Revision to Tripoli Rule Regarding Wireless Remote Switches

eggtimer rocketry
Onebadhawk
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
manixFan said:
So will you reimburse me for the $100’s of dollars on electronic gear that a few days ago was not an issue? How about all the 3D printed A/V bays I have that incorporate a mag switch and now have to be scrapped? Or the time it will take to completely redo the bays on my 29mm and 38mm min diameter rockets, not not mention nearly ever other rocket I own that all use mag switches? I have over a dozen altimeters that are set up with mag switches, plus 4 WiFi switches, and a Protron. The three power perches I own will now require a solution for each ejection charge or I have to throw them in the trash.

Clearly you are unaffected by this rule change or you would not have such a cavalier attitude about a change made with no explanation or reasoning.

This rule affects nearly every rocket in my fleet, including all 4 I took to BALLS last year. It’s not a trivial “just add a switch”, it’s a complete redo of the way I have designed nearly every A/V bay in my fleet.

There is real money and a lot of time and energy at stake here for me, and I suspect many others. Not to mention the vendors. And I’ll ask yet again, why? Where is the reasoning why suddenly this approach is now unacceptable? That 1000 different solutions is better than just a handful? No one has answered that.
Click to expand...

^ This.

No answer on the question as to why this has changed.

From the first post :
Recent discussions have reminded us of situations we failed to consider, such as when the rocket is being transported or when it’s presented for pre-flight inspection.
Click to expand...

and
Please also note that this is not because of any failure or perceived risk from any of the wireless remote switches.
Click to expand...

So why no more wireless switches? What has changed from when they were allowed? What situations were failed to consider that could lead to a wireless switch failing open and setting off a charge?
 
I got the answer. A competitor made a point and the rules were changed. Basically the word 'inhibit' was interpreted to mean a physical switch.


Tony
 
John Williams said:
Fair enough but that rings true for mechanical switches as well. Frankly this smacks of people who don't trust wireless switches because they don't understand them and can't see how they function. But again show me the proof that a mechanical switch is more reliable and safer.
Click to expand...

Will a throw it against a wall a few times and try to operate it be a good test? :)
 
manixFan said:
I got the answer. A competitor made a point and the rules were changed. Basically the word 'inhibit' was interpreted to mean a physical switch.


Tony
Click to expand...
Fancier words than necessary in a rule or requirement is always a bad idea.
 
SDramstad said:
What keeps you from getting the rocket ready at your car. Turn off the electronics. Clear it with the RSO. Go back to your car. energize the wifi switch at your car. Carry it to the pad holding it vertically on the way there so it isnt pointing at anyone. Throw it on the pad and turn on the altimeter.
Click to expand...

That would amount to transporting the rocket, which is specifically not allowed.
 
John Williams said:
Adding a switch adds a failure point and also defeats the purpose of the wireless switch. Why have two switches for the same circuit at that point the wireless switch just becomes a gimmick for entertainment. It is literally just one more thing to forget and potentially cause a crash
Click to expand...

I don't see how the switch will be forgotten. With Eggtimer stuff, you have to use your phone or whatever to arm the electronics AFTER its been turned on/powered up.
You won't be able to do this if there isn't power going to the wifi circuit.
Furthermore, if you have the switch on the charges, the wifi device will flag you that you don't have continuity.

I would argue that adding the physical switches decreases reliability in the sense that it adds more points of failure, but I don't see an issue with the one you brought up about forgetting about it.
Dave
 
dvdsnyd said:
I don't see how the switch will be forgotten. With Eggtimer stuff, you have to use your phone or whatever to arm the electronics AFTER its been turned on/powered up.
You won't be able to do this if there isn't power going to the wifi circuit.
Furthermore, if you have the switch on the charges, the wifi device will flag you that you don't have continuity.

I would argue that adding the physical switches decreases reliability in the sense that it adds more points of failure, but I don't see an issue with the one you brought up about forgetting about it.
Dave
Click to expand...
I was more referring to the mag switches I guess
 
Speaknoevil said:
I totally agree, but, and I say this with the utmost respect, the special intermediate prep idea was something offered up by the TRA President. That holds a lot more weight than your local club, and thus leads to my fear.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised at how little my opinion weighs! [emoji851] And honestly my opinion should not weigh more than local club rules. Board passed rules are different of course, but my opinion is wrong just as frequently as anyone else, sometimes more.

