Eggtimer products, go or no go?

Shop deals on ebay
rocket sok
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ccolvin968 said:
Unfortunately, I live halfway across the country in Minnesota. I really appreciate the offer though!
I'll be ordering the Eggtimer classic shortly, but I might have to wait to get the tools.
No rush anyway. I need a couple winter projects!
I really appreciate everyone's input and advice.
Can't wait to get this baby put together once I get it!
Next up... trying to figure out how to put an avionics bay in my already built rocket... @_@
Click to expand...

As others have said, you can't go wrong with the Eggtimer products. Just take your time soldering and it'll be second nature soon enough. I have several of the quarks, quantums, and TRS's and they work great.

Regarding Macs and the serial connection, you can do it in standard Terminal. I can walk you through it one night if you need help. No sense paying money for an additional program.
 
Nate, I might take you up on that.
I'll probably be ordering my kit tonight!
Thanks again!
 
cerving said:
Many of the rocket vendors (Wildman and Madcow, in particular) sell DD upgrades for some of their kits. Generally the extra length and mass ahead of the normal CG helps stability somewhat, too.
Click to expand...

Binder Design also has DD upgrades available for their kits. Ones that add length, and ones that don't.
 
K'Tesh said:
Binder Design also has DD upgrades available for their kits. Ones that add length, and ones that don't.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've always liked the idea of a single-break DD; head-end AV bays as a retrofit are pretty scarce. Binder's AV kits come with a switch too, a nice touch.
 
Alrighty! The Eggtimer Classic was ordered along with the tools I will need to build it!
I'm looking into avionics bays as an upgrade for my current Formula75.
If I decide to hold off and leave it as is, I'll make sure I get my Lv 2 an av bay setup along with DD.
 
Just to pile on the record, cris was so helpful with some questions I had during my first build (a quantum) that I seriously considered asking if I could send him extra money. Instead I bought and am partway through an egg finder TX and LCD Rx kit, and I'm about to buy another quantum. I had very little previous soldering experience and I've been having a blast.

I also use a Mac and have successfully hooked it up to my quantum serial port to get streaming pressure readings while trying to fix some leaks in my AV bay design. The link up to update firmware or program things works the same I think.

All I hope is that cris updates the quantum to support staging and airstsrts before i dive into that because I love my quantum.
 
Last edited:
rocketsam2016 said:
Just to pile on the record, cris was so helpful with some questions I had during my first build (a quantum) that I seriously considered asking if I could send him extra money. Instead I bought and am partway through an egg finder TX and LCD Rx kit, and I'm about to buy another quantum. I had very little previous soldering experience and I've been having a blast.

I also use a Mac and have successfully hooked it up to my quantum serial port to get streaming pressure readings while trying to fix some leaks in my AV bay design. The link up to update firmware or program things works the same I think.

All I hope is that cris updates the quantum to support staging and airstsrts before i dive into that because I love my quantum.
Click to expand...

Not likely to see airstarts or staging in its current iteration. It needs a couple of extra channels to do that. The original EggTimer flight computer can do it with an outboard controller that can be purchased on the site. Kurt
 
I've had wonderful experience with the Egg stuff (Eggfinder was my first build and came out beautifully...use it regularly too); however I should note that you have to also keep in mind that there is a chance you'll make a mistake and fail at it - my friend was an "electronics guy", but ended up ruining two gps units and seems to have given up. I myself recently had an issue with a TRS that I can't figure out and while Cris was extremely helpful, I may have to send it in to see if he can see what is wrong (I think I may have flowed too much solder under the gps unit, causing an unseen bridge).

Don't get me wrong...I actually love the products (call me an Egghead!) and will be buying more of them; however I wanted to relay the possible downside some may experience. The best way to avoid it is to follow the online instructions (and find build threads) carefully and I'd suggest being extremely careful with the gps units if your build involves one.

Careful soldering is 10 times easier than unsoldering! :wink:
 
ksaves2 said:
Yes he is but unless he comes up with a board hack for the current Quantum, where are the extra channels going to be coming from? I'd believe he would do a redesign. Kurt
Click to expand...

