Re: Terminology and Site Definitions

[go_s...@comcast.net]

I agree with the "Appendix" and the "Site".

On the "Terminology", under Flight hemisphere, I would change "level above the ground" to "equidistant from the center of the earth".

 

Paul Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Germann" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 5:01:54 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Terminology and Site Definitions

Dear members of the F2B Group

 

To match the tight deadlines I need to submit the F2B proposals we are working on to the F2 Sub-Commitee in very near future. For technical reasons I plan to submit the first three proposals: (Check: “Files” on Google)

 

Terminology, Draft 3
Appendix III, Draft 3
Site, Draft 3  on

 

As soon as practicable and in order to do so in the name of the F2B Working Group I need your approval to go ahead (or your suggestion not to do so or your comment on what and how to change)

 

Please raise you voice now, I look forward to hear from you.

 

Peter Germann

F2B Working Group Coordinator

[Peter G]

The related definition in 4.2.15.1. Terminology and Wording would
then read:

"Flight hemisphere: Means a half globe shape whose base is equidistant

from the center of the earth."

Please comment, approve, disapprove/ or suggestion.

Peter Germann

4.2.15.1. Terminology and Wording

> F2B Working Group Coordinator- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joan McIntyre]

Hi Peter,

Is this a SERIOUS suggestion? Most folk can relate to horizontality above
ground level but "relating to the CENTRE of the Earth"????

I am most happy with the terminology in Draft 3. I will send you an email in
relation to some suggestions in the other documents very soon.

Keep smiling. :)

Joan.

[go_s...@comcast.net]

The problem comes with fields that are not level.  Horizontal on the high side is one height, on the low side another. Inbetween the two, nothing is horizontal.

 

We need to define a "plane" that is "parallel" to the earth, in fact "parallel" to a standing body of water. How do you define this?

 

A base that is equidistant from the center (these colonists spell it differently) of the earth satisfies this need. I haven't heard a solution that does this is with as few a number of words.

 

What is your wording?

 

Paul

[Keith Renecle]

The definition of horizontal as being perpendicular to a line drawn directly through the centre of the earth, is just the exact definition of "horizontal." We could call it "spirit level" horizontal, or perpendicular to "plumb line" vertical. The main point is that the pattern is flown with the level flight path as true horizontal and not as a ground following path if there is indeed a perceptable slope. If the words "true horizontal" are sufficient and acceptable, then our rules do not really need the absolute scientific definition.

 

If we start measuring our flying sights, I doubt that that many would be perfectly horizontal, but for all practical purposes, this is not a major issue given the tolerance that we are allowed. Landres seems to be the case in point, and we are still waiting for JPP to give us the actual slope. I am not 100% sure, but from the photo's and video's that I have, it seems that the "levelling" of the markers was done from the centre of the circle. This makes sense to me, and it did in fact, work in practice. Sure it makes the high side have lower pull-outs, but most seemed to use the maximum tolerance allowed on that side. (Maybe we all panicking so much about the turbulence that we did not take too much notice of the slope??)

 

What we really need to do is to establish the criteria for the worse-case scenario (worst acceptable slope) for international competitions, and work from there.

 

Keith R

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.71/2336 - Release Date: 08/30/09 17:51:00

[Peter G]

Good Morning, Joan. Being of the opinion that a scientifically
undisputable definition eliminates the risk of personal interpretation
of terms written in everday language I have gladly adopted Paul's
suggestion. Not really to my surprise it seems to rise an eyebrow or
two and I wonder whether it would make sense to add bit of more common
language such as:

"Flight hemisphere: Means a half globe shape whose base is spirit-
level, i.e. equidistant from the centre of the Earth."

BTW: "centre" because we have once decided to write the code in
colonies style (UK) english...

rgds Peter

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Roger Ladds]

Hi Keith
Just to confirm that the marker boards in the grass circle at Landres were levelled from the centre of the circle with an optical levelling device BUT not until after the World Cup event had finished.
 
Regards

Roger L.

========================================
Message Received: Sep 01 2009, 06:37 AM
From: "Keith Renecle"
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:

Subject: Re: Terminology and Site Definitions

The definition of horizontal as being perpendicular to a line drawn directly through the centre of the earth, is just the exact definition of "horizontal." We could call it "spirit level" horizontal, or perpendicular to "plumb line" vertical. The main point is that the pattern is flown with the level flight path as true horizontal and not as a ground following path if there is indeed a perceptable slope. If the words "true horizontal" are sufficient and acceptable, then our rules do not really need the absolute scientific definition.

