A wonderful wireless launch system. Cheap

[Mad Rocketeer]

Originally posted by LtSharpe
You could tied the second motor line to a latching relay or not,, if not then you have to hold the left right stick over(say to the right) to keep it closed for armed,, if it was latching it would just stick until you hit the right stick again. And then the contacts of that relay also close the connection to the ignitor therefore arming the armed receiver hehe Yeah I've thought of all kinds of funny gimmicks to try but it's so elegant and simple and it just works,, why fix it if it ain't broke I did notice ramsey electronics has some uhf encoder and decoders with rf transmission capability,, they look inexpensive. could be something for someone to pay with.

LtSharpe: I think I was editing my post to add more stuff at the same time you were answering.

Why tinker with what's working now? A couple of reasons come to mind.

1.) Added safety for those cases that haven't come up yet, but may.

2.) Fun! For me, designing and tinkering with the designs, equipment, new construction techniques and materials, and so on, are a big part of the fun. It's always a balance between the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle and "Hey cool! What if I did this?"

I'd tinker with this one, at least to the extent of incorporating the second channel in some simple way.

I like your idea of a non-latching relay controlled by the second channel. That could be done with the buttons and coding scheme I proposed two posts back (Remember, each button is activating two channels.) or with the sticks.

 

[powderburner]

I sure am NOT going to enter the RC/safety discussion----I will leave that one to you guys who know what you are doing.

It does sound like LtSharpe has a unique launch setup where just about anything he does would be safe. That's great, and I hope he enjoys the use of such a place for a long time (maybe invite some local rocket clubs to come over?)

And the NAR safety code does indeed reflect the collected wisdom of many launches, rocketeers, and advisors.

However

If I am not mistaken, the NAR safety code is a mirror image of the requirements spelled out by the National Fire Protection Association. This safety code was established cooperatively, and is a key step that has been taken to separate our hobby from plain ol' fireworks. The safety code is the very reason that our hobby is considered legal and safe. We tend to forget that the NFPA rules are part of everyone's state and local law-enforcement guidelines, whether we are NAR members or not. From what I have read about this aspect of our hobby, I believe that we are sort of obligated to follow the NAR safety code at all times or else risk being prosecuted by the law.

Does anyone else have further info on this? What about our NARPrez guy, are you checking this thread?

 

[LtSharpe]

As much as the NAR would like to think i'ts god,, it's not. Nothing against them though. The fire marshal rules apply simply to the motors, not how you launch them. As far as the fire dept goes though there are some basic rules of common sense one should follow in another area:

In california firework rockets(you know,, skyrockets, bottle etc) are illegal,, so if you buy an estes screamer or something that whistles on the way up you are asking for trouble.

And again, same thing, don't launch estes stuff around the 4th in cal because you're liable to get hounded. Especially no night launches!! oh my, you'd be locked up and the key thrown away!!

 

[powderburner]

Originally posted by LtSharpe
The fire marshal rules apply simply to the motors, not how you launch them.

Maybe you should pull out the NAR safety code and re-read it?

 

[JRThro]

Originally posted by powderburner
Maybe you should pull out the NAR safety code and re-read it?

He's making a very sharp distinction between the NAR safety code and the NFPA regulations.

 

[powderburner]

It is my understanding that these two sets of rules are basically one-and-the-same, and that our observance of these rules are what allow us to have a legal hobby.

 

[JRThro]

Originally posted by powderburner
It is my understanding that these two sets of rules are basically one-and-the-same, and that our observance of these rules are what allow us to have a legal hobby.

In fact, quoting the FAQ from rec.models.rockets (emphasis mine),

"'Model rockets' are rockets that conform to the guidelines and restrictions
defined in the NFPA 1122 document. These rockets weigh less than 1500
grams, contain less than 125 grams of total fuel, have no motor with
more than 62.5 grams of fuel or more than 160 NS of total impulse, use
only pre-manufactured, solid propellant motors, and do not use metal
body tubes, nose cones or fins. One inconsistancy with this is the
CPSC definition of a model rocket motor, which by their definition must
contain no more than 80NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-94 contains
the most complete definition of a model rocket and the model rocket safety
code. This is the same safety code as adopted by the NAR."

