[NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

[Keith Hoard]

So, is an EXTERNAL ARMING PLUG required or not this year at the Nats?  Cause
I still haven’t made hotel reservations . . 

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of lucky macy via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

 

As the original poster who started the original thread that sailed the seven
seas and spun a new universe and war of words, I can tell you I was totally
unswayed by proponents of not using something like the Power Unlimited
Arming Plug.  This is despite the fact I didn't want to use one either if it
made sense was really hoping there was more to the logic and technical
execution of how those without external arming plugs were operating safely
that what I was originally guessing was there.
 
 So I long ago added such a device like I've done previously to my new
Mythos S Pro over the winter.  After reading every one of the emails I now
think it's silly not to have an external arming plug and I hope the rules
are enforced at the Nats this year on the subject cuz some of the line of
the excuses that had me in stitches were that such a device adds unnecessary
cost, weight, complexity or, god bless, extra drag that's not symmetrical on
the airframe.  Those need to be, well, dealt with...  :-)
 
Member number 1 of the new external arming plug police...  ;-)
 
Lucky

 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 13:16:37 +0000
To: circuitboard35 at yahoo.com <mailto:circuitboard35 at yahoo.com> ;
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device
From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 

I'm in agreement.

Ron Lockhart

 

  _____  

From: "David via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 1:14:21 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming device

 

I'm not trying to bring up a sore subject but this has been bugging me since
it was up a while back. I am the senior electronics technician in the plasma
physics department at the University of Wisconsin. About a third of what I
do is make interlock circuits for the Madison Symmetric Torus. I know that
the best way of keeping things safe is to remove the potential energy from a
circuit to keep bad things from happening. The problem with depending on a
circuit such as the emcotec type of disconnect or to just relying solely on
the radio and ESC to keep things safe is failure modes. You can plan for all
different failure types but to make it a circuit that isn't a lead brick
being added to the plane there are compromises that have to be made. This
leads to designing systems that may deal with only the most common types of
failures. For example most common diodes and tantalum capacitors usually
fail in a shorted mode, but not always. Many carbon resistors will decrease
in résistance just prior to opening up. You get the idea, there are just so
many possibilities and combinations that in my opinion the only real way to
safe a power system is to disconnect the energy source. Ok, now I feel
better that I said something. 

 

David

 


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 


_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20150516/16ae59f8/attachment.html>