains a Web address that will lead you to a
chart that answers that question well.
CBA II Upgrade: West Mountain Radio is
offering a free software upgrade for its CBA II
battery analyzer that the user can download
from the company’s Web site. I have found
nothing that compares with this computercontrolled
discharge module for keeping track
of how battery packs are performing.
FMA Direct Takes Another Big Step: I’m
expecting the new Cellpro Multi4 charger any
day for evaluation. If it lives up to the
other FMA Direct charger offerings, it will
be worth the wait; it addresses all the
chemistries we use and charge balancing
function for Lithium systems.
All that is available for $79.95. You
can get the details at the FMA Direct Web
site. MA
Sources:
EEStor discussion:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/11/15552
2/905
Wire size specifications:
www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
West Mountain Radio
(203) 853-8080
www.westmountainradio.com
FMA Direct
(800) 343-2934
www.fmadirect.com
The Battery Clinic
12219 NW 9th Ln.
Newberry FL 32669
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 94,95,96
Also included in this column:
• A123 stuff
• What should the AMA do?
• What size wire?
• CBA II Upgrade
• The Cellpro Multi4 is coming
“AN ELECTRIC car that goes
250 miles per charge at speeds
up to 80 mph is expected on the
market in about a year (now
where have we heard this
before?)
“Unlike current electric cars
that take hours to recharge, the
new ZENN car (Zero
Emissions—No Noise) will
recharge in less than 5 minutes.
Key to the car’s success are the new ‘ultra capacitors’ that store the
electrical power. They are made by ZENN’s partner, EEStor, Cedar
Park TX. www.zenncars.com.”
—Farm Show Magazine (Volume 32, Number 5)
What a breakthrough for electric-powered modeling, even full-scale
electric flight. But now for a sanity check.
I did a bit of research and came up with some figures. The power
required for a typical hybrid car going 60 mph is 14 kilowatts (kW) per
hour. Assuming that this is within the realm of reality, for a range of
240 miles it would consume 14 Kw for four
hours, or 56 kWh (kilowatt hours).
To recharge in the quoted five minutes
would require a source capable of 56
multiplied by 60 divided by 12, or 672 kW;
this assumes 100% charge efficiency. Let’s
say that the battery is a 240-volt system. This
means we would need nearly a 3,000-amp
service (roughly 15-20 times your normal
residential service).
I typed “EEStor” into the Google Internet
search engine and found a bit of controversy
about this revolutionary technology. The most
significant is that EEstor has not revealed
even a prototype at this time. There is a great
discussion; see the “Sources” listing for the
Web site address.
While on the subject of breakthrough
batteries, it seems that the one that has
already made its mark in our little world of
electric-powered flight has attracted the
attention of General Electric (GE). The
company announced that it would invest $30
million in Li-Ion battery manufacturer
A123Systems.
That makes GE the largest cash investor
in A123Systems, with a 9% ownership. In
addition to receiving capital from GE,
A123Systems will get access to research and
technology of GE Global Research to design
battery-system components for automotive
programs.
Also, the word on the street is that
Panasonic might buy Sanyo for Panasonic’s
battery technology and Sanyo’s solar-energy
business.
On the other side of the world, according
to British modeling magazine RCM&E
(Radio Control Models & Electronics), in
September 2008 it became illegal to place Ni-
Cd batteries on the market for RC use. I
won’t risk even speculating on what this
means to the modeling world in general.
Letters From Readers: The following is
from Gary Zabriskie.
“I do wish to clarify one question about
your November article; it is my understanding
that while A123 (Enerland) is a LiFePO4
technology as other batteries sold are
identified, the difference is that A123 uses a
patented nano-phosphate technology rather
than a more typical phosphate compound.
“As far as I know, only the genuine A123
batteries have this technology and they are
also the only LiFePO4 chemistry battery
capable of the extremely high continuous and
burst discharge rates one might usually get
only from a good quality Li-Poly battery.
“All other LiFePO4 technology batteries
I’ve seen where the vendor actually advertises
discharge rates, show those other brands to be
capable of a substantially lower discharge
capability rate than the A123 brand.”
Thanks for your note. You are right about
the LiFePO4 technologies. There will be a
number of vendors jumping on
A123Systems’ coattails, claiming the same
chemistry. The modelers will have to sort out
the good from the not so good, as we have
had to do with Li-Poly and even some of the
Nickel technologies.
Unless the modeler has access to honest
specifications, he or she will have to use the
time-honored technique of going by the
reputation a particular vendor establishes for
the products it offers. This is difficult to
address without a lot of test data other than on
actual A123Systems products.
A123 Autopsy: On the subject of
A123Systems technology, which many others
and I have been using successfully for the
past three years, I finally had a chance to
dissect an A123 cell. A fellow club member
had the misfortune of a nasty crash that drove
the battery pack into the rear of an AXi
motor, where the shaft penetrated the negative
end of one cell—not pretty.
