[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

AtwoodDon at aol.com AtwoodDon at aol.com
Mon Mar 1 16:01:33 AKST 2010 

This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules  ag
ainst having redundant RX power.  The BEC could be programmed to 'divert'  power 
to the flight batteries to maintain the near max voltage when  needed.
 
However, I agree with Jim, I don't see the need for this.  Battery  
technology has/is progressing fast enough to provide us with enough power for  our 
sequences.  I prefer the simpler approach.
 
Don
 
 
In a message dated 3/1/2010 4:34:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
ed_alt at hotmail.com writes:

That's a  good idea.  I imagine it would take a little modification to the 
rule  to specify how a system like this could be applied.  This could be 
put  
together external to the speed controller and function automatically  
through 
active voltage sensing.  Eventually the ESC mfgs could go a  step further 
an 
just integrate this right into the controller.   Slick, simple concept  Jim!

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From:  "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010  7:15 PM
To: "General pattern discussion"  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Max volts

> I have the functional concept that solves the rules  problem.  Picture a 
> 10S pack positive lead wired to the common  of a switch with two poles, a 
> piece of wire connected from one pole  to a pole on a second two pole 
> switch with its common connected to  the ESC.  Between the other two 
poles 
> we place our 11th  cell.  When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th 
> cell is  bypassed and when it is below, like it will be during vertical 
>  maneuvers late in flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the 
>  voltage to up to 41.7 volts.  At no time is the voltage over the  spec.
>
> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides  adequate power with 
> the right motor at all times of flight even if  the voltage drops to 35 
> volts.
>
>  Jim
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane  wrote:
>
>> Going higher and regulating down would be against  the rules, the max 
>> volts is still limited to  42.56.
>>
>> Bob Kane
>>  getterflash at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/1/10,  krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: krishlan fitzsimmons  <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>>> To: chad at f3acanada.org, "General  pattern discussion" 
>>>  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Monday, March  1, 2010, 9:54 AM
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/ff01c3f1/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list