I'll let you all know when I decide myself what I'm gonna do... :)
 
cerving said:
I'll let you all know when I decide myself what I'm gonna do... :)
Click to expand...

I am not a designer but I believe it will be a careful balancing act. If hardware modifications are too involved for the average user to effect AND there is a way to
improve upon the basic design that's cost effective, me thinks a new device would fit the bill. If the hardware changes are easy, then an upgrade would be doable.
Am looking forward to the future then. Kurt
 
I'd also be OK with the two channels. They are cheap enough that it's not a huge deal to use two of them, and for a smaller two stage project you could use a single one:

- Drag separation of stages after booster burnout, motor ejection charge deploy of booster parachute
- Quantum channel A ignites sustainer. If the drag separation fails this will definitely separate the stages, doing damage in the process though.
- Quantum channel B deploys Chute-Release-Bound parachute at apogee
- Sustainer motor ejection charge could be left in as a quasi-backup for the apogee event, though it doesn't supply redundancy in case of sustainer not firing.

Whether using this setup, or using two quantums, I'm no expert but I think all we need is the ability to declare time+altitude criteria for a pre-apogee event (and ideally time + altitude + velocity). Even better would be if these thresholds weren't tied into the launch detect criteria, since we want launch detection so that sustainer parachute will fire even if the sustainer motor ignition is prevented due to missing altitude/time/velocity.

So yeah, I'm waiting eagerly this possibility :) I especially think that the wifi arming of the quantum is wonderfully suited for staging since it means I'm not next to or holding on to the rocket when doing the final arming the sustainer ignition electronics.
 
ksaves2 said:
Not likely to see airstarts or staging in its current iteration. It needs a couple of extra channels to do that. The original EggTimer flight computer can do it with an outboard controller that can be purchased on the site. Kurt
Click to expand...

Where is the outboard controller? I dug around but am not seeing it.
 
If one wanted to add channels to the Quantum, the easiest way I can think of is using the serial header to connect another board with the electronics to fire more channels. A little microcontroller, a few transistors and support passives.

That makes it easy for the users to add in. Flash the software, connect the new board, ground test.

It's non trivial for Chris though...
 
Food for thought... your airstart controller isn't always in the same AV bay as your deployment controller. It might not even be in the same stage...
 
Ok, 2 quantums. One creates a wifi network, the other joins it. Open a socket, send data.

Carbon fiber? Ummm... Yeah.... No carbon for the av bays. Or use wired with a break-away connection. Non locking servo wires should work alright for that.

I kind of like using 2 quantums like that. Both can operate independently, using the link for Synchronization etc.. So the main one can arm both etc.. And it would work after stage separation, so the booster unit could still deploy recovery after the event.

Again, not trivial. It's easy to make up ideas, implementation is much more complex. And at some point you can't cover every possible configuration.

I really want to see something like that happen though. Enough that I've been considering making my own. I don't want to be a vendor though, so I'd be willing to to write some code for the Quantum if you are interested.
 
Haha, an onboard network to run a multi-stage rocket? I would absolutely, 100%, buy that if for no reason other than it's awesome assuming it came from a vendor (like Cris) that I trust. Cris - if that's what you are doing sign me up to buy at least one pair, beta test perhaps if you want and even do code reviews :) (I'm a software engineer by day).

And like I said, being able to arm over wifi helps mitigate the very real multi-stage danger of the sustainer lighting up on the pad. There are real advantages beyond the convenience factor and novelty.
 
Carbon fiber? Ummm... Yeah.... No carbon for the av bays.
Click to expand...
As long as the endplates for the avionics were fiberglass and the antennas were far enough away from the CF to avoid significant de-tuning or loss, an internal WiFi link could work. Antennas would be working in the near-field regime so you would likely have plenty of signal.
 
rocketsam2016 said:
Haha, an onboard network to run a multi-stage rocket? I would absolutely, 100%, buy that if for no reason other than it's awesome assuming it came from a vendor (like Cris) that I trust. Cris - if that's what you are doing sign me up to buy at least one pair, beta test perhaps if you want and even do code reviews :) (I'm a software engineer by day).

