AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fd
December 12, 2005 - December 20, 2005
Bob says can happen, or at least verified. The above was another mild
case of OV, compounded by an inattentive pilot.
Bob rambles on about the "paradigm of aircraft design". You know one
of those "paradigm statements", the ones that mean nothing and sounds
important. When someone figures out what Bob's "paradigm" is, let me
know. I know he thinks it sound impressive but communicates nothing,
at least to me.
On this Forum in just the last year or so it was common belief and
repeated often, I-VR alternators (ND in particular) have no OV
protection, and it went unchallenged. WRONG. I like to think my input
has added to the discourse of what an internal VR is. Bob single
handily is the "spreader" of innuendo and rumor which gives you financial
gain, Fact. He is not an impartial scientist/engineer he paints his self as, clearly.
Bob is a bully and makes people afraid to ask questions or make
comments that differ from your opinion. He either personally attack
them, like you do me, or beat them down with a line by line diatribe of
how right he is.
I LOVE the fact
Bob calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT all the time, but he tells me I
did it? Shut-up Bob with your trite little accusations and look in the mirror,
Sir.
I don't know what drives him? I know he loves to argue that is clear.
Clearly your personality needs to be RIGHT and needs to be
told vigorously how right you are by others.
People might say, hey George you are criticizing Bob's personality. Well
that is true. However Bob feels the NEED to impinge other people and
myself. I guess to feel BIG he needs to be-LITTLE others. Instead of
making his point with data or facts he attacks and tries to discredit. Sad.
I ignore 90% of this crud, but this time, it was just uncalled for and so
hypocritical it demanded a response.
ALL I CARE ABOUT IS IMPROVING THE USE AND RELIABILITY OF
I-VR ND ALTERNATORS. Improving understanding of installation
and operations of I-VR's and helping others with the same interest is my
goal. Part of this is dispelling the myths BOB perpetuates.
All I can say is I noticed people are more likely lately to ask questions
like Charlie. IT IS OK TO USE AN I-VR ND ALTERNATOR. I would like to
think I have a positive affect on the discourse of the subject. I also thought
Bob
was mellowing and being more careful not to be so overbearing and
demonstrative, but I guess you can't teach an old (mean) dog to be nice.
It's great you have your opinion and I respect that. The problem I
have is hypocrisy, vitriol, urban legend that Bob condones, allows and
perpetuate, but that is old news and water under the bridge.
My ONLY goal is to educate people about the limitations of I-VR's. They
are different than any externally regulated alternator and require to be
wired and operated different, that's all ALL FOLKS! Geeeeeeee I also
think it was nice of me to offer a new alternator at cost.
I really don't give a good gosh darn what you think of me Bob.
Sincerely George.
Last word: "GOLDEN RULES: of using an internally regulated alternator
do the following:
>Don't overload the alternator*
>Assure you have a good battery
>Do NOT turn it on and off under load
>Have a good Hi/Lo volt warning system or light
>Cool Alt (shield fm external high temp sources/cooling air)
>Buy new or original ND alternator, one of original ND parts best
>Have way to isolate the alternator that does not rely on the IGN lead
>Operate the ND alternator as it was designed (original application)
>Wire the ND alternator exactly as it was designed (original application)
*(wire the alternators warning light in)
**(use a CB in the panel to manually isolate the b-lead if needed)
***Load about 70% continuous of rated power max
**** Do not use external OV module / crow bar with a relay in the b-lead
unless you can assure 100% it will never falsely trip.
"Good DAY SIR, I said GOOD DAY" :- 0 George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | headphone wiring |
I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has just two
solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram calls for three
wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me if I have the wrong
jack or where the Lo gets connected?
Thanks in advance,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 24v starter in 14v airplane |
Mark,
When you respond to someone's comments you need to trim away THE REST
of the irrelevant materials in the Digest Dump of the day's postings.
>
>Bob,
>
>You said:
>
>
>
> > First, I note that you've left off the ANL limiters called out
> > in the original drawing. It's important that these be present
> > so that no combination of stuck contactors can cause a battery
> > to see a hard fault. Worked an MU-2 in-flight fire accident that
> > began with just such an incident. They series two 24v batteries
> > for a 48v starter and stuck contactors very nearly cost passengers
> > and crew their lives.
>
>
>Thanks for that catch, I thought I'd faithfully transferred everthing...
>Another reason to have someone proof your (mine especially) work!
>
>
> > What size batteries are you planning? If a pair of 17 a.h. then
> > may I suggest that getting both batteries to drive the e-bus
> > adds complexity you'll probably never need? Get the e-bus loads
> > down to a minimum . . . when and if main battery looks like it
> > won't make it (it should if you've done your e-bus operations
> > homework) then re-close normal ops battery contactors to bring
> > the aux battery back to finish up the job . . . and in any case,
> > close the normal ops contactors once the airport is in sight
> > so that you have every watt-second on board available for
> > approach to landing.
>
>
>I am planning to use 17ah batteries. I'd considered your suggestion above,
>but was wondering if there was a simple way I couldn't see to "rewire it" so
>I could have my cake and eat it too.
>
>What do you think of eliminating the e-bus entirely? I can load shed down
>to approx 4 amps. By eliminating the e-bus I'll have to keep the two
>contactors on so add another 2 amps for a total emergency load of 6 amps.
>With two 17ah batteries that should give me somewhere in the neighborhood of
>two hours flight time. Since my plan is always to land immediately in the
>event of an alternator failure I should be golden. Am I missing something
>important?
>
>
> > I'd recommend staying with the 2-10 battery/alternator switch
> > so that there's always a battery on line to stabilize the
> > alternator.
>
>I'm not sure about this recommendation. As configured, I can't start
>without the DC master switch on (no power thru the aux battery switch to
>power the aux battery contactor). The only time I'd turn off the DC master
>inflight is in the event of an alternator failure. My plan is to use a
>3 (mom) = STARTER ENGAGE. Does this sound reasonable?
We could carry this conversation out for days and not
really advance the ideas or provide you with truly useful
data. First, recall that the likelihood of having ANY
major electrical failure in your airplane fitted with
modern materials is a tiny fraction of that suffered
by certified ships. Electrical failures in certified
ships are in turn a tiny fraction overall system
failures that precipitate accidents. Finally, mechanical
failures are a tiny fraction of triggering events
for any of the total numbers of accidents. It follows
therefore that anything we discuss along these lines
isn't going to make a useful difference in system
reliability.
My best recommendation is try to keep it simple. Reduce
the numbers of ways that controls can be mismanaged and
produce undesirable results. The z-figures have been crafted
with these goals in mind. Adding or deleting features
requires some consideration that I don't have time to
offer right now. We've discussed all the upsides/downsides
of not using the 2-10, using key switches, etc but none
of those discussions illuminated a compelling reason
to modify the z-figures. Just make your decisions with
a level of awareness: Does the change really add value
to an already robust, trouble-free system or are you
stroking a quest for the "ultimate" configuration even
though the feature has a very remote probability of
improving on the outcome of your day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
>
>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
>just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
>calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
>if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>Thanks in advance,
B&C sells monophonic headphone jacks. You need a stereo
headphone jack.
See type 12B on
http://www.switchcraft.com/products/pdf_files/jack-85b_schematic.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/0284.pdf
and
http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=195145&Row=253420&Site=US
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gianni Zuliani" <gz(at)comgz.com> |
| Subject: | GPS driving two instruments |
Hi Bob and group,
has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
FS-450) at the same time?
I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
Gianni Zuliani
Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
You have mono jacks. You most likely want stereo jacks.
Also be sure to use the 20dB boost function on Music1 your GMA-340.
Essential amplification with any entertainment imho.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (721 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring
>
>
> I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
> just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
> calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
> if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
> Thanks in advance,
> Jim
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
Jim Stone wrote:
>
>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has just two
solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram calls for three
wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me if I have the wrong
jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>Thanks in advance,
>Jim
>
Odds are, it isn't stereo. I've never seen one that didn't have a solder
terminal for the ground (Lo). You can tell for sure by looking at the
construction of the jack itself. Plug your stereo headphone plug into
the jack. You should see one leg of the jack touching the tip of the
plug & another leg touching the 'ring' of the plug between the tip &
barrel of the plug. The 'barrel' of the jack provides the ground (Lo)
connection to the barrel of the plug. Each should have a solder terminal.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
Thanks Bob,
I called B&C and found out they changed to the stereo jack a couple of years
ago and apparently left the picture of the mono jack on their web site. My
jacks are 2-3 years old. Mistery solved, 2 stereo jacks on order.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
>>just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
>>calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
>>if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>>Thanks in advance,
>
> B&C sells monophonic headphone jacks. You need a stereo
> headphone jack.
>
> See type 12B on
>
> http://www.switchcraft.com/products/pdf_files/jack-85b_schematic.pdf
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/0284.pdf
>
> and
>
> http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=195145&Row=253420&Site=US
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
something along those lines.
Dave Morris
At 12:51 PM 12/12/2005, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob and group,
>has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
>autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
>FS-450) at the same time?
>I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
>finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
>that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
>Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
>Gianni Zuliani
>Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
>http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
>
>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BOB
I'm talking about "The pilot who flew around with his head
in the clouds while he cooked his battery".
You have mistaken a simple request to not take personal
whacks at individuals and transformed it into a broad
criticism of the real data in your post.
>If anyone searches the archives about internal VR alternators, it is
>indeed like a Liberal Democrat being interviewed on Fox News. It just is a
>shout down with you Bob. You think you are "Fair and Balanced" but you a
>steeped in some serious dogma and opinions. It was common "wisdom" on this
>list you run that I-VR's had not OV protection are recent as this year. A
>typical
>subtle comment from you sound like this: "The so called (ND) OV protection"
>
>You don't know squat about it so shut-up, and your theory of why an OV
>could happen is wrong and never prove to ever have happened, ever.
George, I've never shouted at any one other than to EMPHASIZE a
particular word. Okay, if my "theory" is replaceable by a better
one, what do you propose? When folks loose DO-160 qualified items
to some transient condition on the bus that is fixed by replacing
an alternator or the regulator inside the alternator, what failure
mode are you suggesting is a more powerful theory?
Further, what would be your suggestion for how a builder can
protect himself from suffering similar events in the future?
Do recall correctly that you advocate a high voltage warning
joined with a pullable breaker in the b-lead. If my recollection
is correct, is this not an MANUALLY operated equivalent
to the AUTOMATIC approach embodied in the traditional design
goals? How are we different otherwise?
>By the way, if you don't think ND alternators or I-VR alternators in
>general have been vilified and miss information spread on this forum,
> read the archives. It was just a year ago people said ND alternators
>don't have OV protection with out dispute. Here is a typical statement
>YOU made:
>
>
> >"(6) While the probability of regulator failure in cars is exceedingly
> >low, it is not zero. We have heard of ANECDOTAL stories of unhappy,
> >high-dollar events taking place in airplanes after failure of internally
> >regulated alternators."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
>
>
> WHAT EVENT , WHAT HAPPENED? If someone made a comment
>like that about ANECDOTAL stories against your "paradigm" on this
>forum you would have a S%#t hemorrhage.
And I stand by that statement. I have read the spec sheets
that claim and even illustrate ov protection in the various
internally regulated products. I have offered the fact that
traditional design goals and regulatory requirements for
OV protection cannot be met by what purveyors of
IR alternators claim is ov protection. They share a common
sense path. It follows that potential for faults in the sense
path for CONTROL makes it a poor sense path for PROTECTION.
The FAA won't let me do it, my boss won't let me do it and
I believe there are good engineering reasons for not doing it.
>What a hypocrite, don't ask people for data unless you have some Bob. I used
>the word anecdotal on this forum once, you chewed me a new one and called
>me names. What a tool.
>
>YOU chase people away. In just the last year you have chased away
>at least 3 people. You have taken pot shots at others and companies that
>don't
>even post. Here is a short list:
>
>SkyTec,
I've never argued with the value of a SkyTec product. I have
suggested that there were failures happening for reasons easy
to fix (I had a box full of failed parts here to look at).
I made the statement that the B&C was the BEST starter out
there . . . not unlike the notion that Cadillac may be the
best in comparison with a Chevy . . . I've never owned a Caddy
but I've owned lots of Chevy's . . . they're good value. I'd
probably buy a SkyTec if I had some good place to spend the
extra dollars.
>Exp-buss,
He joined us on a list at one time or another and could or
would not answer a single question. The biggest one being
how the dollars spent for his product produces a better performing
system with a lower cost of ownership than switches and fuseblocks.
He refused to participate in any such conversations.
>Jim Weir RST Engineering
Jim has never been on the List to my knowledge. He hangs out
on Usenet. Jim's a cool head. We've met many times and attended
some meetings together. I talked with him about the Microair
products several years ago and quoted his article on Microair
on my website. The only disagreement with Jim's products concerns
the use of ferrite beads over the coax of his antenna kit.
I've DEMONSTRATED in the lab the fact that these beads add
no value to the antenna's performance and can be deleted.
We've never had any discussion on the matter and I cannot
imagine that he's been "chased off" over it.
>Greg Ritcher Blue Mountain Avionics,
Greg's inability to join in constructive conversation was
well demonstrated in posts which shall remain on my
website. His words (or lack of them . . . he can't answer
a question either) speak for themselves.
>Van's Aircraft (specifically Richard VanGrunsven),
Van has never been on the list. I've spoken with Van
perhaps 4-5 times at various events around the country
and he was NEVER disposed to talk about electrical
systems in any context beyond, "If it's good for a
C-172, it's good for an RV." His electrical system
drawings and kits reflect this philosophy. The philosophy
is not bad, just no better than what's been flying for
the past 70 years.
Yes, I've cited a degree of ignorance on the part
of Van's staff with respect to electrical systems and
I stand by the assessment. It's a matter of Van's
policy and management decisions which are just fine.
It probably doesn't hurt the sale of his marvelous kits
one bit and nobody hopes for his success more than I.
>SDS (simple digital systems)
Didn't remember this one. Just called SDS and made
the personal acquaintance of Mr. Ross Farnham. I got
a quick review of the incident from him and assured him that
as a fellow designer and supplier of products to customers
I had an intense interest in good science. I apologized for
any lack of decorum I might have exhibited.
We agreed that his input to the List or me directly
was gratefully solicited. I was pleased to have him accept
my apology and I hope we can look forward his sharing
of experience and considered judgement.
I've found the exchange in my OUT box from last February
and plan to sort through it. I'll follow up with a properly
crafted post here on the List.
>Niagara Air-parts (alternator kit)
>
>The latter one, Niagara, you picked on their installation instructions
>that state
>low RPM and high loads puts a strain on the alternator. YOU
>WENT ON AN ON about what is strain? "This does not help
>understanding by using words like strain!" However you are happy to
>throw out words like Paradigm with nothing else? You fool no one Bob,
>you are faking it 1/2 the time. You say anything to cast dispersions.
The idea that energizing an alternator at high RPM puts
an extra ordinary strain on anything is simply not supported
by the physics. One of many goals for the documents in progress
right now is to dispel such inaccuracies with demonstrable data.
>You are such a ...... The guy from SDS had a forced landing in his RV-
>6A from an honest mistake and shared his mistake on his web site. You
>where tipped off and read it, and you wrote a self righteous, smug
>pompous editorial, tearing him a new one with a bunch of "EXPERT"
>opinion. How much do you fly? How many truly innovative things
>have you done? A voltage regulator and crow bar are not sophisticated
>or original.
Never claimed they were . . . just functional and certifiable
under traditional design goals. If I'm ever harshly critical
of anyone, it's unintentional (I don't even have a mean streak
for you George!) and I'll take any opportunity to rectify it. Thank
you for bringing the incident with Ross to my attention.
>I have offered to obtain manufactures assistance in evaluating failed
>regulators
>thru, X-ray, test equipment and even component by component analysis to
>anyone who is interested. Bob is not interested . . .
George, didn't you see my goal to forward any devices
I can lay my hands on? In fact, the guy who offered the
original post on a internal regulator failure says
he'll check with his overhaul shop and see if we can
collect some failures for you to examine.
> . . . he just wants to sell some more
>crow bars. What do you make Bob, about $20-$30 apiece?
I don't make a dime. I don't sell them.
>
>
>
>THE RECENT EVENT OF THE RV-4 GUY WHO BLEW HIS BATTERY
>UP (MOSTLY HIS FAULT BY THE WAY), had more detail and
>credibility than I have heard before. No doubt it happened, but some
>how we let the VR just get thrown in the trash?
WE didn't throw anything in the trash. HIS OVERHAUL
MECHANIC threw it in the trash just like he throws ALL
worn/failed components in the trash. What else can we
expect without taking special pains to retrieve the parts?
> If it was a B&C regulator
>would you just thrown it in the trash? NO.
Most people don't because B&C can REPAIR these devices and
is intently interested in knowing what failed with an
eye toward product improvements.
> If you tell me it is unlikely
>your B&C regulator could not fail or allow an OV, ever, you will be
>telling a big fat fib.
He ADMITS it was his fault that he didn't look at the voltmeter
sooner and cites the early thought processes that kept the flags
from going up.
>There has NEVER been an OV with a ND alternator per the theory that
>Bob says can happen, or at least verified. The above was another mild
>case of OV, compounded by an inattentive pilot.
A "mild case" ???? Internal pressures so high that the
cell separators parted in tension all across the face of
the battery?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
I guess I'll have to ask for your calibration point on "mild".
The battery has been shipped to Concord for a teardown and
I expect to have photos and a narrative to share in the not
too distant future.
>
>I LOVE the fact
>Bob calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT all the time, but he tells me I
>did it? Shut-up Bob with your trite little accusations and look in the
>mirror, Sir.
>
I think the OUT box of my email client is more revealing.
Out of 3008 sent items going back to March of 2002, the
word "ignorant" appears 11 times. 5 of those 11 times,
folks are alluding to their own state of knowledge on some
matter. Of the remaining 6, it's you and I discussing the
lack of knowledge on the part of individuals at Van's as
manifested by some of the advice they are giving. I think
this hardly qualifies for "calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT
all the time."
>My ONLY goal is to educate people about the limitations of I-VR's. They
>are different than any externally regulated alternator and require to be
>wired and operated different, that's all ALL FOLKS!
George, I agree with 99% of everything you've ever said
about the performance and value of the IR alternator.
The only thing we seem to disagree on are the traditional
design goals outlined by lots of other folks. They've been
embraced by still more folks who are my customers. Why are
you so upset that I'm attempting to deliver to a customer's
wishes for his own project?
> Geeeeeeee I also
>think it was nice of me to offer a new alternator at cost.
I guess I missed that . . . I already have an alternator
provided by a generous reader mounted on a test stand and
belted to a 2 h.p. DC motor.
I'm building a controller for the motor and I need to get
a set of speed/torque curves so that we can measure h.p.
input to the alternator. If the need for another alternator
comes up in the future, I'd be pleased to take you up on
your offer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
>together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
>I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
>input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
>something along those lines.
Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
> >
> > Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
> > out and measure it. This is especially important when your
> > e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
> > on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
> > the load goes up.
> >
>
>What is the reduction of the life of the battery when you run it flat? I
>imagine it depends on the construction of the battery...cranking type?
>Deep cycle?
A battery's service life is roughly proportional to total
quantity of watt-seconds transferred. I.e., numbers of
cycles. Somewhere in the engineering data for every
battery are data describing how many deep cycles
(100%->5%->100% etc) a battery can deliver before the
capacity drops to 80% of rated. Depending on the product,
this can be anywhere between 80 and perhaps 200 cycles.
Since cranking an engine takes perhaps 4-5% of the battery's
total energy, it follows if the battery is never called upon
to do an e-bus support task -AND- the battery is never inadvertently
discharged -AND- the battery is recharged under the best
practical protocols one can expect an exemplary service life.
One has to trade off variables in battery construction
to optimize life under deep discharge -OR- high rate
discharge. You can't optimize both. The Odyssey is optimized
for high discharge (lots of thin plates). Therefore, one
can logically expect deep discharges accompanied with
extend stays in a discharged state to be more abusive
than if it were optimized for deep discharge (i.e. golf cart
and trolling motors).
When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
useless battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I strongly believe that the 12.4V does not represent 65% of the Battery
>CAPACITY. The open circuit voltage has a very poor correlation to the actual
>capacity of the battery and is decidedly non-linear. Think of it this way:
>
>The voltage readings above 12.4 volts are usually due to small amounts of
>other electrochemically acitive materials in the battery that don't
>contribute much to actual capacity. I believe that there may be a semantic
>difference between battery capacity and 'state of charge' that Odessy is
>describing on page 17 of their manual, but to determine the real capacity
>left, you will need to do a discharge at constant current, and measure the
>time as shown in the tables on page 10.
>
>Bill Schertz
A well considered, credible post sir. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
>
>I recently ordered a replacement master relay. My old one (2 months old)
>has the hard black pastic boots on it as discussed a few weeks ago. The
>orginal one came from B&C Specialty. The replacement from Aircraft Spruce
>is exactly the same.
>
>Just for info. I tried removing the platic boots and it was nearly
>impossible without a grinder. Heated them up and they seemed fine. Torqued
>bolts and it also torqued properly. While I am interested in the reasons
>for the design change it now seems to be distributed from many vendors and
>I suspect the change is simply cosmetic. I still would prefer the metal
>tabs.
Thanks for the post. I have to believe there is not much if
any harm for the booties being in place. I'm REALLY curious
as to why they were added but I just don't have the time
to navigate the phone-maze for getting in touch with whoever
made the decision.
Now the interesting thing to watch is if Cole_Hersee adds
booties to their contactors. Then we'll KNOW there's some
kind of sinister conspiracy afoot :-)
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
Hi Gianni -
I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you
can't drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might
work for you:
http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and
the other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
D
---------------
Gianni Zuliani wrote:
>
> Hi Bob and group,
> has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
> autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
> FS-450) at the same time?
> I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
> finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
> that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
> Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
> Gianni Zuliani
> Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
> http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | GPS driving two instruments |
It is possible that he is confusing the relative direction of the "in" and
"out" RS232 ports. Here is a simple test - if you disconnect either of the
two "listening" does the other on work?
-- Craig
-----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS driving two instruments
-->
>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire
>them together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time
>since I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take
>one RS-232 input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going
>to need something along those lines.
Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
You'll have to tie all the signal grounds together, too. I don't know if
that presents a problem in your particular configuration or not.
Dave Morris
At 02:14 PM 12/12/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
> >together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
> >I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
> >input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
> >something along those lines.
>
> Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
> system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
> with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
> 'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
> you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
> pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up so
I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that the
Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as to
compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Mark -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | GPS driving two instruments |
I believe this device is only needed if you care about sending to, and
receiving from multiple RS232 devices. Note that this device can select what
the master is listening to based on a number of methods:
"The first device to send captures the data path, locking out the other
lines. Data flow may also be software controlled using the RTS line. Data
from the host PC is sent to all attached devices."
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Wysong
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS driving two instruments
Hi Gianni -
I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you can't
drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might work for
you:
http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and the
other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
D
---------------
Gianni Zuliani wrote:
>
> Hi Bob and group,
> has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
> autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
> FS-450) at the same time?
> I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but
I'm
> finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio)
suspecting
> that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
> Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
> Gianni Zuliani
> Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
> http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH IR alternator
might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and allow control
of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes as per Z-14 (or
is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am preparing to implement this
month on my plane?
Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
>Bob,
>
>Any recent updates on the "internally regulated alternator"?
>
>I know that you were not recommending it's use on an "all electric
>airplane with dual electronic ignition", which is the configuration of the
>plane I am building.
Not at all. The modern internally regulated alternator
is a great piece of hardware that offers excellent value
over most 60's certified alternators flying today. Your
choice of alternators has nothing to do with whether or
not you have electronic ignition, EFIS, or any other
modern feature.
Depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not
have 100%, absolute control over it's output which
does not satisfy traditional design goals.
Further, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
you may not be able to add a convenient form of
OV protection which is also a traditional design
goal.
Finally, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
the act of turning it on and OFF at inopportune times
may damage the alternator's regulator.
Having offered this, there are thousands of OBAM
aircraft flying wherein the builder has not included
these points in satisfaction of his own design goals
either because he has considered them insignificant
or doesn't understand them well enough to make a
well considered decision. None-the-less, a vast
majority of these aircraft ARE flying trouble free.
However, from time to time, we're made aware of
installations where the builder wishes he had
considered and adopted the traditional design
goals. It's a small percentage to be sure . . .
but then catastrophic runaway failures in the
certified ships also constitutes a small percentage
of all failures.
Bottom line is that we will be able to offer a means
by which any internally regulated alternator can
be integrated into your airplane under the traditional
design goals. In the mean time, drive on with whatever
installation instructions come with your alternator
of choice knowing that modifying the system will be
easy and inexpensive at a later time. I've been trying
to get the next few pages of "Understanding Alternators"
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html
published but things are really busy around here this
time of year.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
I'm not knowledgeable about a great deal of what is put forth in this forum,
but this I know WE NEED NO MORE NAME CALLING AND ATTEMPTS TO PUT SOMEONE
DOWN. I'm all for a rational discourse in which each person is able to (all
by his/herself) to accept or reject or even ask for a clarification of a
concept or suggestion for the electrical system of ones aircraft. Enough of
this . I did see a lot of this type of garbage on the Eggenfellner site a
few years ago and we surely need none of this I'm better than you, or see my
degree or how much money I made. It should end now( I hope)
Harold,still a bit away from my system, RV9A fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joseph Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
Hey Bob!
Idea for your book -- diagrams and part numbers and such for a low
fuel indicator.
-Joe "Man it hurts to run out of gas" Larson
On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Mark R Steitle wrote:
>
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
Yep, it handles transmissions from the slaves by switching the Rx line
on the master. Handy if you have slave devices that send ACK messages
in response to commands.
In Gianni's case the last sentence is all that matters ("Data from the
host PC is sent to all attached devices"). This B&B dongle guarantees a
transparent "Y" in the Tx line from his GPS so that his dual slaves will
see a clean stream of marks/spaces.
I haven't experienced Bob's good luck with "poor man's" multi-drop
RS-232 networks. I'm surprised (disappointed) that neither of the slave
devices Gianni mentioned will act as a serial data repeater.
Daisy-chained RS-232 works like a champ!
Have the cake... or eat the cake?
D
Craig Payne wrote:
>
> I believe this device is only needed if you care about sending to, and
> receiving from multiple RS232 devices. Note that this device can select what
> the master is listening to based on a number of methods:
>
> "The first device to send captures the data path, locking out the other
> lines. Data flow may also be software controlled using the RTS line. Data
> from the host PC is sent to all attached devices."
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Wysong
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS driving two instruments
>
>
> Hi Gianni -
>
> I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you can't
> drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might work for
> you:
>
> http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
>
> This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
> transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and the
> other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
>
> D
>
> ---------------
>
> Gianni Zuliani wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi Bob and group,
>>has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
>>autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
>>FS-450) at the same time?
>>I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but
>
> I'm
>
>>finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio)
>
> suspecting
>
>>that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
>>Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
>>Gianni Zuliani
>>Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
>>http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Dan -
The owner of the avionics shop that furnished the interconnect cabling for
our Garmin 340 cautioned that using the boost will amplify everything,
including the noise embedded in any signal goes thru the 340. For this
reason, we did not choose that option for the 340. I am assuming that you
are talking about running a wire from J2/Pin 15 to ground - either thru a
switch or directly.
Is this your understanding and/or experience?
Thanks,
John
wrote:
> Also be sure to use the 20dB boost function on Music1 your GMA-340.
> Essential amplification with any entertainment imho
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Mr. gmcjetpilot,
Please review the posting guildines for the matronics lists.
Specifically, please check out the following (I quote):
" - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing."
snip
> YOU HAVE SOME BIG BRASS ONES.
For instance, the above comment uses the type of language and intent that
isn't appropriate on this list. Not only is it against the rules, it
doesn't accomplish anything productive.
> MY RESPECT FOR YOU IS DIMINISHED WITH
> EVERY HYPOCRITICAL THING YOU SAY, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT
> YOU THINK, SO SHUT UP.
>
Same here..
> MY REPLY TO CHARLIE WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, TO YOU, FOR YOU
> or FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT WAS FOR CHARLIE'S BENEFIT. THE
> WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU BOB.
And here.
By the way, the list rules state that message traffic intended for one
reader should only go to that reader. Please follow that rule.
Otherwise, please go somewhere else.
>
> IF SOMEONE AS A PROBLEM WITH ME OFFERING THEM AN
> ALTERNATORS FOR 1/2 PRICE THAN THEY CAN WRITE ME OR
> COMPLAIN TO MATRONICS.
I am certain this was not the issue.
It sounds like you have much aviation related technical experience. It's
a shame that you often choose to degrade the way quality of how you share
this with rest of us. Two wrongs don't make a right (though my opinion
is that Bob wasn't wrong here). Even if you feel that someone has
slighted you in your dealings, lashing-out in return doesn't accomplish
anything. Emotional outburst is actually counter-productive. I know you
will be happier if you choose to live with a belief in these truths. You
do want to be happy, right?
Have a great day!
Matt-
PS. I am still cogitating on your request for proof of my 'truth' about
instrumentation. Haven't totally wrapped my arms about how Hall Effect
doesn't take any energy from the system being measured.
PPS. I am posting this to the list with the hope that it sort of 'answers'
other peoples concerns about this exchange. That's why it's addressed to
you, but posted to the list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
>
>Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH
>IR alternator might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and
>allow control of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes
>as per Z-14 (or is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am
>preparing to implement this month on my plane?
>
>Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
The automotive industry is loaded with choices for
alternators virtually ALL of which are better choices
for engine driven power than most alternators
flying on certificated ships today.
It has been suggested that some brands/part-numbers
are especially 'golden' but I've set a goal to make
the exact choice of alternators irrelevant to system
reliability.
If you can find a low-time, clean, light and low
cost alternator out there that is easily fitted to
your airplane, I have no basis for recommending that
you don't use it. A methodology for going beyond
what already flying in thousands of OBAM aircraft
while applying traditional design goals will be
forthcoming and easily added to any alternator you
might choose to install.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lee Logan <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/11/05 |
Thanks Ken and Bob. Clears THAT up!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
>
>Bob,
>I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
>two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
>panel
>is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
>entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
>electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
>missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
>comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for the
>exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch will
>extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
>design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? I'll suggest this
is covered in discussions on the various architectures.
My particular predisposition toward Z-13/8 is the double
layered electrical system that offers unlimited endurance
with an 8A backup and nicely tolerates a contactor or
battery master switch failure.
If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it. Just 25 years
ago, the best choices out there called for 25# battery, 17#
starter and about 12# alternator. Now we're looking forward
to crafting a dual alternator system that weighs less than
the battery of choice in 1980.
This is a cool business!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
> The owner of the avionics shop that furnished the interconnect cabling for
> our Garmin 340 cautioned that using the boost will amplify everything,
> including the noise embedded in any signal goes thru the 340. For this
> reason, we did not choose that option for the 340. I am assuming that you
> are talking about running a wire from J2/Pin 15 to ground - either thru a
> switch or directly.
>
> Is this your understanding and/or experience?
No. In my experience with the GMA-340, enabling/disabling the boost (I
wired mine to a switch) doesn't affect anything other than the Music
input(s).
But...here's what the installation manual says:
"Unit Mods 2 and 5 provide ten times gain for volume control of the
entertainment music system. Unit Mod 5 provides either switching this
function between unity gain (0 dB) and times ten gain (20 dB) or hard wiring
J2 pin 15 to ground for times ten gain. When audio levels applied to Music
1 and Music 2 inputs are increased by 20 dB, the amplification may also
increase unwanted audio noise. See note 17 in figures B5 and B7 and refer
to Garmin Service Bulletins 0113 and 0210."
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> useless battery.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob, this might fit my situation: Some dummy left something in the always
hot cigarette plugin and killed the battery dead for about a week. The next
several cold starts of the engine were weird - the thing didn't fire after
two blades as usual, but instead fired immediately upon releasing the
starter. This tells me that the Lasar system was not getting enough voltage
to fire, something around 8 volts. Since this happened a couple times in a
row, I began suspecting the battery was croaking. Would you consider one
week a "long time" for a battery to be dead as it relates to reducing
capacity?
BTW, I have rewired the cig outlet to the main bus now... now dummy proof.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Life |
> When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> useless battery.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Hi Bob and all,
While searching the Web for battery information, I found the following
site :
http://www.buchmann.ca/
Any opinion ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
> >
> > When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> > as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> > stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> > event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> > amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> > set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> > the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> > very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> > useless battery.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob, this might fit my situation: Some dummy left something in the always
>hot cigarette plugin and killed the battery dead for about a week. The next
>several cold starts of the engine were weird - the thing didn't fire after
>two blades as usual, but instead fired immediately upon releasing the
>starter. This tells me that the Lasar system was not getting enough voltage
>to fire, something around 8 volts. Since this happened a couple times in a
>row, I began suspecting the battery was croaking. Would you consider one
>week a "long time" for a battery to be dead as it relates to reducing
>capacity?
>
>BTW, I have rewired the cig outlet to the main bus now... now dummy proof.
It's not something one can gage by inference. The rate and
severity of damage to the battery is a function of so many
variables not the least of which are battery age, severity
of normal use, temperatures, time in the discharged state, etc.
If you were still cranking the engine at all, at least your
parked parasitic loads were not so high as to completely
drain the battery.
There's no substitute for $time$ and tools to measure the
state of your battery whenever the issue comes into question.
It's difficult to offer specific advice to a population
of users spread all along the bell-curve. A few percent
worry batteries a lot and spend a lot of $time$ in the
testing and/or replacement mode and maybe even favor premium
batteries. Another few percent don't care. You fall
somewhere in between and you have to make your own
decision about how much $time$ you're willing to spend
in maintaining a battery so as to squeeze every last bit
of serviceability from it . . . or just throw a new cheapie
in every year.
It would be really cool if there was a lower cost tool
than the WestMountainRadio product that would produce
definitive capacity numbers for a battery. I've been thinking
about it.
I think I mentioned that the 'Connection has two "staff
programmers" . . . and I just gave the product function
spec to one of them today for the next new product to
come up on aeroelectric.com
We've got several products in the pipe . . . a poor
boy's cap checker is down on the list somewhere.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
>
> > If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
> > out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it.
>
>Bob...tell me more about this 2# battery!
Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in
Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing
in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells
held a lot of promise but the program in Colorado flopped
for for a variety of financial and technical reasons.
I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then
and those letters were still in someone's files where
the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note
this morning. It seems the Phoenix is rising from the
ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in
particular . . .
http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
So Bob, does this mean that if you have the tool with the .116 gap, it is
not satisfactory??? This is the tool that Stein sells, as I just measured
the one I received from them a couple of months back. I do not know about
B&C tool.
Thanks
Bill S
-----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: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
>
>I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the
>analysis in the article at the above link:
>
>
> Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> other direction).
>
> However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> following pictures on my website.
>
>
>I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided
you
>couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from
>B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
>crimp tools I have.
B&C tried another tool supplier some time back and
it did stir up a bit of a kerfuffle because folks
noted that it didn't seem to put the PIDG terminals on
right. I got a sample tool from B&C and confirmed the
problem which was written up in the thread you cited.
B&C has long since corrected the deficiency.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
I've read several posts which seem to imply that NMEA-183 is the same as
RS-232. That is not true.
NMEA-183 recommends EIA-422A (or RS-422A if you like) electrical
properties, although RS-232 talkers are acceptable. So an NMEA-183
device (if it receives) must be able to receive both RS-232 and RS-422,
but will transmit only one of them (obviously), usually EIA-422.
EIA-422A uses two wires (A & B) differentially. A ZERO is represented by
A being at 2-6V (typically +5V), and B being at 0V. A ONE is represented
by B being 2-6V, and A being 0V. In practice, the receiver will
interpret A being below 0.2V relative to B as a ONE. An EIA-422A driver
can drive up to 10 receivers.
