What new things does the hobby want to see?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I built a magnetic ejection system about 10 years ago



I thought I did a write-up, here on rocketryforum but can't seem to find it.... might have been rocketry planet :)

I have a copy/paste from an old blog post of mine, but much of the media and links seem to be missing. You get the idea too.

Still have a few rockets (including that pizza rocket) with magnetic ejection, and it works, but it's a lot of custom work to build into a rocket.

Fun with magnets!

After a particularly bad experience with BP, I thought there had to be a better solution to rocket recovery than initiating an explosion inside the rocket. I want hot gases to exit the nozzle, not the nosecone!
I’ve been playing with several third party solutions.
ct_ready_20sec.jpg
The first was the Chute Tamer. This is a neat idea that uses fishing line to keep the parachute folded, then initiates a ‘cuter’ by heating up an element that melts the fishing line. The filament is initiated by a timer. I had two issues with the chute tamer. The first issue is it still required BP at apogee to pop the nosecone – either from a traditional altimeter, or motor ejection. Second, you have to do a fair amount of modeling and prediction to determine when the optimal time (vs. altitude) would be for main deployment. I started a conversation with the inventor, Warren Farr about replacing the timer with an altimeter. After a fair amount of back and forth, Warren was kind enough to sell me a few chute tamer’s that were modified to allow me to put my own electronics in. I spent a few months designing two alternatives
  1. an altimeter with a silicon pressure sensor from Freescale that was rated at 400 PSI to withstand motor ejection (http://www.freescale.com/files/sensors/doc/data_sheet/MPX4115A.pdf)
  2. an airtight cover that only opened via a photosensor, so the altimeter wouldn’t be subjected to the motor ejection gases until it was out of the rocket body, in the light.
Both of these had “issues”, although I did eventually get concept #2 working. This was still only a half solution because it required BP for motor ejection at, or close to apogee. You can find the original chute-tamer here: http://www.chutetamer.com/introduction.shtml
SRM-Servo Release Mechanism
The second product I stumbled upon was a spacetec SRM. This is basically a release mechanism operated by a standard RC servo. What’s cool about it is the company sells a servo control unit that allows the SRM to be connected to a traditional altimeter. The SRM “Holds” the main in the rocket body until the altimeter determines it’s reached the proper altitude. A better solution than the chute tamer on multiple levels (uses an altimeter, no limit to the size chute, as it doesn’t use fishing line) but still requires BP to eject the nosecone.
Finally, I hit upon an idea – what if I ejected the nosecone using electromagnets? I could easily build a circuit that would charge a very high voltage capacitor, then use an altimeter to initiate the capacitor circuit. I started doing some testing using an Este’s V2, and it worked! The nice thing about the V2 is it has a large diameter to fit all of the equipment, yet it’s really light. I was about to announce my invention to the world when I started having a series of failures starting at MWP 8. The system never failed, but the calculations I had been doing on repulsive magnetic force weren’t working – The electromagnets starting putting out such a large magnetic burst it was blowing the electronics out of the rocket. By now, I started work on my Level 3 certification and decided to put the electromagnetic ejection system on the back burner until I finished.
Fast Forward a year, and I finally found the right project to finish the system. I’ve been building “flying pie”, which is a spool pizza rocket for the last few months, but I found it very difficult to build a simulation to model its flight characteristics using traditional software. Add to this the fact it’s a 75mm minimum diameter motor tube, which means I can’t rely on motor ejection at all (no commercial 75mm motors have motor ejection). In the few flight trials, I did with the spool, the flight characteristics were so different than a traditional rocket the G switch timer, and altimeter had a hard time reliably detecting launch, and/or apogee.
IMG_20110827_223049.jpg
Around this time, Darrell Mobley at RocketryPlanet told me that Jim Amos at Missileworks was going to be building an updated version of his WRC wireless control system. The WRC allowed the rocketeer to take control of the ejection process using a remote control rather than relying on a traditional altimeter. This seemed to be the perfect solution to initiate recovery on a rocket that traditional altimeters had a hard time with. Jim was kind enough to let me into the beta program for his updated wrc+. I will dedicate another post to a review of the wrc+, but the one-line review is “awesome”.
Since I now had reliable electronics, I decided this would be a good time to pull out the old electromagnets, capacitor charge boards, and rare-earth magnets to turn the pizza pie into my new magnetic skylab.
using one of featherweights new magnetic switches so I didn’t have to cut a hole in the av-bay, or rocket.
IMG_20110827_223021.jpg
I have two lithium batteries – one 9 volt to power the wrc+, and one 12 volt on a circuit with an opto-isolator (so I don’t blow the wrc+) and a 300 volt capacitor.
The capacitor is connected to the external terminal ports on the top of the av-bay. I then connected this to two electromagnets at the top of the rocket (cheap Chinese – http://www.ebay.com/itm/20mm-12V-Ho...ltDomain_0&hash=item2312c647aa#ht_1471wt_1164). In the nose cone, I have two large nickel-plated neodymium magnets glued into the nosecone bulkhead. The magnets are naturally attracted to the metal on the top of the electromagnets, keeping the nosecone on.
2u5swi1.gif

