No Ematch system!!!

Check it out
Comments?
https://www.lvhq.net/NoMatch/



Steve M

Just saw that over on Rocketry Planet...

Looks pretty interesting until you get to the $79 (intro) price. Multiply that
by two for main & drogue; or by four if you want redundancy and costs add up
quick.

I was actually toying around with an idea like this for a while, but hadn't had the time to develop it. Nice to know it works, though. I think ideas like this that eliminate the hassle of pyrotechnics are what we really need. This might convince me to pursue the idea further.

How much current draw does the glow plug use? I ask because I know they can produce some significant magnetic fields.

Okay, good looking system.

some observations...

The charge container is mounted to the board right? The board is much harder to protect from ejection charge gasses unless it is mounted as suggested. The suggested mounting isn't very likely to be useable in my existing rockets. I really don't like the extra holes in my bulkhead either. The placement on the board looks like it is taking a lot of force from the charge going off in the opposite direction.

A wire from the board to the charge can and coil assembly would make mounting so much easier and it would probably be a little more rugged with the ability to mount the charge remotely.
That way I could install onto terminals more like an ematch charge.

The battery holder doesn't seem to be very rugged. As suggested the battery and electronics could be mounted more securely but not easily in the current configuration. But then I'm not holding one yet.

A 2g charge is respectable for most rockets up to 3 even some 4 inch diameter tubes but I really need more space than the charge can allows for.

The intro price is pretty steep. Given the design currently is optimized for smaller airframes. I can still buy a lot of matches for $79 and I think this will wear out or break before I run out of my $79 stash of ematches. And for a dual deploy the cost sky-rockets to $158. Offer me a second for $20 and I'm more interested.

I really do like the reusable quality but really 500 uses? I could easily be talked into trying one of these with my MAWD to give it a real going over.

Nice product, Great idea, good features. Nice web page too. I might order one. Good luck.

this looks like a sweet idea. If I can afford it I might get one.

thanx, Ben

It looks like a nice product, except for the price. (BTW, this isn't the first use of glowplugs. AT's EFC timer also uses them).

If Perfectflite thinks my MAWD latch time kit is OK, I'm sure it could fire glowplugs.

What are the current and voltage requirements for glowplugs?

Originally posted by m85476585
It looks like a nice product, except for the price. (BTW, this isn't the first use of glowplugs. AT's EFC timer also uses them).

If Perfectflite thinks my MAWD latch time kit is OK, I'm sure it could fire glowplugs.

What are the current and voltage requirements for glowplugs?

Click to expand...

It varies significantly, but most automotive-oriented glow plugs draw 5-10 Amps for some seconds. I don't know if you're latch kit could do that, but the you would definitely need a certain battery to do it, probably nicad. I believe plugs meant for hobbyists have lower requirements. I have no idea what this one uses.

EDIT: also, the voltage across the plug has to be around 1.5-2 volts.

That's a slight exaggeration, but most do require at least 3-4A to light adequately. This is usually supplied by a single, rechargeable NiCd sub-c size (1.2V) cell.

Current and time are not the limiting factors in my design; it's the battery. As long as it doesn't require something too heavy, it should work.

Actually, 1.2V might be ideal because the reverse voltage on the altimeter will be only 1.2V above the source (10.2V) instead of 9V above the source (18V).

The website is professional. The product is original. The price is pretty steep. Should you suffer a serious failure you just more or less tripled your electronics loss for a duel deployment setup. If a LEUP is still required for the black powder what good does it do to avoid the ematch LEUP requirement?

Can't see too many people going for this considering the initial cost involved. Also, it's enough of a PITA moving my altimeter between rockets without having to remove and reinstall a couple of these too. Regular electric matches are just so much easier.

Originally posted by mtwieg
It varies significantly, but most automotive-oriented glow plugs draw 5-10 Amps for some seconds. I don't know if you're latch kit could do that, but the you would definitely need a certain battery to do it, probably nicad. I believe plugs meant for hobbyists have lower requirements. I have no idea what this one uses.

EDIT: also, the voltage across the plug has to be around 1.5-2 volts.

Click to expand...