RS-232 uses +/-15V (typically +/-12V) relative to a common ground for
signalling, with +/-3V as an invalid NULL zone. A negative voltage
represents a ONE state, and positive voltage represents a ZERO. BobN
said earlier that you can parallel up at least 10 RS-232 receivers from
one RS-232 sender.
Having said that, most RS-232 receivers don't comply with the +/-3V
invalid zone, and in fact switch at about 1.2V, so interpret 0V as if it
were -12V (i.e. a ONE), and 5V as a ZERO. Therefore, most RS-232 ports
will read NMEA-183 or EIA-422A.
I can't see why you shouldn't be able to drive 10 RS-232 receivers from
one EIA-422A sender, or 10 EIA-422A receivers from one RS-232 sender.
Things may come unstuck if there's a mixture of RS-232 and EIA-422A
receivers.
If an EIA-422A device is connected to an RS-232 device, then some care
needs to be taken. If you use the B wire as ground, and the A wire as
data it will work just fine. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the
two devices have separate grounds though.
See http://www.kh-gps.de/nmea.faq
>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
>together if you want a reliable connection.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
>
>
>So Bob, does this mean that if you have the tool with the .116 gap, it is
>not satisfactory??? This is the tool that Stein sells, as I just measured
>the one I received from them a couple of months back. I do not know about
>B&C tool.
I'll have to dig around in my photos to see if I have
the test crimps on file. Given that the PIDG sleeve is
.390" long, the .116 gap between dies leaves (0.390-0.116)/2
or 0.137" of active crimp each end at best centered in
.068" from each end.
Take a pair of calipers and set them for .068" see where
the crimp centers at each end of the PIDG sleeve. It's
right ON the end of the insulation grip liner and
over the end of the terminal end of the conductor grip
as opposed to being centered on it.
This does not produce the bell-shaped opening recommended
for the wire grip at the terminal end and centers the insulation
grip right out at the end of the sleeve.
Now, this crimp still passes the pull test and does provide
positive insulation support. I cannot assert that the tool
produces unsafe crimps. I can say that the finished results
are considerably departed from that produced by the t-head
and $low$ tools featured in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/B.jpg
It may be that the variability in results are more a function
of appearance as in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Termnials/JST_Samples_2.jpg
Check the results you're getting. Do the pull-tests. It's
probably more a question of craftsmanship than ultimate
suitability.
I can only say that the results were far enough away from
what I was used to getting from my tools (and what's called
out by the terminal manufacturers for installation criteria)
that I couldn't recommend it either. I've got lots of various
crimp tools but this one wouldn't be kept in my toolbox.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pellien" <jim(at)pellien.com> |
| Subject: | Popular Mechanics - 1 Week Sport Pilot School |
Popular Mechanics has sent an editor to take the 1-Week Sport Pilot School
at the Sky Bryce Airport in Basye, VA. Davin Coburn is writing a daily
"blog" of his learning experience at the Popular Mechanics main webpage:
www.popularmechanics.com <http://www.popularmechanics.com/>
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically suitable
IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV protection and safe
in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon to be published on the
AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with minimal retrofitting hassle into
the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks walkiong
into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's for, as you know.)
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
>
>Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH
>IR alternator might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and
>allow control of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes
>as per Z-14 (or is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am
>preparing to implement this month on my plane?
>
>Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
The automotive industry is loaded with choices for
alternators virtually ALL of which are better choices
for engine driven power than most alternators
flying on certificated ships today.
It has been suggested that some brands/part-numbers
are especially 'golden' but I've set a goal to make
the exact choice of alternators irrelevant to system
reliability.
If you can find a low-time, clean, light and low
cost alternator out there that is easily fitted to
your airplane, I have no basis for recommending that
you don't use it. A methodology for going beyond
what already flying in thousands of OBAM aircraft
while applying traditional design goals will be
forthcoming and easily added to any alternator you
might choose to install.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
-----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture
>
>Bob,
>I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
>two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
>panel
>is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
>entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
>electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
>missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
>comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for
the
>exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch
will
>extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
>design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? I'll suggest this
is covered in discussions on the various architectures.
My particular predisposition toward Z-13/8 is the double
layered electrical system that offers unlimited endurance
with an 8A backup and nicely tolerates a contactor or
battery master switch failure.
If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it. Just 25 years
ago, the best choices out there called for 25# battery, 17#
starter and about 12# alternator. Now we're looking forward
to crafting a dual alternator system that weighs less than
the battery of choice in 1980.
This is a cool business!
Bob . . .
Bob,
I think that my idea of combining the battery buss and E buss gives the
same ability to tolerate contactor or battery master failure. In case I
was not very clear on the last post all I have proposed to do to the Z13-8
is eliminate the switch and second buss and the connection between the
E-buss and the main buss. Everything that you would put on the E-buss I put
on the battery buss and equipped it with a fusible link at the connection to
the battery for protection. This system would also require that I turn off
all items on the battery buss after each flight to keep the battery alive.
A little extra work to reduce parts count by a few. Not sure that the
savings is worth the effort, but, I would like to know if there is a problem
with my proposed idea. Thanks. Don
PS Yes I have a copy of the connection and refer to it regularly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>for, as you know.)
George has published several recommendations
that are part number specific. Check back into
the recent archives.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie and Gert) |
>From: gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss)
>Hi George
>here is a question for you. Do you know of replacement brush holders
>which would replace an existing brush-holder and regulator, to an
>externally regulated brush holder. The idea is on the following web page
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/index.htm
>I have the brush holder mentioned on this page and looking at the ND
>alternator unit I have from the suzuki samurai, it appears to be off
>only a few degrees in the mounting hole region, I can't but wonder if
>there exists a lester part# for my ND alternator bursh holder which
>would bring the contacts out rather than to the internal regulator.
>do u know where such info might be found to determine what different
>brush holders fit a particular ND alternator???
>Thanks Gert
Gert: I am not aware of a direct replacement for the brush holder to convert
the smaller units to external regulation. I mention a ND with an E-VR below.
Now I don't know if that will bolt into a ND from 40-60 amp units, which are
smaller. It would be nice and wished of a bolt in replacement, however I think
the way to go is just modifying the existing one. To be honest I am not crazy
about drilling and tapping the brush leads but if you want external regulation
that is what you likely need to do. How ever you know if you go with a so-
called an "A" type external regulator you don't have to modify the brush
holder. However most external regulators are "B" type, but I found a
few "A" types that are good. One is a Chrysler aftermarket with adjustable
voltage and another for marine a marine application.
Here is a site where a guy shows both ways to Mods of a ND alternator (A
and B type). I think it is clear and complete for both methods.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/georger/
You have to hunt around but it is on his electrical and alternator page.
>Charlie Kuss
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage
>George,
>Actually, I have a NAPA rebuilt 70 amp ND alternator off of a
>1991 Toyota
>Camry. Lester #13277 See
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd70206.htm
>This also comes as an 80 amp unit Lester # 13331
>See
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd80205.htm
Ok Charlie, it sounds like you have a good handle on it. Those
are good units. Don't worry about age in the down the road.
These things are now being made new. I explain below, but the
industry is expanding and in a huge growth of NEW after market
units. The Vicic is a main player and if you see it on their site I
can get it.
>I asked about Honda units simply because the internal fans
>spin in the correct direction for use on a Lycoming. Bob &
>others have commented before that fan direction is not that
>critical for our purposes. (B&C fans run backwards)
The old circa 1980's is old technology and the single external
fan units I would agree are not a good choice. By the end of the
1980's early '90's the alternators with internal fans came a long
way. As far as fan rotation, I also hear the fan direction is not
critical. I think it is just the fact that the TWO fans internal of the
ND are pretty efficient, even backwards. I am sure you saw
Wheeler North's web pages on how the convert the Toyota to
external regulation and sub in the Honda CCW fan. The fan
thing does not bother me, but keeping it cool with air blast tube
and not overloading is key. If I needed that much power I would
copy (gratuitously steal) his ideas.
Since you or I brought it up are ND's for external VR's stock.
ND made for external regulation they are available NEW.
Here are some new units with E-VR's units you may look
at:
Lester #13353 75 amp (see specs below)
Lester#13578 90 amps (a little bigger than 75 amps but smaller than 120 amp units)
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvdn10901214.htm
(says internal but it is external VR)
All have serpentine belt pulleys an need to change and Fans are
CW (backwards for us).
>Last night I searched through various Mopar and Honda
>wiring schematics on my automotive ALLDATA software. I
>didn't find any externally regulated Honda units newer than
>1983. I'm not wild about using an alternator off of a 20+ year
>old car model. They are readily available now. The problem
>comes 5 to 10 years down the road. These cars are all headed
>for (or already in) the junk yard. The supply of cores and the
>demand for on the shelf rebuilt units will be long gone in
>2011 or 2016.
Here is the new thing in the industry. Since cores are getting
scares and old, having been rebuilt more than once, the industry
is going new. It is just easier and cheaper to make it new from
scratch verses taking a crusty unit, pry it part and clean it,
throwing out half the parts out. Victory is one of the players and
they make a good unit according to my distributor. They have
ISO2001 accreditation and QC certificates. They are considered
high quality. There will be cheaper units available from main
land China. I was offered but passed on those units. It will be
important for someone to evaluate the brands and suppliers to
get the best. I am helping Van's aircraft and trying to get them to
switch to new units now.
If you see a unit you want let me know I may be able to get it. If
they don't have it in stock it can take 90 days to get, which is the
down side. Like I said the auto electric rebuilding industry is
going NEW, even for the older units. Some of the NEW OEM
units are going even more exotic, with clutches and digital data
links to the onboard computers. Even so there will always a
demand for these 20 year old designs because they good, simple
and stand alone.
>I'm planning on heated seats or heated clothing for my RV-8A
>project. That is one reason why I want a unit with 60+ amp
>capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
>alternator's life expectancy is directly >related to how hard
>(percentage of rated output) it is used.
>These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
>pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units
>and the later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm
>diameter rotor shafts. Because of this, you can simply swap out
>the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4" diameter aluminum
>aftermarket pulley.
That is a good idea. I had a RV-4 and now a RV-7 and with a
small 2.68" pulley and small 45 amp ND I have a solid 1"
clearance. I could not run a 4" pulley. My question is do you
need a 4" pulley? I know with Lycoming the 7.5" flywheel is not
an issue with a 2.5" alt pulley. The 9.75" flywheel needs a 2.8-
3.0" alternator pulley in my opinion to keep the speed down, but
I don't know your application.
>One more question George. In my ALLDATA >software, it
>calls the ND alternators (Chrysler also uses >Bosch units)
>"Corporate Units". Can I infer from this that these alternators
>are actually made by Chrysler (or a subsidiary) under license
>from ND? Or is there another explanation?
When I see that I think it is a dual application. I know like in a
Kia model the Bosch was not good and they made a mid year
switch to ND. The ND was made to retro-fit to the earlier model
Kia's with the Bosch. Not to bash Bosch but they are a subject
of a minor current service recall (on the Kia). I am not sure what
the Chrysler issue is. It may be on the heavy duty or "Corporate
Units" they use one brand alternator for that app. I know Chrysler
uses ND alternators. In fact it is the Chrysler late 1990-2001 that use
the ND alternators with external regulation I mentioned above
(but it is not available from Victory, but available new from
another good company)
Alternator - Nippondenso ER/IF < external reg/internal fan
75 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 7-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1996-92) Dodge B Series Van 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge D Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1996-92) Dodge Dakota 3.9L, 5.2L
(1996-94) Dodge Ram Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge Ramcharger 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge W Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
Replaces:
Nippondenso 121000-346
Lester Nos:
13353
Alternator, 100% New
>Charlie Kuss
Cheers George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24V starter on a 12V system |
| From: | marknlisa(at)hometel.com |
Bob said:
> Mark,
>
> When you respond to someone's comments you need to trim away THE
> REST of the irrelevant materials in the Digest Dump of the day's
postings.
Bob,
I apologize, I thought I'd deleted all the other material. In fact, when
I was reading the digest this morning I zipped over my own post without
noticing that I'd incorporated yesterday's entire digest -- as I rolled on
down the post I kept thinking "What idiot included the entire digest in
his post?" I'll double check next time!
> My best recommendation is try to keep it simple. Reduce
> the numbers of ways that controls can be mismanaged and
> produce undesirable results. The z-figures have been crafted
> with these goals in mind. Adding or deleting features
> requires some consideration that I don't have time to
> offer right now. We've discussed all the upsides/downsides
> of not using the 2-10, using key switches, etc but none
> of those discussions illuminated a compelling reason
> to modify the z-figures. Just make your decisions with
> a level of awareness: Does the change really add value
> to an already robust, trouble-free system or are you
> stroking a quest for the "ultimate" configuration even
> though the feature has a very remote probability of
> improving on the outcome of your day.
My engine choice drives the requirement for a 24V starter on a 12V system;
I have no choice but to modify the z-figure. I'm looking for some backup
on my thought process. How do you feel about elimination of the e-bus as
I asked on my last post?
Factors:
1. A total emergency load of 6 amps (including the contactors)
2. 34ah (17ah X 2) on hand
3. A pre-made decision to land immediately in the event of alternator failure
Given these, what does the e-bus do for me?
I see your point about the 2-10 switch. But, if I read the schematic
correctly, without the DC mstr switch on I'll have no power to main power
bus and, consequently, the alternator field (thru the alternator switch),
thus making it impossible to turn the the alternator on with the DC mstr
off. Am I reading that wrong?
BTW, these questions aren't only for Bob; it sounds like he's extremely
busy. If anyone else has constructive criticism I'm all ears!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> (Charlie and Gert) |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
(Charlie and Gert)
>snipped
>
>Here is a site where a guy shows both ways to Mods of a ND alternator (A
>and B type). I think it is clear and complete for both methods.
>http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/georger/
>
>You have to hunt around but it is on his electrical and alternator page.
George,
Thanks for the link to George's Falco site. His modification photos are
much nicer than those in the CONTACT MAGAZINE article. I've e-mailed him
asking for the full size version of those photos.
>snipped
> Since you or I brought it up are ND's for external VR's stock.
> ND made for external regulation they are available NEW.
>Here are some new units with E-VR's units you may look
>at:
> Lester #13353 75 amp (see specs below)
> Lester#13578 90 amps (a little bigger than 75 amps but smaller than 120
> amp units)
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvdn10901214.htm
>(says internal but it is external VR)
> All have serpentine belt pulleys an need to change and Fans are
>CW (backwards for us).
>
>snipped
> >I'm planning on heated seats or heated clothing for my RV-8A
> >project. That is one reason why I want a unit with 60+ amp
> >capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
> >alternator's life expectancy is directly >related to how hard
> >(percentage of rated output) it is used.
>
> >These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
> >pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units
> >and the later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm
> >diameter rotor shafts. Because of this, you can simply swap out
> >the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4" diameter aluminum
> >aftermarket pulley.
>
> That is a good idea. I had a RV-4 and now a RV-7 and with a
>small 2.68" pulley and small 45 amp ND I have a solid 1"
>clearance. I could not run a 4" pulley. My question is do you
>need a 4" pulley? I know with Lycoming the 7.5" flywheel is not
>an issue with a 2.5" alt pulley. The 9.75" flywheel needs a 2.8-
>3.0" alternator pulley in my opinion to keep the speed down, but
>I don't know your application.
I'm planning on building up an ECI Titan O-361 kit engine. Basically this
is a clone of the O-360-A1A, so I "assume" the flywheel and pulley diameter
would be the same. My parts catalog shows 4 variations for the flywheel
assembly for the O-360-A1A . They are:
LW-16064 12/14 pitch 1.91 to 1 drive ratio
75221 12/14 pitch 2.5 to 1 drive ratio
77579 12/14 pitch 3.25 to 1 drive ratio
75030 12/14 pitch 3.25 to 1 drive ratio
The 77579 seems to be the most popular number, as it is called out on 19 of
the 20 Axx derivatives shown on that page. Does this use the larger 9.75"
flywheel? If so, can you recommend a part number for a 2.8" - 3" Vee groove
pulley (or an ND part number for same)? I'd prefer the 3" model. I only
mention the 4" pulley because it was offered as an after market item in the
past. I don't think it's still being manufactured. I did manage to purchase
a NOS unit from another RV builder.
>snipped
> I know Chrysler
>uses ND alternators. In fact it is the Chrysler late 1990-2001 that use
>the ND alternators with external regulation I mentioned above
>(but it is not available from Victory, but available new from
>another good company)
>
> Alternator - Nippondenso ER/IF < external reg/internal fan
>75 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 7-Groove Pulley
> Used On:
>(1996-92) Dodge B Series Van 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge D Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1996-92) Dodge Dakota 3.9L, 5.2L
>(1996-94) Dodge Ram Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge Ramcharger 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge W Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>Replaces:
>Nippondenso 121000-346
>Lester Nos: 13353
>Alternator, 100% New
>
> Cheers George
Great info and back ground. Thanks for all the information George.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
Mark,
My understanding is that alcohol in mogas will radically change capacitance
gage readings because alcohol's dielectric constant is very different from
gasoline's. If you calibrate your capacitance gages for 100LL then put mogas
with x% alcohol, your gages will need to be recalibrated.
This has been discussed before but I fail to remember that any one came with
a satisfactory response. In the short term I shall be using 100LL as mogas
is not readily available at airports in France. In the long term, as 100LL
gets phased off and replaced with mogas, either I find a way to recalibrate
the tanks from empty to full each time I fill them up or I switch to
standard resistive float type senders.
As for an independent low level fuel warning - I use an optical sensor which
turns on when the level drops below the fuel pickup when the plane is
inclined 15 forward - I do not know how much this represents in horizontal
flight but I figure that between the two tanks it should be 5 to 10 gallons,
i.e. half hour to one hour of total flying time.
