Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

C23/E90 Gel Filled Damper Solution

DCH

Dr. FrankenPhoon
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
918
Reaction score
949
Age
76
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Good news for all you gel-filled headache sufferers, there is now relief and it's spelled F-O-A-M!
That's right, @Steve Carr recently posted a video of him installing CGO3+ dampers on his C23 gimbal and stuffing foam in them. This raised some good points from @PatR about camera weight and damper design, as well as some good ideas in my head. Both the C23 & E90 use this damper, in this report I will only reference the C23.


So with input and advice from Steve and @Ty Pilot, we took Steve's idea a step further to the next level. I drained the gel out of one of my C23 dampers - designed for the extra weight- and filled it with foam like Steve did. Prior to mounting I performed many comparison tests between a gel filled, a foam filled, and an air filled (emptied) C23 damper, all compared to an air filed CGO3+ damper. Despite the similar appearance, the C23 damper is quite different in design than the CGO3+ and exhibits different characteristics. (Full test details on request)

I discovered some interesting properties when using foam as opposed to gel or air in the C23 dampers. The foam adds a definite dampening effect on rebound after compression, gel and air spring right back like a Pogo Stick. When extending to the limit, the gel and air offer light linear resistance up to the limit. The foam is progressive, offering light resistance at first and gradually increasing as you reach the limit. The rubber damper by itself acts like a spring, adding foam is like putting a shock absorber in it and makes it more like a suspension system. Also, without the gel inside, the C23 damper never collapses and looks stretched, this is a function of the internal vacuum formed in the gel filled by stretching them. The resistance offered by the foam eliminates collapse, and helps to hold the shape and prevent over stretching.

The foam filled comparison results were so impressive I converted a set and mounted them up for some test flights. I flew two batteries down and performed countless tests with the sole intend of making the worst video ever recorded. I tried my best to do anything that would make the gimbal shake, shudder, vibrate, swing, and sway violently. It wasn't a pretty sight (I'm glad I didn't have an audience!):eek:.

None of the videos showed any abnormalities or anomalies The proof is in the pudding, literally. There is no jello, jitters, shakes, shudders, or vibrations in any of the countless videos I shot, they are all as smooth as pudding. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. I have uploaded two very short but telling clips of two such tests with the landing gear in the frame for reference -otherwise you would not know anything abnormal was going on.

This one is showing me slapping the sticks (Max rate slider) to produce violent and sudden movements of the camera: Loose Thumb Stick Slapin

This one is showing a rapid descent from about 100', because some have reported the camera swaying under this condition. The video remains smooth despite the Plus experiencing some Vortex Ring State during the drop: Gear Down Rapid descent

Okay now that I have your attention and you're ready to try it, here is how you want to go about it and what to watch out for, because the gel is NOT some benign silicon substance, it is aggressively sticky and spreads like the plague. You need to be prepared to manage it.
C23/E90 Dampener Upgrade Mod
 
Last edited:
the gel is NOT some benign silicon substance, it is aggressively sticky

must be... it already made your mod thread "sticky" ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCH
What was old becomes new again[emoji106] Back in the early days of multirotor gimbals we could not get the jello out of video with the dampers that were available. Many shaped foam ear plugs to install alongside the rubber dampers to assist with stabilization. We’ve come full circle.
 
Yes, I have heard rumors to this effect, I always dismissed them as ol wives tales!;)
 
What was old becomes new again[emoji106] Back in the early days of multirotor gimbals we could not get the jello out of video with the dampers that were available. Many shaped foam ear plugs to install alongside the rubber dampers to assist with stabilization. We’ve come full circle.


Jello! That brings back (bad) memories.
 
Good news for all you gel-filled headache sufferers, there is now relief and it's spelled F-O-A-M!
That's right, @Steve Carr recently posted a video of him installing CGO3+ dampers on his C23 gimbal and stuffing foam in them. This raised some good points from @PatR about camera weight and damper design, as well as some good ideas in my head. Both the C23 & E90 use this damper, in this report I will only reference the C23.


