[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
John Fuqua
johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
Thu Mar 4 05:00:28 AKST 2010
But you never get slimed!! Plus Plane, servos, rx never wear out. Do not
need a 1700mil rx pack when you only draw 75mah or less per flight. Noise
gone. Of course you miss that glow fuel smell that we have all grown up to
luv. Kinda like Chevys and Mercedes. Depends on what you prefer and how
well you fly it.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
R (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:22 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?
Bingo - "Dave quote, The "biggest lie" about electrics is that they always
produce the same amount of power. Phooey. Ambient temperature has a big
influence."
Truths about electric - from a glow flyer's perspective:
1. The holy grail of absolute consistency - is false
2. The holy grail of motor system security - is false - must still
carry extra motor, ESC, Battery
3. Weather effects are at least equal compared to glow - temps,
humidity, wind, effect mah usage
4. 11 lbs weight limit is significantly more difficult to meet with
electric plane than glow
5. E-deadsticks or low-power runs still occur
6. Must have field charging solution - most likely Honda generator
7. Must have temp-control measures in place for batteries (hot
dashboard or warm blanket?)
8. Can have an "E-crash" while flying - ESC or battery starts
smoking/fire
9. Battery safety ???
10. Reduced flight time - All this ruminating and crazyness for 8-9
minutes of flight time??
>From my perspective, the only reason to fly electric would be if the
industry and judging trends were so badly biased towards electric, that it
became the only "competitive" solution available. I'm leaving the
"sponsorship" component out of the equation, because people on the E or G
side of the discussion have sponsorships either way. It just seems like a
large pain in the arse to fly electric, given the reduced flight times and
severe penalty on battery life if you fly too long.
Given all this, what is the E-flyer really getting?
Thanks,
Jim W.
_____
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 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Ed,
I'm not so sure. Most IC's don't have a pressure regulator...the YS is about
the only one. This a passive device that has fixed settings. Dave's example
of the EFI may be a dfferent story though...I never spent any time dealing
with the OS EFI so I don't know how it worked.
The problem with such analogies is that gas and glow fuels have a fixed
amount of pop per unit mass. Put in X amount and you will pretty much get Y
out for any given set-up, even poor ones. Y would vary of course depending
on how good the set-up was, meaning different operators will probably get
different Y's. However Y would be pretty much fixed for each operator
Batteries on the other hand, have a continuously variable amount of pop per
unit mass. Electronically taking the variable input volts and, through some
apparently straight forward software, drive a constant Y at the motor, is
where I am having some issue with.
As for ESC's not doing much to alter the piloting of the model, again I am
not so sure. Dean used a good example: at near the end of the flight, let's
assume there is a diagonal or vertical. The battery has lost some pop and
the motor won't be able to keep up under constant throttle conditions. The
pilot would need to make a throttle adjustment to maintain momentum. If the
ESC had this new programming, the pilot would fly through this without
hardly noticing or changing his flying, just like we do with ICs. I
certainly am NOT opposed to reducing pilot work load...it's the how not the
what.
And in this particular instance, equality between the types of propulsion IS
what the programmable ESC proponents want.....
The rule as written is sticky. I think that some type of clarification or
addendum to the rule, as Earl suggested, would eliminate the sticky wicket
if you will.
BTW- I am not implying that Dean is against the programmable ESC, far from
it. He has thought through what would be needed to accomplish the task. In
fact, he did something similar to Bob Hunt's WC stunt entry a few years ago.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
I actually was only halfway joking I said "Ban the YS Pressure Regulator",
or something like that. Not that I really think it should be banned, but
for everyone who thinks it would be cheating to have an ESC that can
auto-compensate for dwindling battery voltage, then you ought to seriously
think about why it is OK to have a automatic pressure regulator in a recip.
There isn't much difference, other than one is wet and the other is dry.
And the other key point about having an ESC with this feature is that it
doesn't do anything to alter the piloting of the model based on the external
conditions that the model is encountering. All it is doing is de-rating the
output of the the battery to make it consistent throughout its useful
operation range.
Ed
_____
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:58:30 -0500
From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts
Dave,
I would argue that the ESC has the sensor built. It isn't a sensor in the
sense of a mag pick up such as CDI devices have. It is rather an exact
frequency determination to which the motor is driven. It is simpler and
hidden. Should we go back on mechanical advance....God no./
I think the CDI electronic advance is similar to today's digital servo. The
former advances spark pulsing based on rpm and the latter advances motor
output torque based on input load. Whether each violates, not sure. Needs
more thought and comparison to the rules. My first take would be to say NO
because the magnitude of adjustment is fixed
Matt
----- 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
<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 <http://www.eset.com/>
_____
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/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
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/> now. =
_______________________________________________
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/20100304/23445374/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list