Michele
RV8 - Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark R
Steitle
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel
Level Probes P-300C
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
One of the real gewels in the 40 to 55amp range (depending on who you
believe) is the 1987 Suzuki Samuri Nippon Denso #14684. This is a very
common unit..I have flown one for 400 hours and has been completely
trouble free..If you ignore the continual oil spray test my engine has
been giving it...:)
In the 60 to 70amp range is the 1987 Toyota Camry...heavier than the
Suzuki but apparently a fine unit. The problem is it comes with a
serpentine belt pulley...I picked up a v belt pulley from an auto
electric rebuilders not problem though.
There a couple of starting points.
The Toyota unit will not fit the standard Vans bracket which probably
means you will end up making your own....Which is what I will be working
on during lunch today as it happens..:)
Frank
-----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
-->
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is
>soon to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection,
>with minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>for, as you know.)
George has published several recommendations
that are part number specific. Check back into
the recent archives.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | retrofitting OV relay |
I am working on a fix for the Nanchang CJ6A. There have been a couple of
voltage regulator failures in CJ6As that use the newer "solid state" VR.
Seems that when the Chinese created the newer VR to replace the older
carbon-pile unit, they didn't bother to add OV protection. The result is
that the generator field goes on hard and the generator then drives the
bus voltage way high, usually destroying the battery. There was even one
case of melted wiring.
The simple solution is for people to just install the B&C alternator and
controller but some are balking at the price. I want to find a 28V OV
relay that will open the field circuit when the bus voltage is too high.
Would anyone happen to have any part numbers for a 28V OV relay near at
hand?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V starter on a 12V system |
>
>
>My engine choice drives the requirement for a 24V starter on a 12V system;
>I have no choice but to modify the z-figure. I'm looking for some backup
>on my thought process. How do you feel about elimination of the e-bus as
>I asked on my last post?
>
>Factors:
>
>1. A total emergency load of 6 amps (including the contactors)
>2. 34ah (17ah X 2) on hand
>3. A pre-made decision to land immediately in the event of alternator failure
>
>Given these, what does the e-bus do for me?
Not much if you never need it.
>I see your point about the 2-10 switch. But, if I read the schematic
>correctly, without the DC mstr switch on I'll have no power to main power
>bus and, consequently, the alternator field (thru the alternator switch),
>thus making it impossible to turn the the alternator on with the DC mstr
>off. Am I reading that wrong?
I don't think you understand the 2-10. It's a progressive
transfer switch. With the three positions wired as suggested,
you get OFF/Batt_Only/Batt+Alt. See Figures on page 11-19 of
the 'Connection.
This mimics functionality of the infamous split rocker switch
that seems to find its way onto many panels that are otherwise
fitted with toggle switches.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Michele,
Thanks for bringing up the issue of alcohol in the fuel changing the
readings. I hope to locate fuel w/o alcohol added, if that's possible
these days. But that is one of the things I plan on testing. I would
like to see just how much of an error it creates. I always have the
engine monitor's fuel flow numbers, and the 30-minute (per tank) low
fuel warning lights. If it is more accurate than a Cessna fuel gauge
I'll consider myself to be ahead of the game.
Thanks,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Mark,
My understanding is that alcohol in mogas will radically change
capacitance
gage readings because alcohol's dielectric constant is very different
from
gasoline's. If you calibrate your capacitance gages for 100LL then put
mogas
with x% alcohol, your gages will need to be recalibrated.
This has been discussed before but I fail to remember that any one came
with
a satisfactory response. In the short term I shall be using 100LL as
mogas
is not readily available at airports in France. In the long term, as
100LL
gets phased off and replaced with mogas, either I find a way to
recalibrate
the tanks from empty to full each time I fill them up or I switch to
standard resistive float type senders.
As for an independent low level fuel warning - I use an optical sensor
which
turns on when the level drops below the fuel pickup when the plane is
inclined 15 forward - I do not know how much this represents in
horizontal
flight but I figure that between the two tanks it should be 5 to 10
gallons,
i.e. half hour to one hour of total flying time.
Michele
RV8 - Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
R
Steitle
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel
Level Probes P-300C
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
I'm not delaying flying; my RV has 500+ hrs on the original Van's-suggested vintage
'98 electrical system and 35 amp alternator, replete with flickering backlighting
in the radio the entire time, and LV warnings every time I turn on the
200 watts of landing lights ;-)
What I have resolved to do, having finally read the "Connection," is to re-do the
charging and power distribution system in a manner worthy of the glass panel
I hope to install soon. Alternator upgrade (and PM backup alternator) is essential
to that goal.
Will check archives for suggested part #'s. Thanks for all your help, Bob. This
list is truly great stuff.
-BB
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
SNIP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: retrofitting OV relay |
>
>I am working on a fix for the Nanchang CJ6A. There have been a couple of
>voltage regulator failures in CJ6As that use the newer "solid state" VR.
>Seems that when the Chinese created the newer VR to replace the older
>carbon-pile unit, they didn't bother to add OV protection. The result is
>that the generator field goes on hard and the generator then drives the
>bus voltage way high, usually destroying the battery. There was even one
>case of melted wiring.
>
>The simple solution is for people to just install the B&C alternator and
>controller but some are balking at the price. I want to find a 28V OV
>relay that will open the field circuit when the bus voltage is too high.
>Would anyone happen to have any part numbers for a 28V OV relay near at
>hand?
Does this need to be an FAA qualified device? If not, I can
supply you the needed components to implement
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/OV/Gen_OV.pdf
in a 28v version.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Thanks,Steve
RV4 Kit No.4478
RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
PA18-150 G-BVMI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Here you go...
http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%20Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
or
http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
and
http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
As seen on avweb earlier this year.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Not to be overly critical here, but Peltor located the push-to-talk
button on the back of the left earcup. That seems like more trouble
than what its worth, and possibly downright dangerous. It would be
really fun flying an airplane with a side control stick while talking to
ATC. This seems like one place where wires might be best.
Regards,
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
Here you go...
http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%2
0Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
or
http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
and
http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
As seen on avweb earlier this year.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
If the airplane has a PTT somewhere, I think you can use either that one
or the one on the headset. All the PTT wire has to do is get pulled to
ground in order to activate the transmitter. I don't think it matters
where in the circuit that is accomplished. The way I see it is Peltor is
includes an extra PTT, while others omit that.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Not to be overly critical here, but Peltor located the push-to-talk
> button on the back of the left earcup. That seems like more trouble
> than what its worth, and possibly downright dangerous. It would be
> really fun flying an airplane with a side control stick while talking to
> ATC. This seems like one place where wires might be best.
>
> Regards,
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
> Prather
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
>
>
>
> Here you go...
>
> http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%2
> 0Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
>
>
> and
>
> http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
>
> As seen on avweb earlier this year.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>>
>>
>> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
>> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
>> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
>> RV4 Kit No.4478
>> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
>> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
>While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
>bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
>off working out wiring runs for headsets? Thanks,Steve
Steve et al:
Lots of wireless solutions, and more coming. I'm having a Bluetooth system
implanted in my brain next year.
But I have to wonder why the IR headsets never took off? Were they forgotten
between noise-cancelling and Bluetooth?
This is still an easy conversion to make, as long as no wing walking is
planned. See:
http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/standard/rf/chipset.htm
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Beaten paths are for beaten men."
-E. A. Johnston
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EV200 Contactors - Z-14 |
I was wondering if someone could please comment on the following
experience....as it relates to using Tyco EV200 contactors.
Posted at: GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com by Paul McAllister
"This incident is written up in detail on my (Paul's) builders log at
http://europa363.versadev.com/ under flying experiences" - (A Lightning
strike)
I have been thinking about using the EV200's in a Z-14 setup - and came
across this account. I'm not sure that Stancor contactors would fare
any better....? Also, it seems that this might point out an issue with
the design of Z-14 (Paul has an e-bus) - I don't have an alternate feed
to the bus that doesn't use a contactor? Granted multiple failures of
contactors shouldn't happen...
I'm trying to determine if this were to happen to a Z-14 setup - what
might have been the result?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chaztuna(at)adelphia.net |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
---- Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
> bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
> off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is good?
Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless computer router? Good
grief, these things screw up regularly. Add lightening or atmospheric static
(how about Suns spots?) and wireless headsets would let you down at the time
you need them most. (Dark and stormy night in IFR)
While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for it! Yeah,
that's the ticket.
Sorry for the rant, but I think you get the idea that I think that this isn't
a really good idea for aviation.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EV200 Contactors - Z-14 and the BIG zap. |
>
>I was wondering if someone could please comment on the following
>experience....as it relates to using Tyco EV200 contactors.
>
>Posted at: GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com by Paul McAllister
>
>"This incident is written up in detail on my (Paul's) builders log at
>http://europa363.versadev.com/ under flying experiences" - (A Lightning
>strike)
>
>I have been thinking about using the EV200's in a Z-14 setup - and came
>across this account. I'm not sure that Stancor contactors would fare
>any better....? Also, it seems that this might point out an issue with
>the design of Z-14 (Paul has an e-bus) - I don't have an alternate feed
>to the bus that doesn't use a contactor? Granted multiple failures of
>contactors shouldn't happen...
>
>I'm trying to determine if this were to happen to a Z-14 setup - what
>might have been the result?
Lighting "protection" is something of an oxymoron. We dutifully
march off to the labs and adjust the dials on the big zapper
and if we're lucky, no repairs or redesigns will be required
before the final tests are passed. Depending on whether the
device under test has a potential for direct strike versus near
strike and whether or not the airplane is composite or metal
determines where we set the dials on the big zapper.
When holy-water is finally sprinkled on the product, were
"pretty sure" the thing will still be functional after the
airplane takes a hit. Numerical weight of "pretty sure"?
Oh, somewhere between 50 and 99%. Even after we do the
dial-a-zap thing in the lab, there's nothing binding
mother nature to levels of mischief at or below what
we tested to.
I'm being a little skeptical but not much. Any solid state
device with ship's wiring tied to it is subject to damage
from external EMF forces. There are techniques that stand
of the worst that the big zapper can do . . . but it's not
unusual for addition of lightning and RFI protection to
add significant weight, volume and cost to the product.
If the specs for an EVM200 don't specifically call out
lightning protection, then no parts were added specific
to this purpose. The picture shows and etched circuit board
and its almost a sure bet that it would not survive a
strike to a composite airplane. In this case, the
probability of taking out all EV200's in the same event
is high.
Actually, the standard ol' wire wound, metal cased,
zero-electronics, solenoid operated contactors are
pretty robust in these situations. As a matter of fact,
since they do not contain electronics, we're not required
to qualify them for lightning strike and no manufacturer
I deal with routinely has ever offered "lightning protection"
as a feature in their products.
If lightning strike is on the radar for your personal
design goals, staying with the stone simple contactors
is at least one prudent thing you can consider.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Charlie,
While I agree that comms reliability is important, I don't think this
problem is that tough to lick. Do you use a cordless phone? With mine,
as long as I don't try to go over to my neighbor's house while I am
talking on it, the thing works pretty well - actually, never skips a beat.
I'd rather use that when there's lightning around than one with wires
connected to the wall (and utility poles). I don't really think that
Bluetooth is more likely to crap-out because of a direct lightning strike
than lots of other hardware in the plane, either.
Additionally, most airplanes used to not have ANY headsets, much less ANR
units. Somehow we managed to talk to ATC without them.. :) I think a
cabin speaker is an adequate backup.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> ---- Steve Sampson wrote:
>>
>>
>> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
>> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
>> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
>> RV4 Kit No.4478
>> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
>> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
> What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
> good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless
> computer router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add
> lightening or atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless
> headsets would let you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and
> stormy night in IFR)
> While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for
> it! Yeah, that's the ticket. Sorry for the rant, but I think you get
> the idea that I think that this isn't a really good idea for aviation.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Alex,
I just bought a new Odyssey PC680 and I'm sitting here looking at the brocure
that came with it. It says, "The state of charge in an Odyssey battery can
be determined from the following chart:
Voltmeter reading State of charge
12.84 volts 100%
12.50 volts 75%
12.18 volts 50%
11.88 volts 25%
So, your estimate of 65% charge at 12.4 is about right. It's surprising that
the clock would drop the volts that much.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 12/13/05 3:00:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many
volts
was it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid
12s is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
pretty much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
>
>
> What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
> aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
> to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Gee Charlie, mine work fine.
Peter Laurence
What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless computer
router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add lightening or
atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless headsets would let
you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and stormy night in IFR)
While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for it!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Sorry for the rant, but I think you get the idea that I think that this
isn't a really good idea for aviation.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL |
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
>
> I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
> my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
> "light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
> keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
> satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
> better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
> version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
> horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
> imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
> identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
> solution.
>
> My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
> available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
> All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
> like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
> interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
> asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
> interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
> of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
> tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
> limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
> thank you in advance,
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA HR2
>
>
>
>
>
>
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" larry(at)ncproto.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes f
rom the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
link below to find out more about
=========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
| From: | "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
GRT has a flush-mount version and also happens to be the best experimental EFIS
going right now (woosh - missed me!). And, they do have add-on displays as an
option (at least 3 are possible, maybe more) so that backseat thing could be
quite possible.
As for interfacing between brands - this is like asking Microsoft and Red Hat to
make their OS's compatible - not too likely. Each wants to rule the world.
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Larry E. James
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Here is the link to the Aveo non-Bluetooth wireless headset:
http://aveousa.com/avionics/intercom/index.php
They make a number of arguments as to why you *don't* want to use Bluetooth
in your wireless headset. Not sure I agree with them but you should at least
read it before you buy.
Extra points to anyone who can describe why Bluetooth is called Bluetooth.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
-->
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
I doubt this unit is sophisticated enough for you but take a look any way.
You can slave one to another with an RCA audio cable.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
In the US they are sold by:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry E.
James
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
-->
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for my panel and order
units. My flight mission includes "light" IFR capability and my personal
preference is to keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is better; I'll stick
with an all electric six-pack. My version of the six-pack would include an
electric gyro horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can imagine
that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with identical EFIS display units
could be a rather elegant solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently available. First,
I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd like these to also.
Second, none have the ability to interface with another of the same. While
at Oshkosh I asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was interested.
Additionally, I could see the possibility of placing a third display in the
backseat (Rocket; tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
Here are a couple of links.
http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate increases.
It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in AH
or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate). It
claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later download,
Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full recharges, #
of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
Does it do what it claims to do?
Could it be applied to aviation?
Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about having
plan A and B.
I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
custom built sport aircraft.
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> Alex,
> I just bought a new Odyssey PC680 and I'm sitting here
> looking at the brocure that came with it. It says, "The
> state of charge in an Odyssey battery can be determined from
> the following chart:
> Voltmeter reading State of charge
> 12.84 volts 100%
> 12.50 volts 75%
> 12.18 volts 50%
> 11.88 volts 25%
>
> So, your estimate of 65% charge at 12.4 is about right. It's
> surprising that the clock would drop the volts that much.
>
> Stan Sutterfield
Stan, I don't believe that the clock has anything to do with it. The plane
has set as long as three weeks without running with this battery with no
problems. I believe the battery is in its twilight hours after only two
years. An earlier reply to my original post perhaps confused my "state of
charge" comment to capacity, a different animal. I'm sure the above table
of "state of charge" does indeed change with battery ageing, but that is a
whole other topic.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
>
>I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
>Here are a couple of links.
>
>http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
>http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
>
>They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
>the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate
>increases.
> It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
>It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in AH
>or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate). It
>claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later
>download,
>Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full
>recharges, #
>of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
>Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
>Does it do what it claims to do?
>Could it be applied to aviation?
>Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
>system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about
>having
>plan A and B.
>I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
>their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
>custom built sport aircraft.
Certainly not bogus but not brilliant either. It's just an
automation of a textbook approach to battery evaluation . . .
A review of the installation manual at:
http://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/Installation-UK-BMV501BattMonitor.pdf
shows a shunt in series with the battery so that the computer
has access to battery voltage along with direction and magnitude
of battery current flow.
These two parameters allow one to deduce watt-seconds of energy
required to bring a battery to full charge, likewise watt-seconds
of energy delivered by the battery during a discharge cycle.
There are algorithms which can deduce the battery's current state
of charge (%) along with the battery's present capacity (a.h. or
watt-seconds) based on energy delivered during the last discharge
cycle. The computations can be quite accurate if compensated for
temperature.
Similar techniques are used in lap-top computers to track battery
state of charge (percent) and capacity (hours of operation).
The technology you cited is a more automated implementation of
battery capacity testing not unlike the cap checker I cited at
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
The only difference being that the product you've cited is
in a position to monitor both discharge and recharge
cycles during normal operations. It includes the mathematics
and human interface necessary for user friendly display of
data.
The problem with monitoring vehicular cranking
batteries is that under ideal conditions, one NEVER
deep discharges the battery. Boats, computers, and golf
carts routinely deep discharge their batteries so that
data gathered is sufficient to the task of deducing
capacity and therefore state of charge based on
present capacity.
For airplanes and cars, a procedure for getting those
measurements requires a deep-discharge/recharge cycle
for the sole purpose of conducting the test. I've considered
several approaches to crafting hardware small and compact
enough to consider permanent installation on an airplane
that would do an automatic cap test of ship's battery(ies).
Now that I have the resident software guys (and the fact
that I'm buying some VERY fast, jelly bean processors
and a/d converters in volume for other programs) makes
some of the past ideas more attractive. I'll talk it
over with them . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
"Peukert's formula":
http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
different rates."
So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
a hole in the ground.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
Here are a couple of links.
http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate
increases.
It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in
AH or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate).
It claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later
download, Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full
recharges, # of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
Does it do what it claims to do?
Could it be applied to aviation?
Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about
having plan A and B.
I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
custom built sport aircraft.
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
>
>
>"Peukert's formula":
>
>http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
>
>"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
>different rates."
>
>So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
>monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
>the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
>would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
>a hole in the ground.
See http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8679/battery.html
and fill in the boxes. This site purports to give you
all the Peukert numbers you can use :-)
Did a Google search and got a number of interesting sites that
explain the Peukert number concept.
http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mhonarc/elec-trak/msg00523.html
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-16a.htm
http://www.rtpnet.org/~teaa/battery.html
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm
I'll have to noodle this out a bit more but at first
blush, it may be possible to deduce the Peukert number
for a battery under a few in-service discharge scenarios
such as one might experience on a boat or RV. Having
acquired that number, it's easier to predict performance
of all other scenarios. Further, if the Peukert number
for a particular battery is being constantly updated,
then a rising value beyond some point may well be a valid
indicator for replacement.
I think for our purposes, the occasional deep-cycle
discharge at the endurance rate would yield sufficiently
useful numbers to gage battery serviceability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
>
>
>"Peukert's formula":
>
>http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
>
>"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
>different rates."
>
>So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
>monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
>the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
>would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
>a hole in the ground.
Found a better explanation yet!
http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Matt,
Modern cordless phones work quite well. However, my point is that the
cockpit of an aircraft is a different environment compared to your home. My
cordless phones work well most of the time. Sometimes though, they will
generate some static when I walk around while using them. Does your phone
act up if you walk near an operating TV set? There are more electronic at
much closer distances.
Comparing the environment consumer electronics operate in to the aviation
environment is an apples to oranges comparison, in my view. I'm not saying
it can't be done, but it would cost a lot more than the price of comparable
consumer electronics. I remember cabin speakers, but why would I (or
anyone) want to go back to that. I remember black and white TV as well. I
certainly will never buy another one, though. (of course, that's just me.)
If you or any other Lister wants to attempt to tackle that challenge, I
wish you the best of luck.
Charlie
>
>Hi Charlie,
>
>While I agree that comms reliability is important, I don't think this
>problem is that tough to lick. Do you use a cordless phone? With mine,
>as long as I don't try to go over to my neighbor's house while I am
>talking on it, the thing works pretty well - actually, never skips a beat.
> I'd rather use that when there's lightning around than one with wires
>connected to the wall (and utility poles). I don't really think that
>Bluetooth is more likely to crap-out because of a direct lightning strike
>than lots of other hardware in the plane, either.
>
>Additionally, most airplanes used to not have ANY headsets, much less ANR
>units. Somehow we managed to talk to ATC without them.. :) I think a
>cabin speaker is an adequate backup.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> >
> >
> > ---- Steve Sampson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> >> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> >> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
> >>
> >> Thanks,Steve
> >> RV4 Kit No.4478
> >> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> >> PA18-150 G-BVMI
> >
> > What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
> > good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless
> > computer router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add
> > lightening or atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless
> > headsets would let you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and
> > stormy night in IFR)
> > While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for
> > it! Yeah, that's the ticket. Sorry for the rant, but I think you get
> > the idea that I think that this isn't a really good idea for aviation.
> > Charlie Kuss
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Craig Payne wrote:
> "The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
> different rates."
>
> So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
> monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
> the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
> would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
> a hole in the ground.
Craig, you have to actually measure the capacity of the battery at two
different discharge rates. You may find that many of the gel-cell makers
will give capacity in AH at two different discharge rates. If you know
that you can calculate Peukert's exponent.
lead-acid battery capacity is given by the following:
I
n * t = C
Where I = discharge current
t = time
n = Peukert's exponent, typically about 1.25
C = battery capacity constant
If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge
it using two different currents and take the time for each. You then
plug the two currents and the two times into the following equation:
n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a
wide range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that
bracket your normal usage.
On my boat I would not always have the ability to recharge the battery
bank fully so knowing the exact charge state was important. I could go
several cycles of charge and discharge without ever reaching a full
discharge or a full charge. With a proper value for Peukert's exponent
my battery monitor was very accurate on remaining energy (more on this
later). But this is pretty much a moot point because in aircraft we are
going to recharge the battery after each discharge cycle.
BTW, a number of the battery energy monitors out there may claim to do a
calculation based on Peukert's exponent but most just have a lookup
table for a range of currents and don't allow the adjustment of the
exponent. The only energy monitor I know of that actually uses Peukert's
exponent to do accurate on-the-fly calculation of remaining capacity is
Ample Power's "EMON-2". I can attest to its accuracy.
And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
mentioned.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
Hello Larry,
the Dynon can be flat mounted (original mounting frame lets bezel coming
out aprox 1/16" but you can shim to have it all flat). Dynon is on the
way to have a Bus implemented so each unit can exchange data with
another, however details are not yet fixed. What is working so far is,
that I can display the dynon EFIS on my Dynon engine monitor.
Hope it helpes?
Werner
Larry E. James wrote:
>
>I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
>my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
>"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
>keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
>satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
>better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
>version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
>horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
>imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
>identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
>solution.
>
>My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
>available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
>All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
>like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
>interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
>asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
>interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
>of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
>tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
>limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
>thank you in advance,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Thanks! Funny you should mention Ample Power, that's the same company Bob
found:
http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
-->
Craig Payne wrote:
> "The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery
> at different rates."
>
> So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
> monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of
> energy in the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out
> with a shunt. I would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know
> Peukert's formula from a hole in the ground.
Craig, you have to actually measure the capacity of the battery at two
different discharge rates. You may find that many of the gel-cell makers
will give capacity in AH at two different discharge rates. If you know that
you can calculate Peukert's exponent.
lead-acid battery capacity is given by the following:
I
n * t = C
Where I = discharge current
t = time
n = Peukert's exponent, typically about 1.25
C = battery capacity constant
If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge it
using two different currents and take the time for each. You then plug the
two currents and the two times into the following equation:
n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a wide
range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that bracket
your normal usage.
On my boat I would not always have the ability to recharge the battery bank
fully so knowing the exact charge state was important. I could go several
cycles of charge and discharge without ever reaching a full discharge or a
full charge. With a proper value for Peukert's exponent my battery monitor
was very accurate on remaining energy (more on this later). But this is
pretty much a moot point because in aircraft we are going to recharge the
battery after each discharge cycle.
BTW, a number of the battery energy monitors out there may claim to do a
calculation based on Peukert's exponent but most just have a lookup table
for a range of currents and don't allow the adjustment of the exponent. The
only energy monitor I know of that actually uses Peukert's exponent to do
accurate on-the-fly calculation of remaining capacity is Ample Power's
"EMON-2". I can attest to its accuracy.
And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
mentioned.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Your cordless phone doesn't generate static... it picks up radio signals
that it doesn't understand and you hear 'static'. From this point of
view, a cockpit is a more suitable environment for a wireless device
than your home, because there are less sources of radio signals, and
those that are there (transponder, comm radio) are tightly controlled.
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>Matt,
> Modern cordless phones work quite well. However, my point is that the
>cockpit of an aircraft is a different environment compared to your home. My
>cordless phones work well most of the time. Sometimes though, they will
>generate some static when I walk around while using them. Does your phone
>act up if you walk near an operating TV set? There are more electronic at
>much closer distances.
> Comparing the environment consumer electronics operate in to the aviation
>environment is an apples to oranges comparison, in my view. I'm not saying
>it can't be done, but it would cost a lot more than the price of comparable
>consumer electronics. I remember cabin speakers, but why would I (or
>anyone) want to go back to that. I remember black and white TV as well. I
>certainly will never buy another one, though. (of course, that's just me.)
>If you or any other Lister wants to attempt to tackle that challenge, I
>wish you the best of luck.
>Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Minearts" <smineart(at)mahaska.org> |
I bought a piece of the biggest tinned copper braid from Wicks, 5/8 in. wide.
Is this big enough for bonding/grounding straps for a 14v system- (Odyssey PC680,
John Deere 18A Alt)?
Steve Mineart, CH601/Corvair
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Brian Lloyd, where have you been? We've missed your erudiant postings.
On a long cruise or were you on one of those missions 'you can't talk
about?'
Chuck Jensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:10 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
>
>
> Craig Payne wrote:
>
> > "The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the
battery at
> > different rates."
> >
> > So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it
is
> > monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of
energy
> in
> > the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a
shunt.
> I
> > would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's
formula
> from
> > a hole in the ground.
>
> Craig, you have to actually measure the capacity of the battery at two
> different discharge rates. You may find that many of the gel-cell
makers
> will give capacity in AH at two different discharge rates. If you know
> that you can calculate Peukert's exponent.
>
> lead-acid battery capacity is given by the following:
>
> I
> n * t = C
>
> Where I = discharge current
> t = time
> n = Peukert's exponent, typically about 1.25
> C = battery capacity constant
>
> If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery,
discharge
> it using two different currents and take the time for each. You then
> plug the two currents and the two times into the following equation:
>
>
> n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
>
> Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a
> wide range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that
> bracket your normal usage.
>
> On my boat I would not always have the ability to recharge the battery
> bank fully so knowing the exact charge state was important. I could go
> several cycles of charge and discharge without ever reaching a full
> discharge or a full charge. With a proper value for Peukert's exponent
> my battery monitor was very accurate on remaining energy (more on this
> later). But this is pretty much a moot point because in aircraft we
are
> going to recharge the battery after each discharge cycle.
>
> BTW, a number of the battery energy monitors out there may claim to do
a
> calculation based on Peukert's exponent but most just have a lookup
> table for a range of currents and don't allow the adjustment of the
> exponent. The only energy monitor I know of that actually uses
Peukert's
> exponent to do accurate on-the-fly calculation of remaining capacity
is
> Ample Power's "EMON-2". I can attest to its accuracy.
>
> And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
> mentioned.
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . .
.
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bonding strap |
>
>I bought a piece of the biggest tinned copper braid from Wicks, 5/8 in.
>wide. Is this big enough for bonding/grounding straps for a 14v system-
>(Odyssey PC680, John Deere 18A Alt)?
>Steve Mineart, CH601/Corvair
Sure.
Actually, if B&C is still building them the same way I used
to, I threaded two strands of braid INSIDE the outer braid
for VERY low resistance and robust mechanics.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I will take those points now :)
The system is named after a Danish king Harald Bltand (Harold I of Denmark in English),
King of Denmark and Norway from 935 and 936 respectively, to 940 known
for his unification of previously warring tribes from Denmark (including Skne,
present-day Sweden, where the Bluetooth technology was invented) and Norway.
Bluetooth likewise was intended to unify different technologies like computers
and mobile phones. The Bluetooth logo merges the Nordic runes analogous to
the modern Latin H and B: and . This is the official story; however, the actual
Harald Bltand that was referred to in naming Bluetooth was most probably the
liberal interpretation given to him in The Long Ships by Frans Gunnar Bengtsson,
a Swedish best-selling Viking-inspired novel.
The name was originally only a code-name for the project but ended up sticking...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
Here is the link to the Aveo non-Bluetooth wireless headset:
http://aveousa.com/avionics/intercom/index.php
They make a number of arguments as to why you *don't* want to use Bluetooth
in your wireless headset. Not sure I agree with them but you should at least
read it before you buy.
Extra points to anyone who can describe why Bluetooth is called Bluetooth.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
-->
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Welcome back Brian.
The method of measurement is just a distraction from the real issue--The
battery is important to remaining in the air, especially with an
electrically dependent airplane. As such, the battery juice becomes a
critical expendable if the alternator fails. The voltmeter and ammeter are
not good indicators of HOW LONG YOU'VE GOT. And that is what you need to
know and why the battery monitor is a pretty good idea. Don't even consider
a battery monitor without a "Time to Empty" reading.
One could argue that you could plot the current/voltage relationship against
a known load.....well the computer does that for you. Furthermore, other
variables like temperature are tagged on to get better accuracy. Changing
the battery blindly every year, or swapping batteries, is crazy if you can
get the information from a meter.
I submit that for VFR at least, various strategies (like another battery or
a wind-driven turbine) are used because you don't really know what's going
on inside the battery case. The Xantrex XBM and similar devices are the best
solution. (Ebay often has Xantrex XBM's for about US$200.) It handily takes
the place of several other engine instrument too.
More advanced systems monitor and charge the battery cell by cell, and can
have a spare cell or two that could be switched in while the bad cell is
switched out. But for these you have to roll your own.
>And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
>mentioned.
Such a statement gives GMCJetPilot atomic afterburners.....
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have
to ram it down their throats."
-- Howard Aiken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Seuferer <kjsifer(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Another interesting tidbit is the origin of the name Bluetooth which was
taken from the 10th century Danish Viking King Harald Blatand (Bluetooth
is the rough English translation of Blatand). King Harald united Denmark
and Norway during a time of bitter fighting and it was this power to
unite disparate entities that inspired the original developers.
Google rules...
Kevin
--
Kevin Seuferer -- http://www.bearhawkin.com -- Bearhawk Serial #774 -- N774KD
Kevin
>
>
> Extra points to anyone who can describe why Bluetooth is called Bluetooth.
>
> -- Craig
>
>
>
> --
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wickert <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | -List: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
It may not be bluetooth with the law suits taking place on blue tooth technology...also
many of the component mfgs are looking at WIFI in place of bluetooth.
Jim Wickert
Vision Vair #159
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Thanks,Steve
RV4 Kit No.4478
RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
PA18-150 G-BVMI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Where I got to Larry (and I'm not flying yet) was a Dynon D100 (would
have been a D10A with a smaller panel) and a EMS engine monitor.
The EFIS is backed up with 2 steam guages (alt and a/s) and the
Pictorial pilot (autopilot)...The idea is if the EFIS goes south in IFR
then the A/P has both a turn coordintaor readout and will level the
plane when engaged.
I found the all electric six pack was expensive for the lack of
functionality.
As to the rear seat, personally I would just stick an A/s and alt steam
guage in the there. Unless you feel like you will be acting as safety
pilot to an IFR recurrancy person in the rear seat, why would they need
anymore than that? With the A/p up front its not like you need your
passenger to keep it level for you from the rear seat.
You will be limited for panel space so the BMA will give you the VOR/G/S
function...To me though this was too much dependant on one instrument,
so for navigation I have a GNS 430 (just bought the trays to defer cost
until phase 1) with the GI 206 (G/s/VOR) This is wired to the A/p...to
take you there. A PMA 7000b stereo audio panel (for marker beakons and
entertainment). A GTX 327 transponder (push button). Note the EFIS
provides the altitude encoder function.
Oh yes and a ICOM A200 for Comm 2...Nice little unit I have on my
current plane.
I wasn't going to bother with a a second radio...My first IFR flight to
watch my buddy from the back seat made me realise I needed a way to
monitor about 6 radio prequencies at the same time...Gee!
Frank
RV7A...Baffles/cowl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
E. James
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
-->
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for my panel and
order units. My flight mission includes "light" IFR capability and my
personal preference is to keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan.
If I cannot satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My version of the
six-pack would include an electric gyro horizon with a Sandel below.
That being said, I can imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI
with identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently available.
First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd like these to
also. Second, none have the ability to interface with another of the
same. While at Oshkosh I asked both Dynon and BMA about this and
neither was interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility of
placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket; tandem). But alas, my
knowledge on all of this is very limited. Can anyone offer some sound
advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
In a message dated 13-Dec-05 19:05:03 Pacific Standard Time,
craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:
They make a number of arguments as to why you *don't* want to use Bluetooth
in your wireless headset. Not sure I agree with them but you should at least
read it before you buy.
Craig,
The latest issue of Aviation Consumer had an article on "electronic flight
bags." A sidebar addressed Bluetooth in the cockpit as being "finicky" and
working in some cockpits and not others. Given that, I would be a little
suspicious at this point, by being sure that the supplier provided a full money
back
guarantee if one couldn't get the system to work satisfactorily.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
Sorry, you were the second to reply. How about a consolation prize:
"Contrary to popular opinion, Bluetooth or "Bltand" as it was in old Viking
language had nothing to do with a blue tooth. It means dark complexion he
had very dark hair, which was unusual for Vikings.
...
Ericssons R&D facility at Lund is undoubtedly a centre of creative
excellence. Bluetooths genesis there follows many other new ideas,
including the Ericsson mobile phone. In fact, the first portable NMT and GSM
phones on the market were developed there. It seems that Ericsson is not
only making history, but celebrating it, too."
(http://www.cellular.co.za/bluetooth_king_harald.htm)
I've been to Ericsson's facility in Lund twice to help on a failing (and
ultimately failed) project.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd,
Daniel R.
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
-->
I will take those points now :)
The system is named after a Danish king Harald Bltand (Harold I of Denmark
in English), King of Denmark and Norway from 935 and 936 respectively, to
940 known for his unification of previously warring tribes from Denmark
(including Skne, present-day Sweden, where the Bluetooth technology was
invented) and Norway. Bluetooth likewise was intended to unify different
technologies like computers and mobile phones. The Bluetooth logo merges the
Nordic runes analogous to the modern Latin H and B: and . This is the
official story; however, the actual Harald Bltand that was referred to in
naming Bluetooth was most probably the liberal interpretation given to him
in The Long Ships by Frans Gunnar Bengtsson, a Swedish best-selling
Viking-inspired novel.
The name was originally only a code-name for the project but ended up
sticking...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
-->
Here is the link to the Aveo non-Bluetooth wireless headset:
http://aveousa.com/avionics/intercom/index.php
They make a number of arguments as to why you *don't* want to use Bluetooth
in your wireless headset. Not sure I agree with them but you should at least
read it before you buy.
Extra points to anyone who can describe why Bluetooth is called Bluetooth.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
-->
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
> Okay, what you COULD do is build an external signal conditioner
> using the Analog Devices AD596/597 to provide the cold-junction
> compensation and treat the instrument like a millivolt input
> linear instrument.
>
> See
>
> http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/664361174AD596_597_b.pdf
>
> I keep pretty good quantities of this chip on hand. I use
> them several times a year on various investigations.
>
> There are some low cost, fast-turn etched circuit board
> houses that supply free artwork layout programs. My personal
> favorite is at http://expresspcb.com
>
> I use these folks a LOT for one-of instrumentation and
> low volume production projects at RAC and for my clients.
> I could sketch the circuit for you but I'll need to know
> the input impedance of the instrument. If you have some
> resistors, a variable bench supply and a digital voltmeter,
> we can craft an experiment to characterize the instrument's
> input.
Great!
I'me quite sure the guy who does my harness is properly equipped.
How will we proceed to characterize the instrument's input?
Thanks a lot,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
All, thanks for the bluetooth input. Steve.
