[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Arming plug and Failsafe +

[Dave Lockhart]

I am not aware of any specific issue with shortening the wiring between the battery and ESC (or between the ESC and motor).  I think the possible concern is whether the end user is capable of making quality solder joints (and not heat soaking the ESC, battery, or motor).  With the Castle ESCs, the wires are pre-tinned which helps the soldering process.  Some motor wires in particular can be difficult to solder.  The Castle Creations Talon series of ESCs (as well as some other brands) which are targeted more for Heli use do not have wires on the motor side, but bullets, with the idea that many heli motor come with bullets pre-installed.

 

Additional capacitors on the battery side of the ESC are to increase the tolerance of the ESC for ripple current.  Ripple current increases when the delta between resting voltage and voltage under load of the battery is greater, and when wiring length (between the battery and ESC) increases.  A good system that is properly setup should not additional capacitors, and shortening the wiring length most certainly would not increase the need for capacitors.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Lockhart

Team Castle Creations

 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Arming plug and Failsafe +

 

I thought that Castle Creations recommends not changing the battery pack-to-ESC wiring length.  I know that increasing the battery pack-to-ESC wiring length often requires the installation of a “CapPac” to help reduce the load on the controller's on-board capacitors.  I wonder if shortening the wires requires a “CapPac” or something else.

 

Ron

 

On May 18, 2015, at 1:29 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

 

Castle was, I believe, the first to have antispark circuitry in their HV ESCs.  Not a whole lot of ESCs sold at the time were HV.

 

What Castle found was that the antispark circuitry was an additional point of failure, with the likelihood of failure increasing as ripple current increased.

 

After having several ESCs returned when they "failed" (the antispark circuit was damaged) on poor setups with excessive ripple current, Castle removed the antispark circuitry.

 

More robust antispark circuitry certainly can be used.....but it is additional weight and an additional point of failure.  With the most common styles of Deans and bullet connectors, the majority of the arcing / pitting / carbon deposits occur at the ends of the connector, and generally do not affect the mating surfaces where the current transfer is happening.  Castle published an article years ago entitled "The Spark is your friend".

 

Still, bad connectors and bad solder joints can and do happen.  It was a bad bullet connector between the motor and esc that "sparked" an esc overload and fire for one of the Norway pilots during sound check at the 2011 WC.  Burned the nose off the plane and ended his chance to fly at the WC.  Minimizing connectors and wire length is a good thing...lighter weight, more efficient, less stress on the system.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

Please pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3



-------- Original message --------
From: Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Date: 05/18/2015 1:58 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Arming plug and Failsafe + 

Hmmm.  I wonder why Castle Creations doesn’t implement spark suppression circuitry in their ESCs

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20150519/7ed4ce56/attachment.html>