Hi Bill and Lew, thanks for your input. I'm learning a lot.
Consider that, as I am not a modeler of RC planes and helicopters, I am almost unfamiliar with radio controls. I'm just learning them.
I rely mostly on memories of electricity and electronics that I had as a boy. Distant memories.
I hope I understood your comments correctly.
I agree with you, with two motors I would also prefer two ESCs, but for different reasons.
I wasn't talking about making a Y branch on an ESC to control two motors. Mine was a question not a statement.
Rather, I was asking if the ESCs, already built with double outputs at the factory, are not in fact like this, that is, we do not have a Y connection (a parallel between the outputs), which we do not explicitly see.
Or do they have more electronics than single output ESCs?
I don't know if I understand everything, I hope so.
The economic argument is very clear.
Before assimilating the information I am reading in this forum, I would like to make sure I understand correctly.
Therefore, the direct current electric motor, if braked or even blocked, absorbs much more current than a free motor. This is clear. I consider a propeller engine spinning in water without impediment other than fluid friction.
The ESC, as you say, has its own protection in case of overload. Ok I think I understood correctly.
Certainly the most important factor to consider is the inrush or stall current, perhaps I mistranslate.
But I don't understand why you don't look at the maximum power.
When I imagine electrical loads (users) I have to be careful, in the electrical field, that their absorption powers are not higher than the power supply. For example, if an electrical device normally absorbs 4 Amperes, I cannot power it with a device that is capable of delivering a maximum of 2 Amperes. In this case the power supply unit would be damaged.
Isn't this discussion applicable to motors and ESCs?
In other words, reformulating the question: If I power an electric motor with a single ESC, then add another in parallel, then another, then yet another and so on, I do not reach a point where the absorbed current is too much, even if there are no impediments on the crankshafts?
Loads in parallel decrease the equivalent resistance and therefore increase the absorbed current.
Even if a power supply or voltage regulator can withstand high inrush currents, is it capable of managing steady-state currents much higher than expected? If so then I'm learning something new.
Ah, logically I talk about absorbed current and power as if they were synonymous. Of course this is not the case, but I am only referring to the consequences of the Joule effect and at the same voltage, of course.
Then I thought, perhaps Lew knows very well the characteristics of the ESCs on the market and already knows that none of these can be put into "difficulty" by two brushed electric motors. So he makes a purely practical and pragmatic assessment rather than theoretical.
For example: "we know that the cheapest and poorest ESC makes up for 30A (I say randomly) and a motor normally, without impediments on the axis, absorbs around 4A (I say randomly), so I'm always calm because or one or two deaths makes no difference."
I repeat, mine are more questions than statements. Before assimilating I prefer to be sure that I have understood correctly.