[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Chris cjm767driver at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 1 16:26:34 AKST 2010


I think one of the big German companies has something like this feature 
in some of their controllers now and purportedly will have it in their 
next F3A controller this Spring.  A certain guy in Calgary may know more 
details about it than I do and hopefully he will chime in. I just send 
them vast sums of money but am last to get any details... (ok not really 
vast sums)

Chris

Dave wrote:
>
> Essentially a governor for the peak power only...with constant 
> "re-mapping" of the throttle curve to keep the power the same across 
> the throttle range.  SOME people have been asking for this basic 
> concept as an additional programming parameter for a LONG time (I 
> won't admit to when I first asked for this).  It would be very nice to 
> program max RPM (essentially a function of voltage available, which 
> reflects power available from the lipo) and set it for something close 
> to what is seen at the end of a flight on a cool day on a "middle of 
> the road" lipo (assuming it is performing well enough for competition 
> flights).  THEN...all competition grade lipos would run essentially 
> identically for the duration of the flight.  If more people asked for 
> this feature...the "squeaky" wheel might get greased sooner........
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Dave
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>  
>
> Along the lines of taking advantage of better batteries, ESC's could 
> compensate for packs as they flatten out.  Essentially, an ESC could 
> be designed to automatically de-rate the battery when it is above a 
> prescribed level of charge.  I don't really keep up with what the 
> various ESCs have feature-wise, but I haven't heard of this being done 
> yet.  I don't think it would be hard either.  Effectively, it's like a 
> built-in ATV that simply limits the pulse width at full power when the 
> battery is above a certain level, just as it already does in response 
> to throttle inputs.  There's an advantage to this in that the battery 
> pack & wiring arrangement stays simple and that all cells in the pack 
> get used simultaneously.  I still like Jim's original idea, especially 
> because it got some more thinking on the topic going.
>
>  
>
> Ed
>
>  
>
> *From:* AtwoodDon at aol.com <mailto:AtwoodDon at aol.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 PM
>
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
>  
>
> This approach could also function as a backup RX battery.  No rules 
> against 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100302/8125cced/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list