[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Tue Mar 2 15:41:03 AKST 2010

Did somebody say PARTY?

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Keith Hoard wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>> #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d-b134-28eaec9f2cea td{color:  
>>> black;} #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d- 
>>> b134-28eaec9f2cea .hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px} 
>>> #AOLMsgPart_3_a1464e77-3c63-4f8d-b134-28eaec9f2cea body.hmmessage 
>>> {font-size: 10pt;font-family:Verdana} 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
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion