PDA

View Full Version : Great Basic Information for Newbies


Mike Freas
10-19-2005, 12:53 AM
I'm not new to RC by any means just to e-flight. I have a Senior Telemaster on the boards and I really want to use an e-power system. I have been to my LHS that specializes in e-flight. Although I completely trust their suggestion on what I need I want to learn more. I know most people say that 100 watts per pound is a good place to start but I get confused with motor numbers. For instance, AXI-4120-18 is what Hobby Lobby suggests for the Tele. What is the difference between the -18 and the -16 and how do I compare the AXI line with other company’s motor designations? Should I use the KV rating and how is it rating figured?

AEAJR
10-19-2005, 06:32 AM
100 watts per pound is a good number for a high performance plane and 100 watts per pound will probably take the plane straight up if you are using a brushless motor.

The numeric designations on brushless motors are not standardized at all. Good luck and if you find a good comparison chart, let us know. :)

Smeghead
10-19-2005, 12:31 PM
O good its not just me who is confused by all the silly numbers they stick on these motors.

debhicks
10-19-2005, 07:02 PM
Nope, however if you come up with something I am sure the information would be worth something. You would probably be able to market it right here. :)

Mike Freas
10-19-2005, 07:21 PM
You mean 100 watts for good flying and 150 for vertical performance right? My last question still stands about the KV rating. I guess that is the only way to compare motors is the KV rating. Can anyone breakdown the AXI numbers for me? What is the difference in the -18 and -16?

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:12 PM
Axi: The first two digits of the number are the stator diameter in mm: the second two, its length. The full designation of the motor includes the number of turns of the winding, found after a slash. For example, the 2212/34 has a 22mm diameter stator that is 12mm long, and it has 34 turns of wire.


Mega motors: Similiar designations - Mega 22/30/3 has a 22 mm-diameter case x 30-mm-long rotor, and a three-turn stator.

Aveox: An Aveox 27/13/3 seems to use the following: 27-mm diameter of the outside of the motor (not the rotor!) and 13 mm is the length of the rotor while three is the number of turns of the stator.

Hacker: A Hacker B20-26S is 20 mm in diameter, with the “S” indicating short length (L is for long) and is a 26-turn stator.

Lastly, you mentioned the KV ratings:

Kv gives the rpms produced by a motor per volt applied, i.e . if the motor has a Kv of 2000 and you run it on 6V it will turn at 12000 rpm.

I have so many saved bookmarks its getting ridiculous :eek: Here is what I had saved for brushless setups... For only being into this hobby for 3mos I have pages upon pages of saved info. Too bad I dont understand some of it, but its there for anyone else who needs help :o

Anybody want to try and sticky this? It would even be helpful for me, since I have to browse through my many saved pages to get all this together!!

Mike Freas
10-19-2005, 08:15 PM
Thanks! I'm sure you helpled several people with that information.

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:22 PM
I have lots of other saved info as well for BL - outrunners vs inrunners, how they come up with the constants (Kv, Io, Rm), why you would want a 4 turn vs. a 20 turn and what that does to your power needs, etc... I may be new to this hobby, but I am an info hound and the more the better. I feel even if I cant use it now, I may be able to use it later or help somebody else.

Mike Freas
10-19-2005, 08:24 PM
Well if your so inclined you can post what every information you want.

marter1229
10-19-2005, 08:26 PM
Great info!

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:42 PM
Hmmm, OK, I am going to start a new thread in here though. The mods can move it if needed, since I dont know if this is more a power systems thread or more info for us newbies!

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:47 PM
I have seen this question asked often and I finally went through my saved info today to make this list up. I dont know why motor manufacturers cant come up with a standard! Its close, once you decipher it. I'm just happy that I can help out others since most everything I have learned about rc flight was from all of you!

============

Axi: The first two digits of the number are the stator diameter in mm: the second two, its length. The full designation of the motor includes the number of turns of the winding, found after a slash. For example, the 2212/34 has a 22-mm diameter rotor that is 12-mm long, and it has 34 turns of wire.

Mega motors: Similiar designations - Mega 22/30/3 has a 22-mm-diameter case x 30-mm-long rotor, and a three-turn stator.

Aveox: An Aveox 27/13/3 seems to use the following: 27-mm diameter of the outside of the motor (not the rotor!) and 13 mm is the length of the rotor while three is the number of turns of the stator.

