[NSRCA-discussion] [Bulk] Re: Max volts

Tue Mar 2 15:47:32 AKST 2010

Another great example is the Tesla coil, as exhibited at Griffith Park in 
Los Angeles.  A demonstrator would get in the Faraday Cage with the coil, 
(Invented, of course, by Nicholas Tesla) and it would appear as if long, 
blue, extremely high voltage lines of lightning were clinging to him, and 
jumping all about.
Very awesome demonstration--particularly to an 8 year old kid.
Bill glaze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart Chale" <schale at optonline.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:54 PM
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts


> Someone already mentioned it, current does damage (or kills) not voltage. 
> Static electricity is 10,000 to 100,000 volts.  But the current is so 
> small that no damage is done.  Has anyone actually dared to touch the 
> positive lead of our 10 cell packs with one hand and the negative lead 
> with the other?  42 volts 80 amps?  Well not quite in fact not even a 
> shock.  The resistance in our body is so high that virtually no current 
> will flow and you certainly will not feel it.  If it were AC and not DC 
> then you probably would.
> My favorite example of how current does damage is the old Ronco hot dog 
> cooker.  Remember those old Ronco commercials.  (You might have to be old 
> to remember) You put a hot dog between two metal spikes in the cooker and 
> plugged it in.  Current flowing through the hot dog cooked it.
>
> Here is a modern example on youtube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehHo_P4O3FA
>
> Stuart
>
> On 3/2/2010 12:27 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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