When I’m ready, I just use the wrc+ to initiate the capacitor, which energizes the electro-magnets, creating a short, but massive repelling magnetic force against the rare earth magnets in the nosecone, which should pop the nosecone if everything goes well….
Here’s the first test this afternoon:

Actually worked on the first try! While there was not a lot of force (I’m a bit gun-shy from my previous research) this rocket is probably ok, as the lamp shade will get caught in the wind pulling out the parachute.
DemoCamera2.jpg

I’ll follow up with a quick how-to and sourcing guide for the pieces. To get started, I recommend buying some of the electromagnets from the eBay supplier I listed above as they come from China and take a few weeks to arrive. I also started with a charging circuit I ripped out of a one-time camera you can buy at Walgreens for about $10 (annotated at right). Just desolder the flash and replace it with leads to the electromagnet. Also, desolder the shutter, and replace it with two leads to the altimeter. I don’t recommend this method any longer, as the voltage spike back to the timer is what caused all my flakiness last year. I had to add an optoisolator to ensure the two circuits didn’t meet.
 
1) Echoing the theme of several posters for increased guided decent
a) keep rockets from drifting off small fields
b) Maybe honing back to origin point
c) increased safety against ballistic trajectories (maybe on the ascent too)

2) More pyro-less deployment options
I work with college teams and having BP on campus can be an issue. More pyro-less deployment options (inexpensive and reliable) would be welcome.

(1) I've been working on for maybe 12 months now although I got project burnout from serious case of premature optimisation. Just started tinkering on it again and might fly the system early Aug.

(2) been flying HPR totally pyroless for over 10 years now as I've mentioned in various recovery threads pertaining to this.

TP
 
Why Flightsketch? With several dual deploy altimeters on the market, what makes you want one from Flightsketch in particular?

EDIT: I went and looked at the FS web page to see if I could answer the question for myself. I can't, but I did see that they have exactly what you're asking for in beta test. FlightSketch Sport. If you're one of their beta testers you can get one for free.

Bluetooth and price point.
 
Now, a D6 on the other hand, would be terrific. Lift that Big Bertha (or the like) as well as an Estes C6, and burn for more than twice as long. 4.4 seconds burn, assuming full 20 Ns impulse, the same initial peak as the C6, and the same steady thrust thereafter as the C6, with just the steady part extended. Compare that to the burn time of the D12, at 1.7 seconds.

I'll echo "Long burn low power", just not quite as long as a ten second C. (Of course, there's Apogee's E6, 5.8 second burn, but $21 a pop. :eek:)
 
Well, yeah, there are several 24 mm E motors*, but I wouldn't call 1.7 seconds "long burn". The E6 that I cited above burns nearly 3½ times longer (and has slightly, 8%, more total impulse). If they didn't cost so much I'd be flying lots of them.
1626279622910.png
* 10 from Aerotech, 1 from Apogee, 3 from Cesaroni, and 2 from Estes, according to ThrustCurve.org. The CTIs and six of the ATs are reloads, but that still leaves a total of seven single use.
 
