[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mon Mar 1 22:05:02 AKST 2010

Boy, Jim, does that date us who remember Donohue!!!

At 12:35 AM 3/2/2010, you wrote:
>Penske and Donohue called it "taking unfair advantage of the rules".
>
>Jim O
>
>
>On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>
> > OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating 
> the intent
> > and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?
> > ....... Just asking!
> > Dave Burton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > 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
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10
> > 14:34:00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member, SPA--177
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100302/39f076ba/attachment.html>