Special prep areas or prep at the pad are already necessary for multi stage projects. You cannot put together a rocket with two stages and have the igniter in the upper stages and walk through a crowd on the way to the RSO table. Many launches have a table out on the range where people can stop and prep complex projects.
 
cerving said:
On another front, has anyone done any kind of actual study on the reliability of the different types of commonly-used switches in hobby rocketry? The only information that I've ever seen has been anecdotal. Electronic parts have detailed spec sheets that give you the characteristics under varying physical conditions (temperature, vibration, acceleration, etc.), other than the Schurter 033.4501 voltage selector switch there are generally no specs for the generic switches that seem to be in popular use. The Schurter parts complies with IEC 60068-2-6 for vibration and shock... unfortunately, it's $300 to get a copy of the spec.
Click to expand...
As you know, most respectable switch suppliers have a data sheet for their products that they give out freely. The problem is vibration and shock are not published in the standard data sheet in most cases, but at times they do have reliability reports for classes of product. Saying that, from what I have seen most rockets are built with electrical wiring components purchased on eBay where all bets are off. I would also venture a guess that 90% of active rocketeers do not know enough about electronics to make intelligent choices, regardless.
Tyco Switch.JPG
 
I don't have a dog in this fight because even though I have a TRS, a proton, several quantums and a powerperch for my raven, I always include a mechanical switch on the battery lead. In my older stuff like my ARTS2, MAWD, etc, they all had switch connections on board that kept the battery circuit open until a mechanical switch was closed. I did that because it was my understanding that the safety rules have always been that electronics could not be energized away from the pad and that they should only be armed after vertical on the pad. The wireless portion greatly eases the second part of that as I no longer have to stick my ear next to the rocket after powering up for the Egg products to arm them. I'm somewhat amazed that people have been walking around away from the pad areas with a rocket with powered electronics. That has always been against the safety rules, hasn't it?

The only thing I could take exception to is a separate wifi switch that switches the power for the main electronics. In that case, while the wifi switch has power, it has not closed the circuit to the main electronics package and that remains without power. I would view a mag switch the same way as long as it isn't part of the main electronics.
 
dvdsnyd said:
No one is saying you have to fly on Saturday.
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or does that seem like a rude and flippant response to anyone who is concerned about complying with a new rule in time to keep their launch plans?

dvdsnyd said:
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree on the underlying principle of the ruling, and we need to start focusing on the innovative solutions around them.
Click to expand...

I don't think we actually do all agree with the underlying principle. I think the electronic switches are safe.
 
Steve Shannon said:
You might be surprised at how little my opinion weighs!
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Is it just me, or does that seem like a rude and flippant response to anyone who is concerned about complying with a new rule in time to keep their launch plans?
Yeah I agree rude. This rule seems to have no basis in facts and thus I don't like it. I am currently using screw switches on my rockets so this doesn't affect my current rockets but I was planning to use mag switches in the future. As far as I'm concerned this does nothing to make the hobby safer and instead just seriously inconveniences alot of people.


I don't think we actually do all agree with the underlying principle. I think the electronic switches are safe.
Click to expand...
 
SDramstad said:
I havent seen this much drama since visiting my 9 year old niece. It's not complicated. They dont want people with energized electronics involved with deployment charges crowded around the RSO table. Solution is to put a switch on the battery line JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DUAL DEPLOY ROCKET THAT DOESNT USE WIFI! Which is still the majority of the fliers out there. Its simple, its safe and it works. No one needs to disassemble their rockets ebay at the pad. Put in a switch accessible from the outside of your ebay LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES!. You can even turn them on before its on the pad making it even easier then it is for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Er, umm, Some minimum diameter projects are difficult to put a mechanical switch in. I think dissing mag switches for deployment devices is uncalled for. The Galejs MAD unit is one caution inducing device as once energized, if the rocket tips over, the charge is going to blow. I use exquisite precaution when using that device (plus a mechanical switch). A mag switch is simple, plug the battery in with ematches/charge disconnected, shut off switch with magnet, connect the charges go to pad and turn on with the magnet when upright.

If RSO's are so paranoid, they can specify to check in the rocket without the battery connected then the flier can proceed with the above protocol. If REALLY paranoid, after turning the mag switch off, could use a contained ematch with no powder and plug it into the terminals to PROVE there is no current flowing THEN connect up the live charges and proceed to the pad.

The only time an altimeter is going to blow charges when power is applied is 1. if it is defective due to a hard hit. 2. Lousy design so wind blowing through the ebay confuses the electronics. 3. Rf interference from a tracker.
4. Reversing the polarity of the altimeter battery.

Number 2 and 3 have pretty much been alleviated with modern altimeter design but I've been burned by number 2 and number 3 both. Both times I was walking away and the show was simply embarrassing. Number 4 in the old days would
happen in some altimeter designs. Turn on the switch in that state and the charges immediately blew. I heard number 1 was reported by a flier the first flight after the altimeter took a hard hit. Next flight when the altimeter was turned on, it
blew the charges immediately.

Personally, I believe if they want to have a rule that all rockets be inspected with disconnected batteries. Fine as fliers can safely go about setup once checked in.

As far as staging is concerned, I haven't done it but if I did I would go wireless with an approved device and the wireless altimeter that is connected to the sustainer igniter, I'd definitely use a good quality mechanical switch on the battery of that device. If the rocket is large enough I can't take issue with switches on all devices as there is plenty of room to do so. Kurt
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Is it just me, or does that seem like a rude and flippant response to anyone who is concerned about complying with a new rule in time to keep their launch plans?



I don't think we actually do all agree with the underlying principle. I think the electronic switches are safe.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree rude. This rule seems to have no basis in facts and thus I don't like it. I am currently using screw switches on my rockets so this doesn't affect my current rockets but I was planning to use mag switches in the future. As far as I'm concerned this does nothing to make the hobby safer and instead just seriously inconveniences alot of people.
 
As I have stated before I don’t have a problem with this rule. However a “grace period” of a month or 6 weeks should have been considered since there are launches this weekend that would be affected.
 
SDramstad said:
As I have stated before I don’t have a problem with this rule. However a “grace period” of a month or 6 weeks should have been considered since there are launches this weekend that would be affected.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see the urgency. Some clubs get very few launches a year and each one is a big deal. This is peak season for areas with fire danger because it's wet enough to be safe but not so wet that you can't drive out to the site. Last year some of these clubs literally only had two launches.

I also anticipate that people who haven't seen this thread or equivalent are going to show up at their local club, rocket in hand, and be informed that there are problems.
 
Here’s a question, and I have no personal investment in the answer. Are current TRA record holders going to be stripped of their records if they used a device now banned by TRA?
 
heada said:
I don't have a dog in this fight because even though I have a TRS, a proton, several quantums and a powerperch for my raven, I always include a mechanical switch on the battery lead. ...<snipped>...
Click to expand...
Can you please post a photo of how you've added a mechanical switch to your power perch?

heada said:
...<snipped>... I did that because it was my understanding that the safety rules have always been that electronics could not be energized away from the pad and that they should only be armed after vertical on the pad.....
Click to expand...
When the mag switch is in the off position, is the altimeter energized? If not, why the need for a mechanical switch?

This is the crux, where is the analysis to show a solid state switch is less safe than a mechanical switch? Why the change in the interpretation of the word 'inhibit' to an open mechanical switch? What evidence did the competitor show that caused the board to re-interpret the rules?


Tony
 
Last edited:
manixFan said:
Can you please post a photo of how you've added a mechanical switch to your power perch?
Click to expand...
I've swapped out the 150mah battery that the perch comes with for my own 450mah battery and added a SPDT slide switch. I don't have a photo of it but I can pull that rocket out and get it out of the av bay and take one if you really want.
manixFan said:
When the mag switch is in the off position, is the altimeter energized? If not, why the need for a mechanical switch?
Click to expand...
I agree with this. If the switch, be it wifi, mag, screw, key, slide, etc., breaks the circuit between the controller and the battery, I understand it as complying with the new rule. If the switch, regardless of type, doesn't break that circuit then it doesn't comply. This is why the devices that were called out are on that list. The switch doesn't break the circuit to the controller, it only arms/disarms the events. I think the remote arm/disarm is a wonderful thing and I'm changing over all my electronics to that method but I don't think they're perfect and they still need to comply with the safety rules which state that the electronics that control events need to be powered off outside of the launch area.