The No-Match device uses a standard RC airplane glow plug rated to draw ~3 amps at ~2 volts. It uses a cheap throwaway 3 volt lithium CR123 battery available at any drug store. (They don't generate any significant magnet fields.) It will run all season on a battery. On his current and earlier website, he has shown that the unit will fire more than 500 times on one battery.

Quite frankly, I don't believe $79 is a lot money for the unit. In small quantities, he's probably paying at least $30 for the parts, he's doing the assembly, he's supplying the battery and he's paying for the shipping. If he's lucky he might be making $20 per unit. Considering that the cost of a commercial e-match is ~$1, if you use this unit more than 80 times it is cheaper, and you don't the an explosives permit to buy the e-match.

The No-Match unit has been under development for several years. I'm guessing Gary was at Balls 2005 and saw the unit in operation and decided to make a similar one for his reloadables. The AT electronic forward closure is built on the same concept and uses the same type glow plug and the same battery but it has a timer board and g-switch made by Perfectflite built-in, but @ $179 is $100 more expensive than this unit which can be used with any altimeter.

Bob

Originally posted by bobkrech
if you use this unit more than 80 times it is cheaper, and you don't the an explosives permit to buy the e-match.
Bob

Click to expand...

It does look good but does have draw backs. My L3 rocket for
instance used 4 grams of BP in the top section. This unit would
have to be modified to take more than 2 grams. It is an additional
expense which would over time be made up with the cost of the
e-matches and in the long run save money.

The basic point missed by most is that according to the BATFE
you still need to have a LEUP to buy and use BP for ejection
charges if it does not come with a motor. You get by the e-match
problem but you still have the BP issue in regards to a LEUP.

William

Originally posted by bobkrech
The No-Match unit has been under development for several years. I'm guessing Gary was at Balls 2005 and saw the unit in operation and decided to make a similar one for his reloadables. The AT electronic forward closure is built on the same concept and uses the same type glow plug and the same battery but it has a timer board and g-switch made by Perfectflite built-in, but @ $179 is $100 more expensive than this unit which can be used with any altimeter.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I've been wondering where this fits in with the AT EFC-1. Apparently the EFC-1 is patent pending. What actually is being patented? Does the NoMatch system potentially infringe if it's used with a timer?

https://rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27971&perpage=20&pagenumber=2/

Originally posted by matthew
I have to say, I've been wondering where this fits in with the AT EFC-1. Apparently the EFC-1 is patent pending. What actually is being patented? Does the NoMatch system potentially infringe if it's used with a timer?

https://rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27971&perpage=20&pagenumber=2/

Click to expand...

Matthew

There are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

As far as I can tell, the NoMatch predates the EFC-1, and others have used glow plugs before so the underlying principles are not original and there it is unlikely that AT would have applied for a utility patent on the process.

I don't think I've seen the patent application, but it's likely that AT has filed for a design patent which protects the actual physical design of the system from being duplicated. Take a close look at a 35 mm camera or videocamera that you have and see how many patent numbers are on them. Virtually every 35 mm camera lens has a design patent so that no one but the OEM can copy it exactly, especially the mounting adapter. By patenting the design, AT is insuring that no one else can sell a similar unit to screw into the AT style motor casings.

Bob

From the web site:

"but this type of test should be limited to 2 seconds, otherwise the glow plug will burn through and the electronics may get damaged."

Burn through? Burn through what? Can't be the glow plug; I put an igniter on glow plugs for minutes while trying to start a cranky engine with no harm done. The tube? Find that hard to believe; there are plenty of aluminum R/C engine heads that clearly don't burn through from the glow plug. The mount to the board? Possibly, but I doubt that much heat could be transferred through the tube in two seconds.

I gotta agree that mounting the tube on the board seems like a bad idea. Don't understand why it's not separate...

Originally posted by RickVB

Burn through? Burn through what? Can't be the glow plug; I put an igniter on glow plugs for minutes while trying to start a cranky engine with no harm done. The tube? Find that hard to believe; there are plenty of aluminum R/C engine heads that clearly don't burn through from the glow plug. The mount to the board? Possibly, but I doubt that much heat could be transferred through the tube in two seconds.

