[NSRCA-discussion] Max volts - fresh comparison?

Ron Van Putte vanputte at cox.net
Thu Mar 4 05:24:15 AKST 2010 

The E-Flier is getting "no slime".

Ron

On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Woodward, Jim R (US SSA) wrote:

>
> 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
>
> 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 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
>
>
>
> 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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/ 
> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion  
> mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/ 
> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it 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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list