<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">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 <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">help reduce the load on the controller's on-board capacitors. I wonder if shortening the wires requires a “CapPac” or something else.</span><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Ron</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 18, 2015, at 1:29 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class=""><div class="">
<div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What Castle found was that the antispark circuitry was an additional point of failure, with the likelihood of failure increasing as ripple current increased.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div id="composer_signature" class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class=""><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" class="">Regards,</div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" class="">Dave</div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" class="">Please pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3</div></div><br class=""><br class="">-------- Original message --------<br class="">From: Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br class="">Date: 05/18/2015 1:58 PM (GMT-05:00) <br class="">To: General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br class="">Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Arming plug and Failsafe + <br class=""><br class="">Hmmm. I wonder why Castle Creations doesn’t implement spark suppression circuitry in their ESCs<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>