[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mon Mar 1 09:21:43 AKST 2010

I like this idea.

If you can run at the maximum voltage using a switching regulator,  
the potential power would be WAY up, but you wouldn't have to use  
it.  Say you used a 10S pack driving a 2500 watt motor at an average  
of  39 volts,.  Your current would be about 64 amps.  With an 11S  
pack regulated to 42,56 volts, the current driving the same 2500 watt  
motor would be about 59 amps.  The flight time for the same capacity  
battery packs would be up.  Alternately, the lower mah consumed would  
allow somewhat smaller capacity packs and you could make up for the  
extra weight of the extra cell.

Are there switching voltage regulators capable of handling the  
amperage?  If so, how heavy are they?

Ron

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:07 AM, John Pavlick wrote:

> I know, but they're pretty good - especially the high-frequency  
> ones. Not much heat would be generated and you'd get the effect of  
> having a slightly higher capacity battery as compared to a non- 
> regulated pack with the same capacity and one less cell running at  
> nearly the same output voltage. It would be a neat experiment.
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca- 
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:53 AM
>
> <!-- #yiv1351849579 _filtered #yiv1351849579 {font- 
> family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered  
> #yiv1351849579 {font-family:"Brush Script MT";panose-1:3 6 8 2 4 4  
> 6 7 3 4;} #yiv1351849579 #yiv1351849579 p.MsoNormal, #yiv1351849579  
> li.MsoNormal, #yiv1351849579 div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin- 
> bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}  
> #yiv1351849579 a:link, #yiv1351849579 span.MsoHyperlink  
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1351849579 a:visited,  
> #yiv1351849579 span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text- 
> decoration:underline;} #yiv1351849579 p {margin-right:0in;margin- 
> left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}  
> #yiv1351849579 span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}  
> _filtered #yiv1351849579 {margin:.2in .25in 33.1pt .25in;}  
> #yiv1351849579 div.Section1 {} -->
> Not even a switcher is 100% efficient!
>
>
> Jay Marshall
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:51 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>
> Not if it was a switching regulator.
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:33 AM
>
> The motor current x voltage drop in the regulator = wasted heat
>
> Jay Marshall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron  
> Van Putte
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> Never thought of that, but wouldn't the energy to regulate down the
> 42.56 volts just be dumped as heat?
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:54 AM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
>
> > Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and regulate it back down? A
> > contstant 42.56v would be nice!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Chad Northeast <chad at f3acanada.org>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> >
> > You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell (resting
> > open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you will have a pretty
> > restricted flight time.
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> > > That stirs a wild thought in my brain.  Fully charged packs don't
> > stay at 4.2 volts per cell very long.  On the other hand, once the
> > initial charge voltage is burned off by a constant load, the
> > voltage loss curve "flattens out".  What if you put fully charged
> > 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them down" to 3.869 volts per
> > cell (a total of 42.56 volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were
> > legal for use.  Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be
> > higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical
> > flight?  If the end-of-flight voltage might be significantly higher
> > for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it would be worth investigating,
> > even considering the extra weight of the additional cell.  Come on
> > you electronic gurus, show me where I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Ron Van Putte
> > >
> > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:
> > >
> > >> What comes after ...?  Does it specify a load or any other
> > conditions?  Is it measured during the noise test and have a
> > minimum value?
> > >>
> > >> Just stirring the pot, Jim O
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC Aerobatics).  Try page
> > RCA-2 para 4.1
> > >>> which states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are limited
> > to a maximum
> > >>> of 42.56 volts.."
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > >>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> > Ron Van Putte
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM
> > >>> To: General pattern discussion
> > >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> > >>>
> > >>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C section.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Where can I find the rule for max volts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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