Now, a D6 on the other hand, would be terrific. Lift that Big Bertha (or the like) as well as an Estes C6, and burn for more than twice as long. 4.4 seconds burn, assuming full 20 Ns impulse, the same initial peak as the C6, and the same steady thrust thereafter as the C6, with just the steady part extended. Compare that to the burn time of the D12, at 1.7 seconds.

I'll echo "Long burn low power", just not quite as long as a ten second C. (Of course, there's Apogee's E6, 5.8 second burn, but $21 a pop. :eek:)

There are some glider motor reloads that are very long burn. They have a big thrust spike at the beginning, then taper off to a low level sustain. They do this by starting off as a slot-burner, and transition to an end burning grain. The problem is, there's no provision for an ejection charge. You'd either need to load one of these in a "standard" RMS case and figure out how to make a delay grain*, or use electronics.

*you now have an EX motor.
 
And with the weight of an electronic ejection system, including the battery, charge cup, etc. you wind up needing a higher thrust motor. Catch 22.
 
I want to see NEW Motor configurations from Estes . . .

( 1 ) 13mm Mini-B motors in a longer casing ( a FULL B, or close to it )
( 2 ) 18mm D motors ( a FULL D or close to it )
( 3 ) A return to high-thrust, "Core-Burner" motors, in 13mm, 18mm, 24mm, & 29mm !

Dave F.
 
I miss the 20mm D5 Quest engines. I loved those for BT-50 and BT-55 rockets. I would build modded engine mounts to accept D5 or adapt down to 18mm engines. Had plans for a cool triple cluster of D5s but scrapped the idea when they were discontinued. Ok still have a stash of them!
 
Solder posts, instead of the green screwdriver sockets. Seems like a ton of failure points. Solder tabs would be fine also.

My screw switch has screw terminals. The switch wires screw into the altimeter screw terminals. The altimeter has screw terminals for ignitors, which go to more screw terminals. All of these can be replaced with solder posts except for two terminals on the bulkheads for ignitors.

Battery wires can be soldered to a post. Hardwired, no connector needed. After the launch day, simply cut the negative wire. The 9 volts I use for timers at work are hardwired. I can never find a 9v connector when needed.

The only connector should be for the lower drogue charge, to make bay access possible.
 
bluetooth enabled rocket tracking tripod. imagine a standard cell phone tripod but with gimbals controlled by a mobile app over bluetooth

1. set the phone in the tripod
2. start the app and focus on the rocket on the rail
3. rocket takes off, app detects movement
4. app controls gimbal to keep the rocket in frame
5. user presses a button on the app to stop recording when done

actually, i would be surprised if this doesn't exist already for other use cases.

EDIT: something like this https://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Smartphone-Shooting-Universal-Compatible/dp/B08GHH6NSJ
 
bluetooth enabled rocket tracking tripod. imagine a standard cell phone tripod but with gimbals controlled by a mobile app over bluetooth

1. set the phone in the tripod
2. start the app and focus on the rocket on the rail
3. rocket takes off, app detects movement
4. app controls gimbal to keep the rocket in frame
5. user presses a button on the app to stop recording when done

actually, i would be surprised if this doesn't exist already for other use cases.

EDIT: something like this https://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Smartphone-Shooting-Universal-Compatible/dp/B08GHH6NSJ

Yes! I would be so interested in something like this too!

I saw that the Capture 360 Motion Tracking mount that you sent the link for was unavailable on Amazon.