PS For Charlie I suggest two cans and a bit of string!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: headphone wiring
>
>
>
>>While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
>>bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should
>>hold
>>off working out wiring runs for headsets? Thanks,Steve
>
> Steve et al:
>
> Lots of wireless solutions, and more coming. I'm having a Bluetooth system
> implanted in my brain next year.
>
> But I have to wonder why the IR headsets never took off? Were they
> forgotten
> between noise-cancelling and Bluetooth?
>
> This is still an easy conversion to make, as long as no wing walking is
> planned. See:
>
> http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/standard/rf/chipset.htm
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Beaten paths are for beaten men."
> -E. A. Johnston
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 13/12/2005
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Solid state dimmer control |
Bob and others On page 12-17 of aeroelectrics manual Bob shows an
example of dimmer control useing solid state circuitry. Can anyone tell me
the component values used for this ckt?
I would like to use this for my Pulsar III. Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Converting IR to ER |
Based on feedback from Bob, I decided to try and rewire my IR 80 Amp
alternator to make it an ER. I didn't get very far -- after getting the
case cracked, and removing several screws, I am at the point where I cannot
remove any of the internal bits which (presumably) are the regulator.
Attached are a series of photos along the way:
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2379.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2380.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2381.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2382.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2383.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2384.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2385.JPG
The final photo shows all the screws removed. (The screw in the lower left
is unscrewed, but cannot be removed due to the windings being in the way.)
Tugging will not pull out the assembly that presumably in the regulator.
In any case -- my question is: am I done? Chuck it & start looking for a
new alternator to order?
Thanks,
Mark Supinski
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Converting IR to ER |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Mark,
There was an article on how to convert the Mitsubishi alternator in
Contact Magazine some years back. I think it was issue #19, but not
sure. Check their web site and order the issue. It will walk you
through the process.
Mark Steitle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
R. Supinski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Converting IR to ER
Based on feedback from Bob, I decided to try and rewire my IR 80 Amp
alternator to make it an ER. I didn't get very far -- after getting the
case cracked, and removing several screws, I am at the point where I
cannot
remove any of the internal bits which (presumably) are the regulator.
Attached are a series of photos along the way:
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2379.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2380.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2381.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2382.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2383.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2384.JPG
http://supinski.net:8080/IMG_2385.JPG
The final photo shows all the screws removed. (The screw in the lower
left
is unscrewed, but cannot be removed due to the windings being in the
way.)
Tugging will not pull out the assembly that presumably in the regulator.
In any case -- my question is: am I done? Chuck it & start looking for
a
new alternator to order?
Thanks,
Mark Supinski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid state dimmer control |
> Bob and others On page 12-17 of aeroelectrics manual Bob shows an
>example of dimmer control useing solid state circuitry. Can anyone tell me
>the component values used for this ckt?
>I would like to use this for my Pulsar III. Bill S.
-----------
Eric Jones sells a nice one (http://periheliondesign.com/Vregflyer.htm).
The basis is the LM317 voltage regulator. If you google that you'll get
lots of info.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Converting IR to ER |
mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu
The article in Contact describing the conversion of an IR alternator to ER
was issue 46. The author was Paul Messinger.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"THE-VERY-BIG-STUPID" is a thing which breeds by eating
The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a
good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D
Department.
--Frank Zappa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Converting IR to ER |
<http://www.contactmagazine.com>
or
<http://www.contactmagazine.com/backissu.html>
-Sean RV-10 #40303
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu
>
> The article in Contact describing the conversion of an IR alternator to ER
> was issue 46. The author was Paul Messinger.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "THE-VERY-BIG-STUPID" is a thing which breeds by eating
> The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a
> good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D
> Department.
> --Frank Zappa
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / blue tooth? |
Frank,
Yes, poor choice of words on my part. I understand that cordless
receivers are the victim, not the antagonist. The ear pieces in a wireless
headset will also be victims. I suspect the success or failure of these
units will depend largely on the quality of wiring that builders of OBAM
aircraft do.
Charlie
>
>Your cordless phone doesn't generate static... it picks up radio signals
>that it doesn't understand and you hear 'static'. From this point of
>view, a cockpit is a more suitable environment for a wireless device
>than your home, because there are less sources of radio signals, and
>those that are there (transponder, comm radio) are tightly controlled.
>
>Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Matt,
> > Modern cordless phones work quite well. However, my point is that the
> >cockpit of an aircraft is a different environment compared to your home. My
> >cordless phones work well most of the time. Sometimes though, they will
> >generate some static when I walk around while using them. Does your phone
> >act up if you walk near an operating TV set? There are more electronic at
> >much closer distances.
> > Comparing the environment consumer electronics operate in to the aviation
> >environment is an apples to oranges comparison, in my view. I'm not saying
> >it can't be done, but it would cost a lot more than the price of comparable
> >consumer electronics. I remember cabin speakers, but why would I (or
> >anyone) want to go back to that. I remember black and white TV as well. I
> >certainly will never buy another one, though. (of course, that's just me.)
> >If you or any other Lister wants to attempt to tackle that challenge, I
> >wish you the best of luck.
> >Charlie
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid state dimmer control |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bill -
B&C sells several sizes of this dimmer. They work very well.
Periheliondesign also has a nice one. It makes it very easy to forego the
urge to roll your own.
John
>> Bob and others On page 12-17 of aeroelectrics manual Bob shows an
>> example of dimmer control useing solid state circuitry. Can anyone tell
>> me
>> the component values used for this ckt?
>> I would like to use this for my Pulsar III. Bill S.
> -----------
>
> Eric Jones sells a nice one (http://periheliondesign.com/Vregflyer.htm).
> The basis is the LM317 voltage regulator. If you google that you'll get
> lots of info.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> RV7A
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Brian Lloyd, where have you been? We've missed your erudiant postings.
> On a long cruise or were you on one of those missions 'you can't talk
> about?'
Ah, no. I sold the WISP in the Virgin Islands and am back in Sacramento.
I am now trying to decide what I want to do when I grow up. I think it
probably has something to do with aviation.
Of course it is possible that I have annoyed so many people elsewhere
that I had to come back here. ;-)
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> Welcome back Brian.
>
> The method of measurement is just a distraction from the real issue--The
> battery is important to remaining in the air, especially with an
> electrically dependent airplane. As such, the battery juice becomes a
> critical expendable if the alternator fails. The voltmeter and ammeter are
> not good indicators of HOW LONG YOU'VE GOT. And that is what you need to
> know and why the battery monitor is a pretty good idea. Don't even consider
> a battery monitor without a "Time to Empty" reading.
But such a device could be relatively simple, just sampling the current
drain periodically and integrating it. Like the venerable fuel level
gauge you don't need pinpoint accuracy, just a pretty good idea of how
much is left.
> One could argue that you could plot the current/voltage relationship against
> a known load.....well the computer does that for you. Furthermore, other
> variables like temperature are tagged on to get better accuracy. Changing
> the battery blindly every year, or swapping batteries, is crazy if you can
> get the information from a meter.
I agree with the first part. I think that building an energy monitor
that deals with temp and Peukert's exponent is probably overkill for an
airplane battery monitor since the battery always starts at pretty close
to fully charged to begin with and will not go through multiple partial
charge/discharge cycles.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Amplepower battery energy monitor in my
boat. It does a fantastic job. It just isn't the same job that needs to
be done in an airplane.
> I submit that for VFR at least, various strategies (like another battery or
> a wind-driven turbine) are used because you don't really know what's going
> on inside the battery case. The Xantrex XBM and similar devices are the best
> solution. (Ebay often has Xantrex XBM's for about US$200.) It handily takes
> the place of several other engine instrument too.
For what we are talking about here a Xantrex monitor for $200 is
probably a good deal.
> More advanced systems monitor and charge the battery cell by cell, and can
> have a spare cell or two that could be switched in while the bad cell is
> switched out. But for these you have to roll your own.
That seems a bit overkill.
>>And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
>>mentioned.
>
>
> Such a statement gives GMCJetPilot atomic afterburners.....
I still hold it is overkill. But for $200 a box that replaces a
voltmeter and two ammeters to monitor two batteries is probably a pretty
reasonable thing to do if you have the real estate in the panel.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Converting IR to ER |
>
>
>Mark,
>There was an article on how to convert the Mitsubishi alternator in
>Contact Magazine some years back. I think it was issue #19, but not
>sure. Check their web site and order the issue. It will walk you
>through the process.
>
>Mark Steitle
That Contact Magazine article also shows how to convert ND alternators as
well.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid state dimmer control |
"Bill and Marsha" wrote:
>
> Bob and others On page 12-17 of aeroelectrics manual Bob shows an
> example of dimmer control useing solid state circuitry. Can anyone tell me
> the component values used for this ckt?
> I would like to use this for my Pulsar III. Bill S.
>
>
Hi,
You have received several responses for purchasing pre-made dimmers,
all good choices, but just in case you want to build something yourself,
try:
C2 = 0.1 ufd
C5 = 1.0 ufd
C7 = 1.0 ufd
R3 = 500 ohm
R4 = 2K ohm pot
R6 = 240 ohm
This should give you an output adjustable from just under 4V to just
about 14V. The upper value will be limited by your input of course.
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Aha. As a mathematics-oriented guy, this explanation caused me to understand
the real value of doing a load analysis. Yes, I know it just makes sense
todo a load analysis so as to know the potential load one can expect in
battery-only ops, but this formula made it crystal clear to me.
I'm planning dual Odyssey PC680s (16 Ah) and if I am down to only the standby
(endurance) battery, then at a load of 10 amps I don't have 1.6 hours of
battery life from a fully charged battery. With a Peukert exponent of 1.2, I will
only have 1.0 hour of battery life. I can greatly extend that life by
reducing the load. At a load of 5 amps, the 16 Ah battery life will extend to
beyond 2 hours.
My load analysis is taking on more life now.
Armed with that info and the knowledge of your electrical system, an airborne
pilot could make very informed decisions regarding load shedding. Having an
accurate battery monitor indicating Ah remaining or % remaining could be a
valuable tool.
The lights are slowly coming on.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
>"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
>different rates."
>
>So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
>monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
>the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
>would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
>a hole in the ground.
Found a better explanation yet!
http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
"If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge
it using two different currents and take the time for each. You then
plug the two currents and the two times into the following equation:
n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a
wide range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that
bracket your normal usage."
Couldn't the battery manufacturer do the tests and provide Peukert's exponent
for a particular type of battery?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1117 1.0000 -1.3229
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
<<.........skip.........Note the EFIS provides the altitude encoder
function......skip....>>
12/15/2005
Hello Frank, Here is a bit of a gotcha to consider. Every two years one must
get the FAR 91.411 and 91.413 inspections, commonly called "VFR certs" and
"IFR certs".
These checks can be made in the airplane, but many shops much prefer to have
the altimeter and encoder brought into the shop for checking out in the test
chamber. Then all that has to be done at the airplane is the static system
and transponder check after the altimeter and encoder are reinstalled.
Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a real nuisance
and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going to be to remove
and reinstall the EFIS yourself?
OC
PS: The last time I insisted that the shop technician do the job in the
airplane (in very cold weather, but inside the hangar) he "couldn't get the
encoder to calibrate at the low end". He then proceeded to remove both the
altimeter and the encoder and took them into the nice warm toasty shop where
the encoder checked out perfectly in the chamber with no adjustment what
ever. I had to pay significant bucks because he did the extra work of
removing and reinstalling the encoder and the altimeter. Next time I'll go
back to removing and reinstalling those two items myself as I have done
previously and save that extra cost.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> "If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge
> it using two different currents and take the time for each. You then
> plug the two currents and the two times into the following equation:
>
>
> n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
>
> Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a
> wide range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that
> bracket your normal usage."
>
>
> Couldn't the battery manufacturer do the tests and provide Peukert's exponent
> for a particular type of battery?
Yes, but ... (there is always a but)
It seems that battery manufacturers decide ahead of time what their
batteries will be used for. Those made for deep-cycle use will often
have a table that gives discharge times for different rates. Those that
are intended for starting or for "dual-use" won't.
For example, look at the Deka "Dominator" gel-cell batteries at:
http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/products/marine.html
If you look at their data sheet they give discharge times in minutes at
discharge rates ranging from 75A down to 5A. Likewise they give AH
ratings at different discharge rates. This is how I got the values to
calculate Peukert's exponent for my battery energy monitor.
But you will also find that if you look at the spec sheets for the
starting batteries they don't give this information. There you only get
numbers like cold-cranking amps, etc. Unfortunately they don't give the
discharge curves for their dual-use AGM batteries.
Also on that page is a link to their "Sealed Gel/AGM Technical Manual".
If you plan to use a sealed lead-acid battery, either AGM or gel, you
will want to read this. Sure Penn-Deka wrote it for their batteries but
the information is applicable to all sealed lead-acid batteries (once
you get past the marketing hype on how much better their technology is
over their competitors).
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Hi OC,
As far as removal goes it's a piece of cake...simply a screw on the
front...As long as the thing has power/ground and a pressure it will
show altitude.
If I was faced with having to remove the EFIS I would probably make up a
D sub with the apprpriate wires to save the shop any (expensive)
confusion...:)
In any case, I thought the 2 year VFR cert was a transponder only
test...And IFR was the encoder/pitot/static test??
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
<<.........skip.........Note the EFIS provides the altitude encoder
function......skip....>>
12/15/2005
Hello Frank, Here is a bit of a gotcha to consider. Every two years one
must get the FAR 91.411 and 91.413 inspections, commonly called "VFR
certs" and "IFR certs".
These checks can be made in the airplane, but many shops much prefer to
have the altimeter and encoder brought into the shop for checking out in
the test chamber. Then all that has to be done at the airplane is the
static system and transponder check after the altimeter and encoder are
reinstalled.
Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a real
nuisance and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going to
be to remove and reinstall the EFIS yourself?
OC
PS: The last time I insisted that the shop technician do the job in the
airplane (in very cold weather, but inside the hangar) he "couldn't get
the encoder to calibrate at the low end". He then proceeded to remove
both the altimeter and the encoder and took them into the nice warm
toasty shop where the encoder checked out perfectly in the chamber with
no adjustment what ever. I had to pay significant bucks because he did
the extra work of removing and reinstalling the encoder and the
altimeter. Next time I'll go back to removing and reinstalling those two
items myself as I have done previously and save that extra cost.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
I have a question about wiring the main power distribution bus.
Composite airplane
Engine in front
Battery behind the seat
Z-13/8 all electric on a budget, with "over-weight" endurance bus
Z-13 shows the feeder for the main power distribution bus coming off the battery
contactor and the alternator B lead connecting to the starter contactor. I
understand that one of the benefits of this architecture is that it tends to keep
alternator noise out of the things on the instrument panel.
In my case, the starter contactor is on the firewall and the battery is behind
the seat. I can save weight by using less of the heavy 4AWG bus feeder wire if
I connect the main power distribution bus to the same terminal on the starter
contactor that the alternator connects to instead of running it back behind
the seat to the battery contactor. However, does this tend to reduce the noise
reduction benefits of feeding the main bus from the battery contactor?
Thanks so much for all your help,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid state dimmer control |
>
>
> Bob and others On page 12-17 of aeroelectrics manual Bob shows an
>example of dimmer control useing solid state circuitry. Can anyone tell me
>the component values used for this ckt?
>I would like to use this for my Pulsar III.
There are lots of options. Several folks offer ready to install
devices but if you're of a mind to gain experience, check
the data at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Dimmers
There are documents that describe construction and
installation of several configurations. The data package
covers 1.5A dimmers (LM317), 3.0A dimmers (LM350) and
5A dimmers (LM338). Keep in mind that the larger the
dimmer, the larger the heat sink.
Most dimming applications will use the smaller device
which is described in the DIY article which was published
a few years back in Sport Aviation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Brian,
I like your battery monitor suggestion. You implied the the Xantrex
XBM can monitor two batteries. Is this correct? I looked at the data
sheet, and couldn't find ant indication that it does so. Also, the
data sheet says minimum battery capaicity is 20 Ah, which is
unfortunate because I plan to use two 17s. Is there something similar
to the Xantrex that could be used?
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Dec 14, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> I still hold it is overkill. But for $200 a box that replaces a
> voltmeter and two ammeters to monitor two batteries is probably a
> pretty
> reasonable thing to do if you have the real estate in the panel.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . .
> .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
Jon Goguen wrote:
> I like your battery monitor suggestion. You implied the the Xantrex
> XBM can monitor two batteries. Is this correct? I looked at the data
> sheet, and couldn't find ant indication that it does so. Also, the
> data sheet says minimum battery capaicity is 20 Ah, which is
> unfortunate because I plan to use two 17s. Is there something similar
> to the Xantrex that could be used?
It has been some time since I have looked at the Xantrex. Ah, I was
thinking of the Link 20.
Disclaimer: I am working from memory here and could be wrong. Go read
the manufacturer's lit for accurate information. (http://www.xantrex.com)
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wickert <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
The Xantrex XBM seems to be a upper level monitor that can provide a RS232 data
output however the Xantrex Link 10 and 20 will monitor and report status of one
and two batteries.
See attached
Jim Wickert
Vision 159 Vair
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
Brian,
I like your battery monitor suggestion. You implied the the Xantrex
XBM can monitor two batteries. Is this correct? I looked at the data
sheet, and couldn't find ant indication that it does so. Also, the
data sheet says minimum battery capaicity is 20 Ah, which is
unfortunate because I plan to use two 17s. Is there something similar
to the Xantrex that could be used?
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Dec 14, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> I still hold it is overkill. But for $200 a box that replaces a
> voltmeter and two ammeters to monitor two batteries is probably a
> pretty
> reasonable thing to do if you have the real estate in the panel.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . .
> .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
The ones sold by Victron Energy are apparently made by Xantrex. They have tons
of information on the site but you'll never find it because of their ABYSMALLY
scrambled web page (that still looks quite professional) so be aware that if
you can't find something--go back to Google and start again. Try--
http://www.xantrex.com/support/web/id/1006/support1.asp
There's one XBM being auctioned on eBay right now....$73 and 2 days to go.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned in
no other way."
- Mark Twain
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Question |
>
>
>I have a question about wiring the main power distribution bus.
