[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Tue Mar 2 17:47:45 AKST 2010

I touch my tongue to the leads on my lipo batteries to make sure they are
still charged and have suffered "no ill effects" so I'm not sure what all
the fuss is all about???

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Outlaw the regulators on every YS!!!

  _____  

From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:29:56 -0800
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

What the guys are talking about is designing an ESC that compensates for
varying input voltages.  To make a rule against something so obviously good
is crazy.  It would be like prohibiting voltage regulators on our airborne
RC system packs.  Or prohibiting the use of circuits that compensate for
temperature changes in our systems.  I'm for simplifying the rules and regs.
The fewer the better.  Define the size of the plane and the maneuvers to be
performed and anything you can do to make it fly better is okay.  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
<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
<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 <http://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
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  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

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/>  now.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4910 (20100302) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/4a1e8f25/attachment.html>