I gotta agree that mounting the tube on the board seems like a bad idea. Don't understand why it's not separate...

Click to expand...

PC boards conduct heat fairly well, and the electronics are quite close to the glow plug. I imagine if you left it on for long enough, the solder would melt and you might lose some parts. It's also possible that the pcb itself could be damaged.

Mounting the glow plug is a problem no matter how I think about it. They're designed for use in applications that tolerate very high temperatures, and they're usually mounted on solid metal. I imagine if you tried to mount one directly to a plastic or wood bulkhead, it would not work.

I ordered one. It looks interesting. Pyodex should work just fine. Even the Rouse-Tech system requires Pyodex.

Originally posted by mtwieg
Mounting the glow plug is a problem no matter how I think about it. They're designed for use in applications that tolerate very high temperatures, and they're usually mounted on solid metal. I imagine if you tried to mount one directly to a plastic or wood bulkhead, it would not work.

Click to expand...

Glow plugs provide their ground connection through their body (i.e., the threads). The glow plug is threaded into the tube (aluminum), which provides the ground here. This is clear because the test procedure has you check resistance between a board terminal and the tube. If you were to mount it in a non-conductive tube or bulkhead, you'd have to provide a grounded conductor in contact with the plug body.

Originally posted by RickVB
Glow plugs provide their ground connection through their body (i.e., the threads). The glow plug is threaded into the tube (aluminum), which provides the ground here. This is clear because the test procedure has you check resistance between a board terminal and the tube. If you were to mount it in a non-conductive tube or bulkhead, you'd have to provide a grounded conductor in contact with the plug body.

Click to expand...

Okay, a 3rd wire then. Easy fix no?. Thanks for the detail.

I'm sure I could improve on the design. The only problem I would have is replicating the container for the black powder... I've never had to machine custom parts before.

Originally posted by brianc
Just saw that over on Rocketry Planet...
Looks pretty interesting until you get to the $79 (intro) price. Multiply that by two for main & drogue; or by four if you want redundancy and costs add up quick.

Click to expand...

Sorry that you feel that $79 is high, but because I am making only low quanities, this is about as low as I can sell theses (add the hour it takes me to assemble each unit and I am probably in the red ).

There is no need for 4 units. Each unit has 2 altimeter inputs, so the redundancy is built into the units. Since you can test the glow plug before the launch, the chances that the glow plug will not fire is extremely remote.

Originally posted by mtwieg
How much current draw does the glow plug use?

Click to expand...

The glow plug draws 4.5-9 Amps from the built-in battery, but it only takes 6mA (0.006A) to trigger the firing.

Originally posted by Manwithbeers
Okay, good looking system.
The charge container is mounted to the board right? The board is much harder to protect from ejection charge gasses unless it is mounted as suggested. ... I really don't like the extra holes in my bulkhead either.

Click to expand...

Yes, the charge container is mounted on the circuit board. One way you could protect the board from the ejection charge gases is by putting it into its own sealed enclosure with only the ejection charge holder sticking out. This way you wouldn't need any holes in the bulkhead either.

The placement on the board looks like it is taking a lot of force from the charge going off in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation and I already thought of that. All units that I am shipping out will actually have a rim on the ejection charge holder, so that it will take the force from the charge going off rather than the circuit board. This will also help to seal the ejection charge chamber.

A wire from the board to the charge can and coil assembly would make mounting so much easier and it would probably be a little more rugged with the ability to mount the charge remotely.

Click to expand...

I am already looking into developing another version with a remote glow plug setup.

The battery holder doesn't seem to be very rugged. As suggested the battery and electronics could be mounted more securely but not easily in the current configuration. But then I'm not holding one yet.

Click to expand...

The battery holder itself is riveted to the board. The battery clip itself is definitely not enough to hold the battery in place (especially if it points towards the back of the rocket) and needs to be secured to the board with additional means. Tie wraps or even several wraps of tape would be my suggestion.

A 2g charge is respectable for most rockets up to 3 even some 4 inch diameter tubes but I really need more space than the charge can allows for.

Click to expand...

I offer custom ejection charge holders. Just specify what I.D. (minimum 1/4") and length you need and I'll send you the price.

The intro price is pretty steep.

Click to expand...

See my previous post.

I really do like the reusable quality but really 500 uses?

Click to expand...

Look at the battery test video on my website. This was the actual last few seconds of that test. Although this test did not fire an actual charge 500 times and "only" light up the glow plug, I see no reason why the glow plug should fail before then. After all glow plugs are inside a very hot combustion chamber for a very long time during their regular use in model engines. Even if the glow plug does fail, they cost $4 to be replaced.

Originally posted by m85476585
If Perfectflite thinks my MAWD latch time kit is OK, I'm sure it could fire glowplugs.

What are the current and voltage requirements for glowplugs?

Click to expand...

You only need 4.5-9V and 3-6mA (0.003-0.006A) to fire the glow plug. The reason for this is because the current from the altimeter is only used to trigger the firing of the glow plug. The glow plug itself is powered by the internal battery. As long as the altimeter turns its outputs on for at least 1/4 second you should be fine. Altimeters should not turn on their outputs for more than 2 seconds, otherwise you risk burning through the glow plug (after it ignites the ejection charge) and damaging the electronics.

Originally posted by Last Frontier
The website is professional. The product is original. The price is pretty steep. Should you suffer a serious failure you just more or less tripled your electronics loss for a duel deployment setup. If a LEUP is still required for the black powder what good does it do to avoid the ematch LEUP requirement?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliments.

Please see my previous post about the cost of this unit. I guess the only thing I would like to add to this is the question: How much was your rocket that got destroyed when the e-match failed to light . Improved reliability was my main motivation when I developed this system. That increased reliability comes with an (at least initially) higher price tag is pretty standard.

As far as I understand, if you use Pyrodex instead of black powder you won't need a LEUP.

Originally posted by bobkrech
The No-Match device uses a standard RC airplane glow plug rated to draw ~3 amps at ~2 volts. It uses a cheap throwaway 3 volt lithium CR123 battery available at any drug store. (They don't generate any significant magnet fields.) It will run all season on a battery. On his current and earlier website, he has shown that the unit will fire more than 500 times on one battery.

Quite frankly, I don't believe $79 is a lot money for the unit. In small quantities, he's probably paying at least $30 for the parts, he's doing the assembly, he's supplying the battery and he's paying for the shipping. If he's lucky he might be making $20 per unit. Considering that the cost of a commercial e-match is ~$1, if you use this unit more than 80 times it is cheaper, and you don't the an explosives permit to buy the e-match.

The No-Match unit has been under development for several years. I'm guessing Gary was at Balls 2005 and saw the unit in operation and decided to make a similar one for his reloadables. The AT electronic forward closure is built on the same concept and uses the same type glow plug and the same battery but it has a timer board and g-switch made by Perfectflite built-in, but @ $179 is $100 more expensive than this unit which can be used with any altimeter.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob: Thanks for the help here. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Originally posted by WillCarney
It does look good but does have draw backs. My L3 rocket for
instance used 4 grams of BP in the top section. This unit would
have to be modified to take more than 2 grams. It is an additional
expense which would over time be made up with the cost of the
e-matches and in the long run save money.

The basic point missed by most is that according to the BATFE
you still need to have a LEUP to buy and use BP for ejection
charges if it does not come with a motor. You get by the e-match
problem but you still have the BP issue in regards to a LEUP.

William

Click to expand...

I do offer a custom ejection charge holder for my NoMatch unit and I don't charge much for them. Just send me the I.D. (minimum 1/4") and length and I'll send you a price.

Please see my previous post about using Pyrodex instead of black powder.

Oliver1111 Thanks for answering questions! Don't take anything said as personal, all you can do is make the best product you can, put it out there and let the market decide. Most of what you find here, I hope will lead you to improve on an already Great idea. I will look into purchasing as soon as my budget will allow!

I started this thread to see what others here thought of you're Idea Hope you sell all you can make good Luck


Steve M

Originally posted by oliver1111
As far as I understand, if you use Pyrodex instead of black powder you won't need a LEUP.

Click to expand...

Smokeless powders are still on the explosives list, but the ATF doesn't really regulate them. Technically they could start requiring a LEUP at any time without warning.