Due to the length of comined responses, message is in two parts. Here is
part 1:
Hi Sheldon,
Comments inserted:
Sheldon wrote:
>
> This will be very long, I apologize in advance, however I do hope that
> you will bear with me...
> (Orig message resent with thread snipped due to max size limitations)
>
> Simon...With all due respect, I believe that you are over-simplifying
> many things with your statements and that is unfair to the community
> at-large.
I am not sure how that is unfair. Take away the hype, and all that is
left is, well, the facts. I suspect the soaring community at large would
much prefer to hear the facts. A fair head-to-head comparison of actual
common features will allow the customer to decide which is right for him
or her. But first off, that has to be your intent.
> Some of the statements you have made, while holding a LOT of
> validity are, "...misleading" and "...inaccurate" - but that's only MY
> opinion. I'm not trying to "beat you up" about what you said...This
> isn't a "flame war" at least I certainly don't intend for it to be. I
> just want to tell my side of the story now that you've said your piece
> and all I ask is that everyone keep an open mind and think about it.
> Fair enough? And yes, I'll be the first to admit that I do indeed have a
> vested interest in how my product is perceived however, I do feel that I
> can present some pretty objective thoughts about the points you brought
> up...
>
I don't have a vested interest, only that marketing of a product be
truthful and fair, not defame, insult, or otherwise belittle any of it's
competition, and the end-user is not led astray BY that marketing hype.
You dismissed the ESV. You are stating without exception that an
expanded scale voltmeter is only slightly "better than nothing", and
that your product is superior in this regard. I believe it is prudent
only to compare apples to apples, if that is your intent.
AN ESV does one thing well. To compare your product requires
you to compare "comparable features". Your product, based on values
chosen by the designer, tells the end-user when to stop flying.
I'm saying, due to different consumption rates, for different aircraft,
no one set of pre-programmed parameters will apply to all circumstances,
therefore, the same parameters used with the good old ESV apply to your
instrument as well.
> >>
> A BC6 flight monitor will not tell you is when to stop flying. It is in
> essence is no better than a good ESV. To claim otherwise is really
> misleading. is totally inaccurate. <<
>
> All 3 of those statements are, while not necessarily false, are
> decidedly inaccurate and misleading. The BC6 will indeed tell you when
> to stop flying provided that you know and understand the demands that
> your equipment places on the flight system and that you properly
> interpret what the BC6 is showing. The cutoff points for the LEDs are
> such that if any of the green LEDs are lit - you should be OK to fly, if
> one of the yellow LEDs is lit - I recommend recharging, and if the red
> LED is lit - DO NOT FLY. That's all, if the pilot chooses to ignore the
> indication that he should recharge...That's the pilot's fault...NOT the
> BC6's fault, it warned of the condition.
By design, it has warned of a condition that has no choice but to be
based on your individual pre-set values, which do not nessesarily depict
actual amount of power still available or the actual voltage depression
incurred, or the amount of power used per flight.
I suggest that either device works in similar manner regarding
interpretation. The end-user still has to put some thought into actual
power consumption. Here is a comparison:
Parameter BC6 Typical ESV
measured V values 5.10+v, 4.95v, 4.75v, Infinite
4.60v, 4.45v, 4.30v,
4.20v, 4.15v
imposed load variable static
variability of load subject to environement static
An ESV gives you the actual voltage being measured whatever it is, while
the BC6 forces you to a pre-chosen value, both systems still require the
end-user to calculate based on energy consummed, when to stop and
charge. The ESV just does it more accurately.
> When I can monitor my voltage
> with an ESV while flying, and know the lowest voltage monitored during
> the flight, then there might be a case for the ESV being in competition
> with the BC6. They are 2 different tools with 2 very different
> purposes...You're trying to compare them as equals, which they are NOT!
>
You mean the lowest voltage that your unit is capable of measuring,
right? I believe that is 4.1V on the 4-cell unit. What does the unit
tell the end-user, before/after landing, if the RX experiences a voltage
below your chosen set-point??
If as you state the two units are in separate leagues, why then in your
advertising, and your post to the list, even bother to put down the
poor ESV?
It bears repeating...an ESV is a real-time testing device, which can be
used everywhere...including the workbench.
> >>
> With a constant load, and taking measurements to decipher approximately
> how much power has been consumed per flight, one can begin to realize
> just how many flights are safe for a given pack in a given aircraft. <<
>
> I agree to a point...that point being that the loads we place on our
> flight systems are not "constant". What you're proposing is fine from a
> "bench" point-of-view however, in reality, things are different during
> practical usage.
In reality? Please explain this.
To put a finer point on what I have already stated, knowing the time
aloft, and using a fixed load to derive an ever-changing (voltage)
value, one can understand just how much actual flight time is available
to continue flying.
The aggregate drop in voltage is what allows the user to decipher
precisely when it is safe (or unsafe) for another flight, and how much
of a safety margin that end-user wishes to utilize, for that particular
aircraft. The very same thing must occur when using your device, or any
of the other LED-based voltage measuring units out there.
On the other hand, your product (and others like it) forces the user to
adhere to pre-set values of measurement dictating, based on those
pre-set values, when the end-user must stop flying or charge. In other
words, the measuring tool is now quasi-constant (as pack voltage drops
so does load current), determining on voltage alone the go/no point.
Based on your previous statement (1st yellow), you suggest the end-user
charge at 4.3V. I suggest this process either leaves too much available
power in light-consumption systems and the user goes home (or field
charges), or too little power in heavy consumption systems (what
really is the actual lowest threshold measurable with your system?).
Once again...an ESV is a tool, for your toolbox, at home, on the
mountain, in the arena, at the contest, in the fields, on the beaches,
we shall NEVER forget...to use our ESV's.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
RADIUS SYSTEMS
Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