So with input and advice from Steve and @Ty Pilot, we took Steve's idea a step further to the next level. I drained the gel out of one of my C23 dampers - designed for the extra weight- and filled it with foam like Steve did. Prior to mounting I performed many comparison tests between a gel filled, a foam filled, and an air filled (emptied) C23 damper, all compared to an air filed CGO3+ damper. Despite the similar appearance, the C23 damper is quite different in design than the CGO3+ and exhibits different characteristics. (Full test details on request)

I discovered some interesting properties when using foam as opposed to gel or air in the C23 dampers. The foam adds a definite dampening effect on rebound after compression, gel and air spring right back like a Pogo Stick. When extending to the limit, the gel and air offer light linear resistance up to the limit. The foam is progressive, offering light resistance at first and gradually increasing as you reach the limit. The rubber damper by itself acts like a spring, adding foam is like putting a shock absorber in it and makes it more like a suspension system. Also, without the gel inside, the C23 damper never collapses and looks stretched, this is a function of the internal vacuum formed in the gel filled by stretching them. The resistance offered by the foam eliminates collapse, and helps to hold the shape and prevent over stretching.

The foam filled comparison results were so impressive I converted a set and mounted them up for some test flights. I flew two batteries down and performed countless tests with the sole intend of making the worst video ever recorded. I tried my best to do anything that would make the gimbal shake, shudder, vibrate, swing, and sway violently. It wasn't a pretty sight (I'm glad I didn't have an audience!):eek:.

None of the videos showed any abnormalities or anomalies The proof is in the pudding, literally. There is no jello, jitters, shakes, shudders, or vibrations in any of the countless videos I shot, they are all as smooth as pudding. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. I have uploaded two very short but telling clips of two such tests with the landing gear in the frame for reference -otherwise you would not know anything abnormal was going on.

This one is showing me slapping the sticks (Max rate slider) to produce violent and sudden movements of the camera: Loose Thumb Stick Slapin

This one is showing a rapid descent from about 100', because some have reported the camera swaying under this condition. The video remains smooth despite the Plus experiencing some Vortex Ring State during the drop: Gear Down Rapid descent

Okay now that I have your attention and you're ready to try it, here is how you want to go about it and what to watch out for, because the gel is NOT some benign silicon substance, it is aggressively sticky and spreads like the plague. You need to be prepared to manage it.
C23/E90 Dampener Upgrade Mod
Hello all,

Im a beginning pilot and flying with my Yuneec Typhoon H for several times now.
When I read this post, I wandering: is it also a good thing to do on the dampers from the H advanged?

Regardings, K.F. Smits
 
Last edited:
Hello all,

Im a beginning pilot and flying with my Yuneec Typhoon H for several times now.
When I read this post, I wandering: is it also a good thing to do on the dampers from the H advanged?

Regardings, K.F. Smits
The Typhoon H480 and the H480Pro use a different camera, gimbal, and dampers, which does not suffer from the damper problems of Typhoon H Plus. You have nothing to worry about. Well, you may have other things to worry about, but not the dampers of your H480. You are good to go!:)
 
Last edited:
The Typhoon H480 and the H480Pro use a different camera, gimbal, and dampers, which does not suffer from the damper problems of Typhoon H Plus. You have nothing to worry about. Well, you may have other things to worry about, but not the dampers of you H480. You are good to go!:)
Thanks DCH.
 
I wonder if this can help out those who have the e50
That's is a good question, that only raises questions for me. First, does the E50 use gel dampers? If so are they the same as the E90?
I can't find a photo of an e50 that shows the dampers, they all have the upper cover hiding them. Can you post a photo of yours? The other question I have is what problems are you experiencing with the E50 dampers?

Looking at photos of the E50, it is more the size of the GGO3+ series gimbal, therefore I would think the dampers would be the same air filled 3-ribbed bellows design, not requiring the gel filled which were designed to manage more weight. However , I have never seen or held an E50 so I don't know how heavy they are. Are we talking a cannon ball here?:oops:
If so, adding foam will firm them up and add stability.
 
