[NSRCA-discussion] Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
rcmaster199 at aol.com
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Thu Sep 4 08:07:54 AKDT 2008
Ed,
If I remember correctly, your regs output precision is 10 millivolts,
right?
"Tuning" was just a matter of getting the outputs to read the same
voltage to the second decimal place, during set-up. This was super
simple to actually do. It's a fine product and a great value
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:22 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
Wayne:
The regulators not being matched is the cause, and
it's the reason I began producing Tech-Aero regulators in the first
place.
There was nothing on the market that you could consistently match
output
voltages precisely enough in order to balance the current draw from
separate
packs.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:
Wayne Galligan
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:08
AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Part
2-Its a miracle!!!
Ed or Jim O.,
I am running dual 1500 mil 6v NiMh packs in
my Ultimate. I am using 2 of the 6v regulated Miracle switches by
MPI. I
find that one pack is consistently lower after two or three flights.
Could it be that the regulators are not matched and one draws more
then the
other one? Could be a bad bat
tery I'll have to remove and test. They
seem to
use about the same amount of mil amps but one is lower in voltage
then the
other. I use a 1amp load when testing after each flight and stop
flying
when the voltage drops to 5.8v loaded.
Thanks
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From:
Ed Alt
To: General pattern
discussion
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:32
AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Part
2-Its a miracle!!!
Keith:
That setup works well. I refer to it as a
hot standby, with details covered in a tech tip on the Tech-Aero
website. I prefer a different approach, where you just split the
battery capacity equally between two packs, each with its own
regulator. The
regulators must be precisely matched in output voltage setting to
allow then
to both actively share the load simultaneously. You can make a
very
light setup with this and there are several advantages to it.
First, you can
check every flight to see that each battery is being used as
expected, which
is very important to know. Second, you double your peak load
capacity under
load. A single 5A regulator such as the JAICCIO or the Tech-Aero
can
handle t
he load in a pattern airplane just fine, but it's also good
to know
that you can have two 5A regulators online at once, providing a 10A
peak
current capability.
The Tech-Tip on how this all works is at
http://www.tech-aero.net/Tech-Tips.htm
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:
Keith
Black
To: General pattern
discussion
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Part
2-Its a miracle!!!
What I've done is have two batteries and two
regulators, one regulator at 5.7 volts and one at 5.3 volts (or
any
voltage lower). On the higher voltage regulator I connect my
primary
battery, say a 2000 mah five cell or Lithium. On the lower
voltage
regulator I connect the smallest battery I can buy, say a
750 Lipo that weighs less than an ounce.
Since the larger battery is hooked
to a regulator that outputs a higher voltage all drain comes from
the
primary battery and nothing is sucked from the smaller battery
unless the
main battery drops below 5.3 volts (or fails).
=2
0 This works great and when recharging the
smaller battery seldom needs any recharge at all.
I spoke to Jim Oddino before doing this and
confirmed that the lower voltage battery would not suck voltage
from the
larger battery since it was going through his regulator (Jaccio
regulator).
This setup has worked great for me and even
saved a plane when my primary battery came loose and disconnected
once!
Keith Black
----- Original Message -----
From:
vicenterc at comcast.net
To: General pattern
discussion ; 'General pattern
discussion'
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
Correct, I still use separate regulators for each
battery. This system is smart that isolates the bad battery if
something goes wrong. In this way, the bad battery won't
drain the good one. The LED in the receiver tells you if the
battery has been isolated.
--
Vicente20"Vince" Bortone
--------------
Original message --------------
From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
As I read the
literature, the dual battery setup is designed to provide a
heavier
buss for more current. It does not solve the problem of a
failed
battery(s). This could effectively add even more drain. The
ideal
setup still seems to be dual battery packs with dual
regulators, or
some other means to isolate a failed pack.
Jay
Marshall
-----Original
Message-----
From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
Of
vicenterc at comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 03,
2008 11:44 AM
To:
General pattern d iscuss
ion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
Gray,
Yes, high
drain could have been the problem. Since the plane is in
good
20 condition probably you can check. I think you should
consider
using two batteries of your preference. I starting to use
the
9100 receiver that already has two power inputs. Check
details
here:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SPMAR9100
--
Vicente "Vince"
Bortone
-------------- Original message
--------------
From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com>
Vicente
The Robbe charger
has a setting for soft peak, which is to be used for NiMH.
This is
what I had. I cycled twice before using this new
battery..what I
remember was getting about 1300 Mah from this 1450 mah
pack. I think
there may be a "high drain" problem on the plane in
addition.
Gray
Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and
Specialty Apertures
Technical Staff Composites Engineer
ing
Raytheon
=0
A vicenterc at comcast.net
Sent by:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
09/03/2008
09:42 AM
Please
respond to
General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To
General
pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
cc
Subject
Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Part 2-Its a
miracle!!!
Gray,
Yes, that
is good news. Clear
ly the battery was the problem. I had
heard that some chargers get a "false peak" and stop
charging when
the battery is not really fully charged. I wonder if this
was
the problem.
--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Gray E
Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com>
Lance and I
went out and found the plane right where it was supposed to
be. Do
not know how I missed it the first day, so I am going to
say that
someone went into the woods Monday night and moved it
.
What is
amazing in the minimal damage the plane has considering it
went
straig ht in from 200 feet, albeit at a slow speed. The
horrible
reverbed cracking sound Keith and I heard was the carbon
fiber wing
tube breaking. Both wings have limited leading edge damage,
the stab
has a golfball size divot on the R LE, an easy to repair
crack in
the fuse (buckle failure) behind one wing and a little nose
ring
area damage. That is all.
The
battery
pack had broken the 3/8 bals a stic ks on impact that were
bonded
into place (my battery packs are not "removeable" per say)
and the
battey pack was on the ground at the nose of the plane. The
plane
was standing vertical on the undamage spinner being held
up by
the tree branches. Once we got home we hooked eveything up
and
of course it all worked fine. Knowing that the battery pack
essentially had the same charge as when the plane went in,
Lance
took the battery pack home for diagnostics. Using the
Robbe
charger he cycled the1450 mah &nbs p;pack down....it read
80
mah. He then charged it and it read 1000 mah. Anthony
described a
NiMH "brown out" and that is starting to make alot of
sense. 6
volt packNiMH , drained does not just die like a 4.8 volt
NiCad.
Also an important note is I now think the plane was going
in and out
of PCM lock. When I tested PCM lock the throttle did cut,
but not to
low idle. It cut to about 20% throttle
(programming error),
hence
the pulsing of the throttle that I exper ienced. If this
diagnosis
is correct then it is a testament to using PCM as I was
able to fly
the plane for 45 seconds before impact...had I been closer
when the
problem started I may have even been able to score a "10"
FAI
landing (not really-I would have gone for the grass instead
of the
runway).
Anyw ay I am
sending the entire radio off for examination, try to see
why the
battery was so low, and fix the plane for spring.
Thanks for the ideas
Gray
Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and
Specialty Apertures
Technical Staff Composites
Engineering
Raytheon _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.o rg/mai
lman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
________
_______________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list