Yes, exactly.
The problem never is the actual regulations, but rather the guy at security inventing his own rules.
So I am not really convinced single cells will be any less of an issue compared to <100WH batteries.
If you arrive at the security check with a large bag of single cells, I’d be prepared to have the same kind of talk.
Absolutely correct in the fact that if your batteries create an “incident” you could be held liable.
The whole thing is about mitigating the risk (real or perceived) of battery’s catching fire. That’s what drives the requirement to carry on instead of checked so the flight crew can control the fire
I wonder what the crew actually does when a battery is on fire?
…or follow what you experimented with in the past and add a thermally transmissive foam layer with holes aligned to your milled polycarbonate…to waterproof battery ends
Expanded Graphite- or Metal-Filled Polyurethane Foams
Examples: CoolTherm (Polytec Thermal Gap Filler Foam PU), Laird Tflex FR series
• Thermal conductivity: 1–5 W/m·K (depending on filler)
• Water sealing: Good (closed-cell PU)
• Notes: More rigid than silicone, not for high flexure zones.
• Use: Battery packs, power electronics, LED modules.
Current plan is wave washers, only on the side where the connections are simple serial bars, and dimples in the copper strip on each cell positive terminals;
With available space, the washer gets compressed by 1.25mm
Ordered the washers, paper insulators and calculated the pressure contact, seems workable.
I have already some copper sheet 0.5mm in stock, and will be easy to create a 1S test rig. Then I have micro ohm meter and 20A cell discharge tester to check how it goes.
In this configuration you could push the batteries into the enclosure and apply a clamping force at the end to get good pressure on the contacts. Slightly different size but …
super Impressive design work! 8.8kg all up is mega!
maytech was renowned for weak power and poor waterproofing… until the 6579 came along which has plenty of power for full efoil IME (1.1kg)
but why not just go with the proven most efficient motor from SAITE? 6374 or 84
I have found the FD 3 blade alu prop to have the thinnest blades and be the most efficient on runtime.
So I will go back to the cheap generic motor. Maybe even without waterproofing as the 2k Epoxy coat did not stick as good as I hoped. Only downside is the anoying laser marking which gives the ideal start for rust on the rotors.
You can also use normal epoxy, that is what I used for my Saite 63100. For the bell I added thickener and glass balloons to fill the gaps between the magnets. I use it for an efoil upto 4500W, It does not overheat. It is 5Y old, mainly used in fresh water, recoated and changed bearings twice.
Nice calliper, I have one of those too, bought in 1986, still very accurate and no batteries to change.
I’ve made heaps of different foil assist setups using Saite 6374 and 6384 130kv, Flipsky 6374 and Aliexpress 6384 120kv. 8S, 10S and 12S
Totally non scientific but my preference is the Saite 6374, has similar or maybe even more grunt than Ali 6384. Not as heavy as the Flipsky 6374, which has crazy solid thick end caps.
10S 6374 130kv Saite will get even heavy beginners up on foil on large wing board with mid mast motor mount and twin blade genuine Foil Drive props.
12S it’s a beast!
Saite make the foil drive motors and will sell (at least they used to) a waterproofed 6374 and 6384 with ceramic bearings. Chris Kwong is the contact sales4@saite-motor.com. You can also buy unwaterproofed motors from them on Alibaba.
@JonathanC
I tried to get a FD 6384 from them and they told me to go to Foil Drive.
If I just asked for a waterproof 6384 maybe they would have done it.
In fairness to them, I did want the exact motor so all the cables and pod matches, so in my email I specified the FD model. I’ve had nothing but bad luck since starting foiling a year ago with everything including failed builds, so the insane amount I paid for a used FD HP motor was probably worth it.
Your comment on the 6374 being better is interesting. Having used both I have too many variables with 80 amp on the 6384 and only 70 on the 6374 to really judge.
Being new, it has just been a massive improvement starting with the 8s 60 amp standard Assist Plus to now the 14s 80 amp 6384, which just bites the water no matter what.
