AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ei
April 21, 2005 - April 26, 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting |
>
>
>Ken,
> Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
>on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
>is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
>additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
>alternator case?
>Charlie Kuss
See:
http://bandc.biz/L40desc.html
The bracket you see extending rearward from the mounting
boss on the front-endbell casting is a B&C enhancement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jones, Michael" <MJones(at)hatch.ca> |
hi all
is there a wiring diagram example that shows two mags on toggles and a
separate push button start ??
have aeroelectric book and associated files but don't see one, guess i still
don't really follow how mags have to be wired up yet, perhaps someone can
explain
thanx
mike
NOTICE - This message is the property of HATCH. It may also be
confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate,
copy or take any action with respect to it.
If you have received this message in error please notify
HATCH immediately via mailto:MailAdmin(at)hatch.ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Dear Bob,
>???? Radial acceleration (vibration induced by mass rotating off center) is
proportional to the SQUARE of velocity of the mass and inversely
>proportional to the radius of rotation. The fact that B&C's products live
at routine operation of 2 or more times the minimum speed for full output
Sure...and why would anyone want to run an alternator at 2X or more times
the speed needed for full output?
>suggests that vibration levels experienced due to ROTATION of the
alternator shaft could be 4x greater than what one would expect in cars.
>This vibration is ADDED to that which the engine already provides.
And is this dynamic or static? It is entirely possible that ND (and others)
dynamically balances theirs on their several million dollar computerized
rotor balancer and B&C uses a static balancer and gets different results.
> ND builds alternators for cars and it's a sure bet that the manufacturers
of cars follow ND's recommendations for operating conditions.
Can you claim that the environment under an aircraft cowling is worse than
under the hood of a car?
>>What is the proof that there is any value in this work? If someone told me
>>that they vacuum impregnate the coils to stiffen them because aircraft
>>motors vibrate more than automobile motors, you would expect that they
>>tested the idea on a shake table and have the results to show it. If they
>>claim "better whatever" because they balance the thing---I'd like to see
the
>>evidence.
> Where's the 'proof' that it's not?
WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT IT'S NOT???????? Ay #&
$!?/#$%
&*()!!! Carumba!
Where's the PROOF that I don't have the PROOF???! In fact where's the proof
I'm not really the infallible secret Pope! Cheeeezzzzzzz...........
>It's fine to be skeptical....
Thanks. Now begins a long heartfelt and kind support of what is undoubtedly
a fine company, run by fine people--no doubt.
> but B&C has strong anecdotal support for their manufacturing
> decisions. While van was selling big pulleys to make his alternators
> run longer by slowing them down, B&C's design goal was NOT to
> give up alternator performance during ground operations, not to
> give up cowl clearance on some airplanes, and to take advantage
> of cooler operation by moving more air and reducing
> field current. Their decision was to reduce probability
> that extraordinary rotational acceleration induced at the
> higher operational speed becomes a service life issue.
Etc....maple syrup
>Is there hard data to show that if B&C quit balancing
>every alternator they build their failure rate would go
>up by X-percent? No. The time and dollars to conduct such
>a study cannot be supported by the low volumes of alternators
>sold to aircraft vis-a-vis those sold to automobiles. I don't
>think the balancing operation is a big labor driver . . .
>if they were to eliminate the balancing operation, I doubt
>it would make much difference in the selling price.
Etc....with sugar on top
>At the bottom line, B&C's machines are the most user friendly,
>aircraft designated alternators sold today. Unlike
>internally regulated automotive take-offs B&C's alternators
>run as predictably and with better longevity than the
>majority of aircraft alternators sold. They've got an
>exemplary market history to back it up.
Etc...bless them all. And they are kind to animals and children.
> Whether they balance or not, powder coat their castings,
> sprinkle with pixie-dust, or give Green Stamps with the
> sale, there's few if any aviation suppliers of alternators
> who offer greater value. One could hypothesize that it's
> all ND's quality and that B&C's efforts are blue-smoke.
> It may be . . . but I'm not going to finance the scientific
> study. Folks who don't perceive the value are encouraged to
> modify their own alternators.
Etc...and patriots and taxpayers all I'm sure--which is usually more than
you can say for me.
>Prof Wheeler North has published
>some detailed information on a Prestolite conversion. I've
>introduced myself to Wheeler and I'll see if we can help
>him edit his article, perhaps illustrate it a bit
>better and get his work more widely published . . . maybe
>at aeroelectric.com. We'll see he's interested in doing an ND project too.
Bob . . .
Now, you're talking. Can we get a link to his data?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
" I would have made a good Pope."
-- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting |
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >Ken,
> > Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
> >on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
> >is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
> >additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
> >alternator case?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
> See:
>
> http://bandc.biz/L40desc.html
>
> The bracket you see extending rearward from the mounting
> boss on the front-endbell casting is a B&C enhancement.
>
> Bob . . .
That's a great idea and a nice improvement.
Charlie
do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | touch screen pdas in rough air? |
Cheers,
The guys around here have a PDA program which changes the screen
into 9 areas (buttons) about one inch square. Each one is programmed to
provide a separate service - something like the 'blind' telephone dial
buttons.
Would that fill the bill or will I shut up right now?
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: switch wiring |
>
>hi all
>
>is there a wiring diagram example that shows two mags on toggles and a
>separate push button start ??
>have aeroelectric book and associated files but don't see one, guess i still
>don't really follow how mags have to be wired up yet, perhaps someone can
>explain
>
>thanx
>
>mike
Mike -
Figure Z-12 on page Z-10 of Rev 10 shows this.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Archer Wingtip Antenna |
Gentlemen,
I was looking over the instructions relating to the installation of Archer
wingtip antenna. The instructions indicate that the ground plane is formed
by placing the edge of the antenna between the wing and the wingtip. This
would work fine if the wingtip fit over the wing skin BUT the RV tip fits
inside of the skin.
For those of you that have installed this type of antenna on the RV series
of aircraft, how did you mount it and how did you form the ground plane?
Vince
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna |
Vince,
The antenna makes contact with the airframe structure by virtue of the
nutplates and screws. The nutplates rivet to the wingtip right onto the
antenna "base," whereby the antenna is sandwiched between the wingtip and
the nutplates. When screws go through the skin and into the nutplates, the
antenna is thus connected to the airframe.
What I wondered about was what happens once the wing skin is painted...i.e.
if the screws will still make enough contact with the wing skin for this to
be functional.
So what I did on mine was to use aluminum tape to provide a direct
connection between the "inside" of the wing skin and the antenna. A picture
or three can illustrate what I'm talking about much better than words:
http://www.rvproject.com/20040322.html
Remarkably, that cheap aluminum tape I bought from Harbor Freight indeed has
enough metal in it to be an electrical conductor.
Works great on the Archer NAV antenna, although the Archer COM antenna in
the RV-7 sheared wing tip leaves a bit to be desired. There's a fair amount
of shadowing by the airframe, and barely enough room to give it vertical
polarization. YMMV
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I was looking over the instructions relating to the installation of Archer
> wingtip antenna. The instructions indicate that the ground plane is
formed
> by placing the edge of the antenna between the wing and the wingtip. This
> would work fine if the wingtip fit over the wing skin BUT the RV tip fits
> inside of the skin.
>
> For those of you that have installed this type of antenna on the RV series
> of aircraft, how did you mount it and how did you form the ground plane?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Freq change beeps |
> (I believe AOPA reported that 25% of all the aircraft in
> the USA are based in Southern California.)
>
> Greg
Where'd they get that one? I have FAA's current database and didn't
do an actual count for SoCal, since it would involve lengthy ZIP code
analysis. But state is easy, and all of CA is about 10%.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | High Amperage Rotary Switch |
Question for the List:
I'm buying switches for my electrical system (Velocity with essentially a Z-13
electrical system) and would like to use a rotary switch for my endurance bus
connection. This will require the switch to carry up to 10 Amps. I'd also like
to have the functionality of a double pole, three position switch - similar
to a 2-10 toggle switch. Is anyone aware of a switch such as this that is rated
for this many amps on a 14 Volt system?
On a related note, I found a key switch at the following web-site (for golf carts)
that appears to be for high amperages:
http://www.golfcarcatalog.com/merchant.cfm/pid/2172/step/4.html
does anyone know how to test to see how many amps I can expect it to be good for?
It's got a really nice snap action to it, but the only markings on it say
"Cole USA Boston," no indication of current ratings. It's advertised as the "ignition"
switch on an electric golf cart with "off," "on," and "on with lights"
positions.
Thanks,
Dan Fritz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, Was: |
Alternator help
A photo would say it all but here goes:
It is a bracket fastened solidly to the alternator.
He puts a heavy wall steel tube (machined in a lathe) in the pivot hole
that extends maybe 3 inches rearward towards the back of the alternator.
At the rear of this tube two flat fingers then extend towards the
alternator and pick up two of the four long bolts that hold the
alternator case halves together. So now you use perhaps a four inch
long bolt through that tube that fastens to the engine at both ends much
like a larger automotive alternator. The alternator pivots on this long
bolt as you tighten or loosen the v belt adjustment. Simple but also
quite clever.
Ken
>Ken,
> Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
>on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
>is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
>additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
>alternator case?
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
>Dear Bob,
>
> >???? Radial acceleration (vibration induced by mass rotating off center) is
>proportional to the SQUARE of velocity of the mass and inversely
> >proportional to the radius of rotation. The fact that B&C's products live
>at routine operation of 2 or more times the minimum speed for full output
>
>Sure...and why would anyone want to run an alternator at 2X or more times
>the speed needed for full output?
see design goals below
> >suggests that vibration levels experienced due to ROTATION of the
>alternator shaft could be 4x greater than what one would expect in cars.
> >This vibration is ADDED to that which the engine already provides.
>
>And is this dynamic or static? It is entirely possible that ND (and others)
>dynamically balances theirs on their several million dollar computerized
>rotor balancer and B&C uses a static balancer and gets different results.
nope, it's a $high$ spin machine
> > ND builds alternators for cars and it's a sure bet that the manufacturers
>of cars follow ND's recommendations for operating conditions.
>
>Can you claim that the environment under an aircraft cowling is worse than
>under the hood of a car?
Which aspect of environment. Some things are worse, some are
better . . . but vibration generated within the alternator due
to DESIGN choices are worse.
> >>What is the proof that there is any value in this work? If someone told me
> >>that they vacuum impregnate the coils to stiffen them because aircraft
> >>motors vibrate more than automobile motors, you would expect that they
> >>tested the idea on a shake table and have the results to show it. If they
> >>claim "better whatever" because they balance the thing---I'd like to see
>the
> >>evidence.
>
> > Where's the 'proof' that it's not?
>
>WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT IT'S NOT???????? Ay #&
>$!?/#$%
>&*()!!! Carumba!
>Where's the PROOF that I don't have the PROOF???! In fact where's the proof
>I'm not really the infallible secret Pope! Cheeeezzzzzzz...........
I'm only suggesting that your skepticism is based
on no better data than other folks faith that
most if not all of what B&C claims to do actually
improves their product. You can say the stock ND
doesn't benefit from modifications and I can suggest
that they do and neither one of us can show comparative
data to resolve the difference. The only hard data I
can offer is an exemplary return rate that other folks in
the aircraft alternator business can only dream
about.
Having said that, I don't know that other folks
wouldn't do a LOT better if they were not saddled
with the regulatory albatross . . . but under
the current set of circumstances, one would be
hard pressed to come up with an AIRCRAFT alternator
that competes seriously with the B&C products. Wouldn't
it be WORTH the $ to have an alternator that is likely
to run TBO on the engine?
B&C has demonstrated it and I think that stands
above any nit-picking over the value of manufacturing
techniques that are not going to be examined scientifically
any time soon.
> >At the bottom line, B&C's machines are the most user friendly,
> >aircraft designated alternators sold today. Unlike
> >internally regulated automotive take-offs B&C's alternators
> >run as predictably and with better longevity than the
> >majority of aircraft alternators sold. They've got an
> >exemplary market history to back it up.
>
> Etc...bless them all. And they are kind to animals and children.
I'm sorry, are my words irrelevant, arguably in error
or are you agreeing?
> >Prof Wheeler North has published
> >some detailed information on a Prestolite conversion. I've
> >introduced myself to Wheeler and I'll see if we can help
> >him edit his article, perhaps illustrate it a bit
> >better and get his work more widely published . . . maybe
> >at aeroelectric.com. We'll see he's interested in doing an ND project too.
>Bob . . .
>
>Now, you're talking. Can we get a link to his data?
it's been published several times. here 'tis again
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
My DNS has trouble finding the page from time to time.
If you can't get it, I've .pdf'd the file and uploaded
it to my site at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/North
You need both .pdf files.
I'll talk with him about doing a 'heathkit' style
conversion article. Each step listed and illustrated
in detail. Just noticed how much his Prestolite
resembles a Nipon Denso. Had a builder in my last
seminar who gave me a huge Bosch cross-reference
document. I've not had time to look at it in detail
but he said that Bosch is the manufacturer of
the lion's share of alternators of all marketing
brands. It wouldn't surprise me if Prestolite
and ND both get their alternators from Bosch.
He also said that the smallest alternator they
build today is over 100 amps. Those itty-bitty
machines we're enamored of today are disappearing
as we speak.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
From another list I recently joined:
I have problems with my PDA when the air gets bumpy. Just about stick
the stylus through the screen, unless I am holding it to even out the
bumps. I am inclined to think that entering data is fraught with perils
of the air when flying.
>Hey now that 'keyboard' got my attention. Just had a brief look at
their web
>site http://www.frogpad.com/information/bluefroginfo.asp and thought
if one
>was to setup one of these keyboards on say, a centre consol area, it
could
>make for a easy operation. You could 'hide' the laptop under the panel
on a
>slide out tray or the likes of... Any thoughts? :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Prue Motorgliders <pruemotorgliders(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Amperage Rotary Switch |
Dan,
Look at this Moeller product line. You may have to get a product
specialist as the switch may have to be custom built. The switch takes
approx 3" square panel space including wire connections behind the
panel - also 3" to 5"+ behind the panel.
I read the spec sheet toshow a 25 amp 24 volt DC rating for the T3
series and 10 amp 24 v DC for the TO series. The TO series is slightly
smaller
I am presently investigating the Moeller switch for my motorglider
Jerry
Prue IIMG - ready to wire
On Apr 21, 2005, at 18:07, D Fritz wrote:
>
> Question for the List:
> I'm buying switches for my electrical system (Velocity with
> essentially a Z-13 electrical system) and would like to use a rotary
> switch for my endurance bus connection. This will require the switch
> to carry up to 10 Amps. I'd also like to have the functionality of a
> double pole, three position switch - similar to a 2-10 toggle switch.
> Is anyone aware of a switch such as this that is rated for this many
> amps on a 14 Volt system?
>
> On a related note, I found a key switch at the following web-site (for
> golf carts) that appears to be for high amperages:
>
> http://www.golfcarcatalog.com/merchant.cfm/pid/2172/step/4.html
>
> does anyone know how to test to see how many amps I can expect it to
> be good for? It's got a really nice snap action to it, but the only
> markings on it say "Cole USA Boston," no indication of current
> ratings. It's advertised as the "ignition" switch on an electric golf
> cart with "off," "on," and "on with lights" positions.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Fritz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
| Subject: | Cooly hat switch |
Hi again,
as I am going along in my wiring, I am nowv trying to wire the ray Allen
elevator trim system as supplied with the kit. I would like to wire it in a
way so that I can either use the up-down cooly hat or the switch supplied
with the kit. My question is: do I need relay to be able to use the stick
grip and is there a drawing available that would show the wire runs,
Thanks in advance,
just got my prop yesterday, it sure looks like a flying machine now,
Franz RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Franz
Fux
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Cooly hat switch
Hi everybody,
I got a cooly hat switch on my stick grip that I would like to wire for
trim, up and down switch and toggle switch for the radio left and right. The
markings on the colly hat terminals are A B C E plus and reverse g. Could
someone enlighten me as to which terminal corresponded which the appropriate
motion on the switch as in left, right, up and down, with other words how to
wire it to get the appropriate results
Thanks for your help
Franz
RV7A
--
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
The pdf maker program seems to have cut off the right side of the text
in at least the first .pdf file. The web page came up fine though for me.
Assuming relatively high alternator rpm in cruise, I think I'd be happy
to try the rotor with rearward sloping cooling fan fins. Certainly he is
correct that a forward slope will flow more air but they are much less
efficient. The rearward sloping fins would absorb less power and I'd
guess they'd still flow enough air at high aircraft cruise rpm's.
Ken
>http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
>
> My DNS has trouble finding the page from time to time.
> If you can't get it, I've .pdf'd the file and uploaded
> it to my site at:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/North
>
> You need both .pdf files.
>
> I'll talk with him about doing a 'heathkit' style
> conversion article. Each step listed and illustrated
> in detail. Just noticed how much his Prestolite
> resembles a Nipon Denso. Had a builder in my last
> seminar who gave me a huge Bosch cross-reference
> document. I've not had time to look at it in detail
> but he said that Bosch is the manufacturer of
> the lion's share of alternators of all marketing
> brands. It wouldn't surprise me if Prestolite
> and ND both get their alternators from Bosch.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
| From: | ldodgesr(at)mmm.com |
9, 2003) at 04/22/2005 09:52:57 AM
There has been a lot of discussion on the use of transorbs, etc. relative
to OV protection. Is there a summary available that explains the current
recommendations? I have Bob's original module, but haven't installed it
yet.
For reference, I have an IO-360 using Van's internally regulated 60 Amp
alternator.
Thanks,
Larry Dodge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | P-Mag wiring drawing |
Bob,
When you were in Independence,OR you discussed P-Mags (which are on my engine)
and that you were going to do a drawing showing wiring details on that install.
Emagair recommends a 5A breaker on each ignition for test purposes...I'm a
little confused on how to wire all of that in. I'm using the dreaded L/R/Both/Start
switch. I have considered wiring them from fuses to two 1-3 switches,
but I also have the 5A breaker-switches on hand, so installing them wouldn't be
a problem either. In the whirlwind of everything else you have going on, I
was wondering where you were in this endeavor. I'm needing some direction-
Thanks,
Bob Brown
RV-7A - wiring (ALMOST DONE!!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cooly hat switch |
>
>
>Hi again,
>as I am going along in my wiring, I am nowv trying to wire the ray Allen
>elevator trim system as supplied with the kit. I would like to wire it in a
>way so that I can either use the up-down cooly hat or the switch supplied
>with the kit. My question is: do I need relay to be able to use the stick
>grip and is there a drawing available that would show the wire runs,
>Thanks in advance,
>just got my prop yesterday, it sure looks like a flying machine now,
>Franz RV7A
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/PitchTrim.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/t4.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/trim6.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
hours looking through the archives of this List and read
large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
wiring my aircraft.
I'm asking for some basic help. Throughout my search I
remain plagued by some very basic questions. I'm sure this
list has covered these at length; but they are buried in and
amongst so many other issues that I remain confused. Could
someone please write a recap of the fundamental points and
arguments that determine which system architecture best
suits a few different basic needs ?? I understand that Z-13
represents a mature design basis for most aircraft. I would
like to add a level of "safety" to this; and I am under the
understanding that either adding a second alternator or
second battery (if done correctly) are good ways to
accomplish this. For me, while weight is always a very
important driver; I'm building a Harmon Rocket II and adding
aft weight helps this airplane fly. This simple reasoning
led me to a dual battery / single alternator (Z11h + Z30)
architecture. But why ?? I gather that most current talk
on the List centers on a dual alternator / single battery
(Z-12) architecture. Why ?? What other factors weigh into
this that I didn't include in my original reasoning ?? And
what other questions should I be asking ?? I apologize for
seeming slow; once I wrap my arms around this wiring thing I
hope I can be a useful contributor the this List.
--
Larry E. James (Bellevue, WA HR2 - fuselage / systems -
New Concepts Prototyping and Production
Seattle, WA
206-633-3111
206-633-3114 fax
larry(at)ncproto.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
>
>
>There has been a lot of discussion on the use of transorbs, etc. relative
>to OV protection. Is there a summary available that explains the current
>recommendations? I have Bob's original module, but haven't installed it
>yet.
>
>For reference, I have an IO-360 using Van's internally regulated 60 Amp
>alternator.
Bottom line from the AeroElectric Connection perspective is that
in spite of efforts to smoothly integrate an internally regulated
alternator into an aircraft electrical system, my best recommendation
at this time is that it not be done. I'm removing suggested
installation data for the internally regulated alternator from
the next revision of the 'Connection (out next week).
I'll continue to work the task but until I have a UNIVERSALLY
applicable technique to recommend, folks will have to rely
on the faith that a number of folk (with varying knowledge of
fact) have bestowed on their recommendations. I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf while I've suggested that getting
an ND alternator with B&C's mods is good value.
I don't know that the former is untrue but I do know
what B&C has demonstrated in the marketplace. Anyone
is invited, nay ENCOURAGED to prove me wrong. Here's
an great entrepreneurial opportunity for someone to
put their own brand on an ND alternator with whatever
level of modifications they see fit and offer it
at a lower cost than B&C but with the same warranty
and service.
The marketplace always has been the ultimate illuminator
of facts and demonstrator of value. Nothing would please
me more than to have someone put market pressure on
B&C (or anyone else) by offering a equal to or better
product for less. It's ultimately a win-win for
everybody.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
>
>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>wiring my aircraft.
Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
list who would like to participate in the discussion
I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------
>Hi Bob,
>I don't want to waste your time ..... could you please steer me (key
>search words for aeroelectric list or papers on you site or wherever else)
>to a simple to understand and resolute conclusion on determining the
>proper electrical system for my airplane ??
>
>I am having a hard time starting into this discussion; it's looking like
>most of the discussion starts around a surrounding point (like SD8) and
>ends up talking about basic architecture. I asked you earlier about a
>wiring diagram for a dual battery . single alternator system and you told
>me to combine the Z11h and Z30 drawings. I need to take one step back and
>ask if this is a preferred architecture ??
There is a "preferred" architecture for virtually every
project going. Some builders prefer to do what's already
been done in nearly a century of aircraft construction,
others prefer to drag out the scratch pad and go from
scratch. I get several such drawings in every month
with requests for critical review.
Most of these efforts begin with no organized list of
requirements. They're a random selection of ideas
gathered over the builder's experience . . . most looking
at other folks airplanes.
>My mission statement:
>High performance aircraft (Harmon Rocket II) balancing performance and
>utility. My primary factors to maximizing performance are maximizing
>horsepower, building the airframe straight and true, and minimizing
>weight; balancing this weight factor with utility. My primary utility
>drivers are: fun to fly (this relates back to performance)
Don't even need an electrical system for fun
> with strong cross-country capability. This includes light IFR (only
> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on departure to travel
> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
. . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
machines because of their relatively low speed where
Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
machine for travel.
> So, all electric is the way to go; using modern electrical technologies
> is the way to go; and intelligent compromise of electrical systems
> redundancy / system architecture is the way to go.
You can do all the things you've cited above
with no electrical system. Put some vacuum gyros
in and carry a couple of hand helds and nobody
but you need be aware of the fact that you had
to hand-prop your airplane.
>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator / single
>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or- something else
>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so that I can begin
>wiring in earnest ??
Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane therefore . . .
Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You can charge the
battery while the airplane is parked.
Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
a requirement? If you plan significant en route
loads such as exterior lighting . . .
Requirement: an alternator is needed.
Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds as the
primary comm and nav capabilities
Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
Design Goal: You perceive a less than the-best-we-know-how-to-do
capability in most spam-can hardware.
Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
adaptations, etc.
Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
and attitude gyros are indicated.
Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be subdivided
for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
so far suggests that any particular architecture is
indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
70 years.
Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are covered,
get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
certified junk for modern components will boost
system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
(or suffered) by the certified world.
What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
with respect to features and budget.
Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
already.
Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
source.
Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a well
considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these scenarios.
Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
functionality (like for rental airplanes).
Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
in batteries during alternator out operations.
Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a power-hungry
contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
go to waste . . .
Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking terminals
of batteries or batteries going open . . .
Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
concerned with tracking battery condition
Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
you don't need to worry about battery capacity
Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
do we need to go from here?
You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary exercise
to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
achievable.
Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
electrical system performance a distraction from your
pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
were you are and doing what you're doing?
If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
blood pressure on a trip.
If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Posted for Paul Messinger----
Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not prevent
them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
specific OVP.
The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as 400
amps. Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
alternator. False trips exacerbate the problem. There should be no possible
pilot misapplication of switches that damage components. The simple turning
of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
alternator.
Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other device
like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
where the regulator is.
B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
EV200HAANA
C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my design
to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
built into the design.
The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified alternator
and external regulator.
This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
will be posted here later this year
There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
yet been done.
Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
address will be announced soon.
Paul Messinger
-----
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
> any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
> designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
> is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
> alternator.
Hmmm - this seems to be somewhat misinterpreted.
Bob wrote that he was removing the schematics for
the internally regulated alternators UNTIL a suitable method
could be found for handling their characteristics.
This is a Good Thing(tm) since it may prevent people from
doing harm to their system inadvertantly by following advice from
the publication. Bob also said that
when a good solution appears, he will incorporate that into
the Aerolectric Connection. If the presented solution
appears feasible, and tests acceptably, I am convinced that Bob
will incorporate it into his publication.
> This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
> will be posted here later this year
Any idea when this will occur? Just curious...
> Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
> address will be announced soon.
Looking forward to it! :-)
I've been very anxious to see the details of the proposed
implementation to see if it is something I want to consider
for my plane.
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
Date: Fri Apr 22 - 10:38 AM
Nuckolls, III"
>
>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>wiring my aircraft.
Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
Nope ..... I thought this may be better suited to the List;
and received your reply when I hit the "send" button to send
mine :-) thanks Bob.
Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
list who would like to participate in the discussion
I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
I like your term "worry-bucket" !! I don't think mine is
very full ...... but I do have a lot of questions because
now that I've embarked on this path I want to understand
what I can. Just intrinsically I see the dual battery /
dual alternator system as overkill for my use. I'm thinking
one baby step over that of simple modern components would be
nice. So I'm game for discussion :-)
--------------------------------------------------------
> with strong cross-country capability. This includes
light IFR (only
> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on
departure to travel
> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
. . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
machines because of their relatively low speed where
Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
machine for travel.
>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator /
single
>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or-
something else
>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so
that I can begin
>wiring in earnest ??
> Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
> Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane
therefore . . .
> Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You
can charge the
> battery while the airplane is parked.
> Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
> a requirement? If you plan significant en route
> loads such as exterior lighting . . .
> Requirement: an alternator is needed.
> Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds
as the
> primary comm and nav capabilities
> Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
> Design Goal: You perceive a less than
the-best-we-know-how-to-do
> capability in most spam-can hardware.
> Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
> components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
> adaptations, etc.
> Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
> Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
> and attitude gyros are indicated.
> Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be
subdivided
> for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
> mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
> so far suggests that any particular architecture is
> indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
> statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
> alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
> flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
> 70 years.
> Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are
covered,
> get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
> ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
> certified junk for modern components will boost
> system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
> (or suffered) by the certified world.
> What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
> Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
> money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
> you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
> a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
> with respect to features and budget.
> Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
> systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
> has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
> already.
> Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
> source.
> Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a
well
> considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these
scenarios.
> Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
> functionality (like for rental airplanes).
> Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
> flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
> Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
> in batteries during alternator out operations.
> Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
> e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a
power-hungry
> contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
> So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
> Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
> go to waste . . .
> Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
> alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
> Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking
terminals
> of batteries or batteries going open . . .
> Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
> batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
> more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
> Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
> concerned with tracking battery condition
> Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
> you don't need to worry about battery capacity
> Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
> stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
> Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
> by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
> do we need to go from here?
>You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
>answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
>and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
>through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
>to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary
exercise
>to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
>goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
>achievable.
>Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
>you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
>All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
>spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
>electrical system performance a distraction from your
>pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
>were you are and doing what you're doing?
Actually 90% of my time is in competition sailplanes. I am
currently flying a Citabria that my wife is learning in. I
travel for business and pleasure .... my sandbox is
relatively large.
>If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
>in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
>philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
>with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
>blood pressure on a trip.
>If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
>the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
>knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
>to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
>What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
>here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
>and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
>How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
>your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
>you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
>and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
>that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
> Bob . . .
OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
1) battery and charger for starting engine
2) alternator for night flight
3) panel mounted com and nav
a) GNS530
b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
with buddies)
c) xponder
d) audio panel
4) modern components
a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
5) no vacuum system
a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
c) electric t&b
6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
plan-B
8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
9) e-bus with dual power paths
10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
this one)
I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone. Secondly, I
plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
battery COULD be useful. These two factors point to the
second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
don't know if there are other considerations I should be
aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
What am I missing ??
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul" <greif8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
Wow Bob that little explaination helped me alot!! I dont know much about
electronics or wiring or anything else of that nature, but I have been
trying to follow the discussions on this site yet fall far short of
understanding what I need to know. I plan on buying your wiring manual to
help me get over the hump and if you could recommend anything else that may
help me gain further insight please let me know, the learning curve is going
to be very steep when that part of the project finally comes up.
One more thing, do you plan on having any seminars in the midwest?
Regards,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>>wiring my aircraft.
>
>
>
> Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
> of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
> reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
>
> Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
> full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
> stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
> list who would like to participate in the discussion
> I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Hi Bob,
>>I don't want to waste your time ..... could you please steer me (key
>>search words for aeroelectric list or papers on you site or wherever else)
>>to a simple to understand and resolute conclusion on determining the
>>proper electrical system for my airplane ??
>>
>>I am having a hard time starting into this discussion; it's looking like
>>most of the discussion starts around a surrounding point (like SD8) and
>>ends up talking about basic architecture. I asked you earlier about a
>>wiring diagram for a dual battery . single alternator system and you told
>>me to combine the Z11h and Z30 drawings. I need to take one step back and
>>ask if this is a preferred architecture ??
>
> There is a "preferred" architecture for virtually every
> project going. Some builders prefer to do what's already
> been done in nearly a century of aircraft construction,
> others prefer to drag out the scratch pad and go from
> scratch. I get several such drawings in every month
> with requests for critical review.
>
> Most of these efforts begin with no organized list of
> requirements. They're a random selection of ideas
> gathered over the builder's experience . . . most looking
> at other folks airplanes.
>
>>My mission statement:
>>High performance aircraft (Harmon Rocket II) balancing performance and
>>utility. My primary factors to maximizing performance are maximizing
>>horsepower, building the airframe straight and true, and minimizing
>>weight; balancing this weight factor with utility. My primary utility
>>drivers are: fun to fly (this relates back to performance)
>
> Don't even need an electrical system for fun
>
>> with strong cross-country capability. This includes light IFR (only
>> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on departure to travel
>> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
>
> . . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
> fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
> machines because of their relatively low speed where
> Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
> driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
> machine for travel.
>
>> So, all electric is the way to go; using modern electrical technologies
>> is the way to go; and intelligent compromise of electrical systems
>> redundancy / system architecture is the way to go.
>
> You can do all the things you've cited above
> with no electrical system. Put some vacuum gyros
> in and carry a couple of hand helds and nobody
> but you need be aware of the fact that you had
> to hand-prop your airplane.
>
>
>>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator / single
>>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or- something else
>>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so that I can begin
>>wiring in earnest ??
>
> Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane therefore . . .
>
> Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You can charge the
> battery while the airplane is parked.
>
> Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
> a requirement? If you plan significant en route
> loads such as exterior lighting . . .
>
> Requirement: an alternator is needed.
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds as the
> primary comm and nav capabilities
>
> Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
>
> Design Goal: You perceive a less than the-best-we-know-how-to-do
> capability in most spam-can hardware.
>
> Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
> components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
> adaptations, etc.
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
>
> Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
> and attitude gyros are indicated.
>
> Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be subdivided
> for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
> mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
> so far suggests that any particular architecture is
> indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
> statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
> alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
> flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
> 70 years.
>
> Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are covered,
> get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
> ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
> certified junk for modern components will boost
> system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
> (or suffered) by the certified world.
>
> What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
> Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
> money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
> you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
> a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
> with respect to features and budget.
>
> Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
> systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
> has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
> already.
>
> Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
> source.
>
> Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a well
> considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these scenarios.
>
> Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
> functionality (like for rental airplanes).
>
> Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
> flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
>
> Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
> in batteries during alternator out operations.
>
> Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
> e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a power-hungry
> contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
>
> So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
>
> Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
> go to waste . . .
>
> Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
> alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
>
> Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking terminals
> of batteries or batteries going open . . .
>
> Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
> batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
> more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
>
> Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
> concerned with tracking battery condition
>
> Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
> you don't need to worry about battery capacity
>
> Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
> stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
>
> Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
> by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
> do we need to go from here?
>
> You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
> answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
> and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
> through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
> to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary exercise
> to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
> goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
> achievable.
>
> Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
> you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
> All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
> spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
> electrical system performance a distraction from your
> pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
> were you are and doing what you're doing?
>
> If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
> in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
> philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
> with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
> blood pressure on a trip.
>
> If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
> the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
> knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
> to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
> What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
> here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
> and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
>
> How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
> your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
> you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
> and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
> that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
>in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
>Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
>tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
>pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
>of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
>to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
>laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
>groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
>tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
>from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
>It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
>whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
>He says they cost $10 to $21.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
John;
The tool you are describing is, or is similar to, model CT-200 made by
Panduit. See the links below. Although in some of the literature they
say this tool is for either insulated OR non-insulated terminals, I
believe that this type of tool, which puts an indent into the side of
the barrel of the terminal, is only suited for non-insulated terminals.
This opinion is upheld by some of the other literature cited. The price
from several sources seems to be currently in the $35.00 range. Do a
Google search for "Panduit CT-200"
Bob McC
http://www.panduit.com/products/Product_Bulletins/070358.pdf (at the
bottom of page 4)
http://www.mouser.com/index.cfm?&handler=data.listcategory&D=644-CT-200&terms=644-CT-200&Ntt=*644CT200*&N=0&crc=true
http://catalogue.e-sonic.com/cgi-bin/listinglookup?listing=H356B37
http://www.electricaldeals.com/html/prodresults.php3?Category=LT1&Subcategory=IT1
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit, rather
quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have mentioned
some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other protection
schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point failure
mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply unacceptable
for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass cockpits
are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with 14
volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single point
failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to take
the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over voltage/high
current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which accomplishes
the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d tested,
proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that eliminates
the single point failure mode described above and allows the alternator
to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track for
that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create, including
those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a rather
robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across the
entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator shut
down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces less
audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary alternator
with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country. Shortly
after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off the battery
master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this been
a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the slightest
concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons we could
count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the battery
started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure identifiable
that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running the
entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in the
event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller alternators,
rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator. The only
good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi and
night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really not
appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other uncertainties
associated with that design.
Regards, George
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap" too
far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend $300.00
for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper from B&C or
me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and away superior
to the "plier type".
This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People ask me
regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"? I've
gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to $150.00
so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on something good.
This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers (B&C and myself sell
some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME factory that makes some the
crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is good
(but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are equally as
good, but a LOT cheaper.
Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
>
>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>
>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>
>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not prevent
>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as 400
>amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
>alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
>False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
> There should be no possible
>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
>The simple turning
>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently available to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>
>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>
> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other device
>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>
> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my design
>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified alternator
>and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>will be posted here later this year
>
>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>yet been done.
>
>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
No one should be afraid of the $30 - $40 crimpers from SteinAir and B&C,
but come on now guys, you don't have to spend $300 to get an AMP
crimper. Not that they don't make crimpers that cost that and a lot
more, but as someone else recently posted, the Pro Crimp II is about $65
from Digikey. I bought mine in the kit form with a case and an
assortment of terminals for right at $100. I'm going to use only AMP
PIDG terminals, and having the factory crimping jaws for $30 extra gives
me a very warm and fuzzy feeling. And boy does it make a nice crimp!
I'll keep the Panduit assembled with jaws for other connector types.
YMMV.
William
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
-->
Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap"
too far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend
$300.00 for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper
from B&C or me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and
away superior to the "plier type".
This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People
ask me regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"?
I've gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to
$150.00 so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on
something good. This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers
(B&C and myself sell some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME
factory that makes some the crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is
good (but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are
equally as good, but a LOT cheaper.
Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
George,
I must be a sucker for good stories - I once thought another solution to load
dump was on the horizon - it only seemed to generate a lot email exchanges.
Hope this is not deja vu!
Anyway, I have a couple of questions.
You imply two alternators are required; why? Does the arrangement work with a
single alternator and single battery?
I know Bob has discussed the single point failure mode of internally
regulated alternators, however, the details of what happens eludes me. Would you
describe this OV failure mode?
You make claims for what this system does; can you describe how it does it
and why there is a reduction in potential failures? What are these
add-ons/tweaks you mention?
What will be the weight/cost of the package, single alternator if it will
work that way?
When are you going to provide one of these contraptions to Bob so he can
scrutinize it and give us an opinion?
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 22-Apr-05 17:32:47 Pacific Standard Time, gwbraly(at)gami.com
writes:
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit,
rather quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have
mentioned some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other
protection schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point
failure mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply
unacceptable for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass
cockpits are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with
14 volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single
point failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to
take the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over
voltage/high current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which
accomplishes the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side
effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d
tested, proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that
eliminates the single point failure mode described above and allows the
alternator to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track
for that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create,
including those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a
rather robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across
the entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator
shut down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces
less audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary
alternator with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country.
Shortly after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off
the
battery master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this
been a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the
slightest concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons
we
could count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the
battery started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure
identifiable that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running
the entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in
the event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller
alternators, rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator.
The
only good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi
and night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really
not appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other
uncertainties associated with that design.
Regards, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Amen Bob!
Show the facts and provide the repeatability to prove your assertions is
the way of any research organization no matter what product.
Jim Nelson
RV9-A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
I would like to add that it would be wise to perform a pull test and crimp
inspection. Do this for the terminals and size wires that you would be
crimping. Tools do go out of calibration and require periodic maintenance.
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
> No one should be afraid of the $30 - $40 crimpers from SteinAir and B&C,
> but come on now guys, you don't have to spend $300 to get an AMP
> crimper. Not that they don't make crimpers that cost that and a lot
> more, but as someone else recently posted, the Pro Crimp II is about $65
> from Digikey. I bought mine in the kit form with a case and an
> assortment of terminals for right at $100. I'm going to use only AMP
> PIDG terminals, and having the factory crimping jaws for $30 extra gives
> me a very warm and fuzzy feeling. And boy does it make a nice crimp!
> I'll keep the Panduit assembled with jaws for other connector types.
> YMMV.
>
> William
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
> Bruch
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
> -->
>
> Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap"
> too far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
> airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend
> $300.00 for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper
> from B&C or me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and
> away superior to the "plier type".
>
> This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People
> ask me regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"?
> I've gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to
> $150.00 so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on
> something good. This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers
> (B&C and myself sell some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME
> factory that makes some the crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
>
> I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
> I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
> more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is
> good (but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are
> equally as good, but a LOT cheaper.
>
> Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Swartout
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
>
>
> Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
> in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
> Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
> tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
> pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
> of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
> to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
> laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
> groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
> tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
> from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
> It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
> whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
> He says they cost $10 to $21.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
> B&C
>>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>
>>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
>
> I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
> venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
> to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
> that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
> I sold that tool myself for years.
>
> The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
> certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
> you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
you!"
Jerry hollered back down to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
us has to got have some relief!"
Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
etc.
In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
the B&C L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
Confused in Arkansas (.02)
Bill S
7a Panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
>
>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>
>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>
>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
prevent
>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
400
>amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
>alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
>False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
> There should be no possible
>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
>The simple turning
>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently available to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>
>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>
> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
device
>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>
> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
design
>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
alternator
>and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>will be posted here later this year
>
>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>yet been done.
>
>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Again you have misquoted my work and notes. You have again failed (as usual)
to reply to specific issues and specific solutions. Selective snipping has
changed the entire meaning of what I have said in your reply. This was the
reason for my stopping posting and this post is a one time reply.
What I had sent Eric was a "press release".
The Kilovac contactor was stated to have the ability to break the
potentially high voltage arc (which "normal low voltage contactors cannot
do) resulting from a runaway alternator. You have seen that (arc) for your
self and so stated on this list some time ago. I do not remember the exact
words but you commented to the effect there was concern about the ability to
quench the arc. I ran a test and the arc did not self quench. The Kilovac
however is designed to not sustain an arc voltage and current way over what
is needed. I have not found a less of an overkill part that will work. The
Kilovac is also an ideal contactor for all contactor applications but is
higher cost.
Sorry that you fail to understand that solutions are out there and there is
zero interest by me and others to try to prove it to you. The automotive
market is a wealth of proven solutions but it does take some looking to find
the right one for a specific problem.
Van is not a hold out, they have seen the light and they are not the only
one (I know of 4 more significant players in that market and all use stock
alternators with no OV external OV protection, but they are the largest
based on number of aircraft flying. There are many auto engine converters
for aircraft that also have seen no reason not to use the stock internally
regulated alternator. Its very popular to simply duplicate the relevant part
of an auto engine electrical system in a single string for aircraft and this
is based on the logic the resulting auto single string system is far more
reliable that the dual string aircraft systems. Adding redundancy does not
always add reliability when the additional complexity is considered. In aero
space crosssrapping and multiple redundancies often was discarded as the
resulting system reliability was lowered with the additional reduncency.
Single point failures are only important is credible. Based on incident
reports a prop flying off the engine is more likely than a runaway
alternator. We do not worry about the prop so perhaps its not important to
worry about the alternator rarest of the rare runaway failure.
As for returned OVP module units, why bother its easier to simply go down a
different route. or at least that is what Eric and I have been told by many
many unhappy customers who discarded the OVP module after false tripping.
Again you have commented recently on this list that under some conditions
the unit is prone to false trip, this was in a reply to my post noting this
fact.
If Eric (or any one) has a product why should he be required to prove it
with design disclosure and subject it to independent uncontrolled testing.
Anything can be broken and made to appear it was a design fault.
After all you have not disclosed the LR-3 design details. I for one would be
interested as I have a failed one here that failed and did not POP the CB in
the act of failing. Its a safe failure as the alternator simply failed to
produce power. There was internal burned up parts apparent. The owner went
local for a heavy duty adjustable unit used by long haul truckers and for a
fraction of the cost of a replacement LR-3
Be that as it may, feel free to continue to reply to any who disagree. If
any reader cares to reread my entire statement that I allowed Eric to
publish you can see the full story.
What about NSI's design that has a simple system that has been extensively
FLIGHT and bench tested that handles load dump and battery disconnect?
In fact no battery ops is a requirement not a forbidden danger zone.
Flight testing has been done with the battery switched on and off as well as
heavy loads with no battery on line. Nothing was damaged and the truly all
electric system never glitches. Its a complete system that would be easy to
fail with testing setup to make it fail.
Heck I can make it fail in a simple setup but that is not the issue. There
is a COMPLETE SYSTEM design that works and is flying today and first flight
several years ago. Its likely that one could use some of the same parts in a
different system and have failures. This is why its important to design a
SYSTEM and recognize how every part interacts with the others in a system.
If you run the numbers ,Van may be the smart one. Tens of thousands of
flight hours with no failures with no OV protection and many failures in a
very short time with OV protection. The reason for the failures has never
been fully investigated and from Van's point of VU there is no reason to do
it. the circumstantional evidence has found Bob's OVP module guilty. :-)
The failure rate of a NEW ND alternator is very low (MTBF demonstrated of
well over 4,000 equivalent flight hours). Then the primary failure is simple
shutdown as there is internal OV protection built in. Joes Auto Parts
rebuilt alternator MAY be a very different story. The failure rate of a
runaway alternator is lower than a prop failure and Van among others (at
least appears to) simply ignore it as too low a risk to worry about. Its one
failure in thousands of the already rare failure above. Some in the industry
suggest its one in millions of flight hours. I have only heard of one such
failure and its only suspected not confirmed.
Is this not a prop bolt issue? prop failures of all kinds are hundreds of
times more likely than a HV fault in an alternator.
Load dumps are simple to take care of and its not me or Eric that has the
solution ;its the entire industry that has documented the cause and
solution. Eric and I simply verified a specific solution that meets the
needs of the aircraft avionics.
That George can blow a 5kw transorb and in a seemingly similar test I cannot
blow a 1.5kw unit has never been resolved (1.5Kw units survive but are
overstressed based on specifications). I do not question Gorge's results and
you will not accept mine (so be it!)
My testing has shown that the load dump test results match the industry
published data as well as the ability of the proper transorbs to absorb any
reasonable load dump. (1.5Kw units survive but are overstressed based on
specifications with a 40 amp load dump) My testing simply demonstrated the
industry published results. Thus the tests while interesting shed no
additional light on the problem and the solution was what was already in the
published info.
I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and I
will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this group.
Its not about winning the war of words nor convincing you that there is a
system that does what you say cannot be done at present. Its trying to show
there is a reliable solution that others are using today. You are free to
disagree as you have and will likely continue to do as we all have freedom
of thought.
I am saddened that you have chosen to quote from a private email to you from
me. Quoted out of context and changing the entire meaning does not help
either. What part of private do you not understand??
With all the respect that is due.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>>
>>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>>
>>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally
>>regulated
>>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
>>prevent
>>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>>specific OVP.
>
> I was told that it involved instances where the
> operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
> while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
> a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
> only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
> instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
> to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
> common occurrence.
>
> Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
> one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
> depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
> Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
> is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
> not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
>
> If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
> alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
> install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
> is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
> please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
> failures on the OVM-14.
>
>
>>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection
>>and
>>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
>>400
>>amps.
>
> A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
>
>> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an
>>runaway
>>alternator.
>
> This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
> mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
> the existing contactor I have to take the position that
> the task cannot be done.
>
> >False trips exacerbate the problem.
>
> True
>
>> There should be no possible
>>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
>
> True
>
>>The simple turning
>>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
>
> Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
> for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
> cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
> complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
> performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
> would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
> or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
> 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
> back policy. See
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
>
> I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
> failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
> there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
> of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
> NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
> back.
>
> I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
> one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
> other had no breaker at all . . .
>
>>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to
>>eliminate
>>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as
>>there
>>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>>alternator.
>
> Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
> discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
> task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
> go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
> were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
> what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
> to the application of internally regulated alternators
> that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
> pleas go unanswered.
>
> I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
> Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
> toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
> recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
> is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
> say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
> a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
>
> You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
>
> "The designs will be made available on my web site when
> the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
> for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
> details and also need to design the system to the customers
> desires including what is overkill in some cases.
>
> However the major components are mine to show anywhere
> and I will at the right time."