So in fact, there is no distinction between NFPA regulations and the NAR safety code.

 

[LtSharpe]

And of course neither one has any bearing whatsoever on wireless controllers. Frankly this thread has gotten so far away from the original point at times it's a bit silly. Some just are totally overreacting.

 

[JRThro]

Originally posted by LtSharpe
And of course neither one has any bearing whatsoever on wireless controllers. Frankly this thread has gotten so far away from the original point at times it's a bit silly. Some just are totally overreacting.

Some probably are overreacting.

However, you stated that the NFPA regs only apply to rocket motors and not to how the rockets are launched, and that's simply not true. NFPA 1127 includes the NAR safety code.

Also, however, since you won't agree that you should abide by the NAR safety code even though it is part of the NFPA regulations governing model rocketry, I won't try to convince you.

Your wireless launch system sounds pretty cool, although its safety is debatable. Hence the what, 4 pages of debate? Please let us know how it works out for you, okay?

 

[LtSharpe]

It will continue to work out well because there's absolutely no problem with it...I would have to WANT hurt myeslf with it to do so. And again, I aid nothing about not abiding by any rules,, but there is NO LAW against wireless controllers. So bizarre how some are so hung up on this. Think outside the box guys....

 

[Mike]

From the NAR website Model Rocket Safety Code

...My launch system will have a safety interlock in series with the launch switch...

 

[shreadvector]

The NAR MRSC is not law, but the N.F.P.A. fire code (N.F.P.A. 1122) is "law" in many States of the USA because those States refer to it in their state laws and regulations.

I attempted to point this out (key must be removeable leaving system 'dead' - if key can be removed with system armed, theat is "bad") in another thread and was told to "lighten up".

BUWAHAHA....

Originally posted by Mike
From the NAR website Model Rocket Safety Code

 

[texasck1]

I first read this post before anyone had responeded and my reaction was "WOW, this is gonna open a big can of worms." Being fairly new, I decided to sit back and see where it went. WHAT A JOURNEY!

I think the concept for this launcher is AWESOME. However, I think it also has a lot of safety issues that are potentially there. My main concern is not what you do in the privacy of your own "range", but what others who might see it and not know any better might do. There is lots of discussion on this forum about making the discussions appropriate for the audience. This has the potential to be dangerous in the wrong (not as safety concious as you) hands.

We all love this sport/hobby or we wouldn't be posting here and we all want to keep it around for our kids to continue with us in the future. The thing that will cause it not to be here for our kids are incidents were the safety of the sport can be questioned. Believe it or not there are people out there that would love to shut this sport down. (Who knows why they are the way they are, but there is always someone) We also know that one incident will not put us in jeopardy, but they all add up.

In closing I would ask that everyone who has posted take this thread in the context that we all love this sport and want to protect it and also share the GREAT ideas that we each have. NAR rules may not fit everyone here, but they are what will protect us IF/WHEN our sport comes under fire. If it doesn't fit the NAR safety code, it may not be appropriate to advertise it in an open forum where ANYONE can read it.

ALL of you guys are great and even thought I have never met any of you, I feel like I know you already. Lets keep the family safe.

(Sorry to get gushy at the end, but it needed to be said)

 

[powderburner]

Originally posted by texasck1
Lets keep the family safe.

That is, after all, what everyone is after here. The only thing I could add to that is "Let's keep the hobby safe (from the bureaucrats)"

 

[LtSharpe]

I'm quoting you just to keep track of things in my head. My post is to the forum in general.

First of what some don't seem to understand is that personal responsibility is just that personal responsibility. Everyone is free to experiment if they want to. It's up to them. Again for the umpeenth time there is no law against this.