It must be available somewhere isn't it? Where?
 
bluetooth enabled rocket tracking tripod. imagine a standard cell phone tripod but with gimbals controlled by a mobile app over bluetooth

1. set the phone in the tripod
2. start the app and focus on the rocket on the rail
3. rocket takes off, app detects movement
4. app controls gimbal to keep the rocket in frame
5. user presses a button on the app to stop recording when done

actually, i would be surprised if this doesn't exist already for other use cases.

EDIT: something like this https://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Smartphone-Shooting-Universal-Compatible/dp/B08GHH6NSJ
There was a student at a launch a couple of years ago in Germany that was testing such a system with a lightweight camera and gimbal hooked up to his laptop, where the motion detection software runs. He was set up about 100 ft away.
It seems that most rockets move too fast for most motion detection software, and he couldn't get it working well. He seemed to have the most success tracking a color like red, which is has more contrast with most things on the field and in the sky. His gimbal was a simple hinge with a stepper motor, but he couldn't get it to pivot fast enough for most launches
 
I'd rather see one of those 3 drones fly of to get either a drink or some food from the local eatery, while we are all at the field!

I like that too!

(but that has the issue of the drone having to cross multiple different private and public properties, unlike catching a falling rocket - legal problem vs techical problem)
 
I miss the 20mm D5 Quest engines...
More engine options are always welcome, and D5 sounds like a nice one. But honestly I would be a lot happier if/when such a thing comes along if it is either 18 or 24 millimeter. Who wants a weirdo size tube just for one engine?
 
More engine options are always welcome, and D5 sounds like a nice one. But honestly I would be a lot happier if/when such a thing comes along if it is either 18 or 24 millimeter. Who wants a weirdo size tube just for one engine?
I admit it's an odd duck. But I bought a bunch of 20 mm engine mounts at the time, and fashioned adaptors to fit into 24 mm mounts and also to allow 18mm to fit into the 20 mm. Worked great.
 
bluetooth enabled rocket tracking tripod. imagine a standard cell phone tripod but with gimbals controlled by a mobile app over bluetooth

1. set the phone in the tripod
2. start the app and focus on the rocket on the rail
3. rocket takes off, app detects movement
4. app controls gimbal to keep the rocket in frame
5. user presses a button on the app to stop recording when done

actually, i would be surprised if this doesn't exist already for other use cases.

EDIT: something like this https://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Smartphone-Shooting-Universal-Compatible/dp/B08GHH6NSJ

Ditch motion tracking software and key it into the circuit of the launch pad. The tracking could start when the fuse burns through.
 
Now, a D6 on the other hand, would be terrific. Lift that Big Bertha (or the like) as well as an Estes C6, and burn for more than twice as long. 4.4 seconds burn, assuming full 20 Ns impulse, the same initial peak as the C6, and the same steady thrust thereafter as the C6, with just the steady part extended. Compare that to the burn time of the D12, at 1.7 seconds.

I'll echo "Long burn low power", just not quite as long as a ten second C. (Of course, there's Apogee's E6, 5.8 second burn, but $21 a pop. :eek:)
AT also made a 20 N-S 24mm D7 that was basically a shortened E6 motor.
One of my favorite rockets was a Big Bertha powered by an FSI E5 (total impulse comparable to the D12).
 
Last edited:
Mandatory Rocket Classes in Junior High School science programs.

Not mandatory but I took the aerospace class my high school offered. Rocketry was not the core but just one of the units where everyone built an Estes Alpha. I talked to my teacher about the unit and he let me scratch build a scale V2 for launch day as long as I could prove to him it was stable.

This was also the ONLY class in high school where I used excel, at all. This was in 2010 no less. We had to pull NACA airfoil data from a plane of our choice, carve it into a block of foam then track lift it in a small wind tunnel as various speeds/AOA. We then charted the data and had excel automatically graph it in 3d
The class as a whole was just awesome, really put into perspective the application of otherwise boring math and accounting tools. Until this class I had only really used word and waaaayyyyy too much powerpoint.
 
An app for my cellphone that is a flight recorder, photo/movie taker, flight tracker, locater while on call to a rocket pal.
 
Back
Top