[NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.

Sat Jun 13 09:53:16 AKDT 2020

And we had 67.5 volt batteries in the airplane.  No one died.

Jim

> On Jun 13, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Earl Haury via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Wimps! “Back in the day” we used 2 x 67.5 in series for 135v TX batteries. They’d tickle you seriously but no one died. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 13, 2020, at 11:21 AM, mups53 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> You could use them as a brush fix defibrillator and save an old guys life. "Clear"
>>  I think we got a heart beat.. .. .. ..
>>  Now what do we do with the hole??
>>  Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: 6/13/20 11:10 AM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
>> Cc: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:58 AM Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> F3C are already using 12s batteries.
>> 
>>  I know .  You touch those open leads by mistake and could kill you.  Of course I understand that in our application the chances that happens  are very low   
>> 
>> Vicente “Vince” Bortone 
>> 
>> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> on behalf of NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> Reply-To: Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>>, NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> Date: Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 8:45 AM
>> To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>, <davel322 at comcast.net <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Something that I learned in a company safety meeting.  When electrician are working with DC voltages over 50 volts it requires special safety measures and equipment.  This is probably a reason why FAI-F3a does not want to go 12 S.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I could check with safety manager if someone would like more detailed information   
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Vicente “Vince” Bortone 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:03 AM davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> FAI was 42.56 last time I checked.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2011 at the WC, HV packs were not available.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Nonetheless, standard packs can be charged to a higher voltage (not recommended of course), so I think the point Mike is making is quite valid for F3A.  For AMA, counting cells as Joe stated would seem sufficient.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> On Behalf Of Jas S via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 7:37 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I believe F3A is still at 4.25v or 4.28v? It’s still early so I may be off 
>> 
>> Jas iP
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Jun 13, 2020, at 12:19 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Battery checks on the flight line are really a waste of time. I did the checks at the 2011 Worlds in Muncie. A random cell count is all that is needed just to make sure no one is using 11 or higher cell count packs. HV packs are now legal too.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: mups53 via NSRCA-discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 8:21 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] HV pack question about Nats voltage checks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> So here it goes.
>> 
>> This has been wearing on me since the Nats last year.
>> 
>>  Let me start by saying that I market the 5S HV packs. A 10S pack is capable of charging to 43.5 volts. The rules say the legal limit is 42.99 volts. Capacity increases on the 5100 10S in the neighborhood of 500 mAh with the added volt. That's consistent and quantifiable on my Power Lab chargers. So the added capacity is significant. In my case needed because I had a weight issue and was using the lighter 5100 packs instead of the 5800 packs I normally like in competition.
>> 
>>  So here's the issue. At the Nats HV pack users were identified and voltage checked before each flight. Non HV pack users no check needed. The ID process was to look at the label on the packs. So I have labels for our packs that say they are HV. I also have labels laying around that don't say HV. Albeit they say Gator Power packs instead of Power Unlimited HV. Anyone could easily dupe the system by putting a false label on an HV pack if that's the only criteria in place.
>> 
>>  In fairness I believe all packs should get checked on the ready box. Every single fliers packs or don't check any. Or we could use an honor system which by all means I and I hope others would adhere to thus eliminating the need to check.
>> 
>>  I hope to hear opinions on this and that it changes how it's being handled now.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks, Mike Mueller 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> --
>> 
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>-- 
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20200613/a51a0160/attachment.html>