There are also people who would love to ban all guns, and they too are misguided because of course good people who target shoot and collect aren't the problem and neither are they're guns, it's the criminals.

Frankly the bit about not 'advertising' something that isn't in the code really razzles me. I hate censorship and just because someone else's idea of fun doesn't quite fit my own,, doesn't mean I have to follow his way of thinking. Especially when you aren't harming anyone else,, or yourself for that matter.

Originally posted by texasck1
I first read this post before anyone had responeded and my reaction was "WOW, this is gonna open a big can of worms." Being fairly new, I decided to sit back and see where it went. WHAT A JOURNEY!

I think the concept for this launcher is AWESOME. However, I think it also has a lot of safety issues that are potentially there. My main concern is not what you do in the privacy of your own "range", but what others who might see it and not know any better might do. There is lots of discussion on this forum about making the discussions appropriate for the audience. This has the potential to be dangerous in the wrong (not as safety concious as you) hands.

We all love this sport/hobby or we wouldn't be posting here and we all want to keep it around for our kids to continue with us in the future. The thing that will cause it not to be here for our kids are incidents were the safety of the sport can be questioned. Believe it or not there are people out there that would love to shut this sport down. (Who knows why they are the way they are, but there is always someone) We also know that one incident will not put us in jeopardy, but they all add up.

In closing I would ask that everyone who has posted take this thread in the context that we all love this sport and want to protect it and also share the GREAT ideas that we each have. NAR rules may not fit everyone here, but they are what will protect us IF/WHEN our sport comes under fire. If it doesn't fit the NAR safety code, it may not be appropriate to advertise it in an open forum where ANYONE can read it.

ALL of you guys are great and even thought I have never met any of you, I feel like I know you already. Lets keep the family safe.

(Sorry to get gushy at the end, but it needed to be said)

 

[LtSharpe]

Oh and by the way, if the thing about wirless controllers was illegal the all those 'nar certified' types who do high power woudln't be using the wirless system that i posted the picture of. Go to the company's website, ask them if they think what they are doing is illegal. I bet you'll get an earfull!

Originally posted by JRThro
Some probably are overreacting.

However, you stated that the NFPA regs only apply to rocket motors and not to how the rockets are launched, and that's simply not true. NFPA 1127 includes the NAR safety code.

Also, however, since you won't agree that you should abide by the NAR safety code even though it is part of the NFPA regulations governing model rocketry, I won't try to convince you.

Your wireless launch system sounds pretty cool, although its safety is debatable. Hence the what, 4 pages of debate? Please let us know how it works out for you, okay?

 

[LtSharpe]

And ya know what? It does. It's called the arming switch which is the same as the launch key.

Originally posted by Mike
From the NAR website Model Rocket Safety Code

 

[Lugnut]

Well, one thing I've learned in a short time in model rocketry is that no idea, regardless of who presents it, or what it is, posted on a UBB will lie fallow for long without some other expert(s) telling you a better, bigger, stronger, safer, faster, cheaper, more technical way of doing whatever it is that you've already done.

The proper response is simply, "If I happen to do it again, I'll take your comments under advisement", and leave it be.

PS this is typical of any socially interactive hobby where 50% of the enjoyment one derives from it involves giving newbies sage advise (whether they ask for it or not) on how not to scew up (like they probably did). You should see my 83 year old father and the crew of octagenerians he races R/C sailboats with. What a bunch of know it all brats. =)

 

[texasck1]

The problem is if someone reads this and thinks it's a GOOD and SAFE design and doesn't know anybetter, then YOU ARE HURTING SOMEONE! Stop and think about it. By posting it, you are taking the risk that someone MAY hurt themselves with a devise that doesn't meet minimum NAR standards. This is a simple concept.

Why would you want to be in a position of potentially hurting someone? You can call it censorship if you want. I call it "Social Responsibility!"

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing you. If anything I was trying to smooth things over. Maybe that's not possible.

