[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Chad Northeast chad at f3acanada.org
Mon Mar 1 17:33:49 AKST 2010 

No problem :)  Both of those beer are good :)  Or next time you are in 
Calgary you can try something from Big Rock like grasshopper or trad :)

The feature on the Schulze is called voltcontrol, and its intent is to 
do just what Dave pointed out.  However its setup through the TX as I 
understand it, but I have not experimented with it yet.  I have one of 
the ESC's (40.160 xl) with voltcontrol on my big Sukhoi (30%, no I am 
not flying IMAC lol) and a pletty terminator, but until I can get out to 
the field I can't test it, and running the big 24" prop in the garage 
makes way too much wind :)  I ran it on 4s just to see that everything 
was hook up correctly though lol.

If the weather holds up maybe I will get lucky and be able to try it out 
in a couple weeks.

Chad

On 10-03-01 6:43 PM, Chris wrote:
> 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