The E50 uses the same dampers as the E90/C23. The CGO3+ weighs 255 g; the E50 - 275 g; the C23 - 350 g.
@Peggy has tried them all in the E50. He says that camera still suffers from terrible video with every damper he has installed.
 
@Peggy has tried them all in the E50. He says that camera still suffers from terrible video with every damper he has installed.
Bet he hasn't tried the foam filled C23/E90 dampers. Maybe I need to bring his attention to this new development.
We need a E50 beta tester who is willing to try this out. How about you @terrence davidson? You could be a major contributor to this project if you were to prove these on an E50.
 
I apologize for the question, the answer to which may seem obvious to you, but I have never done anything like this and, besides, I do not speak English, and the automatic translation is not very good.
Did I understand correctly that after filling the damper with foam it is necessary to fix it with dental floss?
I put the camera sideways and tied the dental floss without sagging. In vertical position, of course, thread stretched. Is that right?
17308
 
This looks right, however the floss might be too tight. I have not tried floss yet, I have the lock pins. @Steve Carr uses floss, he can tell you if it needs to be looser.

Esto se ve bien, sin embargo, el hilo podría ser demasiado apretado. No he intentado usar este método todavía, tengo los pasadores de bloqueo en su lugar. @Steve Carr usa hilo dental, te puede decir si necesita ser más suelto.
 
This looks right, however the floss might be too tight. I have not tried floss yet, I have the lock pins. @Steve Carr uses floss, he can tell you if it needs to be looser.

Esto se ve bien, sin embargo, el hilo podría ser demasiado apretado. No he intentado usar este método todavía, tengo los pasadores de bloqueo en su lugar. @Steve Carr usa hilo dental, te puede decir si necesita ser más suelto.
Thanks. Just made a test flight. "Jello" became less noticeable, but not completely disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Here is an example.

H520-foam-damper-test1

That's what I'm dealing with now. What can I try to do?

abant,

I could barely see anything until I got on the big screen (off my phone). Almost imperceptible, so if this is an improvement over what you were seeing previously, good job.

As for getting it even better, have you tested your camera, having your craft simply sitting on a table, motors off?

I had issues with a few E50s. I could hear buzzing when doing some ground tests. Did all kinds of calibrations to no avail. Actually had the camera in for "repair". That resulted in replacing the original dampers with the older CGO3+ style.

Unfortunately, I didn't have that camera very long, as I had to send in the whole kit for an unrelated issue with the H520. When I received the returned kit, not only had the H520 been replaced, but the camera as well. (No, this was not a crash, but an instance where the H520 got a little loose on landing, refused to idle, tipped over, and shook a bit. - ok, some might call it a crash, but not pilot induced. The flight controller had some issues.)

With the second camera, I noticed jello. I didn't notice the buzzing until one particular flight. Upon landing, I could actually hear the buzzing once the motors shut down. That led to table testing. No buzzing until, during pan, I titled the camera to 30 degrees or lower.

A third camera was tried. Original dampers. All good, except for the pixelating video stream issue, back the ST16s, This has been discussed in other, more recent threads. Anyway, suspecting a communications issue, Yuneec replaced the camera again. This fourth camera still has the video feed issue, but the buzzing and jello are not there. Bottom line: two of four worked very well, as far as the buzzing/jello issue goes.

As for testing, one other option we can try for test flights - no need to get high, sorry. Ten feet up, looking at some vertical structure for reference, is good enough. (trees, light poles, fencing, whatever is available.) Just hover and move the camera horizontal and vertical to see if one can see the jello where one would expect, based on the tabletop tests, if this buzzing or vibration was observed.

As for comparisons to the CGO3+ regarding mass, size, weight... for those who have not seen an E50, they are very close to the CGO3+. The difference is the lens assembly extends out from the body about half an inch.

Curious if you @abant, or anyone else, has done any table tests, listening for the vibration/buzzing issue related to these jello problems. I know it has been discussed in other threads, but thought to mention in this one for those coming across this thread without previous experience with the others.

Jeff
 

Attachments

  • E50.jpg
    E50.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 20

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,977
Messages
241,828
Members
27,377
Latest member
mathewthomasmt