[NSRCA-discussion] Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
Ed Alt
ed_alt at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 4 08:12:45 AKDT 2008
That's correct Matt, 10 mv.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: <rcmaster199 at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Part 2-Its a miracle!!!
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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