Gary Manuel
-
Posts
4,906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Gary Manuel
-
-
1 hour ago, EarlyBird said:
From a UBEC or ESC using a two cell Lipo battery for example.
From what I have read a four cell NiMh pack should be used if it's not supplying the RX. If supplying the Rx a five cell NiMh can be used because when the Rx is switched on the voltage will drop to acceptable levels. However, with a regulated supply the voltage will be maintained at 6v when the Rx is switched on, which is not good for the servos. Which takes us into disputed territory as some say it works fine and others say it's not in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. Not a problem in this case as NiMhs will be used.
This is my understanding from what I have read, confirmation would be good.
Steve
Not true. The current drawn by the receiver is minimal and should NOT be relied upon to drop the battery voltage.
Ah Pat beat me to it. Didn't spot it on next page.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, EarlyBird said:
Thanks to Ron this is the important bit of information from the manual.
Odd that 6.0V is ok if shared with the receiver, I guess there must be a reason.
Steve
It means the power supply is shared with the receiver (regardless of voltage used).
-
1 hour ago, fluffyninja said:
Another video of the servo horn and pushrod
You need to make 2 adjustments to get the elevators set up correctly.
1. Slacken of the CENTRE screw on the servo arm and with the transmitter and model on and responding but stick centred, turn the arm a couple of splines anti-clockwise until the arm is at 90 degrees to the control rods.
2. Slacken off the grub screw on the end of the servo arm and adjust the two elevator halves so that they are level with the tail plane.
The correct way for the control surfaces to move is:
Position yourself BEHIND the model
Ailerons - Push the stick to the RIGHT and the RIGHT hand aileron should move UP. Push the stick to the LEFT and the LEFT hand aileron should move UP.
Elevator - Push the stick away from you (UP when looking at transmitter face on) and the elevator should move DOWN. Pull the stick towards you and the elevator should move UP. i.e. the opposite to what you would expect.
This makes the model behave as a joystick in a full size aeroplane would. i.e move stick right to bank right. Pull stick towards you to pitch the nose up.
-
Much easier to see with new video 🎞️
As John Wagg says for adjusting the elevator.
Ailerons ARE working the wrong way round as I thought. The aileron channel needs reversing on the Transmitter to fix this - transmitter manual should explain this.
P.S. From past experience of using the forum, someone will be along pretty soon to advise you about not trying to fly it on your own.
Don't take it the wrong way when they do. They are offering good advise based on their experience.
New pilot have MUCH greater success rates if the get someone to teach them and set the model up. Ideally join a club.
Good luck with setting up the model and eventually flying it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think your ailerons are inverted, but the reverse video is playing tricks with my mind.
Can you post another video not inverted and clearly show which way you are moving the sticks and which way the controls move. It would also help if we could see the elevator servo arm movement too.
-
If I've got my head around the inverted video, you are setup for mode 2 (throttle on the left) and everything looks to be working the right way round.
Ailerons look OK but the length of your elevator pushrods need mechanically adjusting so that the ailerons are level with the transmitter stick in the centre position. The servo arms should be 90 degrees to the pushrods when in this position.
-
Note that the video is INVERTED as can be seen from the reversed text.
-
1 hour ago, Christopher Wolfe said:
Well he still spelt the fruit right but the colour wrong.
-
4
-
2
-
-
-
6 minutes ago, Tim Kearsley said:
The standing charge for my Octopus Go tariff is 18.01p per day, but that was set last October for a year. It will rocket up in October, as will the tariff for consumption, which is currently 5p/kWh from 0030 to 0430 and 23.77p/kWh for everything else. So my bill of £12.76 was for about 84kWh of electricity plus 31 days of standing charge.
You're absolutely right about keeping all the energy you generate if you can. I get paid 4.5p/kWh for export. With hindsight, I should have bought a bigger battery. I may add a further battery in due course. Also, when the Go rates increase in October, I may on sunny afternoons connect up the "granny charger" to trickle charge one of the cars to use excess power. At the moment, with charging costing 5p/kWh and export paying me 4.5p/kWh it just hasn't been worth the bother of dragging out the charger for 0.5p/kWh. That will change!
Bargain!
Hopefully Agile Octopus will be back soon too - when energy prices start dropping.
-
1 hour ago, MattyB said:
You will always be paying somethng, remember the standing charge does not go away with solar...
That's true (and what a rip-off that is).
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Tim's £12.76 was for the actual electricity, as the Octopus Go standing charge alone would actually be more than that (48.26p X 31 = £14.62).
Anyway, I'm hoping to keep all of the Solar energy myself rather than selling it for the measly 4.1p per unit or whatever the going rate is. That's where the larger capacity battery comes in.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tim Kearsley said:
Gary, we bought a 4kW panel/5kWh battery installation back in January (GivEnergy battery and inverter). At the time, the installer calculated a payback around 12 years but I think that will have reduced somewhat. Our electricity bill for July was £12.76 and there will be about £10 in export payment to offset against that. Bear in mind also that we run two EVs as well!
Regarding Octopus Go, we applied back in October last year and went on to it within a few days. In our case they didn't request any proof that we had any EV but that may have been an oversight.
Hi Tim,
I see that you are still paying for electricity (£12.76) even though you are exporting electricity (£10). Is this because your battery is full during the day, so the unused solar electricity has nowhere to go other than back to the grid? I'm hoping to use or store ALL of the solar energy I generate.
I might try applying for Octopus GO in the hope that they won't ask for proof of EV ownership. If they do, I'll just stay on the capped tariff I'm on now.
-
On 13/05/2022 at 12:12, Gary Manuel said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Solar Panels don't make sense. I just couldn't justify it at the time. Circumstances have changed and I'm continually weighing up the pros and cons. The thing that would swing it for me is if the government did what they should do (needs to do?) in order to reach their CO2 targets and offered financial incentives. Half price solar panels anyone?
Never say Never.
I've just signed up for a 4000KWh/y Solar Panel / 9.5KWh Storage Battery installation.
With the next rise in the energy cap prices, I have calculated my pay-back time as 7.5 years.
With future addition of a second 9.5KWh battery assuming I can get onto Octupus GO tarif (7.5p per unit for 4 hours at night), the payback time reduces to 4.9 years. The question mark about Octopus GO is that it requires Electric Car ownership, which I'm not quite ready for.
-
1
-
-
Interesting stuff.
-
1 hour ago, dhendley said:
Hi everyone, heard and understood! The ad is gone now whilst we have some internal discussions on positioning.
Thank you for listening to our concerns.
May I provide a little feedback for your discussions?
I do have Adblock installed, mainly for the unfavourable gaming / torrent sites I occasionally use, which pop up all sorts of images I would rather not view before breakfast. I normally have it disabled for modelflying.co.uk because I find the ads of potential interest. When I saw the mid-thread ads appearing though, I immediately right clicked on one of the ads and disabled them all across the entire site. It was as easy as that. Obviously not the effect you were looking for by adding the Ads.
I have now restored the Ads across the site, but will disable them again if Ads start reappearing with the threads.
-
2
-
-
I have a Farmhand 90 and the wing easily fits into my A class Mercedes (that's the short stumpy one).
It just rests on top of the front passenger and rear passenger seats and is really not a big deal.
I don't think that a 2 piece wing would be feasible because of the dihedral and relatively thin wing profile - there would be nowhere for a wing tube to go inside the wing.
-
2 hours ago, RottenRow said:
Indeed.
Ultimately, as the users of the forum, anyone who doesn't like the advertising between posts has three options open to them:
1. Ignore the adverts.
2. Use an adblocker that basically lets our computers ignore the adverts on our behalves.
3. If it is sufficiently onerous, stop using the forum.
If taking route 3, we would have to be prepared for the possible consequence that the forum membership reduces to below the level that makes it worthwhile. That would have to be a risk that should be considered. Of course there is no guarantee of its longevity anyway.