>
>Composite airplane
>Engine in front
>Battery behind the seat
>Z-13/8 all electric on a budget, with "over-weight" endurance bus
>
>Z-13 shows the feeder for the main power distribution bus coming off the
>battery contactor and the alternator B lead connecting to the starter
>contactor. I understand that one of the benefits of this architecture is
>that it tends to keep alternator noise out of the things on the instrument
>panel.
>
>In my case, the starter contactor is on the firewall and the battery is
>behind the seat. I can save weight by using less of the heavy 4AWG bus
>feeder wire if I connect the main power distribution bus to the same
>terminal on the starter contactor that the alternator connects to instead
>of running it back behind the seat to the battery contactor. However,
>does this tend to reduce the noise reduction benefits of feeding the main
>bus from the battery contactor?
You can tie major system feeders into either battery or
starter contactor . . . whichever is closer to the accessory
being wired.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Sort of related to the Z-13/8 Question |
Bob,
I have a similar situation with a Z-19 architecture and rear mounted
batteries. I was thinking of putting an external splice on the heavy wire
behind the IP, which will make for a pretty short bus feed, rather than a
much longer run through the firewall to the contactor. Is that something
you would recommend or discourage?
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Load allocation with dual battery system |
We're working on a two-battery two-alternator system, which is no doubt
more complex than we need, but we got to it by the following route.
1) Not enough capacity in the internal Rotax PM alternator, so add
another alternator.
2) The FAA requirement that all-electric certified ships have a
independent electrical systems for primary and back-up gyros seemed
reasonable.
3) I liked Bob's strategy of replacing one of two identical batteries
on a regular basis.
So, we're planning a Z14-like system with two 17 Ah batteries and a
small ND alternator (40 amps) to supplement the Rotax dynamo. I've
been giving some thought to how to dive the load between primary and
secondary systems. (The secondary system is run by the dynamo.) My
notion is to allocate the following to the secondary system: TC, all
direct battery buss loads, position lights, and cranking. This makes
the TC independent of the main electrcal system and prevents draining
of the main battery by things that run with the master off. Using the
secondary for cranking may also give warning of a failing battery,
especially if I pay attention to voltage during cranking as Bob
suggests. I will have a cross-feed, so I can crank with both batteries
if needed. This arrangement takes some strain off the main battery,
which should should rarely see much of a discharge cycle.
Comments?
Thanks!
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Z-24 Nusance trips |
Bob etal.
Sorry I've been off the list awhile, having too much fun flying. As one who faithfully
followed the recommendations at the time for a Vans 60amp internally
regulated alternator I've have very few problems with the system with one exception,
what I describe as "nuisance" trips since they occur only very infrequently
yet often enough they are or could become a problem.
My set up is Z13 + Z24 with an 8amp B&C replacing the left mag. LSE & slick ignitions,
Odyssey battery about 2 years old but with few flight hours, battery
tender maintained. System charging voltages 14.5 volts indicated in flight at
about an 8amp load without strobes and 12 amps with strobes. The alternator
is hardly breathing.
What happens occasionally is a main alternator trip under the following under the
following circumstances; touch and goes or rapid changes in power settings
or fluctuating power and load conditions. Such as occur with pattern work in
class D which involves some radio work as power is changed rapidly.
Under these conditions I sometimes discover the low voltage warning light and discover
that the OVM has tripped the main alternator field. Power to idle rest
the breaker and alternator comes back on-line and everything's hunky dory until
it happens again. After 55+ hours this has happened about a dozen times.
more or less. Most annoying.
But before I start remodeling my entire wiring system or investing $800 in a new
alternator regulator, I thought I check in to see what updates and mods are
on the way that may solve this? Should I immediately reconnect my B-lead to the
battery and thus forego the Z24 relay and crowbar protection? So far I haven't
detected any Alternator damage resulting from the in-flight shut downs and
restarts.
Thanks
Mike Holland
RV9A
N192MH
Dana Point, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Off-Topic Question |
This is not directly related to aviation, but I'm sure there are some
people on this list who will find my question pretty elementary.
On most older TV sets, when plugging into the installed audio outlets
for external speakers,headsets,recorders,etc, the TV's internal speaker
becomes inoperative. Some newer sets provide a screen display allowing a
person to choose listening to the internal speaker while a second person
listens to headsets. This is useful when the volume levels need to be
different due to hearing deficiency of one of the persons. Isn't there a
simple way to re-wire the older TV audio output line such that the
output can be fed to both the internal speaker and the headsets
simultaneously? Any help will be appreciated.
Jim McCulley
180 HP Tailwind
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Preventive Maintenance |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0969 1.0000 -1.4111
Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation
services staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your
knowledge.
Question: I have an IFR-certified GPS in my aircraft. Is it required that I
make an entry into my aircraft's maintenance logbook every time I update the
database?
Answer: Yes. The FAA, under 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix A, defines what is
considered to be a major alteration, major repair, and preventive
maintenance. Updating a GPS database qualifies as preventive maintenance
that a person holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform in
this section. The FAA, under 14 CFR 91.407(a)(2), states that a maintenance
record entry must be made for any aircraft that is approved for return to
service after undergoing preventive maintenance. The entry should include,
as stated in 14 CFR 43.9(a), the date of completion of the work performed,
description of the work completed, your signature, pilot certificate grade,
and certificate number. For additional information on maintenance logbook
entries, see AOPA Online.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-24 Nusance trips |
>
>Bob etal.
>
>Sorry I've been off the list awhile, having too much fun flying. As one
>who faithfully followed the recommendations at the time for a Vans 60amp
>internally regulated alternator I've have very few problems with the
>system with one exception, what I describe as "nuisance" trips since they
>occur only very infrequently yet often enough they are or could become a
>problem.
>
>My set up is Z13 + Z24 with an 8amp B&C replacing the left mag LSE & slick
>ignitions, Odyssey battery about 2 years old but with few flight hours,
>battery tender maintained. System charging voltages 14.5 volts indicated
>in flight at about an 8amp load without strobes and 12 amps with
>strobes. The alternator is hardly breathing.
>
>What happens occasionally is a main alternator trip under the following
>under the following circumstances; touch and goes or rapid changes in
>power settings or fluctuating power and load conditions. Such as occur
>with pattern work in class D which involves some radio work as power is
>changed rapidly.
>
>Under these conditions I sometimes discover the low voltage warning light
>and discover that the OVM has tripped the main alternator field. Power to
>idle rest the breaker and alternator comes back on-line and everything's
>hunky dory until it happens again. After 55+ hours this has happened
>about a dozen times. more or less. Most annoying.
Is your OV module purchased or DIY project? If purchased,
how long have you had it? If DIY, did you get the latest mod
incorporated? See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
>But before I start remodeling my entire wiring system or investing $800 in
>a new alternator regulator, I thought I check in to see what updates and
>mods are on the way that may solve this? Should I immediately reconnect
>my B-lead to the battery and thus forego the Z24 relay and crowbar
>protection? So far I haven't detected any Alternator damage resulting
>from the in-flight shut downs and restarts.
Thousands of the crowbar ov protection systems are in service with a
handful
of reported difficulties. ALL problem incidences reported to us
were "curable". If you've already had this many nuisance trips and
the alternator wasn't hurt, you're good to go with what's installed
after the nuisance tripping is fixed. I have no way to know how
many Z-24 systems are installed since we didn't sell "kits" specific
to the purpose. My sense is that the vast majority of the installations
are fine . . . but some alternators are vulnerable to the load-dump damage
precipitated by opening the b-lead while loaded. Without doing a
huge research project to identify root cause and suspect alternators,
I decided to "enhance" the concept such that no alternators would be
at-risk irrespective of pedigree.
If you have a purchased OV module, I'd like to get my hands
on it.
Readers need to keep in mind that there are two, completely
separate issues here. (1) nuisance tripping of the ov sensor
which can and has occurred with all kinds of circuits. I
designed and manufactured OV relays for the TC world for
decades and from time to time, unanticipated
conditions in the field caused us to revisit the design.
(2) vulnerability of some alternators to what amounts to
a forced load-dump scenario when the Z-24 b-lead contactor
is opened for any reason be it nuisance trip or pilot
operation of the alternator ON/OFF switch.
You've demonstrated that (2) is not an issue for your
system and we need to see what's needed to stop the nuisance
trips. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load allocation with dual battery system |
>
>We're working on a two-battery two-alternator system, which is no doubt
>more complex than we need, but we got to it by the following route.
>
>1) Not enough capacity in the internal Rotax PM alternator, so add
>another alternator.
>
>2) The FAA requirement that all-electric certified ships have a
>independent electrical systems for primary and back-up gyros seemed
>reasonable.
>
>3) I liked Bob's strategy of replacing one of two identical batteries
>on a regular basis.
>
>So, we're planning a Z14-like system with two 17 Ah batteries and a
>small ND alternator (40 amps) to supplement the Rotax dynamo. I've
>been giving some thought to how to dive the load between primary and
>secondary systems. (The secondary system is run by the dynamo.) My
>notion is to allocate the following to the secondary system: TC, all
>direct battery buss loads, position lights, and cranking. This makes
>the TC independent of the main electrcal system and prevents draining
>of the main battery by things that run with the master off. Using the
>secondary for cranking may also give warning of a failing battery,
>especially if I pay attention to voltage during cranking as Bob
>suggests. I will have a cross-feed, so I can crank with both batteries
>if needed. This arrangement takes some strain off the main battery,
>which should should rarely see much of a discharge cycle.
Why Z-14? Z-13 would provide plenty of backup and save you
a lot of weight and un-necessary system complexity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4986 1.0000 0.0000
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
12/16/2005
Hello Frank, You raise a good point.
You wrote <<......skip.....In any case, I thought the 2 year VFR cert was a
transponder only
test...And IFR was the encoder/pitot/static test??....skip......>>
I think that whether or not the VFR cert gets involved with the altitude
encoder or not depends upon the interpretation of FAR Sec. 91.413 (b) which
reads: "Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder
where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system
has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix
E, of part 43 of this chapter."
And the title of paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 reads: "(c) Automatic
Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC Transponder System Integration
Test."
I have never had just a VFR certification alone performed on an airplane by
a shop so I don't know how they interpret 91.413 (b). Can anyone enlighten
me? Thanks.
OC
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off-Topic Question |
>
>
>This is not directly related to aviation, but I'm sure there are some
>people on this list who will find my question pretty elementary.
>
>On most older TV sets, when plugging into the installed audio outlets
>for external speakers,headsets,recorders,etc, the TV's internal speaker
>becomes inoperative. Some newer sets provide a screen display allowing a
>person to choose listening to the internal speaker while a second person
>listens to headsets. This is useful when the volume levels need to be
>different due to hearing deficiency of one of the persons. Isn't there a
>simple way to re-wire the older TV audio output line such that the
>output can be fed to both the internal speaker and the headsets
>simultaneously? Any help will be appreciated.
Years ago, I added a small AM radio transmitter to the
inside of a television set so that someone could listen
to TV on a transistor radio and headphones whether the
speaker on the TV was turned up or not.
I did this for a neighbor woman who's husband was going
deaf and hated hearing aids. He liked to watch TV but
had the volume so high that the whole neighborhood knew
what he was watching.
He didn't mind the headphones so the dual path audio
system took care of his needs as well as the comfort of
others in the house/neighborhood.
The task you've suggested can be done with relatively
simple wiring but you'd have to add some independent
volume controls for speaker and headset output and then
leave the set's volume set relatively high so that both
users had adequate signal levels.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sort of related to the Z-13/8 Question |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have a similar situation with a Z-19 architecture and rear mounted
>batteries. I was thinking of putting an external splice on the heavy wire
>behind the IP, which will make for a pretty short bus feed, rather than a
>much longer run through the firewall to the contactor. Is that something
>you would recommend or discourage?
We do things like this in big airplanes. They dont call
it a splice, they just break the big feeder, install
terminals and tie it to an insulated stud. Branch feeders
can come off that stud as needed. You could simply cut
away 2" of feeder insulation, 2" of tap insulation,
lay bared wires parallel and wrap with layer of
solid strand copper, say 20AWG. Solder and cover
with heatshrink.
"Messy" but functional and not un-safe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
Bob:
seeking your opinion on the advisability of using a temp-compensating regulator
such as the LR-3 if I decide to move my Odyssey PC-628 to the forward side of
the RV-6 firewall. In light of the recent temp data posted here from the well-instrumented
engine compartment of a WittmanTailwind, I'm not sure I need to
spend $318 on regulation hardware to keep my Odyssey RG battery happy for 1-2
yrs before its scheduled replacement.
Thanks!
-Bill Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Converting IR to ER |
Photos and text from my alternator conversion are at:
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/alternator.htm>
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 790 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Mark,
>>There was an article on how to convert the Mitsubishi alternator in
>>Contact Magazine some years back. I think it was issue #19, but not
>>sure. Check their web site and order the issue. It will walk you
>>through the process.
>>
>>Mark Steitle
>
>
> That Contact Magazine article also shows how to convert ND alternators as
> well.
>
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Load allocation with dual battery system |
Please see my reply to "Jon's Kitfox 912S"
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Dec 16, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> We're working on a two-battery two-alternator system, which is no
>> doubt
>> more complex than we need, but we got to it by the following route.
>>
>> 1) Not enough capacity in the internal Rotax PM alternator, so add
>> another alternator.
>>
>> 2) The FAA requirement that all-electric certified ships have a
>> independent electrical systems for primary and back-up gyros seemed
>> reasonable.
>>
>> 3) I liked Bob's strategy of replacing one of two identical batteries
>> on a regular basis.
>>
>> So, we're planning a Z14-like system with two 17 Ah batteries and a
>> small ND alternator (40 amps) to supplement the Rotax dynamo. I've
>> been giving some thought to how to dive the load between primary and
>> secondary systems. (The secondary system is run by the dynamo.) My
>> notion is to allocate the following to the secondary system: TC, all
>> direct battery buss loads, position lights, and cranking. This makes
>> the TC independent of the main electrcal system and prevents draining
>> of the main battery by things that run with the master off. Using the
>> secondary for cranking may also give warning of a failing battery,
>> especially if I pay attention to voltage during cranking as Bob
>> suggests. I will have a cross-feed, so I can crank with both
>> batteries
>> if needed. This arrangement takes some strain off the main battery,
>> which should should rarely see much of a discharge cycle.
>
> Why Z-14? Z-13 would provide plenty of backup and save you
> a lot of weight and un-necessary system complexity.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-24 Nusance trips |
Bob, reposes to your questions -
"Is your OV module purchased or DIY project? If purchased,
how long have you had it? If DIY, did you get the latest mod
incorporated?"
It was purchased from B&C, OVM-14 on 10/9/2003.
"If you have a purchased OV module, I'd like to get my hands
on it."
I can pull it and send to you but this raises other questions. Will this lead
to any safety problems? I can appreciate your difficulty answering a question
like that so let me rephrase it - Should I purchase and install a replacement
before I send you the existing one?
It wired directly to the circuit breaker and ignition switch so it won't be much
trouble to get to and remove. I just don't want a current annoyance to become
a bigger problem, if you know what I mean. I'm based at Chino if you are somewhere
area I can fly to your shop and we may be able to figure out what is
going and post it to the list.
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
AeroElectric AeroElectric
| From: | Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4981 1.0000 0.0000
My WX-900 antenna is not repairable. It failed after approximately
170 tach hours.
L-3 Communications Avionics Systems has not retuned it per my request
of Nov 9, 2005.
Question:
Has any one had good service experience with the WX-900 antenna?
Has any one had good service experience with L-3 Communications
Avionics Systems?
Richard Reynolds
Norfolk, VA
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
Received-SPF: none (mgr1.xmission.com: 166.70.39.121 is neither permitted nor denied
by domain of craigandjean.com) client-ip=166.70.39.121; envelope-from=craig(at)craigandjean.com;
helo=TheTCCraig;
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
I know Bob doesn't like those strippers in the first photograph of that
article, and I know he's really good at using the el-cheapo kind. I grew
up stripping wire with my teeth, but it's hard to do that with Tefzel, and
now that I'm an adult I pay more attention to dental costs. I tried the
really really el-cheapo plastic kind like you get for free with your "cold
soldering iron", and they really damage the wire. I wouldn't wish them on
my worst enemy. But I swear by that little gadget in the first photo in
his article. I don't remember where I got mine, probably Radio Shack. It
works like an absolute champ for me, and I'll never go back to the teeth or
the swiss army knife (which works OK too if you're very careful, but takes
way too long).
How's that for a non-answer
Dave Morris
N5UP
At 08:47 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
>where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
>ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
>use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
>
>-- Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | four-wire 28V OV protection relay |
Does anyone make a four-wire 28V OV protection relay? I actually need
one that will open the field circuit between the regulator and a
generator so I need it to have just a set of contacts that opens and
latches open on OV.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S |
Jon
You have stated my feelings exactly. My project is a searey, another less
then ideal IFR platform, but I would like the security of the right tools to get
home safely.
Also using a 912s with the same load demands. So which alternator are you
using?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
The real quick and easy way to tell is price. The "Die" type strippers are
normally well north of $100.00 in price (typically $150-300). If they are
priced less than that, then it's highly unlikely that they are die type
strippers.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: four-wire 28V OV protection relay |
>
>Does anyone make a four-wire 28V OV protection relay? I actually need
>one that will open the field circuit between the regulator and a
>generator so I need it to have just a set of contacts that opens and
>latches open on OV.
If it's non-certified, I can build you one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-24 Nusance trips |
>
>Bob, reposes to your questions -
>
>"Is your OV module purchased or DIY project? If purchased,
> how long have you had it? If DIY, did you get the latest mod
> incorporated?"
>
>It was purchased from B&C, OVM-14 on 10/9/2003.
Okay, That should be the latest configuration.
> "If you have a purchased OV module, I'd like to get my hands
> on it."
>
>I can pull it and send to you but this raises other questions. Will this
>lead to any safety problems? I can appreciate your difficulty answering a
>question like that so let me rephrase it - Should I purchase and install a
>replacement before I send you the existing one?
No, I'll turn yours very quickly and real ov conditions
are very rare.