If we start measuring our flying sights, I doubt that that many would be perfectly horizontal, but for all practical purposes, this is not a major issue given the tolerance that we are allowed. Landres seems to be the case in point, and we are still waiting for JPP to give us the actual slope. I am not 100% sure, but from the photo's and video's that I have, it seems that the "levelling" of the markers was done from the centre of the circle. This makes sense to me, and it did in fact, work in practice. Sure it makes the high side have lower pull-outs, but most seemed to use the maximum tolerance allowed on that side. (Maybe we all panicking so much about the turbulence that we did not take too much notice of the slope??)

What we really need to do is to establish the criteria for the worse-case scenario (worst acceptable slope) for international competitions, and work from there.

Keith R

----- Original Message -----

From: go_s...@comcast.net

To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:35 AM

Subject: Re: Terminology and Site Definitions

The problem comes with fields that are not level.  Horizontal on the high side is one height, on the low side another. Inbetween the two, nothing is horizontal.

We need to define a "plane" that is "parallel" to the earth, in fact "parallel" to a standing body of water. How do you define this?

A base that is equidistant from the center (these colonists spell it differently) of the earth satisfies this need. I haven't heard a solution that does this is with as few a number of words.

What is your wording?

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan McIntyre"
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:10:56 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: Terminology and Site Definitions

> - Show quoted text -

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Roger,

 

Thanks for that. I figured that out anyway, but I was particularly interested in who had the common sense to initiate the idea. I was busy with my new training software, and I got to the point where I just had to push a little harder to sort out the final silly issues in the rules. I'm happy to say that at last this horizontal/vertical thing and the clover issues have been sorted out and Peter G is busy with the updated "clarifications." I started out on this mission in 2004, so it is somewhat of a relief to actually get to this point. Now of course, I have no more excuses.........so I have to finish the training thing!

 

On a lighter note, did you see our two racing guys, Conrad and Dirk at your Nats? I was trying to find some results on the BMFA website, but they're a little slow with this sort of thing. If you have any results that you can send me, I would appreciate having a look at them. I did see some team trial listing, and shows that Robert Kitley, is the man to beat over there. I'll bet that Barry has the "mutters" over this?? Roy Cherry (aka Mr. Plod) is also up in the top 3, so it looks like the team for Hungary will be the usual guys. How is Bill Draper doing now? Hopefully the heart op has done its job.

 

Bokkie and I are still hoping to make it to Hungary next year, but right now, it's just a dream. The engine business is not good, especially with all the Chinese cheapies on the market. I've been trying to find other ways to make the extra "play" money, so maybe it will happen yet. I've taught myself to program those PIC chips reasonably well, and I've been making my own timer gadgets for my electric stunters. I have my own governor system working now that does not need any fancy speed controller, and the brake function still works as well. My cheap Hobbywing esc flies my models like the expensive Jeti units. I burned out 3 Jeti's and this is expensive. They don't have a decent short circuit protection, so if you happen to nose the model over in something like thick grass etc., then "poof"........they just smoke.

 

My newer MVVS electric motor now runs slightly warm with awesome power, so I've learned a few things since last year. The MVVS motors that I burnt out last year, were in fact rated as a .28 glow engine, so I guess that I was pushing my luck a bit. I got away with it because the weather was cool, but then as it warmed up, the load of the big model became too much, and they just popped. This is the problem with these brushless electric motors. You can swing the same prop at the same rpm as a bigger motor, if you have enough battery power, and the esc can take the current. The problem is that it will run too hot, and it keeps getting worse all the time, like an explosion. As it heats up, the magnets get weaker, and it gets hotter again. This cycles around until the wire burns out. You need good cooling, and a motor with the right windings. I eventually got myself one of those Eagletree data recorders with an extra temperature probe, so that I could see exactly what was cooking..........excuse the pun! Now, even in hot weather the motor gets just warm after the flight. I use 2200 mAh out of the 4-cell 3300 mAh battery, so the system is good. I knocked off 120 grams off the Electron, and it weighs 1810 grams all up. If I could knock off another 100 grams, then I would be even happier, so I am designing a new model in between things. Keep well, and stay in touch.

 

Regards,

 

Keith

Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.74/2339 - Release Date: 09/01/09 06:52:00

[Peter G]

Dear Paul

Following a bit of discussion with Massimo Semoli during the recent
Lugo (Italy) contest I have learned that, as Massimo puts it,: "A
plane, like the flying circle plane, cannot be equidistant from a
point (the centre of the earth). This is a geometrically incorrect
statement since a plane can be equidistant only from another plane or
from a line." From this, I believe we could safely carry on with the
suggested definitions of:

Flight hemisphere: Means a half globe shape whose base is level above
the ground.

Base: Means the base of the flight hemisphere. This lies at a height
of 1.5m above the center of the flight circle.

Level: Means at right angles to the direction aligned with the
direction of the force of gravity, as materialised with a plumb line.

Kind regards, Peter

On 31 Aug, 02:43, go_st...@comcast.net wrote: