[NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls

Ed White edvwhite at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 3 16:50:18 AKST 2010 

You're right.  When I started it I thought it was going somewhere intelligent.  Now my head hurts too, and I wouldn't bet it goes anywhere useful.

Gotta get out and fly.





________________________________
From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 7:24:22 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls

 
This stuff is way too complicated! My head is starting to hurt!  it
must be winter!
 Come on Spring and warm weather, I gotta get out and fly and
quit reading e-mail and forums! 
 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
 
I
would agree.  The example of the elevator is open loop, it does not use
any kind of an Earth reference and it does not create a sequence or use a
timing device.  All it does is create a highly nonlinear relationship
between the stick and the elevator.  If we can't have nonlinear stick to
control surfaces programmed, we've all got to zero out our expos.

I also think the ESC example has to be allowed.  If the issue is that it
is a closed loop control, then we all have to go into our servos and cut the
wires from the feedback pots. [Insert comment on what my flying looks like
here].  Servos are, nearly by definition of the word, closed loop feedback
devices.  The ESC example is just another example of a closed loop
feedback system, the only difference is the loop doesn't close on mechanical
position, it closes on motor rpm or whatever.

So I am a little troubled by the AMA rule book saying that “Radio control
equipment shall be of the open loop type…"  A controls person would
say we always (we hope) have closed loop control of the airplane. Every closed
loop control system has these minimum elements:  a commanded state; at
least one actuator that has an effect on the actual state; at least one sensor
capable of estimating the actual state; and last, a control algorithm that
generates a feedback signal to change the actuator input to minimize the
difference between the commanded and actual states.

In our case both the sensors and control algorithm that close the loop are
wetware located between our ears [or elsewhere for some of us]. Just because a
human is in the loop does not make it open loop control.  If you want to
fly open loop control, you have to break the control loop – it's easily done,
just fly with your eyes closed. [Insert second comment about my flying here]. 

I'm not sure adding more examples really solves the underlying problem which I
am afraid is with the idea that our control is open loop when it is not. 
In control parlance the closed control loops in the servos are inner loops and
the multi-axis control of aircraft attitude and rates through our thumbs is the
outer loop.  I think a more technically correct approach would be to say
that we can't use artificial sensors that measure and use primary outer loop
parameters which I would define to be at a minimum aircraft attitude, rates and
flight path angles.

Probably this doesn't solve it either.  The trouble with advancing
technology is it makes the simple very messy.

Ed

________________________________
 
From:"ronlock at comcast.net"
<ronlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Permitted Controls
My interpretation
of permitted controls would allow the example below -
Application of
full elevator and full rudder by pilot switches on a
"mixer"  that results in half elevator.
It does not
involving timing intervals, or aircraft peformance in commanding an inpur (half
elevator in this example)
 
Ron Lockhart
 
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Pascoe [Burlington]" <Tim.Pascoe at ec.gc.ca>
To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:35:33 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: 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 
>>
>To:'General pattern discussion' 
>>
>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]
>>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
> 
> 
>>
>>
________________________________
 >
>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/
> 
>>
________________________________
 >
>Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. 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
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2719 - Release Date: 03/03/10
14:34:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100304/873b2c6c/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list