Hacker: A Hacker B20-26S is 20-mm in diameter, with the “S” indicating short length (L is for long) and is a 26-turn stator.

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:51 PM
OK, more info on motors that may help.

===========
Turns are much like gearing! The higher the number of turns, the larger the propeller you can swing, however, the lower the maximum current it can withstand. Brushless motors that come in 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-turn varieties are usually the internal-rotor type (but not always like the Hacker!). Brushless motors with high numbers of turns (say 10-30) are usually the external rotor (outrunner as we call it) type like AXI, Nippy, PJS, and the new little Hacker Baby.

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 08:57 PM
More info (if this is getting to be too much, mods feel free to move, delete, edit, or sticky :) )

============

GEARING
Using seven cells, speed 600 size motors typically turn 18,000 or more rpm without a load while drawing 3 or 4 Amps. Put an 8 x 4 prop on these motors and the rpm goes down to around 12,000 while Amps go up to 25 or more. These motors operate most efficiently at high rpm and do not have much torque to turn large, high pitch, more efficient propellers. The way to accomplish this is through gearing.

Gearing allows our motors to turn high rpm at low amps while swinging efficient propellers. For example an Aveox 1406/3 speed 600 size motor on 7 cells will turn an 8 x 4 prop at 13,000 rpm for a prop speed of 50 MPH while drawing 28 Amps. If you use a 3:1 ratio gear box with an 11 x 11 prop the rpm goes down to 5,100 while the prop speed goes up to 53 MPH and the current goes way down to only 15 Amps. The end result is a cooler running, more efficient motor and almost double the flight times.

The drawbacks to gearing are that the gear box can block cooling air to the motor, add to the weight of the plane, and add to the length and sometimes circumference of the motor. The motor also has to be retimed to run in the opposite direction from the prop. If the plane has a narrow nose it will probably need a planetary in-line gear box. These gear boxes have little or no prop shaft offset, allow the motor to turn in the same direction as the propeller and are usually more expensive than standard gear boxes. Belt drives allow the motor and propeller to turn in the same direction, but can be large and heavy

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 09:01 PM
More info for the people who can never have enough... like me!

==========

Inrunners are "standard" style motors. Meaning the can is stationary and the shaft spins inside.

The latest type of brushless motor available is the so-called "outrunner" like the Model Motors AXI types. At first sight these are rather odd. They are arranged the same way as a brushed motor with the coils in the center and the magnets on the can. But...it is the CAN which rotates NOT the center armature. This means they are a bit tricky to mount since you obviously can't just clamp them down but it does have one BIG advantage. These motors generate much more torque than a conventional arrangement. In practise what this means is that they will turn a much larger and more efficient propeller without needing a gearbox. Gearboxes of course add complexity, cost and weight so that's a real advantage.

frvrngn
10-19-2005, 10:38 PM
Hey Mike - I found some more great info on exactly what you were asking about hidden away in my folders.

I apologize now if any of this or what else I have posted today (all the motor info) is yours, copywrited, etc. All of this info is stuff that I have culled in my many late night searches for help. I have multiple folders that are split up for info, but I never copied who, what, or where I got them from - just the basic info that I was looking for at the time or if it looked like I might need it later. If this is a problem, please feel free to delete my posts or "pm" me and I will be happy to do so.

Basically, the rule states that 50 or 60 watts per pound (110 watts/kg) is needed to produce good sport flying characteristics. Some airplanes, such as gliders, can use a smaller ratio (30 watts/lb or 66 watts/kg), while others, like pylon racers, may need a much higher ratio (80 watts/lb or 176 watts/kg.). This ratio is normally computed using watts "in". There is an implicit assumption that the motor being used is at least 70% efficient. cheap "can" type motors, or motors that are being operated beyond their specified current rating, will produce a misleading ratio.

And if you want to get Really specific and technical:

Matching an electric power system to a plane is not as straightforward as many would expect. The problem is that electric power is very versatile so it is necessary to do a bit of juggling to find out which system will work best. For example, pretend that I have a 4 lb (64 oz or 1814g) sport plane with a 600 sq. in. (4.2 ft^2 or 39 dm^2) wing. I desire mild aerobatics (50 watts/pound) and a low wing loading (< 20 oz/ft^2 or 60 g/dm^2). I want at least 5 minutes of full power. Lets see how close I can get.

