[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Wed Mar 3 06:43:06 AKST 2010

"BTW FWIW IMHO…….If/when the regulated power out option appears in Castle ESCs….I’ll bet it doesn’t cost a dime more…..since Castle firmware can be downloaded and installed by the user…..and they have never charged for this."

But the best part is it doesn't add any weight!

John Pavlick

--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 10:34 AM

Matt,

If I follow your logic correctly, then it would seem to me that analog servos would be legal, but digital servos would not.  Under no load conditions, the two servos (theoretically) track equally (“dumb” voltage AND power consumed are the same for a given amount of rotation).  Under a loaded condition, both servos consume more power, but, the analog servos lags behind (in the amount of rotation compared to a static no load conditions).  The digital servo, relative to the analog servo, consumes a greater amount of power to maintain exact same of rotation (as static no load), and this is accomplished by consuming greater power without specific command from the TX or pilot.  The servo is reacting to a specific set of conditions…just as the ESCs currently do now with regard to changes in timing at different RPMs and different loads.  Just as the ESC would do if functioning to maintain constant power output.

I want the power from the motor lipo regulated….just as I want the power to my servos regulated.  I’ll control the RPM with the throttle stick, just as I control servo position with the TX.

BTW FWIW IMHO…….If/when the regulated power out option appears in Castle ESCs….I’ll bet it doesn’t cost a dime more…..since Castle firmware can be downloaded and installed by the user…..and they have never charged for this.

Regards,

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:35 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

HMMMMMM!!!! 

An ESC that compensates for variable input voltage (and I assume it does this automatically with no input from the loose screw in front of the controls).  Yes

And how is this different than a tx that compenates for variable (call it erratic) stick movement by the same loose screw?  Transmitters only transmit what they are told to transmit.  They can't tell if the pilot screwed up (my point here is that a gyro effect of sorts is added to the TX output; same can be said on RX side--MK)

Voltage regs for airbrne systems don't look the same to me as this. A servo functions pretty much the same at 4.8 as it does 6 volts. Sure it's a little faster but the loose screw still has to command it.  It does exactly the same thing.  It keeps the servo speed the same as the battery voltage goes down. (I don't see it that way... dumb voltage into a servo , regardless of amplitude, doesn't mean/do much. The servo may work faster and with more torque but so what. That, in and of itself, does absolutely nothing-- MK)

Maybe it's picking nits but I am not convinced. I think that you are talking about a device that counts poles per unit time and maintaining that ratio as long as possible for any stick position, while the battery lasts. It's a form of power governor.  No, the voltage to the motor and therefore the rpm changes with stick position as it does now.  What we are trying to get is a consistent voltage and rpm for each stick position and not have it affected by the supply voltage. (Yes that's what I meant... any given stick position will have a given #poles/time ratio with fresh batteries and a different ratio as battery dumps. What supporters of this variable voltage input want (I think) is that the poles/unit time/stick position be maintained automatically by the ESC as long as the battery lasts. The ESC has all the info it needs to make the adjustment. 

If that doesn't constitute an auto timing feature, I don't know what does. The way it is now the pilot has to make the adjustment to stick position in flight. That's the way it should be per the rule--MK)

".....liberty, not equality...." I know you're joshing  If you want equality, don't keep score.  Jim (If you want to fly with auto timing devices in your plane, fine. Don't fly in sanctioned events. 

Does the technology exist? YUP....my good friends Dean P, Dave L and Ed A all think this is trivial and I think they are right. Except there is a sticky rule about auto timing devices......Change the rule; what a can of worms THAT would be. 

Will it cost more money to get it there?? YUP, to Joe Average. Will it really cost more from the designer's point of view? Probably no. But the perception will be that it is far superior and the manufacturers will charge bunches more for it. T'was always thus, and thus shall always be---MK)

MattK

-----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] 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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 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
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100303/3f82773c/attachment.html>