My PC has had an adblocker installed for a couple of years now, certainly not something I have regretted doing.
Brian.
You missed option 4.
4. Let the site owners know that we don't like them within the actual threads as it interferes with the flow of the thread.
-
I haven't got two copper washers to rub together.
-
1
-
-
Adblock removes these annoying adverts 😉
-
30 minutes ago, cymaz said:
Did you know, there’s no junction 3 on the M1
Ah, That'll be the junction number reserved for the cancelled M1/A1 link road where Scratchwood Services are now which should have joined the A1 at Stirling Corner.
-
6 minutes ago, Don Fry said:
Science is full of conjectures, and hypotheses. They become laws and theory from mathematics and experiment.
I don’t understand the Standard Model, even with the help of a friends son who is a researcher and lecturer in theoretical physics at CERN and a major Paris university.
I know the Standard Model has problems, most of the mass in the universe is missing, ie, not enough stuff to explain the gravity it feels, and just some speculation as to what it is that is missing, but at present it’s the best we have got, according to the body of scientists who reckon to know.
I think the person, or group writing the site found by Gary need to demonstrate the maths fits the observation at least as well as the Standard Model.Things do get weird. Take light. We have whole industries and processes based on the fact it goes in a straight line. Theodolite. But a black hole is black, because the gravity bends light so it can’t escape
I agree with everything you have said. It's only a hypothesis and has a lot of questions to answer.
The standard model doesn't even attempt to consider gravity because it doesn't fit the known data and also because it's negligible at sub atomic levels. It works but it's incomplete and in places confuses phylosophy with reality. We need to keep searching for a unified theory of everything.
One thing is for certain - nature knows the answer. This is where we need to be looking.
-
It depends what you mean by unimportant. The "Shut up and calculate" approach is in daily use and has been very successful. It will continue to be successful in the future too as the maths is obviously sound.
The problem is that it has been so successful at predicting results that it now tries to adjust our understanding of reality to fit some of the weirder results. What we should be doing is having a closer look at reality to see what's really happening. Once we understand that, the results will no longer be weird. A full understanding might just allow the 20 years plus Quantum Computer development programme to be completed (or cancelled). This is where a full understanding of what is happening in reality is important.
I believe that the EWT project is looking in the right direction, certainly in terms of proposing a single fundamental particle and a periodic particle table. It is of interest that CERN has discovered several new pentaquarks and tetraquarks over the last few weeks - exactly as predicted by EWT.
This is not the place to discuss quantum entanglement, the double slit experiment, wave-particle duality, "spooky action at a distance" etc, but these are the particular areas that I have an issue with. EWT offers reasonable explanations not offered elsewhere. Remember, it's only a hypothesis at the moment, but worth consideration.
-
This thread has nothing to do with model flying but I thought that someone out there might be interested. If not, scroll on.
I’ve always had an interest in the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.
I am far from being an expert in quantum physics or cosmology, but the subjects have always interested (and confused) me. I have always had a problem with quantum physics. It’s just too complicated and contrived. It’s based on mathematics derived from experimental observations, which works very well, but has lost touch with reality. Surely nature can’t be that complicated or suddenly become so weird as things get smaller. I have always thought that one day, we will discover how the universe really works and we will be surprised by how simple it is.
Well I’ve recently come across THIS website and I think it has a lot of potential. Not for the faint hearted but well worth a read if you are interested in such things.
-
Batteries could just be from different batches with slightly different chemical properties.
Each particular battery looks to be using matched cells (from the same batch?).
That is the explanation of what is happening.
Whether or not this means that the 22.07v battery is inferior to the 22.94v or is duff is another matter.
Maybe they will even out after a few cycles?
Building the "Mr Vintage" kit
in Traditional kits
Posted · Edited by Gary Manuel
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsCVs003RZf8OY8VxcOfeE1dTkwlssb4Z
Contact details (no website though) can be seen in the first of the videos in this playlist of a build of one of these.