We'll try three different power systems. For simplicity we'll assume that a cell delivers 1V so the total voltage is the same as the # of cells. The formulas we need are:

watts = # of cells x amps (amps = watts / # of cells)
duration = 60 * (capacity/1000) / amps
wing loading = aircraft weight (ounces) / wing area (ft^2)#1 astro 15 with a 10 cell, 1700 mah pack: the weight of this power plant is roughly 2 lbs (900g). We now have enough information to figure out the aircraft weight and wing loading.
Aircraft weight = 6lbs (96 oz)
wing loading= 96 oz / 4.2 ft^2 = 22.9 oz/ft^2
In order to figure out the duration, we need to know how many amps of current the motor will draw. We can find out how many amps we need the motor to draw using the watts/pound ratio we chose:

Total watts=watts/pound ratio * aircraft weight (in pounds) therefore: watts=(50 watts/pound * 6 pounds) = 300
amps= total watts / # of cells therefore:
amps= 300 / 10 = 30A

At this point you may have to stop and try a different motor if the amps you need aren't realistic. In this case we can continue because an astro 15 is still at least 70% efficient at 30 amps. Now that we have the amps we can figure out the duration.
Duration=60 * (capacity/1000) / amps
= 60 * (1700/1000) / 30
= 102/30 = 3.4 minutes

We have just found that an astro 15 motor with a 10 cell 1700 mah pack will fly this 4 lb plane for 3.4 minutes at 50 watts/pound with a wing loading of 22.9 oz/ ft^2 If we use this combination, we will have a short flying time and no reserve power.

Lets try a larger motor.
#2 astro 25 motor with a 16 cell, 1700 mah pack this power system weighs roughly 2 3/4 pounds (44 oz or 1247g).
Aircraft weight=6.75 lbs (108 oz or 3061g)
wing loading=108 oz / 4.2 ft^2=25.7 oz/ sq. ft (77.1 g/dm^2).
amps needed=(watts/pound * aircraft weight) / 16 volts
= (50 watts/pound * 6.75 pounds) / 16 volts
= 337.5 watts / 16 volts = 21 amps
duration=60 * (capacity / 1000) / amps
= 60 * (1700 / 1000) / 21
= 102 / 21 = 4.9 minutes

This motor raises the wing loading a little bit, but it gives us the duration we want and quite a bit of reserve power. We can choose a prop that draws 25 amps at full throttle, but throttle back most of the time for 4.5 minutes of powered flight. Lets see what happens when we decrease the cell capacity. It will lower the wing loading, but it will also decrease duration:

#3 astro 25 motor with a 16 cell, 1400 mah pack. This power system weighs roughly 2 lbs (32 oz or 900g).
Aircraft weight=6 lbs (96 oz or 2720g).
wing loading=96 oz / 4.2 ft^2=22.9 or 68.7 g/dm^2
amps needed=(50 * 6) / 16 = 19
duration=(60 * 1.4) / 19 = 4.4 minutes

Now that you have the general idea, you know enough to run your own numbers. One thing I didn't examine was the effect of gearing in the above example. When I learn of a way to incorporate the effects of gearing in the above calculations, I'll present an example. Unfortunately, the watts/pound rule does not take gearing into account.

Don Sims
10-20-2005, 02:47 AM
I'll stick this thread and merge the other newbie related info you gents are adding to the forum. Some of the posts may get out of sequence but hopefully noone will get too cornfused. We don't need a ton of stickies cluttering up the forum!!

qban_flyer
10-20-2005, 03:23 AM
You mean 100 watts for good flying and 150 for vertical performance right? My last question still stands about the KV rating. I guess that is the only way to compare motors is the KV rating. Can anyone breakdown the AXI numbers for me? What is the difference in the -18 and -16?

My two cents worth:

Back in the old days of e-flight the rule of thumb was 50 watts per pound of weight if you wanted to R.O.G., have a decent climb ratio (what you need with the Telemaster) and economical enough to obtain decent flight duration. Things have not changed that much and that rule of thumb still applies today.

100 watts per pound would be overkill on that Telemaster as it is intended for aerobatic models. 150% thrust to weight ratio is what's desired for 3D flight, a bit more would not hurt either. I have 3D models with a 200% to 1 trhust to weight ratio. Absolutely absurd what one can do with them when they are so overpowered.