 

[LtSharpe]

hehe yup exactly. Every forum goes through the same life cycle,, and has the same sort of people. Grammar police, youve seen the jokes about the light bulb forum probably,, 5 pple to ask how to do it, 57 to give advice, 100 to criticize the advice given.. 259 to pick at the grammar.... another 50 to debate the ramifications of light bulb changing etc Same old bs. I really hadnt intended that here though. oh well.

Originally posted by Lugnut
Well, one thing I've learned in a short time in model rocketry is that no idea, regardless of who presents it, or what it is, posted on a UBB will lie fallow for long without some other expert(s) telling you a better, bigger, stronger, safer, faster, cheaper, more technical way of doing whatever it is that you've already done.

The proper response is simply, "If I happen to do it again, I'll take your comments under advisement", and leave it be.

PS this is typical of any socially interactive hobby where 50% of the enjoyment one derives from it involves giving newbies sage advise (whether they ask for it or not) on how not to scew up (like they probably did). You should see my 83 year old father and the crew of octagenerians he races R/C sailboats with. What a bunch of know it all brats. =)

 

[LtSharpe]

People are free to make up their own minds. People make posts all the time on all manner of forums or in letters to magazines etc about techniques and new ideas. If someone screws up it's their own fault. I woudlnt email directions to children though. One guy did ask for directions I assure you he was an adult,, lol.

Originally posted by texasck1
The problem is if someone reads this and thinks it's a GOOD and SAFE design and doesn't know anybetter, then YOU ARE HURTING SOMEONE! Stop and think about it. By posting it, you are taking the risk that someone MAY hurt themselves with a devise that doesn't meet minimum NAR standards. This is a simple concept.

Why would you want to be in a position of potentially hurting someone? You can call it censorship if you want. I call it "Social Responsibility!"

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing you. If anything I was trying to smooth things over. Maybe that's not possible.

 

[Lugnut]

Originally posted by texasck1
The problem is if someone reads this and thinks it's a GOOD and SAFE design and doesn't know anybetter, then YOU ARE HURTING SOMEONE! Stop and think about it. By posting it, you are taking the risk that someone MAY hurt themselves with a devise that doesn't meet minimum NAR standards. This is a simple concept.

Why would you want to be in a position of potentially hurting someone? You can call it censorship if you want. I call it "Social Responsibility!"

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing you. If anything I was trying to smooth things over. Maybe that's not possible.

Dude, I think he GETS it. Once you lay out the scenarios where it is potentially unsafe, as we have done here, beyond that its a matter of personal repsonsibility, where each person has to consider their own situation and act accordingly. I might be so bold as to suggest that one who is capable of McGyvering a transmitter to launch rockets, *might* also have the ability to discriminate the potential safety issues associated with such a system.

If someone were to Google there way here to find said R/C launcher, they would also read the copious admonitions presented on how this launcher will likely kill countless bystanders and cause untold phsyical chaos as well. It comes with its own warning.

If I lived in the sticks, I might build one.

 

[LtSharpe]

Something else about the sticks is that as a Ham Radio operator which I also am and have been for years,, you dont interfere with your neighbors cheap tv set,, because the neighbors are a good distance away!

 

[slim_t]

Originally posted by Lugnut
Dude, I think he GETS it. Once you lay out the scenarios where it is potentially unsafe, as we have done here, beyond that its a matter of personal repsonsibility, where each person has to consider their own situation and act accordingly. I might be so bold as to suggest that one who is capable of McGyvering a transmitter to launch rockets, *might* also have the ability to discriminate the potential safety issues associated with such a system.

If someone were to Google there way here to find said R/C launcher, they would also read the copious admonitions presented on how this launcher will likely kill countless bystanders and cause untold phsyical chaos as well. It comes with its own warning.

If I lived in the sticks, I might build one.

Very well said. Thank you. Ditto. Amen to that. 'nuff said.

Tim