And like I said, being able to arm over wifi helps mitigate the very real multi-stage danger of the sustainer lighting up on the pad. There are real advantages beyond the convenience factor and novelty.
Click to expand...


Ummmmmm, If one doesn't wish to be standing next to the rocket, can simply get a WiFi switch(es) to turn on standard electronics remotely. Yeah it would only be amenable to projects that have the room but it's doable. Kurt
 
ksaves2 said:
Ummmmmm, If one doesn't wish to be standing next to the rocket, can simply get a WiFi switch(es) to turn on standard electronics remotely. Yeah it would only be amenable to projects that have the room but it's doable. Kurt
Click to expand...

Sure, though that's one more step as opposed to having it integrated into the computer arming process. All I'm saying is it would both be a neat overall system that tickles my fancy as well as something that offers real benefits, not to mention at remarkably reasonable prices if in line with what a quantum currently costs. I've enjoyed being able to arm and get status over wifi, and I'd love to be able to do that for a 2 stage rocket as well.
 
Oh come on now. Two extra channels and programmability warrants a price premium I'd say. I like Jim Hendricksens advice concerning staging. Test the sustainer igniter onsite by having it outside the sustainer motor and turning on the staging electronics.
If it doesn't fire, shut off the electronics and prep for launch as usual. I like his idea that it gives some assurance that the staging device is not likely to fire "at that moment" when turning on the device. He went on to say he follows that protocol routinely and one time he turned on the electronics sans motor and the igniter fired. Turned out the electronics were damaged in a prior flight unbeknownst to himself. That little act saved him from being standing next to the rocket when he turned the arming switch on.

Now some might say, "A shunt would have saved him." First off if a low current igniter is used, a battery may send enough current in a parallel shunt and still set off an ematch augmented igniter. Secondly, once the shunt is removed the darned thing
is going to fire with the failure state Jim described above. Unless one is pulling out the shunt with a long string, one can still be standing in the wrong place.

The only safe "totally" remedy is remote activation with a wireless solution. I understand small projects don't have the room but it behooves one who is doing large staged rockets to use the best out there including tilt testing to be as safe as possible.

Kurt
 
Kurt, you seem to really want to disagree with me. I'm not sure that I actually disagree with you on anything...

By "cost in line with the quantum" I meant that if it is two quantums plus some extra work, it'd cost the same as two quantums plus something extra depending on the details. That would be a great deal, particularly for something that let you not have to have a breakwire between the traditional avbay and the sustainer fin can and that let you configure and arm a staged rocket remotely.

I also think that Jim's advice about all-up testing (I think he calls it that but I could be misremembering) is fantastic. I will certainly be following it when I decide I'm ready for a 2 stage build.

I also agree that untested shunts don't offer much safety (I've seen the youtube videos). I forget whose design it is, but I've seen a great use described on TRF of a 4p2t switch to have a single mechanical switch control both a shunt and a disconnect on the pyro circuit. It would be interesting to debate (not in this thread, partly since I definitely don't know enough to argue either way) whether a wifi disconnect switch mitigates the need for a shunt + disconnect.

I also think that tilt testing is ideal on very large staged rockets. It's a bummer it isn't available on more altimeters.

Back to eggtimer and quantums, I think the company and device are awesome and would be thrilled to be able to use one or two in a small staged rocket. That's all I'm saying.
 
I originally wanted a single device solution, but the idea of two devices is growing on me. Especially if the staging option is in software, so I can use the component devices flexibly.

Regarding tilt sensing, it's always struck me that it should be possible to use the input channel Cris normally uses for breakwire sensing as an input from a tilt sensing widget. It might get checked at a different time in the event sequence - I haven't looked in detail. That tilt-a-board might be put together from arduino sensor parts. It might not need Cris to make a special add-on option for us (though I would likely get one from him). You wouldn't get breakwire AND tilt that way - I guess you have to pick which redundancies are important to you (in such a small package)
 
If I could use it as a no-go input for sustainer ignition, I'd like to use an R/C receiver to enable it. It doesn't have to read PWM, I could set up a RC switch to pull it high or low. My mark-1 eyeballs are a pretty good tilt sensor. :)

If it's that easy, I could probably whip up a tilt board for it... The hardware is pretty easy. It's the software I'm only about 90% sure how to integrate the gyro data to get tilt..
 
rocketsam2016 said:
Kurt, you seem to really want to disagree with me. I'm not sure that I actually disagree with you on anything...

By "cost in line with the quantum" I meant that if it is two quantums plus some extra work, it'd cost the same as two quantums plus something extra depending on the details. That would be a great deal, particularly for something that let you not have to have a breakwire between the traditional avbay and the sustainer fin can and that let you configure and arm a staged rocket remotely.

I also think that Jim's advice about all-up testing (I think he calls it that but I could be misremembering) is fantastic. I will certainly be following it when I decide I'm ready for a 2 stage build.

I also agree that untested shunts don't offer much safety (I've seen the youtube videos). I forget whose design it is, but I've seen a great use described on TRF of a 4p2t switch to have a single mechanical switch control both a shunt and a disconnect on the pyro circuit. It would be interesting to debate (not in this thread, partly since I definitely don't know enough to argue either way) whether a wifi disconnect switch mitigates the need for a shunt + disconnect.

I also think that tilt testing is ideal on very large staged rockets. It's a bummer it isn't available on more altimeters.

Back to eggtimer and quantums, I think the company and device are awesome and would be thrilled to be able to use one or two in a small staged rocket. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I'm being harmlessly facetious and nothing personal. I agree with all your points. I don't think Cris could develop something along the lines of a multi-channel Quantum II and keep the price the same. Although if he wants to prove me wrong, that's fine with me!

I like the devices and I have 4 of the original Rf remote switches and believe that the best way for arming a staged project is remotely. Yes, I know folks have done it for years safely with less sophisticated devices but I believe they were darned careful.
Arming the staging electronics at a distance and either seeing that the device is working from the screen of ones phone or Android device or running up quickly to listen to the "go" beeping from the staging electronics (if using an Rf switch) is really the best way to do it. Since there are units out there now and no doubt there will be others coming along in the future, I'm excited that staging and airstarting will have the prospect of becoming even safer.

The EggFinders are great for sport fliers though I'm not giving up my Beeline GPS trackers. They do onboard position recording to memory that is nice for a precise plotting after recovery. I find that with the Beelines and the EggFinders, positions can be missed but most certainly enough are received to get one out the the ground footprint of the downed rockets. I've had a dozen Beeline GPS flights that were completely sight unseen from start to finish and three EggFinder/TRS flights completely sight unseen and found every rocket every time. So, don't worry I believe we're on the same channel. Kurt
 
I like them very much, but as others have said they are kits and you need to know how to solder. The eggtimer kit is the easiest and has lots of options for flight. The quark is smaller and has fewer options, but unless you have can solder it is not one I would start out with. It has surface mount components and is much harder to put together, but it is a great basic duel deployment altimeter.
 
dwinings said:
I like them very much, but as others have said they are kits and you need to know how to solder. The eggtimer kit is the easiest and has lots of options for flight. The quark is smaller and has fewer options, but unless you have can solder it is not one I would start out with. It has surface mount components and is much harder to put together, but it is a great basic duel deployment altimeter.
Click to expand...
Okay-I'm gonna put my foot down here. If you can (A) build a freakin' rocket (B) assemble an Aerotech reload (C) know which end of the igniter goes where; you have sufficient hand/eye coordination to at least build a Quark. During his sale you can buy 3 of 'em for the price of (pick your vendor) and get 'er done. If, on the other hand, you pick up a soldering iron and it smells like chicken-you're holding it the wrong way........
 

Similar threads

Desfossr
Eggtimer Quasar With OpenLog Data Logger
Replies
1
Views
265
Spacedog49Krell
Spacedog49Krell
D
Eggtimer Apogee issue
Replies
14
Views
701
cerving
cerving
M
Thoughts on Fail Safe Mode
Replies
12
Views
445
mIcahel
M
R3verb
Eggtimer Classic............issues
Replies
6
Views
372
John Kemker
John Kemker
RocketSquirrel
Getting ready to build my first Eggtimer
Replies
22
Views
1K
2-0turbo
2

Latest posts

Back
Top