[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Tue Mar 2 14:45:19 AKST 2010

Who'd a thunk the NSRCA would have a Tea Party faction?

Sent from my iPhone

>   We want liberty not equality.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>
>> I had a brief conversation with Dean Pappas on this subject  
>> recently. Dean explained that some folks have been advocates of  
>> programming the ESC to do some footwork at various stages of  
>> battery use. He explained to me just how easy this is to do  
>> physically. It seems a few have mentioned something similar in this  
>> thread.
>>
>> I am not that concerned about raising the voltage of the battery as  
>> I see this as a somewhat clear violation of the FAI code. I am more  
>> concerned about what and how the ESC is "programmed" . I would like  
>> for some one with the electronic/software pedigree to explain to me  
>> how programming adjustable rates of voltage potential and making  
>> these adjustments automatically, does not constitute a programming  
>> violation within the rules as they exist today.
>>
>> When the rules were written, we were clearly dealing with RADIO pre- 
>> programmed sequences and the like, no gyros, etc. However I would  
>> argue that rate auto adjustments that are definitely possible with  
>> the ESC's of today, also qualify as a violation of said rules.  
>> Someone should sit down and think this through...I could be  
>> convinced otherwise but it needs to be a good argument
>>
>> MattK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 8:29 am
>> 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. =
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100302/2ae7e964/attachment.html>