Forum

LATEST SMOKER, E-CIG ELEMENT

This is the latest crack at a more compact easily made smoke unit using off the shelf (pretty much) items. I bought a top filling vape tank which arrived today and made an electrical connection base for it to start with. The base is industrial linen (formica,- or you could use hardwood) which is drilled and tapped to 4mm, and also counter bored to almost the diam of the bottom of the tank. The counter bore was tapped to 7mm but only to get the tank started, as this is very fine (7x.25?) and I doubt if you could easily find a tap to suit. Also the tank only has to screw in a small amount to hold it in place for the center electrode to contact (adjustable brass screw), and to trap the neg/pos wire which must contact the body. I made the center contact from a 4mm brass screw which is screwed in from the bottom till it contacts the center electrode (which is insulated from the stainless tank body) Under the head of this screw is the wire for the + (or -) -- also screw has a small piece of silicone tube on the inside over the screw to further insulate it ( don't want LiPo shorts!) and the other lead is under the body where it screws onto the base. I tried it on 2v an 2.5v and it works very well (air being fed in the top (where you normally suck from) and the vapor comes out the adjustable air slots (which are normally the intakes.) If you could make a collar around the intake area you could either direct the vapor into a collector, or reverse this (air through the collar) and have the vapor exiting the proper way through the mouthpiece (preferable). to make it simpler I am just going to enclose the whole thing, and have the air feed set up through the lid into the element and the exit (tube/tubes) through the top or side of the container. This particular tank must be kept upright to avoid leaks but is small enough to strap to a bulkhead or similar. Have ordered another air pump which hopefully will be better than the previous disappointments! Yay another month to wait!!!😴 Looks promising so far though! JB

5 years ago by jbkiwi

Forum

Propshaft replacement?

Hi Bill, I concur with Graham. An imperial propshaft will almost certainly have a BA . I would change it for a 5mm shaft. You may have to change the prop as well, or drill and tap to 5mm. To ream out the bushes you may find it easier to keep them 'in line' by knocking them out, use the old propshaft, and ream / drill both together. A small lathe helps! When refitting the bushes use the new 5mm shaft to help keep them centred. If push comes to shove and you do have to remove the tube a sharp tap on the end with a light tack hammer while gently twisting with Mole Grips usually breaks them loose without wrecking the hull. Worked on my Sea Scout, same problem; rusted 3/16" shaft and worn bearings🤔 BUT I cheated🤗, I made a new 4mm shaft and bought 4mm I/D sintered phosphor-bronze bushes and Raboesch brass prop to suit😁 Hope this helps more than confuses, Cheers, Doug 😎 PS I agree warming the tube to soften the glue helps. I tried it with a 50W iron on my PTB but it couldn't cut the mustard. So I used a small, kitchen style, gas torch. Tap tap twist and out they came. Only had to remove them cos a complete hull renovation was necessary🤔 I blogged it on this site, somewhere!! Now it's cookin' time. C youse guys later👍

5 years ago by RNinMunich

Forum

Fast attack craft

"....Usually you post useable info, but in this case I have to vehemently disagree! And I would like to put the record straight before you lead our novice members to potential disaster, or at least an expensive disappointment!..." Well, this certainly stirred something up! And I can't see why? Perhaps RN has shares in a Lipo factory? 😉 All that I have said is standard knowledge on the subject. NiMH ARE more robust than LiPos - I can't see how anyone can disagree with that. They are more forgiving of overcharge and over-depletion. I have not said that Lipos should not be used - I use them myself - but I have stated a preference for NiMH where the benefits of Lipos are not a requirement. I have been using NiMH for around 15 years, and Lipos for about the same time. During that period I must have bought around 2 dozen packs of each type. I currently have one working LiPo pack, while all my NiMH packs work, albeit sometimes with less charge than originally. The Lipos have gone unbalanced, swollen, delaminated or punctured at some point. Lipos, when working, are phenomenal items, and make miniature flying models possible. I use them for this, and would, as I have said, use them when light weight and high power are essential. But they do require that you look after them and follow the rules - in particular, not over-discharging them. If you do not treat them properly they will certainly swell and fail - I cannot see why stating this is considered scaremongering? It is this lack of robustness that makes me prefer NiMH, since I do not take particular care of my batteries. NiMH will put up with this - Lipo won't. That is the gist of what I said, it is attested by other comments on this which stress that you must 'follow the rules' and I can't see how stating it will lead novice members to potential disaster or expensive disappointment? I would have thought the opposite... Incidentally, your comments about the differences between Lipos and Nimh seem to cover all the good points of Lipos and the bad points of NiMH. It would be more useful to novices to see a better balanced description. For instance, recent advances in NiMH batteries have produced low self-discharge batteries - (quoting the wiki) "In October 2011 the batteries were again improved to retain up to 90% of their capacity after one year, 80% after three years and 70% after five years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneloop These are readily available, I have used these in emergency flashlights and can confirm that they do do 'what it says on the tin' (though I haven't had time to try out the five year claim yet!). They can be of use if your modelling practices include going to the lake at short notice. I hope this isn't going to develop into a flame war. As I said, I can't see why noting a preference for the robustness of NiMH should engender such a response...

5 years ago by DodgyGeezer