<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Keep this line of thinking in mind next time we talk about weight limits! Or any other rules proposal.<BR>
<BR>
Anthony<BR> <BR>> From: burtona@atmc.net<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:45:57 -0500<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts<BR>> <BR>> OK, So I have a question. Is knowingly and purposefully violating the intent<BR>> and letter of the rules to gain a performance advantage called cheating?<BR>> ....... Just asking!<BR>> Dave Burton<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of James Oddino<BR>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:16 PM<BR>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts<BR>> <BR>> I have the functional concept that solves the rules problem. Picture a 10S<BR>> pack positive lead wired to the common of a switch with two poles, a piece<BR>> of wire connected from one pole to a pole on a second two pole switch with<BR>> its common connected to the ESC. Between the other two poles we place our<BR>> 11th cell. When the 10S pack is above 37.5 volts the 11th cell is bypassed<BR>> and when it is below, like it will be during vertical maneuvers late in<BR>> flight, the 11th cell is put in series to boost the voltage to up to 41.7<BR>> volts. At no time is the voltage over the spec.<BR>> <BR>> Having said that, I believe the 10S system provides adequate power with the<BR>> right motor at all times of flight even if the voltage drops to 35 volts.<BR>> <BR>> Jim<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Bob Kane wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Going higher and regulating down would be against the rules, the max volts<BR>> is still limited to 42.56. <BR>> > <BR>> > Bob Kane<BR>> > getterflash@yahoo.com<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com><BR>> wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> >> From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com><BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts<BR>> >> To: chad@f3acanada.org, "General pattern discussion"<BR>> <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 9:54 AM<BR>> >> <BR>> >> Couldn't we go to a higher voltage and<BR>> >> regulate it back down? A contstant 42.56v would be nice!<BR>> >> <BR>> >> Chris <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> From: Chad<BR>> >> Northeast <chad@f3acanada.org><BR>> >> To:<BR>> >> nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> Sent: Sun,<BR>> >> February 28, 2010 8:48:48 PM<BR>> >> Subject: Re:<BR>> >> [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts<BR>> >> <BR>> >> You would be at about 50% capacity at 3.85 ish volts/cell<BR>> >> (resting open circuit), so unless you up the capacity you<BR>> >> will have a pretty restricted flight time.<BR>> >> <BR>> >> Chad<BR>> >> <BR>> >> On 10-02-28 9:25 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:<BR>> >>> That stirs a wild thought in my brain. Fully<BR>> >> charged packs don't stay at 4.2 volts per cell very<BR>> >> long. On the other hand, once the initial charge<BR>> >> voltage is burned off by a constant load, the voltage loss<BR>> >> curve "flattens out". What if you put fully<BR>> >> charged 6S and a 5S packs in series and "burn them<BR>> >> down" to 3.869 volts per cell (a total of 42.56<BR>> >> volts for an 11-cell pack) so they were legal for<BR>> >> use. Would the voltage of this depleted 11S pack be<BR>> >> higher than a fully charged 10S pack at the end of a typical<BR>> >> flight? If the end-of-flight voltage might be<BR>> >> significantly higher for the 11S pack vice a 10S pack, it<BR>> >> would be worth investigating, even considering the extra<BR>> >> weight of the additional cell. Come on you electronic<BR>> >> gurus, show me where I'm wrong.<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Ron Van Putte<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:00 PM, James Oddino wrote:<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>> What comes after ...? Does it specify a load<BR>> >> or any other conditions? Is it measured during the<BR>> >> noise test and have a minimum value?<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> Just stirring the pot, Jim O<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:21 PM, John Fuqua wrote:<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>>> No its not (assuming we are talking RC<BR>> >> Aerobatics). Try page RCA-2 para 4.1<BR>> >>>>> which<BR>> >> states "Electrically-powered model aircraft are<BR>> >> limited to a maximum<BR>> >>>>> of 42.56 volts.."<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> >>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<BR>> >> On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte<BR>> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:07 PM<BR>> >>>>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Max volts<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> It's in the general rules, not in the R/C<BR>> >> section.<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>>> Where can I find the rule<BR>> >> for max volts?<BR>> >>>>>> <BR>> >>>>>> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>>>> <BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >>>>> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing<BR>> >> list<BR>> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >>> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>> >> <BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <BR>> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2715 - Release Date: 03/01/10<BR>> 14:34:00<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>