When the small amount of smoke cleared,
I was given the battery for an autopsy. As I
suspected, the construction is similar to that
of Ni-Cds, where the plate is wound in spiral
form with separator material between the
plates. That is where the similarity stopped.
Looking at the negative end of the cell,
three current collector tabs were welded to the
negative terminal. The positive end was
identical. When unwound, the plates and
separator material, a 0.5-mil-thick plasticlike
material, were approximately 60 inches long
by 3.25 inches wide.
I was unable to discern much difference in
the plates—only that they were different
thicknesses; the positive side was 7 mil and
the negative side was 2.5 mil. The can
(aluminum) was 14-mil thick. The cell was
relatively free of liquid, but I used the proper
protection for eyes and hands during the
teardown. (Notice the gloves in the photo.)
I was unable to disassemble the vent
system, but it appears to be some sort of
fusible plug to relieve pressure from
overheating, which these cells were, as
evidenced by the burn marks left by the
interconnecting tabs.
Individual charge and discharge of the
intact remaining three cells indicated one to
deliver full capacity after the ordeal, while the
other two delivered less than half; even at a
2.3-amp discharge. This indicates that
whatever high discharge they experienced had
taken its toll.
What should the AMA do about perceived
safety issues with poor-quality products? A
letter was forwarded to me in which the sender
was concerned about the quality of some RC
products that are being sold and questioned
the AMA’s role in protecting its members
from such products.
My response to a particular incident with a
charger was:
“Your concern over ‘Cheap Li-Poly
Dangers’ is probably justified to some degree
as I have personally seen some disasters
waiting to happen, not so much from the cells
themselves but from the assembly techniques
or more frequently how the users apply them.
“The case you state where the battery burst
into flame a couple of minutes after being
disconnected, points to a weak point in the
way the connections (internal to the pack) are
made by some manufacturers or assemblers.
The act of disconnecting the pack could easily
account for the incident you report.
“Any stress on marginal connections or
insulation techniques on the PC board or
whatever was used for the cell
interconnections could have caused a short on
one or more cells which would result in what
your friend encountered.
“While this is not applicable to all Chinese
products, the low-end ones have had a
reputation for questionable quality. It is a
given. We all know that and should consider it
whenever we are buying components for
critical applications.
“When I see servos selling for $3.50 I have
to wonder what sane person would risk an
airplane to use them. The same for cheap lowball
priced batteries.
“While the AMA is concerned with safety
I don’t see what they could do, with the
resources available, about marginal RC
products short of banning them all together,
and you know that would never fly with
modelers that are notorious for cheaping it out
at every opportunity. Along the same line I
have been tracking incidents for some time
and in the majority of cases I can usually
pinpoint the cause of the incident and it is
seldom the ‘quality’ of the product.
“I really don’t see any more of a safety
issue with today’s shoddy products than we
saw in the early days when people were
building their own receivers and transmitters
with very little expertise in electronics, or the
skills associated. Somehow we survived.
“Again you fault a new and unflown
NiMH pack made in China for a crash of a 35
pound, 1/4 scale model. Without examining the
way the pack was installed and isolated from
the high vibration level encountered in models
of this size I would be very reluctant to
attribute the crash to the pack opening when
the crash itself could have caused the pack to
open.
“Was any kind of a careful post crash
examination made to determine why the pack
was opened? Was anyone present with the
expertise to make such a determination?
“Secondly, anyone flying a demonstration
with a quarter-scale model in an air show for
nursing home residents with an unproven pack
is certainly another topic for discussion. This
should be something that has been rung out at
the club field where there is less risk should a
crash happen.”
The AMA is unable to function as a
“watchdog” of the industry. It would be nice,
but it would require more money to staff a
department for this job.
Also, how would we enforce it? We can’t
make a company change anything unless it is
breaking some law. Shabby items will cull
themselves out when modelers try them and
are disappointed.
Unfortunately, items that can lead to an
accident are everywhere, from an engine that
quits at the wrong time, to a model that has a
structural failure in flight, to a radio system
that is less than reliable. Nothing is 100%,
even for the best of companies.
What size wire do I need? I’m frequently
asked this question. The “Sources” list
contains a Web address that will lead you to a
chart that answers that question well.
CBA II Upgrade: West Mountain Radio is
offering a free software upgrade for its CBA II
battery analyzer that the user can download
from the company’s Web site. I have found
nothing that compares with this computercontrolled
discharge module for keeping track
of how battery packs are performing.
FMA Direct Takes Another Big Step: I’m
expecting the new Cellpro Multi4 charger any
day for evaluation. If it lives up to the
other FMA Direct charger offerings, it will
be worth the wait; it addresses all the
chemistries we use and charge balancing
function for Lithium systems.
All that is available for $79.95. You
can get the details at the FMA Direct Web
site. MA
Sources:
EEStor discussion:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/11/15552
2/905
Wire size specifications:
www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
West Mountain Radio
(203) 853-8080
www.westmountainradio.com
FMA Direct
(800) 343-2934
www.fmadirect.com
The Battery Clinic
12219 NW 9th Ln.
Newberry FL 32669
