[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Chris
cjm767driver at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 1 16:45:01 AKST 2010
Thanks Chad. That was fast!
I raise a Molson (actually I like Labatts Blue better) to Canada for an
excellent Olympics.
Chris Moon
Chad Northeast wrote:
> This wheel should be greased on the new Schulze F3A controller :) Its
> already on the big airplane ones.
>
> Chad
>
> On 10-03-01 6:14 PM, 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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