[FL-Flinter]

arcticap,

Also, what toy manufacturer manufactures the circuitry and where is the information coming from?

The name imprinted on the circuit board as pictured in The American Rifleman - search the company, all that comes back to that name is an electronics toy mfg in Spain. (sorry, I can't locate the book to give you the specific name off hand but it's clearly visible in the picture)

Has there been any scientific testing that verifies even the remote possibility of a misfire with the CVA ignition system?

No testing that I can find either verify or dismiss the possibility of remote firing. I emailed CVA more than a month ago and again before Christmas specifically asking about remote firing safety testing but have yet to receive a reply.

It's simple enough to turn off the battery pack when loading

Very true, you can disconnect the battery but the highvoltage high current capacitor that does the actual firing can remain at the ready long after the battey is removed.

We're all suppose to know through basic firearms training that mechanical triggers and safeties aren't fail proof.

Absolutely correct but adding electronics into the mix just multiplies the fail factor possibilities.

I did some custom work for a manufacturing plant, upgrade on a production line that included installation of an arc discharge unit to cut the product at a precise length. The unit operated on the same principle, electronic amplifcation circuitry charged up a capacitor bank and when triggered, the cap's would fire a high voltage high current arc between two copper electrodes that cut the product. The unit was fairly well protected from the mfg, sealed in an all metal case that was bonded to earth ground. Nonetheless, the unit would fire when it wasn't supposed to. This wasn't cheap stuff either, the control side circuit board alone cost more than three times what the entire Electra rifle does. The mfg replaced the all the parts in the existing unit twice then replaced the whole unit going so far as to send one of their engineers to the plant to oversee the installation and operation of the replacement unit. He spent nearly two weeks in the plant trying to figure out why the unit was firing when it wasn't supposed to, he even went so far as to install all kinds of additional shielding. The electronic fire control circuitry was finally replaced with an electromechanical contactor that physically broke the connetion between the cap bank and the electrode. A low-tech solution to a high-tech problem.

Has nothing to do with a device having a receiver or not, it has to do with the nature of electronic controls, no matter how well they are made, they can be susceptible to interference even if well shielded. The cutting units didn't have any receiver either, nor did the Zuni rocket that triggered the disaster on the USS Forrestal in 1967.

Sorry if you think I'm being hard on this one but it has nothing to do with it being a muzzleloader, I'd express the same concerns if it was a centerfire or any other device that had the capability of being dangerous. I don't trust a electronic gadgets to run my vehicles either, if I'm driving it, I know what and where the input is coming from - no, it's not fool proof nor will it prevent a mechanical failure but at least I have the peace of mind that some little two cent electronic component isn't going to crap out for no reason and send me to the promise land.