[NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

Mon Nov 14 13:32:33 AKST 2016

Hey Tom,

I think the simple answer here is that FAI already allows 12s (50v) for Heli (F3C), so that issue has already been dealt with.

Traditionally here in the states, 40vdc is considered a non-lethal voltage.  Scott’s comment about it being the amperage not the voltage is sorta true… but at 40v, no amount of available amperage could kill you.  You’re bodies internal resistance (through tissue) is too high to let high amperage pass.  So instead of a big shock, you typically get a nice nasty burn at the source of the contact.

Internationally that voltage is 50v… still considered safe at any amperage.  So while safety is always a factor, I don’t think it plays a role in this discussion.  And again, 12s has already been approved for other disciplines.

-Mark

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
Powering The Digital Experience

On Nov 14, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Koenig, Tom via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Hi All,

Interesting discussion about the batteries. I thought the rule was 42 V DC.  Are there not serious health implications, i.e.  just how much the body can take? I was always under the impression the rule was safety based and is why the FAI imposed the 42 V rule all those years ago?

I am purely going off what is bouncing around in my head…but I doubt, the FAI will change a rule if its safety based?

Tom

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 6:09 AM
To: Dave Burton; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

I’m pretty  sure all we’d get is a rapid movement back to Glow which has no bound for displacement and therefore power.  At least in FAI and Masters.

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

Powering The Digital Experience

On Nov 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Let's cut cost and increase participation by reducing to 8S rather than 12S. Airplanes will be smaller and cheaper, batteries will be cheaper, and we won't have to worry about the weight limit. We won't have to worry about the 2M  biplanes that will be bigger (the logic of that argument about the weight limit gives me a migraine trying to understand how 2 meters becomes bigger).
Dave

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:08 PM
To: Atwood, Mark; Andrew Jesky; General pattern discussion; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

+1
Adding the option of 12S is about efficiency, being nice to your batteries....
Bill

________________________________
From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
To: Andrew Jesky <andrewjesky at gmail.com<mailto:andrewjesky at gmail.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 12S for F3A

To Andrew’s point, power is already unlimited in our rules.  Glow is not constrained, only E-power.  So while normally I’m a staunch opponent to any rule change that will alter the designs of our planes and thus obsolete everything and increase costs, I don’t think supporting 12S does that.

Power is not currently limited, so allowing 12s doesn’t change the available power.  It merely allows those flying electric to do so more efficiently.  And yes… A YS200 will likely  support even larger Bipes if they can build them and make weight.

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com

Powering The Digital Experience

On Nov 11, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Andrew Jesky via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Then cap the wattage we can reach, But don't worry when YS comes out with there 200 that won't allow the pattern planes to grow as long as there under 5000 without fuel right? 🤔

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13405 - Release Date: 11/13/16
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

****************************************************************** *PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please delete all copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or dissemination of this email or its attachments is prohibited without the consent of the sender. WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty is given that this email or its attachments are virus free. Before opening or using attachments, please check for viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any affected attachments. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the organisation. ******************************************************************_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20161114/dde1644a/attachment.html>