On the other hand you can overpower your Telemaster (power plant wise) for the time geing and throttle back for nice flights. When you feel like moving up, you'll have the power plant needed for your next model without any extra expenditure.

jrb
10-20-2005, 03:06 PM
Here’s one of the best e-flight FAQs: http://www.ezonemag.com/pages/faq/index.shtml ; and their monthly e-mag http://www.ezonemag.com/ & associated discussion forums: all http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php & electric http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4 .

Here’s two other great sources of info too: http://members.aol.com/KMyersEFO/index.htm & www.marcee.org .

meegosh
10-20-2005, 05:15 PM
Excellent posts, I must say this information helped out a lot! Especially the brushless stuff. I will most definiatly add this to my ever growing bookmark list. :)

watt_the?!
11-01-2005, 03:34 AM
more turns, more torque, less amp draw for same prop but less rpm.

and vice versa.

Tim.

slipstick
11-01-2005, 10:16 AM
The (copyrighted) RCGroups/EZone FAQ is pretty good isn't it ? E.g. the Watt/pound rule quoted above is copied from Q&A A804 and the "matching power system to a plane" is a direct copy of A806 (and it's well out of date since it's talking about brushed motors and NiCds).

Amusingly enough the bit about outrunners is a direct steal from an old tutorial web page of mine whereas the gearbox information is probably from http://www.modelflight.com.au (http://www.modelflight.com.au/rc_model_support/electric_motors_gearboxes.htm) since the original is no longer around.

Do we not worry about copyright or giving credit to the original authors round here ? I would think as a minimum there should be a link to the original information included rather than simply making unattributed copies. Simple Google searches will find most of them for you.

Steve

watt_the?!
11-01-2005, 10:27 AM
looks like the photos on the modelflight page are from the hobby lobby site.

AEAJR
11-01-2005, 02:13 PM
The (copyrighted) RCGroups/EZone FAQ is pretty good isn't it ? E.g. the Watt/pound rule quoted above is copied from Q&A A804 and the "matching power system to a plane" is a direct copy of A806 (and it's well out of date since it's talking about brushed motors and NiCds).

Amusingly enough the bit about outrunners is a direct steal from an old tutorial web page of mine whereas the gearbox information is probably from http://www.modelflight.com.au (http://www.modelflight.com.au/rc_model_support/electric_motors_gearboxes.htm) since the original is no longer around.

Do we not worry about copyright or giving credit to the original authors round here ? I would think as a minimum there should be a link to the original information included rather than simply making unattributed copies. Simple Google searches will find most of them for you.

Steve

Steve, certainly we should be concerned about copyrights and authors rights where appropriate. However I think you miss the mark on this one.

FAQ A804 on Watts per pound is referenced by Jim Bourke, but he is not and does not claim to be the originator. I have a reference somewhere in one of my magazines as to who originally suggested this rule. It is about 15 years old and to the best of my knowledge was not copyrighted.

As far as being out of date, I don't see how that can be. The number of brushed motors being sold for airplanes each year is huge and the vast majority of electric planes that come with motors come with brushed motors. I have 6 electric planes and they all have brushed motors.

The fact that NiCds were the common technology then is probably true but completely irrelevent. The rule is based on input watts, which are completely transferrable regardless of whether you are using NiCd, NiMh, Lithium or an extension cord. That is a beauty of the rule.

If you want to update it you could say that this rule is for brushed motors. For brushelss, decrease it by 1/2 as a typical brushless motor is about 1/2 more efficent than the typical brushed motor. Or you can just use it as it was intended, as a starting point.

Copywright says you can not directly quote something and claim it as your own, but the general knowledge imparted can be referenced without giving credit to the author.

I wrote FAQ A300 and A301 on the eZone FAQ pages and I certainly don't expect people to quote me every time they say Watts = Volts X Amps. And I don't reference James Watt every time I use it either. It is now generally available knowledge.

In the case of these posts we are sharing generally available information. No one is being paid for these posts and I don't believe anyone claimed to be the originator of the knowledge.

And since you feel the gearbox information is from an old tutorial page you once had I presume you are claiming that as original research. And, since it is from an old tutorial, I presume it is out of date. And, what did you think people were going to do with the info you posted? Did you think they would keep it to themselves and never share it?

Your intention is very good but I think you may have taken it a bit too far.

AEAJR
11-01-2005, 02:14 PM
more turns, more torque, less amp draw for same prop but less rpm.

and vice versa.

Tim.

You just cleared up a huge mystery for me. Now that I see it, it seems obvious.

Thanks! ;)

watt_the?!
11-01-2005, 07:48 PM
You just cleared up a huge mystery for me. Now that I see it, it seems obvious.

Thanks! ;)

huh?...sarcasm?...sorry, was just trying to contribute to earlier posts...

slipstick
11-01-2005, 08:55 PM
Steve, certainly we should be concerned about copyrights and authors rights where appropriate. However I think you miss the mark on this one.
......
Copyright says you can not directly quote something and claim it as your own, but the general knowledge imparted can be referenced without giving credit to the author.
You're confusing copyright with patents. Patents cover ideas. It is the published groups of words that are copyrighted not the ideas contained in them. I'm very happy for people to read what I write, learn from it and pass it on, expressing it in their own way or simply copying my words but with attribution (like the quotes in this forum). I'm less keen on people simply cutting and pasting an article someone else wrote without any acknowledgement. That's what's happening here.

The statement in the forum rules is pretty definite :
"COPYRIGHTED OR TRADEMARKED MATERIAL:
It is illegal to post any content that is copyrighted or trademarked, unless you hold the copyright or trademark. Any material protected by copyright may not be posted in the message boards without the expressed permission of the author or owner of the copyright on that material. This includes reproducing the full text of news stories, articles, etc. It is acceptable to provide a link to copyrighted material, to post brief excerpts, or to paraphrase other works, though we do strongly encourage you to cite the original source whenever possible."

But I guess you've answered my question. If it's not going to be enforced it's not worth having the rule. Plagiarism is fine. Not a big problem, it's pretty much how most of the Internet works these days. No-one will bother suing you so there's no point worrying about them.

Steve

qban_flyer
11-01-2005, 09:14 PM
You're confusing copyright with patents. Patents cover ideas. It is the published groups of words that are copyrighted not the ideas contained in them. I'm very happy for people to read what I write, learn from it and pass it on, expressing it in their own way or simply copying my words but with attribution (like the quotes in this forum). I'm less keen on people simply cutting and pasting an article someone else wrote without any acknowledgement. That's what's happening here.

The statement in the forum rules is pretty definite :
"COPYRIGHTED OR TRADEMARKED MATERIAL:
It is illegal to post any content that is copyrighted or trademarked, unless you hold the copyright or trademark. Any material protected by copyright may not be posted in the message boards without the expressed permission of the author or owner of the copyright on that material. This includes reproducing the full text of news stories, articles, etc. It is acceptable to provide a link to copyrighted material, to post brief excerpts, or to paraphrase other works, though we do strongly encourage you to cite the original source whenever possible."

But I guess you've answered my question. If it's not going to be enforced it's not worth having the rule. Plagiarism is fine. Not a big problem, it's pretty much how most of the Internet works these days. No-one will bother suing you so there's no point worrying about them.

Steve

Just out of curiosity!

What is this thread's topic of discussion supposed to be? Great Basic Information for Newbies or a crash course on copyright and patent laws? :confused: :confused: :confused:

AEAJR
11-02-2005, 07:45 AM
huh?...sarcasm?...sorry, was just trying to contribute to earlier posts...

No, I was quite serious. :D

slipstick
11-02-2005, 10:05 AM
Just out of curiosity!

What is this thread's topic of discussion supposed to be? Great Basic Information for Newbies or a crash course on copyright and patent laws? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Just out of curiosity !

Are you intending to contribute to either of those topics or are you just starting your own sub-topic on thread drift ?

Steve

admin
11-06-2005, 12:43 PM
Steve,

If something is a copy-paste it should have attribution to give author credit. If something here is copy-paste just PM me or "Plane Insane" here and give the post number, the snippet that is cut-paste and we can give attribution (and even link to your original page if appropriate in context).

marc

AEAJR
05-23-2006, 05:06 AM
Let's get back on topic. Great Basic info for new flyers:

Workspace Ventilation
by Ed Anderson
aeajr on the forums

Whether you are flying a RTF plane, assembling an ARF or building a kit, there
will be times when you are going to be using glues, epoxies, paints and other
materials that give off fumes. Let me make a suggestion for your building
area

1) Ventilation - If your workshop is in your basement, or some other space
that can become damp, it will effect the wood. You need to make sure you keep
the area fairly dry. Humidity will warp things and cause mold on the parts.
Yucky!

Good ventilation can be the key.

2) Ventilation - If you work with CA and/or epoxy, both give off harmful
fumes. CA is especially bad.

When I first started working with CA, I spent several days in a row working in
the basement doing a repair. I thought I was coming down with the flu.
Turns out CA causes some pretty bad side effects in many people and that is
what I was suffering from. Thank goodness I am in a club. One of the club
members told me about it when he noticed that I was looking a bit ill at a
club meeting. He nailed it! He is so allergic to it he can't use it. Even
if I only use a little for a few minutes, if I get a whiff, 30 minutes later I
can feel those cold/flue feelings coming back.

I purchased a bathroom ceiling fan from Home Depot:
http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/prodmeta/pg_prodmeta.jsp?CNTTYPE=PROD_META&cartCntKey=Heating+%26+Cooling%2FVentilation%2FBat h+Fans+%26+Parts%2FBath+Fans&CNTKEY=Products_2%2FHeating+%26+Cooling%2FVentilat ion%2FBath+Fans+%26+Parts%2FBath+Fans&ProductOID=718856&BV_SessionID=@@@@1527918652.1148353671@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccgladdhlfmdkjgcgelceffdfgidgim.0

I ran a flexible vent tube, like the kind used for clothes dryers, to a
window.
http://www.absolutehome.com/web/catalog/product_detail.aspx?pid=86931&cm_ven=Bizrate&cm_cat=Appliances&cm_pla=Deflecto&cm_ite=Deflecto-Laundry-86931

Or this one from Ace Hardware
http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1307070


If the links don't work, go to www.homedepot.com (http://www.homedepot.com) and search for:
bathroom fan
dryer kit

I took out a pane of glass and put a dryer vent set in Plexiglas in its place.
You could use wood too, but I didn't want to block the light.

Whenever I am working with CA, epoxy or anything else that gives off fumes, I
turn on the fan and move the vent very close to the work to try and carry out
as much of the fumes as possible.

An alternative way of mounting this, would be to put the fan by the window and
hang the tube from the ceiling on some kind of a swing arm so I can swing it
over the work area.

Even with this set-up, I try to take a breath away from the work area, use the
CA or epoxy, then I turn away before I breath again to minimize the amount of
fumes I breath in.

When I am working with a lot of CA or epoxy, like when I glassed the fuselage
of one of my planes, the vent alone is not good enough. I picked up a
filtering breathing mask, also from home depot. With this I completely avoid
the problem. When I am done, I leave the work area and leave the vent fan
running to carry out the fumes. I open a window at the opposite end of the
basement to let in fresh air.

http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/prodmeta/pg_prodmeta.jsp?CNTTYPE=PROD_META&MID=9876&source=SEARCH&searchText=Respirator&CNTKEY=Products_2%2FHardware%2FSafety+%26+Protecti on%2FPersonal+Safety&ProductOID=524964&BV_SessionID=@@@@0068051276.1097242889@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdjadcmkffididcgelceffdfgidgjj.0 (http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/prodmeta/pg_prodmeta.jsp?CNTTYPE=PROD_META&MID=9876&source=SEARCH&searchText=Respirator&CNTKEY=Products_2%2FHardware%2FSafety+%26+Protecti on%2FPersonal+Safety&ProductOID=524964&BV_SessionID=@@@@0068051276.1097242889@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdjadcmkffididcgelceffdfgidgjj.0)

Breathing Mask - $19.95[/url]

If the link doesn't work, got to www.homedepot.com (http://www.homedepot.com) and search for Respirator


The cheap white dust filter masks won't do any good. They filter dust, not
fumes.

Epoxy does not have as quick or as dramatic effect on most people, but
accumulates over time. It may not bother you now, but 6 months or 6 years
from now, depending on how much you use, you could become allergic to it.
Avoid the build up in your system and take the precautions listed above. They
won't eliminate your exposure, but they could reduce it dramatically for very
little money.

We don't realize what effect these adhesives, paints, dopes, and other
chemicals are having on us. You think you have a cold, a rash an allergy due
to something else, but it is your hobby that is causing it. A few years down
the road you could start to have serious health problems and never understand
why.

Take a few low cost precautions now and you could enjoy your hobby and your
life a lot more and a lot longer.

Here ends the sermon