[NSRCA-discussion] SPAM Re: Max volts

Wed Mar 3 08:39:31 AKST 2010

Oops......Number 2.

Tim Pascoe 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Pascoe,Tim [Burlington]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: *****SPAM***** Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

In reading this, it seems the logic programming available in radios such
as the 14MZ, which permit rate changes automatically based on single or
multiple stick positions would be illegal. So when I set a condition to
drop the Elevator rate by half as soon as full Elevator and full Rudder
are initiated, at the entry to a snap, I seem to breaking Number 3 in
the Not Permitted list below.

Correct?

Tim Pascoe 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl
Haury
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:02 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

Somewhat reluctantly I'm going to jump into this discussion and try to
dissect it a bit. It appears to me that maybe more is being read into
the rules than is actually there. There is one paragraph of three
sentences that addresses what type of control is permitted  and what is
not. Then there are some examples of what is permitted and what is not.
(See below.) "Examples" by definition aren't all inclusive. I think we
probably all agree on the "open loop" concept. The ESC discussion seems
to fall somewhere in the "auto-pilot exclusion" and  "automatic control
sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing device"
prohibition seems to be where this discussion lies.

What's being proposed for ESC functionality, as I understand it, would
ensure the same prop speed for a given throttle stick position. Not much
difference than a fuel supply control system that ensures the same fuel
delivery to the engine at a given throttle position. In neither case is
the propulsion system controlling aircraft speed via a feedback loop,
the nut on the stick is doing that. Seems OK within the rules to me. 

OTOH, I understand the view that control algorithms are doing magic
changing "timing" of electrical pulses to the motor. I would argue this
is outside the "automatic control timing device" rule which was intended
to prevent automatic "control" inputs directly. Yes - I was around when
these rules were discussed and implemented, so I have some insight at to
their intent. I also realize that there are things around now that
weren't at that time that merit these discussions. It would seem that if
everyone feels passionately enough about this an easy fix would to add a
sentence (pro or con) in the examples part of the rule that is specific
to this topic, therefore keeping the "worms in the can".

Hmmm as Dave says - I wonder how the control algorithms of a servo fit
into this, lots of electronic magic going on there.

Earl

"Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic
feedback from the model aircraft

to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any
type of terrestrial reference is

prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic
control timing devices

are prohibited.

Example: Permitted:

1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.

2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is
initiated or activated and terminated

by the competitor.

3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix
control functions.

SC4_Vol_F3_Aerobatics_09 Effective 1st January 2009 Page 10

5

Not permitted:

1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.

2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of
commands.

3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other
stabilisation of the model aircraft.

4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.

5. Any type of voice recognition system.

6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or
electronic device that will

prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during
the sound/noise test.

7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or
flight to flight analysis."

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Dave <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  

	To: 'General pattern discussion'
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

	Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:47 AM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts

	Matt,

	One more thought/consideration/question -

	Is electronic ignition with variable timing advance illegal?
Essentially the RPM is sensed (through a sensor), and as RPM increases,
the timing is advanced.  The ESCs of today do the same function...they
advance timing as RPM increases, but do so without sensor.  Should we go
back to sensors and mechanical advance devices?

	Regards,

	Dave

	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 now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/>  = 

		_______________________________________________
		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
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/> 

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

	The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

	http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

________________________________

	Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
Sign up now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/> 

________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	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/20100303/4789f13c/attachment.html>

[NSRCA-discussion] *****SPAM***** Re: Max volts

[NSRCA-discussion] SPAM Re: Max volts