>
> Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
> to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
> not presently available to me or anyone else for
> publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
> to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
> waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
> shared.
>
> It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
> any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
> alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
> was in place because I didn't have the data to either
> support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>
>
>>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>>
>>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>>
>> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
>> device
>>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not
>>want
>>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>>where the regulator is.
> Good idea . . .
>
>
>>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>>
>> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC
>> at
>>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that
>>is
>>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>>EV200HAANA
>
> If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
> mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
> will break 900V?
>
>
>>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large
>>currents
>>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
>
> There is no "need" in this particular situation but
> keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
> ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
> other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
> of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
> (E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
> issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
> attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
> in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
>
> The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
> of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
> met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
> still meets it today.
>
>
>>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
>>design
>>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>>built into the design.
>
> "False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
> cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>
>
>>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the
>>stock
>>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
>>alternator
>>and external regulator.
>
>
> I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
> this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
> I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
> to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
> the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
>
> So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
> in participating and probably isn't interested in the
> results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
> model and he's entitled.
>
> So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
> If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
> there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
> size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
> then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
> any high-voltage capabilities.
>
> You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
> deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
>
> (Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
> product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
>
> I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
> installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
> repeated
> on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
> you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
> thousands of others for over 15 years.
>
>>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>>will be posted here later this year
>>
>>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>>yet been done.
>>
>>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>>address will be announced soon.
>
> VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
> my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
> without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
> about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
> was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
> research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
>
> [For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
> routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
> beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
> trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
> of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
> followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
> changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
> built on the same production lines as the commercial
> equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
> qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
> mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
> curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
> trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
> 6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
>
> When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
> this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
> I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
> Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
> come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
> years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
> "Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
> big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
> breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
>
> . . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
> that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
> but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
> still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
> from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
> hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
> gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
> replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
> really cool if you were helping.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
should have just used kept the alternator and built on. You'd have the damn thing
probably done by now....
There's another saying I'll butcher here.
Wise man and fool were arguing one day. Stranger walked by and listened for a
minute. He couldn't tell which was which....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
> night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
> shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
> knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
> Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
>
> After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
> to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
>
> His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
> you!"
>
> Jerry hollered back down to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
> us has to got have some relief!"
>
>
> Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
> but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
> many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
> instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
> promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
> etc.
>
> In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
> the B&C L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
>
> Confused in Arkansas (.02)
> Bill S
> 7a Panel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
> protection
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Posted for Paul Messinger----
> >
> >Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
> >
> >It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
> >alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
> >testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
> >demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
> >common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
> prevent
> >them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
> >specific OVP.
>
> I was told that it involved instances where the
> operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
> while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
> a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
> only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
> instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
> to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
> common occurrence.
>
> Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
> one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
> depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
> Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
> is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
> not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
>
> If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
> alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
> install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
> is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
> please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
> failures on the OVM-14.
>
>
> >The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
> >prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
> 400
> >amps.
>
> A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
>
> > Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
> >by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
> >the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
> >alternator.
>
> This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
> mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
> the existing contactor I have to take the position that
> the task cannot be done.
>
> >False trips exacerbate the problem.
>
> True
>
> > There should be no possible
> >pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
>
> True
>
> >The simple turning
> >of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
> >occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
>
> Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
> for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
> cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
> complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
> performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
> would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
> or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
> 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
> back policy. See
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
>
> I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
> failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
> there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
> of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
> NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
> back.
>
> I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
> one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
> other had no breaker at all . . .
>
> >Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
> >any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
> >designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
> >is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
> >alternator.
>
> Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
> discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
> task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
> go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
> were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
> what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
> to the application of internally regulated alternators
> that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
> pleas go unanswered.
>
> I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
> Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
> toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
> recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
> is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
> say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
> a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
>
> You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
>
> "The designs will be made available on my web site when
> the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
> for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
> details and also need to design the system to the customers
> desires including what is overkill in some cases.
>
> However the major components are mine to show anywhere
> and I will at the right time."
>
> Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
> to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
> not presently available to me or anyone else for
> publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
> to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
> waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
> shared.
>
> It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
> any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
> alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
> was in place because I didn't have the data to either
> support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>
>
> >Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
> >internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
> >
> >A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
> >
> > Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
> device
> >like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
> >to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
> >where the regulator is.
> Good idea . . .
>
>
> >B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
> >
> > Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
> >over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
> >both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
> >EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
> >EV200HAANA
>
> If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
> mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
> will break 900V?
>
>
> >C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
> >industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
> >to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
>
> There is no "need" in this particular situation but
> keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
> ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
> other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
> of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
> (E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
> issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
> attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
> in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
>
> The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
> of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
> met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
> still meets it today.
>
>
> >Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
> >Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
> design
> >to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
> >failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
> >built into the design.
>
> "False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
> cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>
>
> >The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
> >internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
> >arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
> >is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
> >alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
> >automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
> alternator
> >and external regulator.
>
>
> I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
> this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
> I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
> to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
> the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
>
> So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
> in participating and probably isn't interested in the
> results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
> model and he's entitled.
>
> So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
> If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
> there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
> size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
> then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
> any high-voltage capabilities.
>
> You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
> deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
>
> (Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
> product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
>
> I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
> installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
> repeated
> on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
> you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
> thousands of others for over 15 years.
>
> >This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
> >will be posted here later this year
> >
> >There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
> >battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
> >announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
> >yet been done.
> >
> >Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
> >address will be announced soon.
>
> VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
> my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
> without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
> about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
> was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
> research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
>
> [For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
> routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
> beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
> trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
> of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
> followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
> changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
> built on the same production lines as the commercial
> equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
> qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
> mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
> curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
> trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
> 6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
>
> When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
> this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
> I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
> Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
> come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
> years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
> "Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
> big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
> breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
>
> . . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
> that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
> but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
> still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
> from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
> hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
> gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
> replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
> really cool if you were helping.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
should have just used kept the alternator and built on. You'd have the damn thing
probably done by now....
There's another saying I'll butcher here.
Wise man and fool were arguing one day. Stranger walked by and listened for a minute.
He couldn't tell which was which....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
you!"
Jerry hollered back down
to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
us has to got have some relief!"
Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
etc.
In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
the BC L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
Confused in Arkansas (.02)
Bill S
7a Panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
&
gt; L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
Posted for Paul Messinger----
Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
common power contactor in the "B
" lead appears to cause failures not
prevent
them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which
happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
400
amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc volt
age of an runaway
alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
There should be no possible
pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
The simple turning
of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs a
s badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
any discuss
ion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable
conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently avai
lable to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
device
like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones ha
s a suitable part if you do not want
to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
industry for this specific application. There is
no need for large currents
to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
Use a moder
n solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
design
to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
automotive alternator
at 1/2 the cost of a purchased BC modified
alternator
and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
the
n I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
will be posted here later this year
There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
battery i
n the system. This is in design process right now and will be
announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
yet been done.
Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibrat
ion requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart
under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Doug,
No. Two alternators are NOT required.
I prefer a design philosophy of not having to rely upon counting the electrons
that can be obtained from a battery - - as a means of verifying the ability to
complete any mission of any length without any concern about single point failures
in the electrical system.
Thus, two alternators and one battery - - provided at least one of the alternators
and its regulation scheme is capable of providing continuous power with the
battery out of service and off line.
With that philosophy - - there is simply no issue about all electric aircraft systems
and there is no reliance upon the battery endurance capacity - - which
I consider to be mostly wishful thinking, but better than nothing.
Keep in mind, I come at this subject as a serious user of aircraft for high reliability
cross-country IMC transportation.
If I was just doing Saturday morning $100 hamburger runs, it would be a different
design philosophy.
I also come at the subject from the point of view of reliable "dispatchability"
while away from home.
I do not want to have to have the local Million Air facility order up an overnight
delivery of an alternator for Saturday installation so I can fly home on Sunday
afternoon. I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about $2.7K in New Orleans Lakefront).
I would much prefer to be able to dispatch home DAY VFR on one remaining
alternator and the battery and then get the other alternator overhauled
for $350 bucks.
An internally regulated alternator has to have a solid state device (transistor
of one description or another) that regulates (in one way or another) the flow
of current through the field. It is either inserted as a "high side" device
or as a "low side" device. That is, either from B+ to transistor to Field to
Ground - - or as B+ to field to transistor to ground.
Either way - - if the solid state device fails and does not happen to fail "OPEN"
- - then one can get a runaway field and voltage on the system.
I have invited Bob to come by and visit for a long time. He would enjoy the visit.
I am sure he will get around to that one of these days. If he doesn't I
might just fly up and get him and bring him down in my airplane! It is only
about 1:15 away.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection
George,
I must be a sucker for good stories - I once thought another solution to load
dump was on the horizon - it only seemed to generate a lot email exchanges.
Hope this is not deja vu!
Anyway, I have a couple of questions.
You imply two alternators are required; why? Does the arrangement work with a
single alternator and single battery?
I know Bob has discussed the single point failure mode of internally
regulated alternators, however, the details of what happens eludes me. Would you
describe this OV failure mode?
You make claims for what this system does; can you describe how it does it
and why there is a reduction in potential failures? What are these
add-ons/tweaks you mention?
What will be the weight/cost of the package, single alternator if it will
work that way?
When are you going to provide one of these contraptions to Bob so he can
scrutinize it and give us an opinion?
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 22-Apr-05 17:32:47 Pacific Standard Time, gwbraly(at)gami.com
writes:
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit,
rather quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have
mentioned some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other
protection schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point
failure mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply
unacceptable for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass
cockpits are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with
14 volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single
point failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to
take the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over
voltage/high current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which
accomplishes the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side
effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d
tested, proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that
eliminates the single point failure mode described above and allows the
alternator to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track
for that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create,
including those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a
rather robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across
the entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator
shut down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces
less audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary
alternator with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country.
Shortly after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off
the
battery master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this
been a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the
slightest concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons
we
could count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the
battery started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure
identifiable that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running
the entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in
the event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller
alternators, rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator.
The
only good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi
and night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really
not appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other
uncertainties associated with that design.
Regards, George
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PTACKABURY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Mr. Messinger: This is your second promise to not post here ever again.
Lets hope you have better luck keeping it this (final) time. regards, lurker
paul, tired of your whining
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Dear all,
we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
Many thanks
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | w_sweet(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon and OAT |
Yesk, I have the D10A and the OAT working in my MII. The OAT seems reasonable as
well as the TAS.
I installed the OAT probe in the left wing tip.
Wayne
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> Dear all,
>
> we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
> got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
> EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
> for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
>
> Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yesk, I have the D10A and the OAT working in my MII. The OAT seems reasonable as
well as the TAS.
I installed the OAT probe in the left wing tip.
Wayne
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider"
Dear all,
we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
Many thanks
Werner
rchive Search Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Voltage! |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Extra Voltage!
>I tried the dummy load, and sure enough the problem went away. Just for
> interests sake, I found and analogue voltmeter and it did not exhibit the
> phantom voltage. I did however discover another very strange phenonomem.
> By
> accident I had my DVM on AC volts when I measured the battery voltage, it
> read 24 volts! I tried with several different batteries and voltmeters and
> the same result, any explanation? I also tried it with a flashlight
> battery
> and it read 3 volts.
> Thanks for your help and suggestions. Bob
4/23/2005
Hello Bob, How are you measuring these battery voltages that give you a high
reading when the DVM is set on AC? In the airplane? With the engine running?
You are saying that the same thing happens with some other DVM's as well?
If the engine is running and you are measuring aircraft system voltage and
getting a reading on the AC setting maybe your alternator is putting out
some ripple current and voltage because one or more of the diodes in the
alternator is going, or has gone, bad.
When I take my Radio Shack DVM and check a 9 volt battery with the DVM set
on DC I get a reading of 9 volts plus or minus just a bit. When I check a 9
volt battery with the DVM set on AC I get a reading of essentially zero.
Using a new 9 volt battery as a standard to see how a voltmeter reads should
be a pretty valid check.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon and OAT |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Werner -
We just turned on our Dynon D-10A, EDC & OAT two days ago and it all works
as advertised. We are also using it as an encoder for the transponder
(Garmin 330) and that works well. I would suggest checking the wiring from
the edc to the oat. The OAT sensor uses the EDC as its power source, and
the company does not recommend lengthening the cable that comes already
installed on the OAT. It is OK to shorten it. If you install a plug to be
able to disconnect the sensor from the cable, be sure to solder a short
wire on to both ends of the shield and pinning those wires into the plug.
You need to provide continuity of the shield thru the plug. Soldering a
wire to the shield is much easier than trying to crimp or solder the
shield to a pin.
Hope this helps.
John
wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year,
> never
> got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
> EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
> for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
>
> Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Werner
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
>
>Again you have misquoted my work and notes. You have again failed (as usual)
>to reply to specific issues and specific solutions. Selective snipping has
>changed the entire meaning of what I have said in your reply. This was the
>reason for my stopping posting and this post is a one time reply.
>
>What I had sent Eric was a "press release".
>
>The Kilovac contactor was stated to have the ability to break the
>potentially high voltage arc (which "normal low voltage contactors cannot
>do) resulting from a runaway alternator. You have seen that (arc) for your
>self and so stated on this list some time ago.
The only arc studies I've conducted and posted here concern that
which is generated between opening contacts of switches controlling
relays and contactors. I've not studied the arc characteristics
between main contacts of the b-lead contactor . . . because it takes
an alternator test stand to do it . . .
>I do not remember the exact
>words but you commented to the effect there was concern about the ability to
>quench the arc.
You raised the question and I agreed that it needed to
be explored.
> I ran a test and the arc did not self quench.
Can you share the test set-up? Scope traces? Did you repeat
the test with load dump mitigation in place? Did it help
or make any difference at all? Which contactor was tested?
Was there arc suppression installed across the coil? Did
you explore any other arc-suppression technologies?
If I went out to my garden, stuck some seeds in the ground
and reported back to you that "they didn't grow", wouldn't
you wonder about soil quality, sunlight, watering, and a whole
bunch of other things?
> The Kilovac
>however is designed to not sustain an arc voltage and current way over what
>is needed. I have not found a less of an overkill part that will work. The
>Kilovac is also an ideal contactor for all contactor applications but is
>higher cost.
But if the goal is to place hard limits on an alternator's
ability to produce a load-dump event commensurate with
the value you've mentioned for the kinder, gentler electrical
system, then would not the el-cheapo contactor also benefit?
It's a fine contactor up to 24 volts . . .
>Sorry that you fail to understand that solutions are out there and there is
>zero interest by me and others to try to prove it to you.
What solution? I've yet to see a single test report. A single test setup
schematic . . . and I have a lot of trouble getting answers
to specific questions. Let's start with those above. You speak
in grand terms about solutions but with no details. If I call
the folks with those "solutions", will they tell me about them . . .
or will those doors close over proprietary ideas? If you're
going to discuss things here on the list, it should be with
the idea of teaching folks how to do the best-we-know-how-to-do.
It's insufficient to state that "all the problems have been
solved" and then not explain how individuals can solve them
(except if they buy your products).
> The automotive
>market is a wealth of proven solutions but it does take some looking to find
>the right one for a specific problem.
I presume you've found some . . . but do we understand correctly
that they are part of some proprietary activity or are these
>Van is not a hold out, they have seen the light and they are not the only
>one (I know of 4 more significant players in that market and all use stock
>alternators with no OV external OV protection, but they are the largest
>based on number of aircraft flying. There are many auto engine converters
>for aircraft that also have seen no reason not to use the stock internally
>regulated alternator. Its very popular to simply duplicate the relevant part
>of an auto engine electrical system in a single string for aircraft and this
>is based on the logic the resulting auto single string system is far more
>reliable that the dual string aircraft systems. Adding redundancy does not
>always add reliability when the additional complexity is considered. In aero
>space crosssrapping and multiple redundancies often was discarded as the
>resulting system reliability was lowered with the additional reduncency.
>Single point failures are only important is credible. Based on incident
>reports a prop flying off the engine is more likely than a runaway
>alternator. We do not worry about the prop so perhaps its not important to
>worry about the alternator rarest of the rare runaway failure.
I think I followed the gist of this. If all the folks you've
mentioned have identified specific suppliers of product that
they believe meets anyone's reliability REQUIREMENTS for use
in aircraft, what's the secret? Are there specific alternator
brands and part numbers? Is there product flow from specific
re-building operations that are so blessed? This would be
most valuable information to share with the OBAM aviation
community.
>As for returned OVP module units, why bother its easier to simply go down a
>different route. or at least that is what Eric and I have been told by many
>many unhappy customers who discarded the OVP module after false tripping.
Out of the many examples sold, are you telling me that
there's virtually 100% rejection of my warranty offer
and not a soul was interested in telling me how bad my
product was? I don't buy it. Give me names and phone numbers.
I'll call each one, apologize for inconveniencing him/her,
gather some details as to circumstances and mail each
one a $50 check to cover the cost of the OV module
and a token extra for inconvenience. Hopefully I can
get some of the "failed" product back for analysis.
>
>Again you have commented recently on this list that under some conditions
>the unit is prone to false trip, this was in a reply to my post noting this
>fact.
I've always maintained that we have a duty as consumers to
be responsible for alerting both the buyers and sellers
of problems with products. Folks often get on the list an
ask, "I'm having a problem with this electro-whizzie from
Company XYZ, has anyone else had the problem . . .and what did
you do about it?"
My first question of them is "Have you talked with the
manufacturer?" As a manufacturer I'm intently interested
in feedback from all my customers both the satisfied and
unhappy ones. I can't help anyone who won't even bother
to call and let me know how I can help . . . even if
to simply refund their money.
>If Eric (or any one) has a product why should he be required to prove it
>with design disclosure and subject it to independent uncontrolled testing.
>Anything can be broken and made to appear it was a design fault.
A test conducted to a test plan and followed up with measured
results is a "controlled" test. Are you suggesting that
I or anyone else would dry-lab or sabotage a competing
product's testing to service some agenda? Besides, we're not
talking about testing your products, we're talking about mine.
You say you've demonstrated problems with my designs but
as far as I know, you dry-labbed it or hit it with a hammer . . .
haven't seen your test setup or report. I make my living
at the discovery, sorting and application of simple ideas to
the benefit of everyone who has an interest. To stoop to the
behavior you suggest for any reason would be like shooting
myself in the foot.
>After all you have not disclosed the LR-3 design details. I for one would be
>interested as I have a failed one here that failed and did not POP the CB in
>the act of failing. Its a safe failure as the alternator simply failed to
>produce power. There was internal burned up parts apparent. The owner went
>local for a heavy duty adjustable unit used by long haul truckers and for a
>fraction of the cost of a replacement LR-3.
I'm pleased if he is pleased. But did he communicate with
B&C about his problem? Did he return the failed unit
so that B&C would stand any chance whatsoever in understanding
potential weaknesses with their design so that it could
be fixed?
The LR-3 is not my product. I designed that for a customer and
as an honorable consultant, I am bound to their wishes for
non-disclosure. I publish diagrams and bills-of-materials
for my products. I'll also help anyone who has a B&C product
to resolve integration and service issues short of violating
a client's confidence. I've told everyone who has a problem
with a B&C device to call them first and if they don't get
satisfaction, tell me. I'll drive up to Newton and jump right
in somebody's lap. So forgive my skepticism when you
paint me or B&C with that broad brush of consumer misery
and discontent.
>Be that as it may, feel free to continue to reply to any who disagree. If
>any reader cares to reread my entire statement that I allowed Eric to
>publish you can see the full story.
>
>What about NSI's design that has a simple system that has been extensively
>FLIGHT and bench tested that handles load dump and battery disconnect?
Don't know. Haven't seen any data. No technical papers. Is
it a proprietary secret? If so, then we're still doomed to
figure it out for ourselves.
>In fact no battery ops is a requirement not a forbidden danger zone.
>
>Flight testing has been done with the battery switched on and off as well as
>heavy loads with no battery on line. Nothing was damaged and the truly all
>electric system never glitches. Its a complete system that would be easy to
>fail with testing setup to make it fail.
>
>Heck I can make it fail in a simple setup but that is not the issue. There
>is a COMPLETE SYSTEM design that works and is flying today and first flight
>several years ago. Its likely that one could use some of the same parts in a
>different system and have failures. This is why its important to design a
>SYSTEM and recognize how every part interacts with the others in a system.
>
>If you run the numbers ,Van may be the smart one. Tens of thousands of
>flight hours with no failures with no OV protection and many failures in a
>very short time with OV protection. The reason for the failures has never
>been fully investigated and from Van's point of VU there is no reason to do
>it. the circumstantional evidence has found Bob's OVP module guilty. :-)
I'm pleased for their apparent success . . . but given that so many
folks have failed to let me know about the myriad of problems you
claim for my product, I sincerely hope that Van's customers are more
forthcoming with him should on of his alternators toast a system.
But then, it could it "be easier to go down a different path" and
chalk it up to experience . . . and leave the supplier totally in
the dark?
>The failure rate of a NEW ND alternator is very low (MTBF demonstrated of
>well over 4,000 equivalent flight hours). Then the primary failure is simple
>shutdown as there is internal OV protection built in. Joes Auto Parts
>rebuilt alternator MAY be a very different story. The failure rate of a
>runaway alternator is lower than a prop failure and Van among others (at
>least appears to) simply ignore it as too low a risk to worry about. Its one
>failure in thousands of the already rare failure above. Some in the industry
>suggest its one in millions of flight hours. I have only heard of one such
>failure and its only suspected not confirmed.
>
>Is this not a prop bolt issue? prop failures of all kinds are hundreds of
>times more likely than a HV fault in an alternator.
>
>Load dumps are simple to take care of and its not me or Eric that has the
>solution ;its the entire industry that has documented the cause and
>solution. Eric and I simply verified a specific solution that meets the
>needs of the aircraft avionics.
You say this but I'm still curious about the energy in the
load-dump event under various conditions and on various products
when installed as we used them on airplanes.
>That George can blow a 5kw transorb and in a seemingly similar test I cannot
>blow a 1.5kw unit has never been resolved (1.5Kw units survive but are
>overstressed based on specifications). I do not question Gorge's results and
>you will not accept mine (so be it!)
I don't question anyone's documented results. You've published
not a whit of test data or justification for the selection of
any parts that you propose will solve the load-dump question.
When I do a test at RAC I have to detail the test to the smallest
detail and then review the science that supports my recommendations.
I'm doing a presentation for the majority of the sparky community
next Friday where I'm going to show that a paragraph in AC43.13 is
dead wrong . . . and about eight centuries of cumulative experience in
the room will have bags of tomatoes and cabbages at the ready
if I stub my toe. You better believe that no question to me will
go unanswered and with all the care I can muster.
>My testing has shown that the load dump test results match the industry
>published data as well as the ability of the proper transorbs to absorb any
>reasonable load dump. (1.5Kw units survive but are overstressed based on
>specifications with a 40 amp load dump) My testing simply demonstrated the
>industry published results. Thus the tests while interesting shed no
>additional light on the problem and the solution was what was already in the
>published info.
What alternator? Turning at what RPM? Did you try other alternators?
Do you know what the effects of aftermarket regulators are? Are you
suggesting that I can pick any 40A machine and apply the same technique
with confidence that it will work? Do you have recommendations for
60A machines . . . or larger? I'm not suggesting that what you tested
for wasn't good data . . . but I write for thousands of folks some of
which may NOT have a clone of your system installed in their airplane.
Hence the need for real critical design review and recommendations that
cover the broadest possible range of applications.
>I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and I
>will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this group.
>
>Its not about winning the war of words nor convincing you that there is a
>system that does what you say cannot be done at present. Its trying to show
>there is a reliable solution that others are using today. You are free to
>disagree as you have and will likely continue to do as we all have freedom
>of thought.
But you haven't "shown" us diddily-squat. I though you were going
to help us understand how to get the job done. Schematics, bills
of materials, results of testing and reasoning behind your
recommendations. At the moment, the only hard contribution to
this discussion is that you recommend an array of 1.5KW transorbs
which you say you couldn't smoke . . . but nobody knows how
you tested them so I have no basis for joining your recommendation.
I don't know the breadth of its applicability. I've
never said your testing was bad or the ideas weren't useful . . .
only that I don't understand how they were developed and therefore
cannot lend my endorsement. Lack of endorsement is not rock throwing,
it's just an admission that I still don't know the foundations
for what you propose.
>I am saddened that you have chosen to quote from a private email to you from
>me. Quoted out of context and changing the entire meaning does not help
>either. What part of private do you not understand??
I wasn't aware that the posted document was a "press release".
It was labeled as posted on your behalf and I presumed with
your permission if not by your instruction. It appeared to
me that you were tossing bombs in again after saying that
you were going to bow out until you were ready to make all
things known to us. If Eric blind-sided you then he blind-
sided us both and I apologize for the quotation but it wasn't
"out of context" . . . You were making it clear then (and
I don't see that it's changed now) that you plan to contribute
no data to this conversation until some future time and then
only that which does not violate some degree of company
proprietary status. So to that extent, I violated no
privacy with the quotation for that much been public
knowledge for some time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Giffen A Marr" <gamarr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
Guy's
I really get tired of scrolling through all of the messages which contain
huge amounts of previous messages. If you want to use excerpts when
communicating fine, just get rid of the rest. It is really, really easy. It
is called "Control-Shift-End" and then "Delete". Besides it will save Bob a
lot of server space.
Thanks
Giff Marr
LIVP/20B 32%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
I learned everything I need to know about Mr. Messinger when he acted on
his need to share all his wonderful industry awards. Those to whom
awards mean the most learn humility in their acceptance. Those who
deserve awards the most rarely need to display them to earn other's
respect.
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE:Focus on the message - - not the messenger |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
I have a modest suggestion.
In other exchange forums that have been highly successful (the best example of
which is AVSIG on Compuserve ) there are only two fundamental rules:
1) use real names; and,
2) no personal attacks.
I suggest that everyone focus on the substance of the content, and leave the personal
characterizations aside.
I know that gets frustrating when the substance is unsubstantiated without apparent
good reason, but remembering to focus on the message and not the messenger
is essential to good intellectually honest exchanges on these types of forums.
Regards, George Braly
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> messenger |
| Subject: | Re: RE:Focus on the message - - not the |
messenger
messenger
>
>
>I have a modest suggestion.
>
>In other exchange forums that have been highly successful (the best
>example of which is AVSIG on Compuserve ) there are only two fundamental rules:
>
>1) use real names; and,
>
>2) no personal attacks.
>
>I suggest that everyone focus on the substance of the content, and leave
>the personal characterizations aside.
>
>I know that gets frustrating when the substance is unsubstantiated without
>apparent good reason, but remembering to focus on the message and not the
>messenger is essential to good intellectually honest exchanges on these
>types of forums.
Thank you my friend. May I lend my endorsement to your
suggestions and observations? I've mentioned several times
on this and other lists that there are 4 purposes for the
crafting spoken or printed words: To inform, entertain,
persuade or to hurt. I'd like to believe that we're all here
to share simple-ideas to maximize the numbers of people who
benefit . . . and have fun doing it. I miss those guys on
AVSIG . . . if only there were more hours in the day.
I do wish Paul well . . . in my later years I'm becoming
more acutely aware of the need for critical review of how
I use time, skills and resources. I don't NEED to enhance
my material condition so it's much more satisfying
to enhance my knowledge and skills and share with whoever
finds it useful to do so . . . that's a real turn-on!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Voltage! |
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt(at)sympatico.ca>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Extra Voltage!
>
>
> >I tried the dummy load, and sure enough the problem went away. Just for
> > interests sake, I found and analogue voltmeter and it did not exhibit the
> > phantom voltage. I did however discover another very strange phenonomem.
> > By
> > accident I had my DVM on AC volts when I measured the battery voltage, it
> > read 24 volts! I tried with several different batteries and voltmeters and
> > the same result, any explanation? I also tried it with a flashlight
> > battery
> > and it read 3 volts.
> > Thanks for your help and suggestions. Bob
>
>4/23/2005
>
>Hello Bob, How are you measuring these battery voltages that give you a high
>reading when the DVM is set on AC? In the airplane? With the engine running?
>You are saying that the same thing happens with some other DVM's as well?
>
>If the engine is running and you are measuring aircraft system voltage and
>getting a reading on the AC setting maybe your alternator is putting out
>some ripple current and voltage because one or more of the diodes in the
>alternator is going, or has gone, bad.
>
>When I take my Radio Shack DVM and check a 9 volt battery with the DVM set
>on DC I get a reading of 9 volts plus or minus just a bit. When I check a 9
>volt battery with the DVM set on AC I get a reading of essentially zero.
>
>Using a new 9 volt battery as a standard to see how a voltmeter reads should
>be a pretty valid check.
Great point! In years gone by, multimeters with an AC measurement
capability would rectify the incoming signal to DC for sensing and
display as AC Volts on the face of the instrument. However, EVERY
rectifier will also pass DC which has a different energy component
as a relatively static value as compared to the dynamic nature of
AC. Every technician was taught that if there was also a DC component
riding on the line being examined for AC . . . that one needed to
put a capacitor in series with the instrument to block DC so that
an accurate AC reading could be acquired.
Many upscale instruments like the Simpson and Tripplet offered
a built in capacitor in series with the voltage input jack
and labeled it "OUTPUT". Here's a picture of an instrument
I've had for over 40 years . . . and haven't used in 25.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Simpson_260_Output.jpg
Modern digital instruments using the simple rectifier for
converting AC to DC for measurement and display are subject
to the same errors. The easiest way to see if your instrument
is so afflicted is with the simple check OC suggested above.
Measure a battery with the instrument set to read AC. If the
reading is not zero, then know that AC measurements with any
DC component present also will probably be in error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Van Caulart" <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! |
AE Connection listers;
IMHO what is urgently required to advance OBAM aircraft electrical
systems is a Paul Messinger protection module (call it a PM
2). This
device needs to be able to sense Digest disharmony, clamp rhetoric
spikes and ground out antagonistic waveforms. Surly there is enough
pooled talent out there to accomplish this task. I for one would welcome
such a device.
PVC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Van Caulart" <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! |
AE Connection listers;
IMHO what is urgently required to advance OBAM aircraft electrical
systems is a Paul Messinger protection module (call it a PM
2). This
device needs to be able to sense Digest disharmony, clamp rhetoric
spikes and ground out antagonistic waveforms. Surly there is enough
pooled talent out there to accomplish this task. I for one would welcome
such a device.
PVC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
>
>
>Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
>in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
>Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
>tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
>pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
>of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
>to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
>laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
>groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
>tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
>from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
>It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
>whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
>He says they cost $10 to $21.
Stein has already answered this eloquently. I'll only add that
the tool you mention is designed for installation of un-insulated
terminals on solid wire. Here are several tools of the genre'
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_3.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_2.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_1.JPG
These are not intended for use with the PIDG style
terminals and while the electrical crimp may be okay,
it's not designed to close the insulation grip and
the finished crimp looks pretty awful too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Some time ago, I had to give up on my favorite alkaline AA
cells as portable-energy-of-choice. My current digital camera
has a very high discharge rate on AA cells and the internal
impedance effects of the chemistry make alkaline cells a poor choice
no matter how cheaply they can be purchased.
Thrashing around on e-bay, I found several offers for bulk
packaged, NiMh cells at very attractive prices. Bought the last
batch for just over $1 per cell for devices rated at 2300 mah.
Got a set out of the packaging and decided to see what the
CBA-II could tell me about them.
Cycled a set of 4 cells through the quick charger and then
tested each cell at 200 mA discharge rate. Man! What crummy
cells. All of them ran well under 1000 mah. Then I recalled
that most rechargeable chemistries need to be stirred up
after being placed in service. Even a new SVLA battery will
test at less than rated capacity when brand new.
So, I charged them again and retested. Hmmm . . . marked
improvement in capacity but no where near rated. Further
investigation revealed:
The ratings on these cells is for the 20-hour
discharge mode or about 110 milliamps discharge. I discovered
that the fast chargers I have (two different models) only put
80-90% of rated charge back into the cell by the time the
"charging" light goes out. You need to leave them in overnight
on the "sustaining" charge rate to top off the cell. Or, I'm
now moving them to one of those old 50 ma ni-cad trickle chargers
over night to recover use of the fast charger.
Further, some of the el-cheapo cells needed to be deep cycled
5 times before their chemistry was fully active.
You think watching grass grow is exciting? Try watching
batteries run down. I'm formulating some requirements for
another $low$ tester that will take 8 AA cells and automatically
cycle them under software control and measure the capacity for
each cell at the end of each discharge cycle. You'll be able
to put some long unused and/or brand new cells in the gizmo
and come back in a few days to see how good the cells really
are and have them be fully charged as well.
You'll also be able to group sets of cells for similar
capacities so that you don't accidently place an extraordinarily
weak cell into an application with a bunch of really good ones
and find that you can only use a small fraction of the energy
contained in the group.
This exercise has been enlightening and fortunately not
all that time consuming since I can do lots of other things
while awaiting results of a protracted test. But I sure don't
want to try an manage a whole bunch of cells on a one-cell
analyzer!
More comments on the CBA-II are forthcoming. Giles, have you
had a chance to play with your CBA-II yet?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
>
>OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
>to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
>design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
>clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
>1) battery and charger for starting engine
>2) alternator for night flight
>3) panel mounted com and nav
> a) GNS530
> b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
> with uddies)
> c) xponder
> d) audio panel
>4) modern components
> a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
>5) no vacuum system
> a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
> b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
> c) electric t&b
>6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
>7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
>plan-B
>8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
>9) e-bus with dual power paths
>10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
>this one)
>
>I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
>(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
>own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
>our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
>adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
>back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
>beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Not sure I understand why it would. We all learned to
fly in spam cans and they had about the simplest
systems out there . . . not complicated but no options
either. If you have a Z-ll installed, then there are no
more switches than you'll find in a certified ship.
DC Master (bat and alt) and e-bus alt feed (was avionics
master).
>Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
>fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
>if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
>I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
>conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone.
That's a dandy driver. I think all my RV-8 readers
went to rear mounted batteries for the same reason.
> Secondly, I
>plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
>battery COULD be useful.
. . . or a bigger first battery. By placing it in the
back, it's EASY to upsize as needed. Piper put 32 a.h.
batteries in some of their singles when they found that
the direct-drive Prestolight wouldn't crank the engine
well enough in cold weather. Going to the larger battery
was easier than upsizing battery cables or changing
out the starter.
> These two factors point to the
>second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
>don't know if there are other considerations I should be
>aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
>solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
>little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
>say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
>..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
> Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
Having two batteries negates the need to design for
alternator only operations. A pair of 17 a.h. batteries
will weigh slightly more than a 32 a.h. battery. I'm not
sure I'd worry about this much. I spoke with Skip at
Concord last week on another matter and asked him about
the dreaded open battery syndrome. He said there were
some instances of cross-over connectors opening during
accidental battery faults or hard starts on turbine
engines.
This prompted a redesign of their crossover fabrication
techniques. They now have the largest cross-over area
in the industry. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg
Incidently, the other brand we've come to know and love
spot welds their crossovers as a multi-layered weld made
up of the extension tabs right off the top of each plate.
Simpler and easy to automate but much more susceptible to poor
welds and reduced crossover area than the five-piece,
hand welded technique in used on Concords today.
I also asked Skip about open batteries. He told me that
aside from the few cross-over failures early on, the
only batteries that were sent back had been abused
in some way for a cell to go bad. But it's entirely
possible that the majority of his unhappy customers
would rather "go the easier route" and chalk their
dissatisfaction to supplier indifference/incompetence
than to find out what's really going on.
>What am I missing ??
Not a thing I can see. My recommendation?
Go with Z-11, rear mounted battery, 2AWG feeders
to the front. Install battery in simple tray that
captures the footprint. Strap it down with two, 2"
web-straps and nylon buckles. If you need to upsize
the battery later, it's really easy to do. The battery
can lay down or stand on end. I'd position it to drop
the height above the mounting surface to a minimum, i.e.
lay on side. I don't think you need two. Try a 24 a.h.
battery to start.
Z-13 is an easy upgrade later, so is adding a second
battery or upsizing the first battery. You're going
to have a system with no more switches than the present
certified fleet with much more attractive options.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
That would be a useful device; that being a tester/recharger. I have so many rechargeables
floating around for four headsets, volt meter and sundry other things,
and I suspect someare junk, but I don't know which ones.
Have you arrived at final conclusion on the 'attractively priced batteries?"
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Some time ago, I had to give up on my favorite alkaline AA
cells as portable-energy-of-choice. My current digital camera
has a very high discharge rate on AA cells and the internal
impedance effects of the chemistry make alkaline cells a poor choice
no matter how cheaply they can be purchased.
Thrashing around on e-bay, I found several offers for bulk
packaged, NiMh cells at very attractive prices. Bought the last
batch for just over $1 per cell for devices rated at 2300 mah.
Got a set out of the packaging and decided to see what the
CBA-II could tell me about them.
Cycled a set of 4 cells through the quick charger and then
tested each cell at 200 mA discharge rate. Man! What crummy
cells. All of them ran well under 1000 mah. Then I recalled
that most rechargeable chemistries need to be stirred up
after being placed in service. Even a new SVLA battery will
test at less than rated capacity when brand new.
So, I charged them again and retested. Hmmm . . . marked
improvement in capacity but no where near rated. Further
investigation revealed:
The ratings on these cells is for the 20-hour
discharge mode or about 110 milliamps discharge. I discovered
that the fast chargers I have (two different models) only put
80-90% of rated charge back into the cell by the time the
"charging" light goes out. You need to leave them in overnight
on the "sustaining" charge rate to top off the cell. Or, I'm
now moving them to one of those old 50 ma ni-cad trickle chargers
over night to recover use of the fast charger.
Further, some of the el-cheapo cells needed to be deep cycled
5 times before their chemistry was fully active.
You think watching grass grow is exciting? Try watching
batteries run down. I'm formulating some requirements for
another $low$ tester that will take 8 AA cells and automatically
cycle them under software control and measure the capacity for
each cell at the end of each discharge cycle. You'll be able
to put some long unused and/or brand new cells in the gizmo
and come back in a few days to see how good the cells really
are and have them be fully charged as well.
You'll also be able to group sets of cells for similar
capacities so that you don't accidently place an extraordinarily
weak cell into an application with a bunch of really good ones
and find that you can only use a small fraction of the energy
contained in the group.
This exercise has been enlightening and fortunately not
all that time consuming since I can do lots of other things
while awaiting results of a protracted test. But I sure don't
want to try an manage a whole bunch of cells on a one-cell
analyzer!
More comments on the CBA-II are forthcoming. Giles, have you
had a chance to play with your CBA-II yet?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
In a message dated 4/24/2005 5:33:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Good Afternoon Bob,
I noted in the advertisement that the CBA-II is only rated for maximum of
150 watts. Is the new one capable of any higher wattages? The ICA test which
Concorde specifies for their RG35A calls for a one hour test at rated
amperage of 29 amps
It appears that the biggest 14.2 volt battery that could be tested with the
CBA-II is about 10.5 AH.
Any comment?
I did order one in the hopes that I could learn enough from it to properly
evaluate what is actually needed for normal GA aircraft batteries.
I also have a Concorde Model 12/24CT which I have used a few times. It is
easy to use, but it does not have any graphing capability.
Incidentally, I looked over the Beech 18 serial number 11 that we have at
the museum. The cockpit is in very poor condition and I doubt if anything in
there is in any manner similar to the way it left the factory, but I could see
no evidence of two isolated electrical systems.
I did talk to our historian and he is aware of the salt mine storage
facility. We have made moves that we hope will allow us access to the Twin Beech
data.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of alternator?
That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
=====================================================
Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control, low
volt)
I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have one
crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad happening
is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
===================================================
To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink (cooling
fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not necessary.
The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary but
unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely? How
do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How do
you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
ection.
Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to happen
you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an OV
condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are honest
about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I sold
a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I service?
How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control of
the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is good
enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration. The
electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff means
more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
Cheers George
PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I guess
I'll get run-out of AE town.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO.
I generally do not try to respond to people that use anything other than their
real names in these discussions.
Regards, George Braly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of alternator?
That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
=====================================================
Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control, low
volt)
I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have one
crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad happening
is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
===================================================
To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink (cooling
fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not necessary.
The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary but
unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely? How
do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How do
you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
ection.
Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to happen
you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an OV
condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are honest
about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I sold
a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I service?
How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control of
the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is good
enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration. The
electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff means
more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
Cheers George
PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I guess
I'll get run-out of AE town.
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
cells
>
>That would be a useful device; that being a tester/recharger. I have so
>many rechargeables floating around for four headsets, volt meter and
>sundry other things, and I suspect someare junk, but I don't know which ones.
>
>Have you arrived at final conclusion on the 'attractively priced batteries?"
This is my first pass at them so I cannot speak to service
life . . . my initial impressions of capacity were poor but
at the moment, I'm hopeful. Cell fabrication is a highly
automated process and I suspect that there are few corners
one can cut in the materials to improve on profit margins.
It may well be that you can't buy a really bad NiMh cell
just like it's hard to find a really bad alkaline cell.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
The cells I'm working with right now came off ebay from
these folks:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48620&item=5769405150&rd=1
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
cells
>
>
>In a message dated 4/24/2005 5:33:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
>battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
>one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
>and cells.
>
>I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
>and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
>
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>I noted in the advertisement that the CBA-II is only rated for maximum of
>150 watts. Is the new one capable of any higher wattages? The ICA test
>which
>Concorde specifies for their RG35A calls for a one hour test at rated
>amperage of 29 amps
Yup, the only test you can run with you CBA-II is an endurance test
assuming that your e-bus doesn't run over 7.5 amps or so. Actually,
the continuous rating for the CBA-II is 100 watts. I don't know how
that 150 watt intermittent condition is even achieved . . . the software
won't let you set up for anything over 100W.
>It appears that the biggest 14.2 volt battery that could be tested with the
>CBA-II is about 10.5 AH.
>
>Any comment?
If you want to know the 10 hour rate . . . sure. But if you're wanting
to track the battery's ability to support your e-bus, then discharge it
at the e-bus rate. Test it new and use that for a benchmark to gage
how fast it is fading. There's nothing magic about the 1 hour test . . .
you could use those numbers to track battery condition but I don't see
that they're very meaningful.
>I did order one in the hopes that I could learn enough from it to properly
>evaluate what is actually needed for normal GA aircraft batteries.
I'm not sure there's value in testing the battery for conditions other
than how you expect to use it. We know that apparent capacity varies
considerably with load. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Capacity_vs_Voltage.gif
This makes it difficult to do any direct translation from a 1 hour
benchmark of capacity when your e-bus or emergency loads are at some
discharge rate other than 1 hour. It seems most meaningful to find
out how much your airplane needs in the endurance mode and to test
at that rate . . . and then pitch the battery when it no longer meets
your 30 minute FAA suggested endurance or some other higher number
that you choose to impose.
To pitch a battery at 85% of capacity when it runs your e-loads
for an hour at 70% capacity is silly . . . yeah, mandated but
none-the-less silly.
>I also have a Concorde Model 12/24CT which I have used a few times. It is
>easy to use, but it does not have any graphing capability.
What's the value in the graphs . . . other than gee-whiz? I'm
going to develop an enhanced version of the cap checker in
the chapter on batteries. The bottom line is "how long does the
battery take to get down to 11 volts when carrying a e-bus load?"
The cap checker in the book now is not calibrated but does give
you a relative value to benchmark to for evaluating loss of
performance with age. It doesn't take anything much more complicated
to deliver real life numbers.
The curve is neat but the only thing we're interested in is that
intersection with 11.0 volts. That can be a simple comparator and
timer mechanism teamed with a set of resistors tailored to emulate
your e-loads . . . I don't think it needs to be complicated to
be very useful.
>Incidentally, I looked over the Beech 18 serial number 11 that we have at
>the museum. The cockpit is in very poor condition and I doubt if
>anything in
>there is in any manner similar to the way it left the factory, but I
>could see
>no evidence of two isolated electrical systems.
>
>I did talk to our historian and he is aware of the salt mine storage
>facility. We have made moves that we hope will allow us access to the
>Twin Beech
>data.
I know that has happened but I'm not sure under what circumstances.
I was eating a $100 hamburger at the Beaumont Hotel east of Wichita
about 10-15 years ago when a whole gaggle of Model 18's and 17's taxied
up outside for some $500 hamburgers. These were immaculately restored
machines. The owners cited lots of support from Beech for data. Hmmm . . .
that could have been while Olive Ann Beech was still alive. It's almost
a sure bet that a phone call to her asking for help with these airplanes
would have produced a flurry of very accommodating activity at the factory.
It's a far different world today . . . but it's worth trying.
I don't have any "pull" out there but I'm willing to rattle on any
cage you might identify as containing useful information or assistance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
Bob,
When you talk about possibly adding a second rear mounted battery in the
future, I assume that this second battery would connect to the same 2 AWG
feeds right at the first battery. In other words, you would still only
have one set of feeds going to the firewall? Is this correct?
Bevan
RV7A
electrically dependant engine
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [SMTP:b.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
>
>OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
>to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
>design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
>clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
>1) battery and charger for starting engine
>2) alternator for night flight
>3) panel mounted com and nav
> a) GNS530
> b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
> with uddies)
> c) xponder
> d) audio panel
>4) modern components
> a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
>5) no vacuum system
> a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
> b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
> c) electric t&b
>6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
>7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
>plan-B
>8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
>9) e-bus with dual power paths
>10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
>this one)
>
>I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
>(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
>own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
>our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
>adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
>back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
>beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Not sure I understand why it would. We all learned to
fly in spam cans and they had about the simplest
systems out there . . . not complicated but no options
either. If you have a Z-ll installed, then there are no
more switches than you'll find in a certified ship.
DC Master (bat and alt) and e-bus alt feed (was avionics
master).
>Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
>fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
>if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
>I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
>conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone.
That's a dandy driver. I think all my RV-8 readers
went to rear mounted batteries for the same reason.
> Secondly, I
>plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
>battery COULD be useful.
. . . or a bigger first battery. By placing it in the
back, it's EASY to upsize as needed. Piper put 32 a.h.
batteries in some of their singles when they found that
the direct-drive Prestolight wouldn't crank the engine
well enough in cold weather. Going to the larger battery
was easier than upsizing battery cables or changing
out the starter.
> These two factors point to the
>second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
>don't know if there are other considerations I should be
>aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
>solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
>little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
>say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
>..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
> Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
Having two batteries negates the need to design for
alternator only operations. A pair of 17 a.h. batteries
will weigh slightly more than a 32 a.h. battery. I'm not
sure I'd worry about this much. I spoke with Skip at
Concord last week on another matter and asked him about
the dreaded open battery syndrome. He said there were
some instances of cross-over connectors opening during
accidental battery faults or hard starts on turbine
engines.
This prompted a redesign of their crossover fabrication
techniques. They now have the largest cross-over area
in the industry. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg
Incidently, the other brand we've come to know and love
spot welds their crossovers as a multi-layered weld made
up of the extension tabs right off the top of each plate.
Simpler and easy to automate but much more susceptible to poor
welds and reduced crossover area than the five-piece,
hand welded technique in used on Concords today.
I also asked Skip about open batteries. He told me that
aside from the few cross-over failures early on, the
only batteries that were sent back had been abused
in some way for a cell to go bad. But it's entirely
possible that the majority of his unhappy customers
would rather "go the easier route" and chalk their
dissatisfaction to supplier indifference/incompetence
than to find out what's really going on.
>What am I missing ??
Not a thing I can see. My recommendation?
Go with Z-11, rear mounted battery, 2AWG feeders
to the front. Install battery in simple tray that
captures the footprint. Strap it down with two, 2"
web-straps and nylon buckles. If you need to upsize
the battery later, it's really easy to do. The battery
can lay down or stand on end. I'd position it to drop
the height above the mounting surface to a minimum, i.e.
lay on side. I don't think you need two. Try a 24 a.h.
battery to start.
Z-13 is an easy upgrade later, so is adding a second
battery or upsizing the first battery. You're going
to have a system with no more switches than the present
certified fleet with much more attractive options.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Johnson" <tonyjohnson(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I have seen Bob Nuckolls plans for an audio iso amp. I am wondering if that
device will accomplish my goal of bringing all the audio warning devices
together, amplifying those that need amplification?
I had planned to use a Flighcom 403 intercom, which will take stereo music
inputs and warning tones. However, the nav radio I plan to use (VAL INS)
seems to need amplification for its audio output. I can accomplish
everything but the amplification of the nav radio audio with the Flightcom
403. I don't think that the Flightcom 403 intercom will amplify the nav
radio.
Would the audio iso amp be the appropriate device for that? It seems that
the iso amp does more than I might need, so I might need to use only a bit
of its capability, that is to run all my warning tones thru, then forward
them to the aux input of the Flightcom 403 intercom.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tony Johnson
RV8A "Badboy"
Orlando
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Ruttan <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Mr. George Braly;
A quick and easy trick is to google the email address.
He stated his name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is just
so much pickable material in his posts regarding unanswered questions, I
cant see how we could have time to pick on him personally.
Mr. George;
You make some very good points, all of which have been covered very well.
You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators
were pilot error. Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out
simply?
Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to
its reliability.
Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
Eric
George Braly wrote:
>
>
>I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO.
>
>I generally do not try to respond to people that use anything other than their
real names in these discussions.
>
>Regards, George Braly
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
>>
>>
>
>
>(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>
>
>
>
>>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
>>
>>
>
>
>(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>
>
>
>
>>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
>>
>>
>
>
>(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of
alternator? That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
>
>
>=====================================================
>
>
>Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
>
>
>First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control,
low volt)
>
>
>I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have
one crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
>
>
>**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
>
>
>I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
>
>
>The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad
happening is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
>
>
>===================================================
>
>
>To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink
(cooling fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
>
>
>Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not
necessary. The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
>
>
>WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary
but unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely?
How do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
>
>
>If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How
do you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
> ection.
>
>
>Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to
happen you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
>
>
>THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an
OV condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are
honest about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
>
>
>***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
>
>
>Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I
sold a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I
service? How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
>
>
>I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control
of the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is
good enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
>
>
>Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration.
The electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
>
>
>Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
>
>
>My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
>
>
>Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff
means more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
>
>
>Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>
>
>Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
>
>
>Cheers George
>
>
>PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I
guess I'll get run-out of AE town.
>
>
>---
>
>
>---
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
>
>Bob,
>
>When you talk about possibly adding a second rear mounted battery in the
>future, I assume that this second battery would connect to the same 2 AWG
>feeds right at the first battery. In other words, you would still only
>have one set of feeds going to the firewall? Is this correct?
Yes.
Do I recall correctly that you're considering p-mags?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpnj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
AeroElectric-List Digest List
Hi Bob,
The device you described is probably (depending on the exact feature set you're
interested in) available commercially from the model airplane/car folks.
It all depends on how you value your money versus your time. Usually
good quality automatic cycler/chargers cost quite a bit.
Sorry for not quoting the original message. My mailer truncates digest messages
on reply.
c'ya,
Michael
-----
mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpnj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
AeroElectric-List Digest List
Hi Bob,
The device you described is probably (depending on the exact feature set you're
interested in) available commercially from the model airplane/car folks.
It all depends on how you value your money versus your time. Usually
good quality automatic cycler/chargers cost quite a bit.
Sorry for not quoting the original message. My mailer truncates digest messages
on reply.
c'ya,
Michael
-----
mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
cells
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>The device you described is probably (depending on the exact feature set
>you're
>interested in) available commercially from the model airplane/car folks.
>
>It all depends on how you value your money versus your time. Usually
>good quality automatic cycler/chargers cost quite a bit.
>
>Sorry for not quoting the original message. My mailer truncates digest
>messages
>on reply.
Thanks for reminding me. I do recall reading about this
equipment somewhere. I'll look into it further. If anyone
else has some time to cruise the 'net in search of the
magic battery cycler/tester, I'd sure appreciate hearing
of your findings.
I have seen some other interesting stuff posted on the 'net.
Here's an excellent example of marketing hype and stretching
facts to craft a persuasive ad:
http://www.ripvan100.com/products_sanyo2100mah.htm
They say each battery gets 50 test cycles before it
leaves the factory. I'd be interested in seeing the
test plan and equipment used to accomplish this. If
we're talking about "deep" cycles that expend the majority
of the battery's capacity . . . at what rate is the
discharge and recharge accomplished. My fast chargers
warm the batteries up substantially to get them recharged
in an hour. A meaningful capacity check has to be done
at the same rate as the battery is spec'd for . . . in
the case of the batteries I was talking about yesterday,
it's a 20 hour rate. Hmmmm . . . 21 hours per test cycle
per cell?
The ad cites 1500% more snort than an alkaline AA.
Hmmm . . . my tests have shown that a variety of cells
running from 37 cents each to $1.50 each all have the
same capacity to plus or minus 6 percent. Further,
their capacity is on the order of 2 watt-hours
per cell. A 2300 mah cell loaded with 5 ohms (200+ ma)
would not be expected to carry that load for more than
11 hours assuming that the 2300 mah rating was based
on a 10-hour rate. Given the discovery that these
cells live up to their advertisements at a 20 hour
rate, we can EXPECT the capacity at the 10 hour rate
to be LESS than advertised. 200 ma for 10 hours x
1.1 volts is 2.2 watt-hours . . . right in the ball-park
with alkaline cells.
The DIFFERENCE in performance comes from the fact that
NiMh cells have a lower internal impedance. So in
applications that load the cell much heavier than their
20 hour rate, we can expect a degradation of capacity
but the NiMh will suffer less degradation due to its
lower internal resistance . . . hence better performance
at the heavier loads. When I get the time, I'll run
a set of NiMh cells on the same load tester I used
for the AA alkaline cells . . . somehow I don't expect
a 15x improvement in contained energies.
Bob . . .
>c'ya,
>Michael
>
>-----
>mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: audio iso amp |
>
>
>I have seen Bob Nuckolls plans for an audio iso amp. I am wondering if that
>device will accomplish my goal of bringing all the audio warning devices
>together, amplifying those that need amplification?
>
>
>I had planned to use a Flighcom 403 intercom, which will take stereo music
>inputs and warning tones. However, the nav radio I plan to use (VAL INS)
>seems to need amplification for its audio output. I can accomplish
>everything but the amplification of the nav radio audio with the Flightcom
>403. I don't think that the Flightcom 403 intercom will amplify the nav
>radio.
>
>
>Would the audio iso amp be the appropriate device for that? It seems that
>the iso amp does more than I might need, so I might need to use only a bit
>of its capability, that is to run all my warning tones thru, then forward
>them to the aux input of the Flightcom 403 intercom.
Tony, chapter 18 on audio systems will be out in Revision 11 this
week. I'll post the chapter on the website for folks to update their
books. The new chapter speaks directly to this issue. I think you'll
find it helpful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
No P-mags, Eggenfellner Subaru conversion
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [SMTP:b.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
>
>Bob,
>
>When you talk about possibly adding a second rear mounted battery in the
>future, I assume that this second battery would connect to the same 2 AWG
>feeds right at the first battery. In other words, you would still only
>have one set of feeds going to the firewall? Is this correct?
Yes.
Do I recall correctly that you're considering p-mags?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Van Caulart" <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ...If I didn't know better... |
I know better! Paul Messinger does have a history of using false names
once he has marginalized himself from a list. I've witnessed his "Sam
Brown" personage on another list after vowing "never to participate
again." The late, Garfield Willis, moderator of AirSIG, a Subaru
conversion list, had "Pope Paul" (as Garfield called him) pegged thusly.
Paul's M.O. is a sequence.
1. You're wrong, I'm right.
2. You doubt my word, I'm offended.
3. I'm superior because of my credentials, capitulate now.
4. Hissy fit is thrown, followed by, "I'm taking my marbles and not
playing anymore."
5. Posts "press releases" to the list via a 3rd party.
6. Lurks under a pseudonym and lobs bombs until discovered.
7. Lurks in disgrace.
8. Looks for another sandbox to mess in.
9. Repeats the cycle.
George, Bob, this guy is so distracting, I just want to conserve
bandwidth. When we are informed about guys like this, then we can
recognize the problem, go around it and move on.
PeterVC
From: "Jim's Shaw Mail" <jcorner(at)shaw.ca> protection
...If I didn't know better I would say that Paul M had returned under an
assumed name. Wait a minute, I don't know better! :-)
Jim Corner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | nav/com and transponder antenna |
Hello Group
I noted that many of you have installed the Bob Archer nav/com and
transponder antenna in your aircraft. I wonder if any have chosen the
Advance Aircraft
Electronics units which are also available from Spruce. These units are a bit
more expensive than the Archer units. Worth it?
I would like to hear from you.
Thanks in advance for any information on antennas
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Freq Change Beeps |
In a message dated 4/22/2005 5:42:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
I want the flip-flop feedback tone. I'm trying not to be defensive about
why I want this feature, but I can't help it. I'm amazed at how much
resistance a simple idea has encountered on this list. So much for "here's
how it's done." Thanks to those who responded already on-topic.
Dan,
No need to be defensive. Fly formation however you like. As long as the
procedures are briefed and practiced, then there is nothing wrong with close
formation radio frequency changes - especially when you have flip-flop radios to
assist. Military aircraft typically had 20 preset channels that were
relatively easy to select while flying close formation. The presets were used
in
situations like yours where the frequencies anticipated for the flight are known
in
advance. Your flip-flop only provides two, but not all of your formation
flying requires close formation, so when you have the flight in spread or trail,
they can set up their radios for the next planned frequency change. That
would be part of my prebriefing.
I have to disagree with Ferg and John regarding frequency changes in close
formation. If it were me, I would made freq changes in spread formation
whenever possible, but when needed, I would make them in close formation - so long
as
my wingmen were prebriefed.
I like your ideas for having the flip-flop on the stick and your idea for the
freq change tone. I would want those myself.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nav/com and transponder antenna |
Brian,
I'm using their transponder antenna and so far ATC never complained, easy to
install, hidden in the fuselage of my Glastar.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/com and transponder antenna
>
> Hello Group
>
> I noted that many of you have installed the Bob Archer nav/com and
> transponder antenna in your aircraft. I wonder if any have chosen the
> Advance Aircraft
> Electronics units which are also available from Spruce. These units are a
bit
> more expensive than the Archer units. Worth it?
>
> I would like to hear from you.
>
> Thanks in advance for any information on antennas
>
> Brian Skelly
> Texas
> Europa # A276 TriGear
> See My build photos at:
> http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator Sizing |
I took the time to measure/calculate/estimate my alternator requirement
for my RV-9A. My hope was to be able to use a 35A externally regulated
alternator, and avoid the complications of B-Lead contactors, and avoid
the endless OVP debate.
I developed an Excel spreadsheet that anyone is welcome to download and
edit. My aircraft is for day/night VFR and VFR OTT (which requires
pitot heat).
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/photos/Electrical/Electrical_photos
Now, you can blindly total up all reasonable maximum loads and come up
with the need for a 60A alternator, but realistically, the alternator
only needs to operate at worst-case typical loads. For example, the
starter contactor load does not need to be included, and you won't
normally have pitot heat on at the same time your strobes or landing
lights are on. Also, flaps and boost pump are transient loads,
landing/taxi are wig-wagged at 50%, and so on.
It is possible to exceed the maximum output of a 35A alternator in
transient cases... but that's what the battery, ammeter and voltmeter
are for.
My estimates show a worst-case cruise load of 29A, which leaves about 6
A available for battery charging at cruise.
In worst-case landing configuration at night (max field current, 20%
over nominal plus landing and position lights on, fuel pump on,
continous COMM transmission), I get 33.8 A, just below the maximum rating.
So, my conclusion is that I can use a 35A alternator without an OVP
contactor.
Your mileage may vary, and this is an educated estimate. By the way,
modern avionics don't add a lot of idle power consumption-- but lights
sure do. I think it would be possible to build a full IFR aircraft with
modern avionics that would operate on a 35A alternator with good
decision making by the pilot on in-flight loads.
Vern Little
RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: nav/com and transponder antenna |
Thanks Werner!
What did you use for the com?
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
>
>More comments on the CBA-II are forthcoming. Giles, have you
>had a chance to play with your CBA-II yet?
>
>
>
Hi Bob,
Last time I went to the airfield we had the welcome barbecue and I
didn't even get a chance to get to the battery compartment ;-)
My intention is to take the batteries home next time a do a thorough
check. Hopefully within the next few days.
My goal is first to run the e-bus loads and measure the exact current
draw with my clamp-on ammeter. I'll then adjust the discharge current to
match and obtain realistic e-bus duration numbers.
Will keep you posted,
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
>
>No P-mags, Eggenfellner Subaru conversion
>
>Bevan
Oh . . . That's different. How full is your worry-bucket
with respect to multiple power sources for the engine
critical loads. Have you seen Figure Z-19? What reasons
do you have for not duplicating Eggenfellner's recommendations?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
Yes,
I'm basing my design on Z-19 (Thank you very much by the way for producing
so many drawings).
Eggenfellner's install guide was written for the smaller engine and it's a
step by step guide at that. I have not seen a detailed wiring diagram for
their system. The larger engine seems to require some self do
modifications. I don't have an engine yet so I don't have any
documentation that may come with it, but little is available online. For
example, the builder may need move the batteries aft for CG considerations
since I don't want to add dead ballast to the tail. The best idea yet
regarding this comes from Jim Skala who says to mount only one battery aft
and run only 12 AWG from it to the second buss. Engine critical loads have
dual feeds (Z-19). This way, only the main battery would be used for
starting (that's OK with me). I assume I would use a some kind of current
limiting device at the battery to protect the 12 AWG wire running forward.
Yes? I would prefer to have no fuse block behind the baggage bulkhead, I
would like to run the 12 AWG feed to the firewall area where the other
busses are.
What is your opinion on the solid state power contactors offered by
Perehelion in terms of reliabilty and suitability to the aircraft
environment?
Your thoughts are always appreciated.
Bevan
RV7A
all electric airplane
electrically dependent engine
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [SMTP:b.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
>
>No P-mags, Eggenfellner Subaru conversion
>
>Bevan
Oh . . . That's different. How full is your worry-bucket
with respect to multiple power sources for the engine
critical loads. Have you seen Figure Z-19? What reasons
do you have for not duplicating Eggenfellner's recommendations?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
Bob,
I forgot, the other reason I'm not duplicating Eggenfellners layout is
because they use the EXPbus in their architecture and I don't care for it.
Why? I just don't think it's necessary, it adds cost, it introduces more
things to fail AND if something does fail on the EXP, the whole thing comes
out. The EXPbus is a complex part as opposed to individual switches and
fuses which I can see, remove, test and order from multiple sources. Plus
I would end up remoting the toggle switches anyway so again adding
connections and parts count.
just my opinions, other's mileage may vary. I am not intimidated by lots
of wires.
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
I evaluated the EXP bus as well, and came to the conclusion that if you
want any one thing different, you should just make everyting
different.... I used B&C discrete toggle switches and backlit labels
from Superior Panel Technology.
I also use the P&B W28 series breakers that mount on 0.75" centers...
very slick.
Many people, however, are quite intimidated by electrical system design
in aircraft, so that's where the EXP bus comes in. Bob has done a lot
to make electrical design straightforward (I didn't say simple!), but
unless you have the aptitude, many will go with the canned solutions or
hire someone to do it.
Vern Little
B Tomm wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I forgot, the other reason I'm not duplicating Eggenfellners layout is
>because they use the EXPbus in their architecture and I don't care for it.
> Why? I just don't think it's necessary, it adds cost, it introduces more
>things to fail AND if something does fail on the EXP, the whole thing comes
>out. The EXPbus is a complex part as opposed to individual switches and
>fuses which I can see, remove, test and order from multiple sources. Plus
>I would end up remoting the toggle switches anyway so again adding
>connections and parts count.
>
>just my opinions, other's mileage may vary. I am not intimidated by lots
>of wires.
>
>Bevan
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: audio iso amp |
>
>Bob,
>
>please post a message to let us know that the rev. is out.
>Tx
Will do. At the same time, the What's New? feature on our
website will announce availability of off-the-net updates for
those who wish to revise their books. I'll be removing the
updates for revision 9 and adding updates for revision 11
to the Downloadable Reference Materials page as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
(Alternators with internal voltage regulator are very reliable and safe, have simple
installation and sophisticated state of the art protections, making them
an excellent choice.)
===========================================================
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO. I generally do
not try to >respond to people that use anything other than their real names
in these discussions. >Regards, George Braly
(George: My name is also George. OK, that's your policy; Ill live with it. I generally
don't give out my name. This is my policy, for security & privacy reasons.
I am not hiding, but if you want, e-mail me your phone number, I'll call
you; For the record, I respectfully disagree with your statement that ALL internally
regulated alternators have a single failure point. This is unproven and
with out merit. Regards George)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George Braly; A quick and easy trick is to goggle the email address. He stated
his >name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
(Wow, I feel popular, Goggle me? No personal info is attached to any e-mail address,
sorry. Just protecting my privacy. I am not in the witness protection program
or it there any nefarious reason. I guess you could track me down, but
I find that bizarre. Why do that? What would you do with that info? Now you-all
know why I dont add my last name, stalker Eric. Should I make up a fake name?
OK, You got me, its George W. Bushwacker, yes thats the ticket and my wife is
Morgan Fairchild. That is a joke son.)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is just so much
pickable >material in his posts regarding unanswered questions, I cant see
how we could have time >to pick on him personally.
(That just sounds malicious and sarcastic, I am sure you are really nice and smart,
as I am sure Paul is, but why would you say that. Paul has feelings like
we all do. Be nice to me, or I'll Goggle you! Oh NO! or I'll send "Jeeves" after
you. ]8
)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George; You make some very good points, all of which have been covered very
well.
(No Mr. George please, just George or G. is fine, we are all friends so a first
name (or letter) basis is good enough.Thanks)
(I appreciate that you think I made good points, but my goal is not to sway people
to buy any kind of equipment or two alternators, just trying to help people
who are confused about all the technical mystification.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators were pilot
error.
(No, I was not referring to any pilot error. The only pilot error was using a crow
bar in the first place, on a device that already had OV protection. Dont add
redundant OV protection to an alternator with internal logic/control chips.
I can't even imagine wanting something called a crow bar in my electrical system
in the first place, but that is just me. If you feel you must, just know at
best it will cost about $50-$80 and add another pound or two to the empty weight,
at worst may blow your alternator needlessly. As you know you should never
disconnect the b-lead from the battery while it is running, but you probably
already knew that.)
(BTW, the modular aspect of the internal VR in a ND alternator allows the module
replacement on the ramp, may be without completely removing the alternator.
I think they a spare would cost $30 bucks? They are small and you could have a
"fly-a-way kit" with a spare.)
(Whether external or internal, the VR should have internal OV protection integrated.
Why not, it is available. If you must use a VR with no OV protection, a
device like this is better:)
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm
(The LOVM solid-state device does not rely on an electro-mechanical device like
a CB. Nothing wrong with CB's, as a matter of fact my panel has 18 little Klixon
CB's lining the bottom. I love them! Yes I am a rebel using CB's instead of
fuseholders. Call me crazy. BTW, I find it odd that CB's are generally maligned
in favor of fuses, but on the other hand CBs are defended as superb devices
in the role of OV protection device. This is why people are confused. CB's are
also very sophisticated "MIL Spec" devices that work well; fuses are cheaper
but not superior. Yea I said it. CB's are great. [please don't open a can of
"Goggle" whoop ass on me] If safety is not involved it is only a matter of opinion
and preference.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out simply?
(Not sure what you are driving at, but an internal regulator with out separate
devices would be the most fool proof IMHO. Can designers eliminate all pilot to
system interface or management errors, may be someday. NASA and Boeing spend
a lot research in this area, but we a talking about an alternator on a Lycoming.
The best thing we can do is use a DPST switch to make sure the MASTER (BAT)
is never turned off with the alternator running. This is where Philosopher Sir
Murphy comes in, Sh%#@t Happens. Nothing is fool proof; fools are just too
smart. When we realize how smart we are, we accept our limitations and those of
our little sky-scooters. Relax.)
( I tell myself: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, less is more.)
(The biggest danger in flying is not over voltage or alternators, it is we, the
Pilot. You have a infinitely larger chance of doing something stupid in your
plane much worse than the alternator has going super NOVA. Don't go crazy with
systems, but understand, accept, manage and respect the limitations.)
(Instead of dual everything, in your all glass cockpit sky-scooter-3000, consider
a few analog back-ups and a discrete battery to run the "emergency" equipment
for 60-120 minutes. This is how Boeing does it. Yes a Boeing 777/767/757/747
can fly on battery power only. Keep in mind these planes have 3 to 5 Gens. You
could use a Dynon EFIS with the internal battery option and hand-held battery
powered GPS and nav/com's for example. Who cares if the alternator craps out.
Why add all the weight and expense or two alternators? If you are IFR and loose
1-of-2 alternators will you just keep going IMC?)
(As far alternator redundancy to keep from getting stuck on a personal trip, far
from home, in a little homebuilt, I say uhmmm? Even with two alternators, what
about the starter, exhaust, fuel pump and weather? Air transport category redundancy
for the sake of dispatch reliability on a single engine homebuilt plane
is dubious at best. A plane designed 75 years ago that got it right, almost
100% dispatch reliability, and does not use an alternator or starter, its called
a Piper Cub. Simple is better sometimes. Let's just say "if you positively,
absolutely must be there over-night" and can't ship yourself in an UPS/Fedex
envelope, take an airliner or drive. As far as Mr. George Braly story: I do
not want to have the local Million Air facility order up an overnight delivery
of an alternator for Saturday installation so I can fly home on Sunday afternoon.
I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about $2.7K in New Orleans Lakefront). No
offense, I lived in New Orleans and was a corporat
e pilot,
$2,700 give me a break. Are you flying a Cessna Citation? Ramp, alternator (auto
parts store) and 1 hour A&P, $280. If you have your own tools, $200. Go to
Thibadaux or Slidell next time.
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to its reliability
(Well, that is true, Bob N. cant guarantee anything or can I. It is his opinion,
based on his abridged experience and knowledge of the IR and comfort with what
he knows. Bob N. to my knowledge did not design any of these IC chips, or is
he privy to the details of the designs. If you are use to seeing the external
"field wire", you are comfortable with that. Trusting a micro chip is hard to
do, but the fact is they are very reliable and see no proof otherwise. I hope
so because I trust my life to them daily.)
(The problem is these topics get so entrenched in small technical points the good
stuff gets lost. Most of us just want useful info, cut down to the facts, good
practice and opinion. Sometimes I find opinion and personal preference masquerading
as fact or best practice. No disrespect to Bob N., I read everything
he writes for a reason, but I dont have to agree with him?)
(I respect anyones privilege to design as they see fit, but new builders tend to
over do it, which does have negative consequences. Just be safe and use common
sense. It does not have to be gold plated. How many times have you gone down
the road at night and seen all the lights on a nearby car go real bright and
blow out from their socket from over voltage? Never, thank you.)
(Not being an expert I try to understand the WHY behind everyones opinion, experts
and mortals alike, agree or disagree. I took the time to research it and have
enough technical background in aerospace analysis, design, training and pilot
operations to cut thru most of the hyperbolizing. In the end it is an opinion,
take it or leave it.
(There is no smoking gun (or alternator). I predict in the future you will see
more and more people use IR alternators. Of course B&C will have a hard time selling
their set up costing $640, when you can get one for $140. If you read their
site it has "dark and stormy night" comments that are emotional sales pitch.
Linear switching (mechanical went away 30 years), OV protection and Low-Volt
light are also old news, for $240. Nothing special except the eye watering
price. Look at what an internal regulator can do below, things the B&C unit can
only dream of.
(Typical internal VR specs, * denotes features not in most external regulators)
*Load Dump,
*Over Current,
*Over Temperature,
Overvoltage,
*Phase Loss,
*Short Circuit,
*High Remote Sense Resistance,
*High Side MOSFET Control of Field Winding
User Programmable LRC Rates From 1.8 Seconds to 7.4 Seconds
*PWM (pulse width modulation) Fixed Operating Frequency of 395 Hz
*Forced Load Response Control (LRC) at Low Eng RPM due to abrupt system load current
*LRC Response During Initial Start
*Internal Level Shifting of External System Voltages
*Internal Lamp Driver w/ Short Circuit, Current Limit, Thermal Limit and Load Dump
Protection
*Analog or digital duty cycle cont'l of ON/OFF ratio of alternator field current/fixed
freq
Load Response Control (LRC): cont'l alternator field current at low engine RPM,
eliminate engine speed hunting / vibration due to abrupt torque loading w/ sudden
electrical load applied.
===============================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
(Yes, I can. Take a deep breath, relax.)
(To answer your question, yes, I can recommend, in good conscience the IR alternator
with no external do-dads. Of course adequate back-up in case. The word
*adequate* means different things to a VFR plane and an IFR plane, but it does
not necessarily mean two alternators. The goal is to actually fly someday. Weight
is the enemy. It adds up. Do you REALLY need to add an extra anything? Your
choice will effect aircraft performance & utility, slower climb and less useful
load for example.)
(Eric, good luck on your choice. If you want real security, an absolute 100% guarantee
from OV, I cant give you any guarantee, and I really think you should
ask an expert like Bob N.)
(If he tells you the external VR and crow bar are 100% fail-safe, fail-passive,
pure perfection, than "there you have it". Do that. I would respectively disagree
with Bob N, but than I use circuit breakers instead of fuses. What do I know.)
(It is a very plausible scenario to have a dead "crow bar" which goes undetected
by the pilot. Hell the wire could come undone. Also in theory you could, at
the same time, have a failure of the external VR causing an OV condition. It could
happen! Bob N. says you should test the crow-bar annually. OK what about
the other 364 days a year? Also you have a device that needs maintenance. Why
is that good? Modern VRs have internal fault detection and will safely shut-down
or warn you with a light. )
(I hear the argument, it makes us feel warmest & fuzziest to add these extra do-dads.
Absolutely, make yourself happy, however too much of the warm fuzzy blanket
may suffocate you. I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, so I am just going
to throwing caution to the wind and rely on my alternator's internal protection
to get the job done without electrocuting my panel. Goggle away!)
Best Wishes, Happy flying, G (name with held for national security, G W.Bush)
Ye aviator, fly-ith with care, lest ye ground cometh up..... and smite thee mightily"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
(Alternators with internal voltage regulator are very reliable and safe, have simple
installation and sophisticated state of the art protections, making them
an excellent choice.)
===========================================================
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO. I generally do
not try to >respond to people that use anything other than their real names
in these discussions. >Regards, George Braly
(George: My name is also George. OK, that's your policy; Ill live with it. I generally
don't give out my name. This is my policy, for security & privacy reasons.
I am not hiding, but if you want, e-mail me your phone number, I'll call
you; For the record, I respectfully disagree with your statement that "ALL internally
regulated alternators have a single point failure....." This is unproven
and with out merit. Regards George)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George Braly; A quick and easy trick is to goggle the email address. He stated
his >name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
(Wow, I feel popular, Goggle me? No personal info is attached to any e-mail address,
sorry. I am not in the witness protection program or it there any nefarious
reason, just privacy. Track me down? I find that bizarre. Why do that? What
would you do with that info? Now you-all know why I dont add my last name,
stalkers. Should I make up a fake name? OK, You got me, its George W. Bushwacker,
yes thats the ticket and my wife is Morgan Fairchild. That is a joke son.)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is just so much
pickable >material in his posts regarding unanswered questions, I cant see
how we could have time >to pick on him personally.
(That just sounds malicious and sarcastic, I am sure you are really nice and smart,
as I am sure Paul is, but why would you say that. Paul has feelings like
we all do. Be nice to me, or I'll Goggle you! Oh NO! or I'll send "Jeeves" after
you. ]8
)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George; You make some very good points, all of which have been covered very
well.
(No Mr. George please, just George or G. is fine, we are all friends so a first
name (or letter) basis is good enough.Thanks)
(I appreciate that you think I made good points, but my goal is not to sway people
to buy any kind of equipment or two alternators, just trying to help people
who are confused about all the technical mystification.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators were pilot
error.
(No, I was not referring to any pilot error. The only pilot error was using a crow
bar in the first place, on a device that already had OV protection. Dont add
redundant OV protection to an alternator with internal logic/control chips.
I can't even imagine wanting something called a crow bar in my electrical system
in the first place, but that is just me. If you feel you must, just know at
best it will cost about $50-$80 and add another pound or two to the empty weight,
at worst may blow your alternator needlessly. As you know you should never
disconnect the b-lead from the battery while it is running, but you probably
already knew that.)
(BTW, the modular aspect of the internal VR in a ND alternator allows the module
replacement on the ramp, may be without completely removing the alternator.
I think they a spare would cost $30 bucks? They are small and you could have a
"fly-a-way kit" with a spare.)
(Whether external or internal, the VR should have internal OV protection integrated.
Why not, it is available. If you must use a VR with no OV protection, a
device like this is better:)
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm
(The LOVM solid-state device does not rely on an electro-mechanical device like
a CB. Nothing wrong with CB's, as a matter of fact my panel has 18 little Klixon
CB's lining the bottom. I love them! Yes I am a rebel using CB's instead of
fuseholders. Call me crazy. BTW, I find it odd that CB's are generally maligned
in favor of fuses, but on the other hand CBs are defended as superb devices
in the role of OV protection device. This is why people are confused. CB's are
also very sophisticated "MIL Spec" devices that work well; fuses are cheaper
but not superior. Yea I said it. CB's are great. [please don't open a can of
"Goggle" whoop ass on me] If safety is not involved its a matter of opinion and
preference.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out simply?
(Not sure what you are driving at, but an internal regulator with out separate
devices would be the most fool proof IMHO. Can designers eliminate all pilot to
system interface or management errors, may be someday. NASA and Boeing spend
a lot research in this area, but we a talking about an alternator on a Lycoming.
The best thing we can do is use a DPST switch to make sure the MASTER (BAT)
is never turned off with the alternator running. This is where Philosopher Sir
Murphy comes in, Sh%#@t Happens. Nothing is fool proof; fools are just too
smart. When we realize how smart we are, we accept our limitations and those of
our little sky-scooters. Relax.)
(The biggest danger in flying is not over voltage or alternators, it is we, the
Pilot. You have a infinitely larger chance of doing something stupid in your
plane much worse than the alternator has going super NOVA. Don't go crazy with
systems, but understand, accept, manage and respect the limitations.)
(Instead of dual everything, in your all glass cockpit sky-scooter-3000, consider
a few analog back-ups and a discrete battery to run the "emergency" equipment
for 60-120 minutes. This is how Boeing does it. Yes a Boeing 777/767/757/747
can fly on battery power only. Keep in mind these planes have 3 to 5 Gens. You
could use a Dynon EFIS with the internal battery option and hand-held battery
powered GPS and nav/com's for example. Who cares if the alternator craps out.
Why add all the weight and expense or two alternators? If you are IFR and loose
1-of-2 alternators will you just keep going IMC KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid,
less is more.)
(As far alternator redundancy to keep from getting stuck on a trip far from home,
in a little homebuilt, I say uhmmm? Even with two alternators, what about the
starter, exhaust, fuel pump and weather? Air transport category redundancy
for the sake of dispatch reliability on a single engine homebuilt plane is dubious
at best. A plane designed 75 years ago almost has 100% dispatch reliability,
and does not use an alternator or starter, its called a Piper Cub. Simple
is better sometimes. Let's just say if you absolutely must be there over-night
and can't ship yourself via UPS/Fedex envelope, take an airliner or drive. As
far as Mr. George Braly story: I do not want to have the local Million Air facility
order up an overnight delivery of an alternator for Saturday installation
so I can fly home on Sunday afternoon. I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about
$2.7K in New Orleans Lakefront)." No offense GB, I lived in New Orleans and
was a corporate pilot, $2,700 give me a break. Are
you
flying a Cessna Citation? My est to repair my RV on the ramp at KNEW, alternator
(auto parts store) and 1 hour A&P, $280. If you have your own tools, $200.
Go to Thibadaux or Slidell next time. Where you get $2,700?
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to its reliability
(Well, that is true, Bob N. cant guarantee anything or can I. It is his opinion,
based on his abridged experience and knowledge of the IR and comfort with what
he knows. Bob N. to my knowledge did not design any of these IC chips, or is
he privy to the details of the designs. If you are use to seeing the external
"field wire", you are comfortable with that. Trusting a micro chip is hard to
do, but the fact is they are very reliable and see no proof otherwise. I hope
so because I trust my life to them daily.)
(The problem is these topics get so entrenched in small technical points the good
stuff gets lost. Most of us just want useful info, cut down to the facts, good
practice and opinion. Sometimes I find opinion and personal preference masquerading
as fact or best practice. No disrespect to Bob N., I read everything
he writes for a reason, but I dont have to agree with him?)
(I respect anyones privilege to design as they see fit, but new builders tend to
over do it, which does have negative consequences. Just be safe and use common
sense. It does not have to be gold plated. How many times have you gone down
the road at night and seen all the lights on a nearby car go real bright and
blow out from their socket from over voltage? Never, thank you.)
(Not being an expert I try to understand the WHY behind everyones opinion, experts
and mortals alike, agree or disagree. I took the time to research it and have
enough technical background in aerospace analysis, design, training and pilot
operations to cut thru most of the hyperbolizing. In the end it is an opinion,
take it or leave it.
(There is no smoking gun (or alternator). I predict in the future you will see
more and more people use IR alternators. Of course B&C will have a hard time selling
their set up costing $640, when you can get one for $140. If you read their
site it has "dark and stormy night" comments that are emotional sales pitch.
They list linear switching (mechanical went away 30 years ago), OV protection
and Low-Volt light, also old news, for $240. Nothing special except the eye
watering price. Look at what an internal regulator can do below, things the
B&C unit can only dream of.
(Typical internal VR specs, * denotes features not in most external regulators)
*Load Dump,
*Over Current,
*Over Temperature,
Overvoltage,
*Phase Loss,
*Short Circuit,
*High Remote Sense Resistance,
*High Side MOSFET Control of Field Winding
User Programmable LRC Rates From 1.8 Seconds to 7.4 Seconds
*PWM (pulse width modulation) Fixed Operating Frequency of 395 Hz
*Forced Load Response Control (LRC) at Low Eng RPM due to abrupt system load current
*LRC Response During Initial Start
*Internal Level Shifting of External System Voltages
*Internal Lamp Driver w/ Short Circuit, Current Limit, Thermal Limit and Load Dump
Protection
*Analog or digital duty cycle cont'l of ON/OFF ratio of alternator field current/fixed
freq
Load Response Control (LRC): cont'l alternator field current at low engine RPM,
eliminate engine speed hunting / vibration due to abrupt torque loading w/ sudden
electrical load applied.
===============================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
(Yes, I can. Take a deep breath, relax.)
(To answer your question, yes, I can recommend, in good conscience the IR alternator
with no external do-dads. Of course have an adequate back-up in case. The
word *adequate* means different things to a VFR plane and an IFR plane, but
it does not necessarily mean two alternators. The goal is to actually fly someday.
Weight is the enemy. It adds up. Do you REALLY need to add an extra anything?
Your choice will effect aircraft performance & utility, slower climb and
less useful load for example.)
(Eric, good luck on your choice. If you want real security, an absolute 100% guarantee
from OV, I cant give you any guarantee, and I really think you should
ask an expert like Bob N. If he tells you the external VR and crow bar are 100%
fail-safe, fail-passive, pure perfection, than "there you have it". Do that.
I would respectively disagree with Bob N, but than I use circuit breakers instead
of fuses. What do I know.)
(It is a very plausible scenario to have a dead "crow bar" which goes undetected
by the pilot. Hell the wire could come undone. Also in theory you could, at
the same time, have a failure of the external VR causing an OV condition. It could
happen! Bob N. says you should test the crow-bar annually. OK what about
the other 364 days a year? Also you have a device that needs maintenance. Why
is that good? Modern VRs have internal fault detection and will safely shut-down
or warn you with a light. )
(I hear the argument, it makes us feel warmest & fuzziest to add these extra do-dads.
Absolutely, make yourself happy, however too much of the warm fuzzy blanket
may suffocate you. I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. So I am just going
to throwing caution to the wind and rely on my alternator's internal protection
to get the job done without electrocuting my panel. Goggle away!)
Best Wishes, Happy flying, G (name with held for national security, G W.Bush)
Ye aviator, fly-ith with care, lest ye ground cometh up..... and smite thee mightily"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III cells wrote:
cells
The curve is neat but the only thing we're interested in is that
> intersection with 11.0 volts. That can be a simple comparator and
> timer mechanism teamed with a set of resistors tailored to emulate
> your e-loads . . . I don't think it needs to be complicated to
> be very useful.
> Bob . . .
Since resistors won't maintain a constant current as the voltage falls
toward the desired end-point cutoff, how about using the higher current
rated versions of the LM 317 linear regulator wired in the constant
current configuration? I have done this for lower current requirements
using the 5 amp rated chip. Could several of these be wired in parallel
to obtain the desired total discharge current? I haven't had a need to
do this higher current load and so don't know they would perform in
parallel, but would guess that works. Anyone know for sure?
Jim McCulley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
"George"
For the record, prove that all internal regulators do NOT have single point failure
modes ?
The burden is properly on those who would use automotive products in an aircraft
environment to establish they are free of such single point failure points that
can cause unacceptable failure modes.
I can prove that the internal regulator I use doesn't have that problem.
But unless you reverse engineer the schematic for the automotive regulator, you
can not establish that necessary condition.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
(Alternators with internal voltage regulator are very reliable and safe, have simple
installation and sophisticated state of the art protections, making them
an excellent choice.)
===========================================================
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
>I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO. I generally do
not try to >respond to people that use anything other than their real names
in these discussions. >Regards, George Braly
(George: My name is also George. OK, that's your policy; Ill live with it. I generally
don't give out my name. This is my policy, for security & privacy reasons.
I am not hiding, but if you want, e-mail me your phone number, I'll call
you; For the record, I respectfully disagree with your statement that ALL internally
regulated alternators have a single failure point. This is unproven and
with out merit. Regards George)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George Braly; A quick and easy trick is to goggle the email address. He stated
his >name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
(Wow, I feel popular, Goggle me? No personal info is attached to any e-mail address,
sorry. Just protecting my privacy. I am not in the witness protection program
or it there any nefarious reason. I guess you could track me down, but
I find that bizarre. Why do that? What would you do with that info? Now you-all
know why I dont add my last name, stalker Eric. Should I make up a fake name?
OK, You got me, its George W. Bushwacker, yes thats the ticket and my wife is
Morgan Fairchild. That is a joke son.)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is just so much
pickable >material in his posts regarding unanswered questions, I cant see
how we could have time >to pick on him personally.
(That just sounds malicious and sarcastic, I am sure you are really nice and smart,
as I am sure Paul is, but why would you say that. Paul has feelings like
we all do. Be nice to me, or I'll Goggle you! Oh NO! or I'll send "Jeeves" after
you. ]8
)
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Mr. George; You make some very good points, all of which have been covered very
well.
(No Mr. George please, just George or G. is fine, we are all friends so a first
name (or letter) basis is good enough.Thanks)
(I appreciate that you think I made good points, but my goal is not to sway people
to buy any kind of equipment or two alternators, just trying to help people
who are confused about all the technical mystification.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators were pilot
error.
(No, I was not referring to any pilot error. The only pilot error was using a crow
bar in the first place, on a device that already had OV protection. Dont add
redundant OV protection to an alternator with internal logic/control chips.
I can't even imagine wanting something called a crow bar in my electrical system
in the first place, but that is just me. If you feel you must, just know at
best it will cost about $50-$80 and add another pound or two to the empty weight,
at worst may blow your alternator needlessly. As you know you should never
disconnect the b-lead from the battery while it is running, but you probably
already knew that.)
(BTW, the modular aspect of the internal VR in a ND alternator allows the module
replacement on the ramp, may be without completely removing the alternator.
I think they a spare would cost $30 bucks? They are small and you could have a
"fly-a-way kit" with a spare.)
(Whether external or internal, the VR should have internal OV protection integrated.
Why not, it is available. If you must use a VR with no OV protection, a
device like this is better:)
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm
(The LOVM solid-state device does not rely on an electro-mechanical device like
a CB. Nothing wrong with CB's, as a matter of fact my panel has 18 little Klixon
CB's lining the bottom. I love them! Yes I am a rebel using CB's instead of
fuseholders. Call me crazy. BTW, I find it odd that CB's are generally maligned
in favor of fuses, but on the other hand CBs are defended as superb devices
in the role of OV protection device. This is why people are confused. CB's are
also very sophisticated "MIL Spec" devices that work well; fuses are cheaper
but not superior. Yea I said it. CB's are great. [please don't open a can of
"Goggle" whoop ass on me] If safety is not involved it is only a matter of opinion
and preference.)
====================================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out simply?
(Not sure what you are driving at, but an internal regulator with out separate
devices would be the most fool proof IMHO. Can designers eliminate all pilot to
system interface or management errors, may be someday. NASA and Boeing spend
a lot research in this area, but we a talking about an alternator on a Lycoming.
The best thing we can do is use a DPST switch to make sure the MASTER (BAT)
is never turned off with the alternator running. This is where Philosopher Sir
Murphy comes in, Sh%#@t Happens. Nothing is fool proof; fools are just too
smart. When we realize how smart we are, we accept our limitations and those of
our little sky-scooters. Relax.)
( I tell myself: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, less is more.)
(The biggest danger in flying is not over voltage or alternators, it is we, the
Pilot. You have a infinitely larger chance of doing something stupid in your
plane much worse than the alternator has going super NOVA. Don't go crazy with
systems, but understand, accept, manage and respect the limitations.)
(Instead of dual everything, in your all glass cockpit sky-scooter-3000, consider
a few analog back-ups and a discrete battery to run the "emergency" equipment
for 60-120 minutes. This is how Boeing does it. Yes a Boeing 777/767/757/747
can fly on battery power only. Keep in mind these planes have 3 to 5 Gens. You
could use a Dynon EFIS with the internal battery option and hand-held battery
powered GPS and nav/com's for example. Who cares if the alternator craps out.
Why add all the weight and expense or two alternators? If you are IFR and loose
1-of-2 alternators will you just keep going IMC?)
(As far alternator redundancy to keep from getting stuck on a personal trip, far
from home, in a little homebuilt, I say uhmmm? Even with two alternators, what
about the starter, exhaust, fuel pump and weather? Air transport category redundancy
for the sake of dispatch reliability on a single engine homebuilt plane
is dubious at best. A plane designed 75 years ago that got it right, almost
100% dispatch reliability, and does not use an alternator or starter, its called
a Piper Cub. Simple is better sometimes. Let's just say "if you positively,
absolutely must be there over-night" and can't ship yourself in an UPS/Fedex
envelope, take an airliner or drive. As far as Mr. George Braly story: I do
not want to have the local Million Air facility order up an overnight delivery
of an alternator for Saturday installation so I can fly home on Sunday afternoon.
I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about $2.7K in New Orleans Lakefront). No
offense, I lived in New Orleans and was a corporat
e pilot,
$2,700 give me a break. Are you flying a Cessna Citation? Ramp, alternator (auto
parts store) and 1 hour A&P, $280. If you have your own tools, $200. Go to
Thibadaux or Slidell next time.
==========================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to its reliability
(Well, that is true, Bob N. cant guarantee anything or can I. It is his opinion,
based on his abridged experience and knowledge of the IR and comfort with what
he knows. Bob N. to my knowledge did not design any of these IC chips, or is
he privy to the details of the designs. If you are use to seeing the external
"field wire", you are comfortable with that. Trusting a micro chip is hard to
do, but the fact is they are very reliable and see no proof otherwise. I hope
so because I trust my life to them daily.)
(The problem is these topics get so entrenched in small technical points the good
stuff gets lost. Most of us just want useful info, cut down to the facts, good
practice and opinion. Sometimes I find opinion and personal preference masquerading
as fact or best practice. No disrespect to Bob N., I read everything
he writes for a reason, but I dont have to agree with him?)
(I respect anyones privilege to design as they see fit, but new builders tend to
over do it, which does have negative consequences. Just be safe and use common
sense. It does not have to be gold plated. How many times have you gone down
the road at night and seen all the lights on a nearby car go real bright and
blow out from their socket from over voltage? Never, thank you.)
(Not being an expert I try to understand the WHY behind everyones opinion, experts
and mortals alike, agree or disagree. I took the time to research it and have
enough technical background in aerospace analysis, design, training and pilot
operations to cut thru most of the hyperbolizing. In the end it is an opinion,
take it or leave it.
(There is no smoking gun (or alternator). I predict in the future you will see
more and more people use IR alternators. Of course B&C will have a hard time selling
their set up costing $640, when you can get one for $140. If you read their
site it has "dark and stormy night" comments that are emotional sales pitch.
Linear switching (mechanical went away 30 years), OV protection and Low-Volt
light are also old news, for $240. Nothing special except the eye watering
price. Look at what an internal regulator can do below, things the B&C unit can
only dream of.
(Typical internal VR specs, * denotes features not in most external regulators)
*Load Dump,
*Over Current,
*Over Temperature,
Overvoltage,
*Phase Loss,
*Short Circuit,
*High Remote Sense Resistance,
*High Side MOSFET Control of Field Winding
User Programmable LRC Rates From 1.8 Seconds to 7.4 Seconds
*PWM (pulse width modulation) Fixed Operating Frequency of 395 Hz
*Forced Load Response Control (LRC) at Low Eng RPM due to abrupt system load current
*LRC Response During Initial Start
*Internal Level Shifting of External System Voltages
*Internal Lamp Driver w/ Short Circuit, Current Limit, Thermal Limit and Load Dump
Protection
*Analog or digital duty cycle cont'l of ON/OFF ratio of alternator field current/fixed
freq
Load Response Control (LRC): cont'l alternator field current at low engine RPM,
eliminate engine speed hunting / vibration due to abrupt torque loading w/ sudden
electrical load applied.
===============================================================
>Eric Ruttan
>Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
(Yes, I can. Take a deep breath, relax.)
(To answer your question, yes, I can recommend, in good conscience the IR alternator
with no external do-dads. Of course adequate back-up in case. The word
*adequate* means different things to a VFR plane and an IFR plane, but it does
not necessarily mean two alternators. The goal is to actually fly someday. Weight
is the enemy. It adds up. Do you REALLY need to add an extra anything? Your
choice will effect aircraft performance & utility, slower climb and less useful
load for example.)
(Eric, good luck on your choice. If you want real security, an absolute 100% guarantee
from OV, I cant give you any guarantee, and I really think you should
ask an expert like Bob N.)
(If he tells you the external VR and crow bar are 100% fail-safe, fail-passive,
pure perfection, than "there you have it". Do that. I would respectively disagree
with Bob N, but than I use circuit breakers instead of fuses. What do I know.)
(It is a very plausible scenario to have a dead "crow bar" which goes undetected
by the pilot. Hell the wire could come undone. Also in theory you could, at
the same time, have a failure of the external VR causing an OV condition. It could
happen! Bob N. says you should test the crow-bar annually. OK what about
the other 364 days a year? Also you have a device that needs maintenance. Why
is that good? Modern VRs have internal fault detection and will safely shut-down
or warn you with a light. )
(I hear the argument, it makes us feel warmest & fuzziest to add these extra do-dads.
Absolutely, make yourself happy, however too much of the warm fuzzy blanket
may suffocate you. I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, so I am just going
to throwing caution to the wind and rely on my alternator's internal protection
to get the job done without electrocuting my panel. Goggle away!)
Best Wishes, Happy flying, G (name with held for national security, G W.Bush)
Ye aviator, fly-ith with care, lest ye ground cometh up..... and smite thee mightily"
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Bob,
I'm another that has followed this thread and changed my mind at least a
dozen times on what alternator setup I will go with in my RV. With respect
to George's position below that the newer IR alternators have the OVP built
into IC's within the alternator, I did some internet searching and found
some evidence to support this, but I'm not an electrical engineer
type....the documents at the links below have ckt diagrams and descriptions
that look to me like these IC chips intended for use in internally regulated
alternators (ON Semiconductor's CS3361 and CS3341/3351/387 ICs) contain both
load dump and OV protection built in.
Can you take a look at the specs/diagrams/descriptions and tell us why or
why not an internally regulated alternator using such a chip would or would
not have what you consider adequate OVP?
Is it your position that chips such as these can fail at a single point,
with the result being a runaway voltage condition? If this is the case,
then what is the difference between that and the possibility that your OVP
module could fail at a single point, preventing the crowbar trip and thereby
allowing the runaway voltage condition to continue - or is there a reason
this might be "less likely" to happen than the IC failing? Why?
I don't claim to know the answers to these questions....just trying to look
at this objectively and make a decision I will be comfortable with.
links to IR IC specs:
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/CS3361-D.PDF
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/CS3341-D.PDF
Thanks for your help,
Chris Hand
RV-6A ready for electric & engine
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
>
>
> (Alternators with internal voltage regulator are very reliable and safe,
have simple installation and sophisticated state of the art protections,
making them an excellent choice.)
>
> ===========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)RILEY.NET> protection - UNSUBSCRIBE |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection - UNSUBSCRIBE
- UNSUBSCRIBE
OK, until all the phantoms, jerks, sock puppets and trolls run out of
steam, I'm unsubscribing. I'll check back in a month.
At 08:10 PM 4/25/05, you wrote:
>
>
>(Alternators with internal voltage regulator are very reliable and safe,
>have simple installation and sophisticated state of the art protections,
>making them an excellent choice.)
>
>===========================================================
>
> >From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
> >I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO. I
> generally do not try to >respond to people that use anything other
> than their real names in these discussions. >Regards, George Braly
>
>
>(George: My name is also George. OK, that's your policy; Ill live with it.
>I generally don't give out my name. This is my policy, for security &
>privacy reasons. I am not hiding, but if you want, e-mail me your phone
>number, I'll call you; For the record, I respectfully disagree with your
>statement that ALL internally regulated alternators have a single failure
>point. This is unproven and with out merit. Regards George)
>
>==========================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >Mr. George Braly; A quick and easy trick is to goggle the email address.
> He stated his >name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
>
>
>(Wow, I feel popular, Goggle me? No personal info is attached to any
>e-mail address, sorry. Just protecting my privacy. I am not in the witness
>protection program or it there any nefarious reason. I guess you could
>track me down, but I find that bizarre. Why do that? What would you do
>with that info? Now you-all know why I dont add my last name, stalker
>Eric. Should I make up a fake name? OK, You got me, its George W.
>Bushwacker, yes thats the ticket and my wife is Morgan Fairchild. That is
>a joke son.)
>
>==========================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is
> just so much pickable >material in his posts regarding unanswered
> questions, I cant see how we could have time >to pick on him personally.
>
>
>(That just sounds malicious and sarcastic, I am sure you are really nice
>and smart, as I am sure Paul is, but why would you say that. Paul has
>feelings like we all do. Be nice to me, or I'll Goggle you! Oh NO! or I'll
>send "Jeeves" after you. ]8
>)
>
>==========================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >Mr. George; You make some very good points, all of which have been
> covered very well.
>
>
>(No Mr. George please, just George or G. is fine, we are all friends so a
>first name (or letter) basis is good enough.Thanks)
>
>
>(I appreciate that you think I made good points, but my goal is not to
>sway people to buy any kind of equipment or two alternators, just trying
>to help people who are confused about all the technical mystification.)
>
>====================================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators
> were pilot error.
>
>
>(No, I was not referring to any pilot error. The only pilot error was
>using a crow bar in the first place, on a device that already had OV
>protection. Dont add redundant OV protection to an alternator with
>internal logic/control chips. I can't even imagine wanting something
>called a crow bar in my electrical system in the first place, but that is
>just me. If you feel you must, just know at best it will cost about
>$50-$80 and add another pound or two to the empty weight, at worst may
>blow your alternator needlessly. As you know you should never disconnect
>the b-lead from the battery while it is running, but you probably already
>knew that.)
>
>
>(BTW, the modular aspect of the internal VR in a ND alternator allows the
>module replacement on the ramp, may be without completely removing the
>alternator. I think they a spare would cost $30 bucks? They are small and
>you could have a "fly-a-way kit" with a spare.)
>
>
>(Whether external or internal, the VR should have internal OV protection
>integrated. Why not, it is available. If you must use a VR with no OV
>protection, a device like this is better:)
>
>http://www.periheliondesign.com/LOVM.htm
>
>
>(The LOVM solid-state device does not rely on an electro-mechanical device
>like a CB. Nothing wrong with CB's, as a matter of fact my panel has 18
>little Klixon CB's lining the bottom. I love them! Yes I am a rebel using
>CB's instead of fuseholders. Call me crazy. BTW, I find it odd that CB's
>are generally maligned in favor of fuses, but on the other hand CBs are
>defended as superb devices in the role of OV protection device. This is
>why people are confused. CB's are also very sophisticated "MIL Spec"
>devices that work well; fuses are cheaper but not superior. Yea I said it.
>CB's are great. [please don't open a can of "Goggle" whoop ass on me] If
>safety is not involved it is only a matter of opinion and preference.)
>
>====================================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out simply?
>
>
>(Not sure what you are driving at, but an internal regulator with out
>separate devices would be the most fool proof IMHO. Can designers
>eliminate all pilot to system interface or management errors, may be
>someday. NASA and Boeing spend a lot research in this area, but we a
>talking about an alternator on a Lycoming. The best thing we can do is use
>a DPST switch to make sure the MASTER (BAT) is never turned off with the
>alternator running. This is where Philosopher Sir Murphy comes in, Sh%#@t
>Happens. Nothing is fool proof; fools are just too smart. When we realize
>how smart we are, we accept our limitations and those of our little
>sky-scooters. Relax.)
>
>
>( I tell myself: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, less is more.)
>
>
>(The biggest danger in flying is not over voltage or alternators, it is
>we, the Pilot. You have a infinitely larger chance of doing something
>stupid in your plane much worse than the alternator has going super NOVA.
>Don't go crazy with systems, but understand, accept, manage and respect
>the limitations.)
>
>
>(Instead of dual everything, in your all glass cockpit sky-scooter-3000,
>consider a few analog back-ups and a discrete battery to run the
>"emergency" equipment for 60-120 minutes. This is how Boeing does it. Yes
>a Boeing 777/767/757/747 can fly on battery power only. Keep in mind these
>planes have 3 to 5 Gens. You could use a Dynon EFIS with the internal
>battery option and hand-held battery powered GPS and nav/com's for
>example. Who cares if the alternator craps out. Why add all the weight and
>expense or two alternators? If you are IFR and loose 1-of-2 alternators
>will you just keep going IMC?)
>
>
>(As far alternator redundancy to keep from getting stuck on a personal
>trip, far from home, in a little homebuilt, I say uhmmm? Even with two
>alternators, what about the starter, exhaust, fuel pump and weather? Air
>transport category redundancy for the sake of dispatch reliability on a
>single engine homebuilt plane is dubious at best. A plane designed 75
>years ago that got it right, almost 100% dispatch reliability, and does
>not use an alternator or starter, its called a Piper Cub. Simple is better
>sometimes. Let's just say "if you positively, absolutely must be there
>over-night" and can't ship yourself in an UPS/Fedex envelope, take an
>airliner or drive. As far as Mr. George Braly story: I do not want to have
>the local Million Air facility order up an overnight delivery of an
>alternator for Saturday installation so I can fly home on Sunday
>afternoon. I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about $2.7K in New Orleans
>Lakefront). No offense, I lived in New Orleans and was a corporat
> e pilot,
> $2,700 give me a break. Are you flying a Cessna Citation? Ramp,
> alternator (auto parts store) and 1 hour A&P, $280. If you have your own
> tools, $200. Go to Thibadaux or Slidell next time.
>
>
>==========================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to
> its reliability
>
>
>(Well, that is true, Bob N. cant guarantee anything or can I. It is his
>opinion, based on his abridged experience and knowledge of the IR and
>comfort with what he knows. Bob N. to my knowledge did not design any of
>these IC chips, or is he privy to the details of the designs. If you are
>use to seeing the external "field wire", you are comfortable with that.
>Trusting a micro chip is hard to do, but the fact is they are very
>reliable and see no proof otherwise. I hope so because I trust my life to
>them daily.)
>
>
>(The problem is these topics get so entrenched in small technical points
>the good stuff gets lost. Most of us just want useful info, cut down to
>the facts, good practice and opinion. Sometimes I find opinion and
>personal preference masquerading as fact or best practice. No disrespect
>to Bob N., I read everything he writes for a reason, but I dont have to
>agree with him?)
>
>
>(I respect anyones privilege to design as they see fit, but new builders
>tend to over do it, which does have negative consequences. Just be safe
>and use common sense. It does not have to be gold plated. How many times
>have you gone down the road at night and seen all the lights on a nearby
>car go real bright and blow out from their socket from over voltage?
>Never, thank you.)
>
>
>(Not being an expert I try to understand the WHY behind everyones opinion,
>experts and mortals alike, agree or disagree. I took the time to research
>it and have enough technical background in aerospace analysis, design,
>training and pilot operations to cut thru most of the hyperbolizing. In
>the end it is an opinion, take it or leave it.
>
>
>(There is no smoking gun (or alternator). I predict in the future you will
>see more and more people use IR alternators. Of course B&C will have a
>hard time selling their set up costing $640, when you can get one for
>$140. If you read their site it has "dark and stormy night" comments that
>are emotional sales pitch. Linear switching (mechanical went away 30
>years), OV protection and Low-Volt light are also old news, for $240.
>Nothing special except the eye watering price. Look at what an internal
>regulator can do below, things the B&C unit can only dream of.
>
>
>(Typical internal VR specs, * denotes features not in most external
>regulators)
>
>
>*Load Dump,
>*Over Current,
>*Over Temperature,
>Overvoltage,
>*Phase Loss,
>*Short Circuit,
>*High Remote Sense Resistance,
>*High Side MOSFET Control of Field Winding
>User Programmable LRC Rates From 1.8 Seconds to 7.4 Seconds
>*PWM (pulse width modulation) Fixed Operating Frequency of 395 Hz
>*Forced Load Response Control (LRC) at Low Eng RPM due to abrupt system
>load current
>*LRC Response During Initial Start
>*Internal Level Shifting of External System Voltages
>*Internal Lamp Driver w/ Short Circuit, Current Limit, Thermal Limit and
>Load Dump Protection
>
>*Analog or digital duty cycle cont'l of ON/OFF ratio of alternator field
>current/fixed freq
>
>
>Load Response Control (LRC): cont'l alternator field current at low engine
>RPM, eliminate engine speed hunting / vibration due to abrupt torque
>loading w/ sudden electrical load applied.
>
>===============================================================
>
>
> >Eric Ruttan
> >Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
>
>
>(Yes, I can. Take a deep breath, relax.)
>
>
>(To answer your question, yes, I can recommend, in good conscience the IR
>alternator with no external do-dads. Of course adequate back-up in case.
>The word *adequate* means different things to a VFR plane and an IFR
>plane, but it does not necessarily mean two alternators. The goal is to
>actually fly someday. Weight is the enemy. It adds up. Do you REALLY need
>to add an extra anything? Your choice will effect aircraft performance &
>utility, slower climb and less useful load for example.)
>
>
>(Eric, good luck on your choice. If you want real security, an absolute
>100% guarantee from OV, I cant give you any guarantee, and I really think
>you should ask an expert like Bob N.)
>
>
>(If he tells you the external VR and crow bar are 100% fail-safe,
>fail-passive, pure perfection, than "there you have it". Do that. I would
>respectively disagree with Bob N, but than I use circuit breakers instead
>of fuses. What do I know.)
>
>
>(It is a very plausible scenario to have a dead "crow bar" which goes
>undetected by the pilot. Hell the wire could come undone. Also in theory
>you could, at the same time, have a failure of the external VR causing an
>OV condition. It could happen! Bob N. says you should test the crow-bar
>annually. OK what about the other 364 days a year? Also you have a device
>that needs maintenance. Why is that good? Modern VRs have internal fault
>detection and will safely shut-down or warn you with a light. )
>
>
>(I hear the argument, it makes us feel warmest & fuzziest to add these
>extra do-dads. Absolutely, make yourself happy, however too much of the
>warm fuzzy blanket may suffocate you. I stayed at a Holiday Inn last
>night, so I am just going to throwing caution to the wind and rely on my
>alternator's internal protection to get the job done without electrocuting
>my panel. Goggle away!)
>
>
>Best Wishes, Happy flying, G (name with held for national security, G W.Bush)
>
>
>Ye aviator, fly-ith with care, lest ye ground cometh up..... and smite
>thee mightily"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nav/com and transponder antenna |
In the Glastar we have a foil antenna already laminated into the vertical
fin, that's what I'm using, however in certain situation receiving is
difficult (long distance away and pointing in direction of the station).
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: nav/com and transponder antenna
>
> Thanks Werner!
> What did you use for the com?
>
> Brian Skelly
> Texas
> Europa # A276 TriGear
> See My build photos at:
> http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Hi Chris
If the field driver shorts (part MTB20N20E in your first reference or
part 2N6284 in your second reference) then there is no way that I can
see for the referenced devices to stop an over voltage. How likely is
that - I don't know but I have replaced a few similar 'transistors' that
were indeed shorted in other equipment over the years.
If a separate external OVP device fails to work when it should then we
have two separate devices failing simultaneously which is pretty rare.
We can't test the functionality of an OVP internal to an alternator but
we can test the separate OVP device if we so desire.
From another post - yes I have seen a few vehicles with extremely
bright lights that I believed had a runaway alternator and were not
going to get very far. That would be a few years ago when headlights
were all standard incandescent devices and an extremely bright and white
unit was obvious. The lights won't necessarily blow until after the
battery gives up and electronic devices sometimes die and kill the
engine first.
FWIW my feeling is that yes external ov protection is a good thing on an
IR alternator but not essential for most of us. I suspect that it will
indeed decrease overall system reliability and I doubt very much whether
that is going to be quantified on this forum. However I also believe it
reduces risk to my brand new icomm A-200 transceiver that still warns
that over 16 volts will kill it and that it must be turned off during
engine starting... (%$#%) I did add the transorbs to the alternator
side of the my ov contactor to increase the likelihood of the contactor
working as desired. And I'm still happy with my decision to not route
the alternator B-lead through a battery master.
Ken
Chris & Kellie Hand wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I'm another that has followed this thread and changed my mind at least a
>dozen times on what alternator setup I will go with in my RV. With respect
>to George's position below that the newer IR alternators have the OVP built
>into IC's within the alternator, I did some internet searching and found
>some evidence to support this, but I'm not an electrical engineer
>type....the documents at the links below have ckt diagrams and descriptions
>that look to me like these IC chips intended for use in internally regulated
>alternators (ON Semiconductor's CS3361 and CS3341/3351/387 ICs) contain both
>load dump and OV protection built in.
>
>Can you take a look at the specs/diagrams/descriptions and tell us why or
>why not an internally regulated alternator using such a chip would or would
>not have what you consider adequate OVP?
>Is it your position that chips such as these can fail at a single point,
>with the result being a runaway voltage condition? If this is the case,
>then what is the difference between that and the possibility that your OVP
>module could fail at a single point, preventing the crowbar trip and thereby
>allowing the runaway voltage condition to continue - or is there a reason
>this might be "less likely" to happen than the IC failing? Why?
>
>I don't claim to know the answers to these questions....just trying to look
>at this objectively and make a decision I will be comfortable with.
>
>links to IR IC specs:
>
>http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/CS3361-D.PDF
>
>http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/CS3341-D.PDF
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Chris Hand
>RV-6A ready for electric & engine
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Hughes <richardhughes260(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Terra 960 Nav Com & Fly Buddy Loran for sale |
Hello folks,
I have these items on sale at e-bay.
If you are interested please see the links.
-Rich
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4545650820&ssPageName=ADME:B:LC:MT:1
tp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4545646962&ssPageName=ADME:B:LC:MT:1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Neal E Capt AU/XPRR <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil> |
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Bob -
I have made several purchases from www.all-battery.com
<http://www.all-battery.com/> and have been very happy with their products
and service. When the original NiCd packs that came with my drills gave up,
I rebuilt them using NiMH cells from All-Battery (same folks you mention
below, but thru the storefront, rather than ebay). I gave up a little
torque, but gained run-time and shelf-life per charge. Since I don't use
the cordless drill all day every day, but sporadically for the occasional
hole or screw here and there, it works much better. Highly recommended.
73... n8zg (neal)
RV-7 N8ZG (*still* waiting for my fuselage)
The cells I'm working with right now came off ebay from these folks:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48620&item=5769405150
&rd=1
Bob . . .
Bob -
I have made several purchases from www.all-battery.com and have been very
happy with their products and service. When the original NiCd packs that
came with my drills gave up, I rebuilt them using NiMH cells from All-Battery
(same folks you mention below, but thru the storefront, rather than ebay). I
gave up a little torque, but gained run-time and shelf-life per charge. Since
I don't use the cordless drill all day every day, but sporadically for
the occasional hole or screw here and there, it works much better. Highly
recommended.
73... n8zg (neal)
RV-7 N8ZG (*still* waiting for my fuselage)
The cells I'm working with right now
came off ebay from these folks:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory48620item5769405150rd1
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Speaking of alternators...I almost returned my Toyota Camry ND rebuilt
alternator to Autozone based on the fact that indeed it was rebuilt....I
was going to replace it with a Van's unit...When I realised that their
alternators are rebuilt as well but cost a bit more money...In fact
looking at the Vans 60A unit it looks suspiciously like my Camry
alternator, 'cept it comes standard with a v belt pulley whereas I had
to find one for the Camry unit.
So now its separate OVP or not to separate OVP??That is the question.
Seeing as I will probably have a minimal IFR stack (certainly not
minimal money!) I'm thinking the OVP module might be the way to go,
especially as I will have at least 40 hours of Day VFR to root out
infant mortality on the OVP and everything ele for that matter.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
In a message dated 4/25/2005 2:58:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
I learned everything I need to know about Mr. Messinger when he acted on
his need to share all his wonderful industry awards. Those to whom
awards mean the most learn humility in their acceptance. Those who
deserve awards the most rarely need to display them to earn other's
respect.
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Malarky!
There's nothing wrong with Paul (Mr. Messinger) defining his expertise by
mentioning awards or honors received. On the internet, it is helpful for one to
explain his background and experience so that we have tools with which to
judge his remarks.
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A FG N7477P
www.rv-8a.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
Subject: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
>From: "George Braly" gwbraly(at)gami.com
>For the record, prove that all internal regulators do NOT
>have single point failure modes? The burden is properly
>on those who would use automotive products in an
>aircraftenvironment to establish they are free of such
>single point failure points that can cause unacceptable
>failure modes. I can prove that the internal regulator I
>use doesn't have that problem. But unless you reverse
>engineer the schematic for the automotive regulator, you
>can not establish that necessary condition.
Thanks for replying. OK, it sounds like we agree.
First I thought you were said "ALL internal regulators have a single point failure
mode", but from your statement, I can prove that the internal regulator I
use doesn't have that problem, we agree. So, there are some very good alternators
using internal VR.
It is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, but there is another way
to look at it.
I could turn it around for those people using an external regulator. Prove that
your OV protection will never fail. You cant.
I agree unless you know the design (make/made/version) you dont know. Unfortunately
it is not easy to get detailed info and practically speaking most of use
would not know what to do with it. Fortunately many have done the work for us
and is where this fine group comes in. What IR Alternator are you using George
B? I have read the spec of my little ND alternators IR, and it was partially
in Japanese (read below).
First to SUMMARIZE my points regarding this internal regulator/ OV issue:
-The level or worry is not equal to the risk for most modern alternators /w I-VR
-Lowest risk alternators use the latest IC chip technology, and have a proven track
record in homebuilt aircraft (typically ND but Mitsubishi and other brands
have be used successfully.)
-Any alternator, voltage regulator, crowbar or OV module can fail
-Popular opinion that external regulators are superior is from old info, was all
you could get before micro-electronics and I-VR set voltage was not compatible
with popular gel-cel batteries used in homebuilt planes 10 years ago. None
of this is relevant now.
-Alternators with IR have been around in mass since 1972; alternators have gotten
smaller and more powerful; 1982 marked a leap in better designs and have steadily
improved and have achieved a reputation for reliability.
-I dont buy the aircraft environment will make them fall apart if they can run
16 hours a day on a shaking tractor or forklift engine, and they are proven in
aircraft.
-Horror stories are just that, stories with facts few and far between. I am not
saying it has never happened, but the one or two stories I heard were sketchy
at best.
-WORDS: "internal voltage regulators have no place on airplanes" or "you are crazy
to use an internal voltage regulator on your plane" are just that WORDS.
Let's have some facts. FACT: I-VR's work very well, and cars have gone to them
exclusively because they have the technology and can control and protect the
alternator (and the electrical system it is connect to) better.
-Expect smaller, lighter more powerful alternators in the future, using more dense
windings developed recently. These alternators will likely all use internal
regulators.
-External regulators are old school and were done that why before electronics,
because they used a mechanical relay, so they needed to be remote mounted; all
alternator regulators were mechanical in 1962. Today external regulators are
almost gone, but they do have a place in heavy-duty marine/industrial equipment
for really large (200-800amp) alternators. These alternators are large (heavy)
and not much room for a voltage regulator, and the external regulators they
use often have a digital microprocessor to control charging of several batteries
for example. Much more advance than an analog regulator but not for small
planes alternators.
HISTORY
Looking at the history of Denso alternators: Early IR alternators (circa 1974-first
to use a IC). They have improved, like airbags and proven to be very reliable.
Later generation IR alternators, around 82 used new materials, windings,
faster rotation (smaller pulley) and dual internal fans to reduce size/weight
while increasing output (better cooling); the latest generation to come around
in the last few years use new technology that makes them even smaller and more
powerful. Again I may not be able to prove a negative, but.
**I can point to the seriously awesome track record and technical design**
We trust the engineers who designed the airbag (with very sophisticated sensors,
computers and mechanical systems); we can trust the engineers to manufacture
modern alternator to provide a reliable safe product. I see no reason for all
the pessimism and miss trust? Yes some early one-wire alternators (any brand?)
were begging to melt down, but those days are long gone. In 1962 an external
VR alternator had a weight/output ratio of 22.9-lbs/KW. Now we have 5.95-lbs/KW
alternators. (My little ND 45amp is around 8-10lbs/KW which is very good.)
Auto manufactures build and warrantee cars with very expensive computers cannot
afford to have an alternator melt down the electronics (DVD, CD, airbag computer,
GPS, sat-radio, computers to control the engine/transmission/traction).
At some point it becomes religion, you have to trust something that you dont have
absolute proof of. For the record, I do go to the church of compact alternators
w/ internal VR and prefer the Nippondenso alternator. Automotive electrical
supply houses sometimes sell them as racing alternators and are used by the
hotrod/race guys.
CHECKING SPECS OF MY ALTERNATOR
Niagara Air parts also provides an alternator kit with: mounts, hardware and connector
for about $225. I am not recommending it, just giving some info. I do
have their kit for my new RV-7 project, and I am happy with the quality but have
not used it yet. It is a new (not rebuilt) ND 40 amp model with an IR-VR incorporating
OV protection. As far as single point failure mode I can tell you
about the research for my alternator: (FACTS)
-This and similar model ND alternators have been flown in 100s of experimental
aircraft with no problems not to mention thousands of industrial applications.
Application for mu alternator is an Ishikawajima or Toyoda forklift. Some builders
use a similar 1987 Suzuki Samurai alternator, a small frame 55amp ND alternator,
which some find suitable. I recommend buying a new unit, not rebuilt,
no matter what brand alternator you use. I prefer actual Denso produced alternators
and not second tier OEM if possible.
-VR: 14.5V (**perfect for SLA batteries), OV protected (17v set point), Rotor Short
protected, Field soft start, PWM (pulse width modulation, which is for very
smooth linear regulation control of voltage), LRC (handles large increase in
current demand at low RPM), operating temp range 40C to 135C (-104F to +275F),
Low and Over volt warning light. The VR is a small sealed module w/ with cooling
fins, IC chip, two transistors, capacitor, diode and fuse device. I have
no doubt the aircraft environment will not be a problem. If you are worried about
+275F, I would put a little blast tube on, I did and may add a heat shield.
Vibration for a sealed module, encased and solidly potted (electronic grade,
flexible epoxy) should not be a problem.
(**The reason for the popularity of external regulators in experimental aircraft
years ago was because the gel-cel batteries used back then did not like the
standard voltage setting of internal regulators. Therefore adjustable external
regulators were popular. Now with Odyssey type sealed lead acid batteries, which
need 14.2v (min!) to 15v, the typical 14.5v internal regulator is perfect.
No need to have adjustable regulators if the I-VR is set to the typical 14.5volts
+/-)
Niagara kit I bought included a ND alternator that is specifically for industrial
equipment (eg forklift). No way to really verify how many of this specific
model ND are flying or how many hours they have in service, except for the one
with 8 years of airplane service with no problem. Many are flying in experimental
planes for at least 8-10 years. I am sure some have racked up more time than
that. I personally used a small ND on a RV-4 for 6 years (800 hours) with
no problem, until I sold the plane, at which time it was still working well.
OTHER ALTERNATORS
Vans sells a larger frame 60 amp Denso alternator. I am sure it is of the same
high Denso quality as the smaller frame model. Going with a unit many other builders
use has an advantage. With more in the field, more experience will be gained
and any weakness will be discovered quicker, if people report the problem.
They dont call it experimental for nothing. Call Van and ask how many hours
they have on them and what they know. I guess they will say they have been 100%,
**except** for the ones that got toasted (true story) when the builder used
an external OV protection, eg crow-bar / b-lead disconnect.
YOU CALL THE SHOTS
With airbags, I trust the engineers have done their job, and the same goes for
alternators; I trust they made a device that will protect my electronics and me
from all conceivable (anticipated) failures, or it will fail in a benign way.
You can always have a Gamma particle come from outer-space hit your alternator
in the wrong way and make it go crazy. Chance of failure = very very low.
Make you choice and take your chance; make the best installation you can w/ a good
ground. If you rely on the engine mount or tension arm for ground, make sure
they have electrical contact. Paint and anodized mounts cause ground problems.
Cheers George W. Bushwacker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rebuilt versus Original |
There has been some disparagement of rebuilt equipment recently--so I think
we should set the record straight.
Is original stuff better than rebuilt?
Original equipment is "good enough" for the task, and task is mainly to
satisfy the customer until the warranty expires. I'm not being cynical here.
Since the huge production volumes are sensitive to costs, nothing that is
better than what-is-needed-to-satisfy-the-task is required. In fact to do
anything else would be throwing money away. My Dad showed me how American
machine tools made in 1941 would have the sharp edges INSIDE castings
smoothed down while the same machine made a few months later would not. The
task had changed.
It is also true in some assembly operations that a part which goes into an
assembly may have inspections and tests done on it which a part destined for
the new original stock (but not used in an assembly) never has to undergo. A
part that comes out of a box may indeed be inferior to a part out of a
junkyard in these instances. Selling slightly not-so-good parts in the
aftermarket is common.
But let's look at original and rebuilt alternators.
Mythical rebuilding operation: Starting with a "core", the alternator is
disassembled. All the fasteners and bearings are thrown away and new ones
are used. The bearings can be of better quality than original. The case,
rotor and stator are inspected and cleaned up. Often new, higher
voltage-withstand diodes are retrofitted, new brushes are added. Often a new
regulator assembly (incorporating the newest electronics) is fitted.
Everything is inspected, torqued, fitted, and sometimes, YES (per B&C,
thanks Bill...) even dynamically balanced.
Is this better than new? Probably so....In many cases it certainly is. Offer
to take the rebuild shop owner up in your airplane. Watch his reaction.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Autozone alternators |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
So does anyone have any input specifically on Autozone rebuilt
alternators?
I don't have enough data to say whether I should go get a refun on my
Camry ND unit.
Thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
>Richard Riley Richard(at)riley.net: OK, until all the phantoms, jerks, sock puppets
and >trolls run out of steam, I'm unsubscribing. I'll check back in a month.
Could you have just left with out all that?
This is not the first time you deposited wack-o vitriolic diatribes with hostile
and threatening attacks on the internet before, is it, Dick. I figure you know
what all those words mean because you've been called them before; I had to
look them up:
internet troll -person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other
users into angry or fruitless responses
internet sock puppet -describes a second account created by an existing member
of an Internet community, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in
a vote or argument.
I have participated or monitored these lists for 10 years, building several planes,
with one email address. As far as Troll and Sock-puppets, get help, your
need it. Youre a scary hole. I am glad you left, up yours. George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
cells
>
>
>Bob -
>
>
>I have made several purchases from www.all-battery.com
><http://www.all-battery.com/> and have been very happy with their products
>and service. When the original NiCd packs that came with my drills gave up,
>I rebuilt them using NiMH cells from All-Battery (same folks you mention
>below, but thru the storefront, rather than ebay). I gave up a little
>torque, but gained run-time and shelf-life per charge. Since I don't use
>the cordless drill all day every day, but sporadically for the occasional
>hole or screw here and there, it works much better. Highly recommended.
I've purchased from them before. I note further that the 2300 mah
NiMh cells they're offering are the same brand as those I bought
off ebay.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Autozone alternators |
>
>
>So does anyone have any input specifically on Autozone rebuilt
>alternators?
>
>I don't have enough data to say whether I should go get a refun on my
>Camry ND unit.
Funny you should ask that Frank . . . your question exactly
matches my question about recommending means by which
the "generic automotive" alternator can be used in confidence.
Several posters have stated that "the regulator I use
is not plagued with any potential for OV failure." I say,
"Fine, please let us know which one that is so that we
might specify it for future acquisitions."
There have to be thousands of sources for after market
regulators and tens of thousands of overhaul shops.
Without having specific knowledge of which manufacturers
and suppliers build the golden alternator, I have to
assume that none do and offer a means to allow comfortable
installation of bronze or pot-metal alternators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
You miss the point.
Even the ON SEMI data sheet shows a blatant and obvious single point failure mode
in their recommended "universal" design.
That sort of single point failure mode that creates that associated hazard is normally
considered unacceptable for aircraft use.
Normally one would not elect to accept that kind of risk when it is relatively
easy to design around and prevent the single point failure mode.
But you can't dig into an automotive OEM integrated circuit/board on their internal
alternators (I have tried) and do anything with them to modify them to eliminate
the single point failure mode. ND's internal regulators have the chips
down to the die level and you can't work on those short of using a microscope.
Regards, George Braly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
Subject: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
>From: "George Braly" gwbraly(at)gami.com
>For the record, prove that all internal regulators do NOT
>have single point failure modes? The burden is properly
>on those who would use automotive products in an
>aircraftenvironment to establish they are free of such
>single point failure points that can cause unacceptable
>failure modes. I can prove that the internal regulator I
>use doesn't have that problem. But unless you reverse
>engineer the schematic for the automotive regulator, you
>can not establish that necessary condition.
Thanks for replying. OK, it sounds like we agree.
First I thought you were said "ALL internal regulators have a single point failure
mode", but from your statement, I can prove that the internal regulator I
use doesn't have that problem, we agree. So, there are some very good alternators
using internal VR.
It is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, but there is another way
to look at it.
I could turn it around for those people using an external regulator. Prove that
your OV protection will never fail. You cant.
I agree unless you know the design (make/made/version) you dont know. Unfortunately
it is not easy to get detailed info and practically speaking most of use
would not know what to do with it. Fortunately many have done the work for us
and is where this fine group comes in. What IR Alternator are you using George
B? I have read the spec of my little ND alternators IR, and it was partially
in Japanese (read below).
First to SUMMARIZE my points regarding this internal regulator/ OV issue:
-The level or worry is not equal to the risk for most modern alternators /w I-VR
-Lowest risk alternators use the latest IC chip technology, and have a proven track
record in homebuilt aircraft (typically ND but Mitsubishi and other brands
have be used successfully.)
-Any alternator, voltage regulator, crowbar or OV module can fail
-Popular opinion that external regulators are superior is from old info, was all
you could get before micro-electronics and I-VR set voltage was not compatible
with popular gel-cel batteries used in homebuilt planes 10 years ago. None
of this is relevant now.
-Alternators with IR have been around in mass since 1972; alternators have gotten
smaller and more powerful; 1982 marked a leap in better designs and have steadily
improved and have achieved a reputation for reliability.
-I dont buy the aircraft environment will make them fall apart if they can run
16 hours a day on a shaking tractor or forklift engine, and they are proven in
aircraft.
-Horror stories are just that, stories with facts few and far between. I am not
saying it has never happened, but the one or two stories I heard were sketchy
at best.
-WORDS: "internal voltage regulators have no place on airplanes" or "you are crazy
to use an internal voltage regulator on your plane" are just that WORDS.
Let's have some facts. FACT: I-VR's work very well, and cars have gone to them
exclusively because they have the technology and can control and protect the
alternator (and the electrical system it is connect to) better.
-Expect smaller, lighter more powerful alternators in the future, using more dense
windings developed recently. These alternators will likely all use internal
regulators.
-External regulators are old school and were done that why before electronics,
because they used a mechanical relay, so they needed to be remote mounted; all
alternator regulators were mechanical in 1962. Today external regulators are
almost gone, but they do have a place in heavy-duty marine/industrial equipment
for really large (200-800amp) alternators. These alternators are large (heavy)
and not much room for a voltage regulator, and the external regulators they
use often have a digital microprocessor to control charging of several batteries
for example. Much more advance than an analog regulator but not for small
planes alternators.
HISTORY
Looking at the history of Denso alternators: Early IR alternators (circa 1974-first
to use a IC). They have improved, like airbags and proven to be very reliable.
Later generation IR alternators, around 82 used new materials, windings,
faster rotation (smaller pulley) and dual internal fans to reduce size/weight
while increasing output (better cooling); the latest generation to come around
in the last few years use new technology that makes them even smaller and more
powerful. Again I may not be able to prove a negative, but.
**I can point to the seriously awesome track record and technical design**
We trust the engineers who designed the airbag (with very sophisticated sensors,
computers and mechanical systems); we can trust the engineers to manufacture
modern alternator to provide a reliable safe product. I see no reason for all
the pessimism and miss trust? Yes some early one-wire alternators (any brand?)
were begging to melt down, but those days are long gone. In 1962 an external
VR alternator had a weight/output ratio of 22.9-lbs/KW. Now we have 5.95-lbs/KW
alternators. (My little ND 45amp is around 8-10lbs/KW which is very good.)
Auto manufactures build and warrantee cars with very expensive computers cannot
afford to have an alternator melt down the electronics (DVD, CD, airbag computer,
GPS, sat-radio, computers to control the engine/transmission/traction).
At some point it becomes religion, you have to trust something that you dont have
absolute proof of. For the record, I do go to the church of compact alternators
w/ internal VR and prefer the Nippondenso alternator. Automotive electrical
supply houses sometimes sell them as racing alternators and are used by the
hotrod/race guys.
CHECKING SPECS OF MY ALTERNATOR
Niagara Air parts also provides an alternator kit with: mounts, hardware and connector
for about $225. I am not recommending it, just giving some info. I do
have their kit for my new RV-7 project, and I am happy with the quality but have
not used it yet. It is a new (not rebuilt) ND 40 amp model with an IR-VR incorporating
OV protection. As far as single point failure mode I can tell you
about the research for my alternator: (FACTS)
-This and similar model ND alternators have been flown in 100s of experimental
aircraft with no problems not to mention thousands of industrial applications.
Application for mu alternator is an Ishikawajima or Toyoda forklift. Some builders
use a similar 1987 Suzuki Samurai alternator, a small frame 55amp ND alternator,
which some find suitable. I recommend buying a new unit, not rebuilt,
no matter what brand alternator you use. I prefer actual Denso produced alternators
and not second tier OEM if possible.
-VR: 14.5V (**perfect for SLA batteries), OV protected (17v set point), Rotor Short
protected, Field soft start, PWM (pulse width modulation, which is for very
smooth linear regulation control of voltage), LRC (handles large increase in
current demand at low RPM), operating temp range 40C to 135C (-104F to +275F),
Low and Over volt warning light. The VR is a small sealed module w/ with cooling
fins, IC chip, two transistors, capacitor, diode and fuse device. I have
no doubt the aircraft environment will not be a problem. If you are worried about
+275F, I would put a little blast tube on, I did and may add a heat shield.
Vibration for a sealed module, encased and solidly potted (electronic grade,
flexible epoxy) should not be a problem.
(**The reason for the popularity of external regulators in experimental aircraft
years ago was because the gel-cel batteries used back then did not like the
standard voltage setting of internal regulators. Therefore adjustable external
regulators were popular. Now with Odyssey type sealed lead acid batteries, which
need 14.2v (min!) to 15v, the typical 14.5v internal regulator is perfect.
No need to have adjustable regulators if the I-VR is set to the typical 14.5volts
+/-)
Niagara kit I bought included a ND alternator that is specifically for industrial
equipment (eg forklift). No way to really verify how many of this specific
model ND are flying or how many hours they have in service, except for the one
with 8 years of airplane service with no problem. Many are flying in experimental
planes for at least 8-10 years. I am sure some have racked up more time than
that. I personally used a small ND on a RV-4 for 6 years (800 hours) with
no problem, until I sold the plane, at which time it was still working well.
OTHER ALTERNATORS
Vans sells a larger frame 60 amp Denso alternator. I am sure it is of the same
high Denso quality as the smaller frame model. Going with a unit many other builders
use has an advantage. With more in the field, more experience will be gained
and any weakness will be discovered quicker, if people report the problem.
They dont call it experimental for nothing. Call Van and ask how many hours
they have on them and what they know. I guess they will say they have been 100%,
**except** for the ones that got toasted (true story) when the builder used
an external OV protection, eg crow-bar / b-lead disconnect.
YOU CALL THE SHOTS
With airbags, I trust the engineers have done their job, and the same goes for
alternators; I trust they made a device that will protect my electronics and me
from all conceivable (anticipated) failures, or it will fail in a benign way.
You can always have a Gamma particle come from outer-space hit your alternator
in the wrong way and make it go crazy. Chance of failure = very very low.
Make you choice and take your chance; make the best installation you can w/ a good
ground. If you rely on the engine mount or tension arm for ground, make sure
they have electrical contact. Paint and anodized mounts cause ground problems.
Cheers George W. Bushwacker
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor Warning |
>
>Caution: If you are using a Commercial Aircraft products Flap motor DO NOT
>break one of the up or down roller limit switches.
>The V3L-3 Honeywell/Micro switch has been discontinued and after trying
>extensively to locate another switch that will fit the D145 flap motor I
>am unable
>to find one of the right dimensions that will work on this design.
>Commercial Aircraft will not sell you one of their stock. Honeywell will not
>sell you one of their stock. The authorized suppliers will sell you one of
>these $5 switches for $50 to $70 dollars which will be shipped from Honeywell.
>An expensive lesson learned about using loctite and trying to remove the
>screw.....
>P.S. I bought the only two I could find on the Honeywell dealers inventory
>list that were less than $50 and they were $28 each.
Mike, sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Seems that
the roller levered V3 series basic switches are disappearing from
the Microswitch bag of tricks . . . but there are dozens of substitute
V5 and V7 series some with "simulated rollers" on their levers.
This class of switch is a world-wide standard package size manufactured
by virtually everyone in the switch business. There are low-dollar
substitutes that can be had . . . most under $10 and some under $5.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> protection |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection
protection
>
>Hi Chris
>
>If the field driver shorts (part MTB20N20E in your first reference or
>part 2N6284 in your second reference) then there is no way that I can
>see for the referenced devices to stop an over voltage. How likely is
>that - I don't know but I have replaced a few similar 'transistors' that
>were indeed shorted in other equipment over the years.
Hear hear! This is exactly the simple-idea upon which
the notion of additional OV protection and/or external
control by means of switch on panel is based. Every alternator
has some sort of solid state device in series with the field
with a responsibility to modulate field current in response
to regulator commands for voltage control. If that puppy
fails shorted -OR- gets an uncontrolled ON-command from
failed circuitry elsewhere, the alternator's voltage is
officially out of the gate and racing for the moon.
>If a separate external OVP device fails to work when it should then we
>have two separate devices failing simultaneously which is pretty rare.
>We can't test the functionality of an OVP internal to an alternator but
>we can test the separate OVP device if we so desire.
Dead-on . . .
>FWIW my feeling is that yes external ov protection is a good thing on an
>IR alternator but not essential for most of us. I suspect that it will
>indeed decrease overall system reliability and I doubt very much whether
>that is going to be quantified on this forum. However I also believe it
>reduces risk to my brand new icomm A-200 transceiver that still warns
>that over 16 volts will kill it and that it must be turned off during
>engine starting... (%$#%) I did add the transorbs to the alternator
>side of the my ov contactor to increase the likelihood of the contactor
>working as desired. And I'm still happy with my decision to not route
>the alternator B-lead through a battery master.
Which goes to another post of mine that speaks to design goals. There
are no REQUIREMENTS that any of us can levy upon the wishes
and goals of any other builder. Lots of folk are tightly
wrapped around an axle assuming that what I write has
come manner of social design goal to control or set requirements
on other people's actions.
Ken is demonstrating a high level of understanding that
would assuage any concerns I might have should I have
an opportunity to ride with him in his airplane.
This kind of conversation is what makes the AeroElectric-List
an arena of ideas as opposed to a barroom brawl over who
is trying to control whom.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
>
>Yes,
>
>I'm basing my design on Z-19 (Thank you very much by the way for producing
>so many drawings).
Your most welcome.
>Eggenfellner's install guide was written for the smaller engine and it's a
>step by step guide at that. I have not seen a detailed wiring diagram for
>their system. The larger engine seems to require some self do
>modifications. I don't have an engine yet so I don't have any
>documentation that may come with it, but little is available online. For
>example, the builder may need move the batteries aft for CG considerations
>since I don't want to add dead ballast to the tail. The best idea yet
>regarding this comes from Jim Skala who says to mount only one battery aft
>and run only 12 AWG from it to the second buss.
If it's a battery the same size as the main battery, then it would
sure be NICE to use it for cranking assistance . . . hard to
do with 12AWG feeders.
> Engine critical loads have dual feeds (Z-19). This way, only the main
> battery would be used for starting (that's OK with me).
Then go for it. That's another mis-interpretation of my writing
when I suggest something. EVERY architecture is based on certain
DESIGN GOALS from which REQUIREMENTS are developed and a solution
deduced. Everyone is encouraged to develop their own design
goals and then drive toward their own solution. Folks often
believe that what I publish is based on some kind of REQUIREMENT
when in fact, the only requirements are those which you place
on the project yourself. My goal is to impart sufficient understanding
that new architectures don't add complexity without also adding
value.
> I assume I would use a some kind of current
>limiting device at the battery to protect the 12 AWG wire running forward.
> Yes?
Yeah, in fact you might consider something just a tad heavier
like 10 or 8AWG. Unlike the FAT feeders, these smaller wires
are certainly more subject to gross failure under the
hard-fault condition. I think I'd put the battery bus
back at the battery location so each of the feeders
extending from the battery are protected. I'd have a
battery "contactor" which might be a fat relay but the
plain vanilla, Stancore/White-Rogers/Cole-Hersee parts
would be just fine too. You'd want to protect the small
feeder at both ends . . . it's subject to energy coming
April 21, 2005 - April 26, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ei