Examples that in my opinion would be acceptable to the new rule: If you use a Featherweight mag switch to power on a Stratologger, that is acceptable. If you use an Eggtimer Wifi switch to power on a Telemega, that is also acceptable. You could even use a mag switch to control the power to a proton and it would meet the requirements.
 
FYI, the three Eggtimer devices named in this TRA rule break power to the attached device (WiFi Switch) or the deployment circuitry (Quantum, Proton) until explicitly armed, by entering a 4-digit arming code that changes every 60 seconds. You can't "pocket arm" them.
 
heada said:
Examples that in my opinion would be acceptable to the new rule: If you use a Featherweight mag switch to power on a Stratologger, that is acceptable. If you use an Eggtimer Wifi switch to power on a Telemega, that is also acceptable. You could even use a mag switch to control the power to a proton and it would meet the requirements.
Click to expand...

These examples are all using two different vendors, does that somehow make it "acceptable"? What about an Eggtimer WiFi switch powering on an Eggtimer Quark? Is this "acceptable" because the switch and altimeter are on separate PCBs? How is this any different than an Eggtimer Quantum where both the WiFi switch and the altimeter are on the same PCB, but electrically isolated?
 
Adding an extra mechanical switch might introduce another point of failure, as many have suggested, but it doesn’t increase the probability of a simultaneous failure of all switches in the system, electronic or mechanical. It actually decreases.

It’s true that the individual switches of any type might still have a 50% probability of failure, but I would prefer having the physical disconnect from the power than rely purely on an electronic switch that still has power connected. After over 40 years in electronics, I will always trust a good mechanical switch over an electronic one in this particular application.

I have seen magnetic switches fail to switch correctly because the switch sensor is installed with the incorrect orientation, or the magnet has been used incorrectly. Instead of switching on or off, the switch has done both in the one pass of the magnet. I love magnetic switches, but would I trust them over a good quality mechanical switch - no! I would use both.

The same applies to Wifi switches. I love them, but I will still have a physical disconnect to the battery.

There have been some very good comments and questions, for and against, regarding the reasons behind the changes in requirements, but l believe they are in the best interests of safety in our passion for rocketry.
 
Last edited:
Dugway said:
These examples are all using two different vendors, does that somehow make it "acceptable"? What about an Eggtimer WiFi switch powering on an Eggtimer Quark? Is this "acceptable" because the switch and altimeter are on separate PCBs? How is this any different than an Eggtimer Quantum where both the WiFi switch and the altimeter are on the same PCB, but electrically isolated?
Click to expand...
Same vendor is good too. A Eggtimer WiFi switch controlling a Quark is OK. The problem with the Quantum is that when you provide power for the ESP32 for the WiFi part, you're also providing power to the controller of the events. If you could somehow power on the ESP32 part of the Quantum without providing power to the controller too, then it would be OK.

As Chris said above, you can't accidentally arm the events because it requires you to manually enter the code but arming isn't the issue, its having the controller powered on while away from the launch area. I don't know much about Kate II but I'm assuming it is the same way.
 
Note that the PROTON has two different controllers... the ESP32 part controls the power FET on the low side, while an I2C expander controls the outputs on the high side. For a channel to fire, BOTH of them would have to send a signal to the outputs simultaneously.
 
manixFan said:
And post the code as well so we can test it and verify there aren’t any bugs. Or have you done that already?
Click to expand...
You want me to test the code used by a mechanical switch?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave A
Sold Missile Works--WRC2--2CH Wireless Remote Control
Replies
0
Views
476
Dave A
Dave A
F
I2C Rocket Starter Controller
Replies
8
Views
1K
HyperSpeed
HyperSpeed
B
Opinions solicited regarding proposal for Horizontal Spin Recovery Duration as a NAR competition event
Replies
29
Views
1K
astronguy
A
Kane
Design and Build Thread: ARO-B Two-Stage
Replies
22
Views
2K
Kane
Kane
Mark Weidhaas
Simple Wireless Launch Controller
Replies
5
Views
2K
Mark Weidhaas
Mark Weidhaas

Latest posts

Back
Top