[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Tue Mar 2 08:26:53 AKST 2010

Yes I saw that. I also remember seeing that less voltage could also be lethal. We've been exposed to higher voltages since we could crawl to a wall outlet. Higher voltages could probably be used safely. If the maximum voltage is originating in Europe I withdraw my original questions. 
Thanks
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:05 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Mark Atwood touched on this earlier, it is likely tied to what is considered a potentially lethal voltage level of 42 volts.

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> I've been
> following this discussion and have some
> questions.
>
> Why was a
> voltage limit written into the rules? Is it international
> or AMA only? What was
> the thinking behind it? 
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Jim
> Hiller
>
>  
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>
> Sent:
> Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:30
> AM
>
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion]
> Max volts
>
>  
>
> Keep
> this line of
> thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or
> any other rules
> proposal.
>
>  
>
> Anthony
>
>  
>
> > From: burtona at atmc.net
>
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500
>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
>
> >
>
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hotmail:
> Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> Sign
> up
> now.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> -----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