>It wired directly to the circuit breaker and ignition switch so it won't
>be much trouble to get to and remove. I just don't want a current
>annoyance to become a bigger problem, if you know what I mean. I'm based
>at Chino if you are somewhere area I can fly to your shop and we may be
>able to figure out what is going and post it to the list.
I'm in Wichita KS. Priority mail to
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
The real quick and easy way to tell is price. The "Die" type strippers are
normally well north of $100.00 in price (typically $150-300). If they are
priced less than that, then it's highly unlikely that they are die type
strippers.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S |
We have a little (6 lbs, 40 amps) new manufacture internally regulated
Nippon Denso that cost $115 from a local supplier. I don't have the
part # in my office (were I still am, unfortunately), but can get it to
you later. We will probably go with the internal regulator rather than
converting for external regulation, which would not be very diffiicult
if desired. Now comes the complex part. The Rotax external alternator
drive kit won't fit under the cowl. Rather than modify the cowl, we
designed a drive to work from the vacuum pump pad. Coupling the
alternator directly to the vacuum pump drive internal spline doesn't
give high enough rpm. This is why the SD20 from B&C gives only 13 amps
or so on a 912S. Our system mounts a pulley on the pad and drives the
alternator with a belt to increase the rpm. The parts are currently in
process at a local machine shop. I will post pictures and let folks
now how well it works when we get it up and running. Using the Rotax
external drive would be much easier if it fits in your ship. It might
have been easier to modify the cowl in our case, but momentum for the
vacuum pad solution got hold of us.
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:19 PM, JTORTHO(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Jon
> You have stated my feelings exactly. My project is a searey, another
> less
> then ideal IFR platform, but I would like the security of the right
> tools to get
> home safely.
>
> Also using a 912s with the same load demands. So which alternator are
> you
> using?
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
I wonder if filing a slight flat on the sharp edge of Stripmaster
clones would give results similar to the high dollar tools. Think I'll
give it a try.
Jon
Jon D. Goguen, Ph. D.
Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue North
Worcester, MA 01655
Phone 508.856.2490
Fax 508.856.5920
On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:07 PM, Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
>
> I know Bob doesn't like those strippers in the first photograph of that
> article, and I know he's really good at using the el-cheapo kind. I
> grew
> up stripping wire with my teeth, but it's hard to do that with Tefzel,
> and
> now that I'm an adult I pay more attention to dental costs. I tried
> the
> really really el-cheapo plastic kind like you get for free with your
> "cold
> soldering iron", and they really damage the wire. I wouldn't wish
> them on
> my worst enemy. But I swear by that little gadget in the first photo
> in
> his article. I don't remember where I got mine, probably Radio Shack.
> It
> works like an absolute champ for me, and I'll never go back to the
> teeth or
> the swiss army knife (which works OK too if you're very careful, but
> takes
> way too long).
>
> How's that for a non-answer
>
> Dave Morris
> N5UP
>
> At 08:47 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html.
>> Question is:
>> where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because
>> the wrong
>> ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good
>> ones that
>> use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>> location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
>>
>> -- Craig
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
>
> http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
>
> -- Craig
>
Hi Craig,
I was just composing a reply to mention that stripper. I have one with
the Teflon blades and it does a good job on Tefzel. Sometimes I have to
grip the wire just in front of the jaws to give it a little assistance.
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off-Topic Question |
Thanks to the several people who responded to my request for help. The
suggestions were right on target and I now have the system working as I
had hoped for. Another excellent example of the power of this technical
list and all the fine brains that make it possible.
Jim McCulley
J. Mcculley wrote:
>
> This is not directly related to aviation, but I'm sure there are some
> people on this list who will find my question pretty elementary.
> Jim McCulley
> 180 HP Tailwind
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
That's still not a true "mil spec" die type stripper. Anytime you see the
words "self adjusting" you can gaurantee a certain lack of detailed
accuracy.
That being said, I'm not saying you have to buy the die type strippers at
all, because personally I don't think thats the case (although I'll probably
be chastised for that). I do however think a good set of strippers can be
used that costs a whole lot less than the high buck ones...even the middle
of the line Ideal or AMP brand stripmasters (which have interchangeable dies
including the compression die type for the same frame). We have the die
type strippers in automated and pneumatic strippers in my shop, but then
that's for use in producing a LOT of wiring harnesses for various OEM mfgrs,
so we're required to do that. For your own GA airplane the likelyhood that
one small microscopic nick on a wire that carries low current DC or signals
will cause a catastrophe is nil in reality (although some will disagree).
Completely different case with the high frequency and high voltage AC that
many of the high performance jet/military aircraft use in their wiring (i.e.
Swissair111).
Just my 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 Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
The real quick and easy way to tell is price. The "Die" type strippers are
normally well north of $100.00 in price (typically $150-300). If they are
priced less than that, then it's highly unlikely that they are die type
strippers.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
I'm more worried about the mechanical performance of a nicked wire than its
electrical one. Given that the nick would be right where the insulation
stops it can be hard to see. And a bend in the wire at that point could
expand the nick into a crack or complete break. Now since most of these
wires will be crimped into insulated Fastons the insulation would offer some
strain-relief and prevent a 90 degree bend at the hypothetical nick's
location. But that seems like a band-aid to me, But sharp bends at the point
where the wire departs the connector is poor wiring style.
I would continue using my time-tested approach (also described at the end of
Bob's monograph) - just use a cheap pair of strippers with the spring and
stop-nut removed and strip by feel. But I find this harder with Tefzel.
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
That's still not a true "mil spec" die type stripper. Anytime you see the
words "self adjusting" you can gaurantee a certain lack of detailed
accuracy.
That being said, I'm not saying you have to buy the die type strippers at
all, because personally I don't think thats the case (although I'll probably
be chastised for that). I do however think a good set of strippers can be
used that costs a whole lot less than the high buck ones...even the middle
of the line Ideal or AMP brand stripmasters (which have interchangeable dies
including the compression die type for the same frame). We have the die
type strippers in automated and pneumatic strippers in my shop, but then
that's for use in producing a LOT of wiring harnesses for various OEM mfgrs,
so we're required to do that. For your own GA airplane the likelyhood that
one small microscopic nick on a wire that carries low current DC or signals
will cause a catastrophe is nil in reality (although some will disagree).
Completely different case with the high frequency and high voltage AC that
many of the high performance jet/military aircraft use in their wiring (i.e.
Swissair111).
Just my 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 Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
The real quick and easy way to tell is price. The "Die" type strippers are
normally well north of $100.00 in price (typically $150-300). If they are
priced less than that, then it's highly unlikely that they are die type
strippers.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
Now that I think about it my proceeding analysis about nick propagation is
nonsense because we are dealing with stranded wire, not solid. Excuse me
while I slap myself around a bit.
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
That's still not a true "mil spec" die type stripper. Anytime you see the
words "self adjusting" you can gaurantee a certain lack of detailed
accuracy.
That being said, I'm not saying you have to buy the die type strippers at
all, because personally I don't think thats the case (although I'll probably
be chastised for that). I do however think a good set of strippers can be
used that costs a whole lot less than the high buck ones...even the middle
of the line Ideal or AMP brand stripmasters (which have interchangeable dies
including the compression die type for the same frame). We have the die
type strippers in automated and pneumatic strippers in my shop, but then
that's for use in producing a LOT of wiring harnesses for various OEM mfgrs,
so we're required to do that. For your own GA airplane the likelyhood that
one small microscopic nick on a wire that carries low current DC or signals
will cause a catastrophe is nil in reality (although some will disagree).
Completely different case with the high frequency and high voltage AC that
many of the high performance jet/military aircraft use in their wiring (i.e.
Swissair111).
Just my 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 Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
-- Craig
-----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: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
-->
The real quick and easy way to tell is price. The "Die" type strippers are
normally well north of $100.00 in price (typically $150-300). If they are
priced less than that, then it's highly unlikely that they are die type
strippers.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ivorphillips" <ivor(at)ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S |
If you have the space! you can fit the alternator directly to the flywheel
hub, The 40 amp Nippon denso alternator 129423-77200 fits nicely between
the Rotax ring mount, Using a shear coupling and a fabricated mount it will
spin near to its optimum speed with no side loading on the bearings,
It also puts the 6 Ibs further back with shorter cable runs,
regards
Ivor phillips
Europa 914
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Goguen" <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jon's Kitfox/912S
>
>
> We have a little (6 lbs, 40 amps) new manufacture internally regulated
> Nippon Denso that cost $115 from a local supplier. I don't have the
> part # in my office (were I still am, unfortunately), but can get it to
> you later. We will probably go with the internal regulator rather than
> converting for external regulation, which would not be very diffiicult
> if desired. Now comes the complex part. The Rotax external alternator
> drive kit won't fit under the cowl. Rather than modify the cowl, we
> designed a drive to work from the vacuum pump pad. Coupling the
> alternator directly to the vacuum pump drive internal spline doesn't
> give high enough rpm. This is why the SD20 from B&C gives only 13 amps
> or so on a 912S. Our system mounts a pulley on the pad and drives the
> alternator with a belt to increase the rpm. The parts are currently in
> process at a local machine shop. I will post pictures and let folks
> now how well it works when we get it up and running. Using the Rotax
> external drive would be much easier if it fits in your ship. It might
> have been easier to modify the cowl in our case, but momentum for the
> vacuum pad solution got hold of us.
>
> Jon
>
> Jon Goguen
> jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
> Central Massachusetts
> Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
> Complete except for electrics and avionics
>
> "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
> --Woody Allen
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 10:19 PM, JTORTHO(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Jon
>> You have stated my feelings exactly. My project is a searey, another
>> less
>> then ideal IFR platform, but I would like the security of the right
>> tools to get
>> home safely.
>>
>> Also using a 912s with the same load demands. So which alternator are
>> you
>> using?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
<>
12/17/2005
Hello Bob, Good Questions.
<<1) Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on
your
experimental?>>
No, for two reasons: A) The inspector is basically inspecting your plane for
day VFR airworthiness. (He has no formal FAA requirement beyond this
capability). B) There are places / airspace where you can fly VFR with no
transponder. See FAR 91.215 (b). Your Phase one test area could be one of
these places as could your subsequent Phase two operations. (But Phase two
operations without a transponder could be very limiting).**
<<2) If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics
shop
without first flying?>>
FAR 91.215 (d) allows such deviations from the basic requirement rule. Many
shops have mobile test equipment and they can drive to your airport. For an
IFR cert I suggest that you remove and take both the altimeter and encoder
to their shop first for bench testing and calibration and then reinstall
them before having the mobile test equipment come to your airplane.
<<3) Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
Not really. Because in practice the installation itself is being tested. See
FAR Part 91.217 (b).
I suggest that a reading of FAR 91.215, 91.217, 91.411, 91.413 and
Appendices E and F of FAR Part 43 would help. It is a bit of a struggle to
read those parts and their relaionship. All are available on the FAA web
site.
OC
**PS: There is another reason also. Suppose you get your VFR or IFR cert
first, the plane doesn't pass the initial airworthiness inspection, and
there is delay before actually passing the inspection. Then all the time
between the date of cert and the eventual passed inspection and first flight
is a wasted portion of the two year period of the cert.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
I have a question...
If you are using an EFIS, with a built-in encoder, how is this type of
checking done?
It would be a real pain having to remove an EFIS every time the check was
needed...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
<>
12/17/2005
Hello Bob, Good Questions.
<<1) Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on
your
experimental?>>
No, for two reasons: A) The inspector is basically inspecting your plane for
day VFR airworthiness. (He has no formal FAA requirement beyond this
capability). B) There are places / airspace where you can fly VFR with no
transponder. See FAR 91.215 (b). Your Phase one test area could be one of
these places as could your subsequent Phase two operations. (But Phase two
operations without a transponder could be very limiting).**
<<2) If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics
shop
without first flying?>>
FAR 91.215 (d) allows such deviations from the basic requirement rule. Many
shops have mobile test equipment and they can drive to your airport. For an
IFR cert I suggest that you remove and take both the altimeter and encoder
to their shop first for bench testing and calibration and then reinstall
them before having the mobile test equipment come to your airplane.
<<3) Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
Not really. Because in practice the installation itself is being tested. See
FAR Part 91.217 (b).
I suggest that a reading of FAR 91.215, 91.217, 91.411, 91.413 and
Appendices E and F of FAR Part 43 would help. It is a bit of a struggle to
read those parts and their relaionship. All are available on the FAA web
site.
OC
**PS: There is another reason also. Suppose you get your VFR or IFR cert
first, the plane doesn't pass the initial airworthiness inspection, and
there is delay before actually passing the inspection. Then all the time
between the date of cert and the eventual passed inspection and first flight
is a wasted portion of the two year period of the cert.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Bill,
This is the way I experienced this test requirement. I should mention
that I also have a removable forward top skin
which made the initial test much easier to accomplish because we found
leaking fittings at the gages (not tight).
Only the first certification test hook ups are made at the encoder and
then the altimeter to verify each for accuracy.
The hook up then moved to the lines between your pitot and gages, in my
case at the wing joint. The first test is required
to take readings up to 21000 feet. The lines at my wing joint were
modified to add T joint connectors for the next recertification
2 years later. The second time the system is hooked up, only the Tee'd
lines are tested to 10,000 feet and the gages are
not individually connected to re-check against one another. This test
was completed before going for the Airworthiness Cert.
The altimeter will have a sticker on it and the mode S Code number of
your signal will be entered into the FAA registry.
Only a certified shop can do this. There are ways seen on the Internet
that you can set up and check it but it's not be wise to
try to slip under the wire and do the test yourself. I don't think the
insurance companies would like it either.
As far as getting into an airport without transponder/encoder, you only
need to call the tower 30 minutes ahead and
request a clearance to enter C space and most of the time, they will be
accomodating to radio only entry.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Bill Denton wrote:
>
>I have a question...
>
>If you are using an EFIS, with a built-in encoder, how is this type of
>checking done?
>
>It would be a real pain having to remove an EFIS every time the check was
>needed...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
>
>
>Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
>where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
>ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
>use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
Wire strippers with sculptured blades like those illustrated in
the comic book cited above are relatively rare as catalog items.
This is mostly because sculptured strippers need to be closely
matched to the wire/insulation combination. For example, Boeing
used a lot of Kapton insulated wire (VERY thin insulation) and
at one time there were probably 1000 or more strippers in the
Washington plant with sculptured blades tailored to Kapton.
I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I found dozens of
sculptured blade strippers in the Boeing surplus store in Seattle
for a couple of dollars each (broken handles, etc). The blades
(expensive) can be salvaged and installed in new handles (cheap)
for a tiny fraction of new price. On closer examination, the
blades would obviously not work on 22759/16 Tefzel. I did not
walk out of the store with a bag full of scrap strippers.
Given the relative rarity and variability of requirements
for such tools along with their expense suppliers are reluctant
to list them as general catalog items. Allied stocks a
Teflon EE (works pretty good on Tefzel) stripper at
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=1637.pdf
See stock #988-4587
A Google search on "stripmaster" and "45-187" will
get you a bunch of hits on this tool . . . which is not
the only one out there because the blades come in a
variety of combinations which will change the model
number of the stripper.
>I know Bob doesn't like those strippers in the first photograph of that
> article . . . .
Not at all. I have several pairs. The sharp-blade strippers
are used around here a lot. It's not a matter of liking
or disliking a particular tool so much as a task of
matching skill and tool to a particular task. For example:
One of my sharp edged strippers does a really slick
job of preparing the end of a shielded wire to accept
a solder sleeve and terminating pins. Three quick strips
and outer insulation, braid, and inner insulation
are neatly removed thus preparing the wire for termination.
>And what if it looks different and costs something in-between?
> http://www.hmcelectronics.com/cgi-bin/scripts/product/6800-0025/
This tool operates on an entirely different principal than
the fixed die tools I illustrated in the comic book. There
are as many stripper technologies and styles as there are
starry-eyed entrepreneurs hoping to retire on the sales
of the 'ultimate' stripper.
The real class-act tools for Tefzel stripping are
limited to fixed die devices like those previously
illustrated. There are wanna-be's of various capability
some of which have been described here on the List
with favorable reports.
>That's still not a true "mil spec" die type stripper. Anytime you see the
>Words "self adjusting" you can guarantee a certain lack of detailed
>accuracy.
Right ON! Any wire working tool worth it's salt has
hard stops, hard dies, and mechanisms that encourage full-
cycle operation whether you're stripping wire or installing
terminals. Those 'hard' features provide operation-to-operation
consistency that a craftsman seeks.
>That being said, I'm not saying you have to buy the die type strippers at
>all, because personally I don't think thats the case (although I'll probably
>be chastised for that). I do however think a good set of strippers can be
>used that costs a whole lot less than the high buck ones...even the middle
>of the line Ideal or AMP brand stripmasters (which have interchangeable dies
>including the compression die type for the same frame). . . .
Exactly. That was the purpose of the comic book I published.
It was not intended to promote or discourage ANY tool for ANY
purpose used by ANY craftsman. The goal is to understand the
end result desired and then match skills and tool to the
task.
I strip Tefzel and Spec 55 wire with a pair of flush-cutters.
In my seminars, I'll SHOW folks the $high$ strippers but
when they all get a chance to install some terminals and pins
on wires, I only circulate the flush-cutters. By the time the
program is over, attendees have accomplished a number of
stripping operations on Tefzel wire and are armed with the
knowledge needed to hone their own skills to the task.
I use the more automated tools when I have a lot of repeating
activities where monotony and fatigue combine to drive down
consistency. If I'm going to install a couple of 25-pin d-subs,
out come the cool strippers. If I'm just putting a couple of
terminals or pins on a wire, the flush-cutters get the job
done in 1/2 the time it takes to walk to the toolbox and
get out the Cadillac tools.
The comic book is more about studying various means to
end results than about tool selection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative architectures |
>I'm planning a complete re-do of my RV electrical system to
>comply with Z-13/8 architecture, including dual P-mags
>(already installed) and also the Z-22 feature on my Sky-tec
>starter which will eliminate run-on and the need for a
>high-current starter relay.
>I have just become aware of the No Battery Contactor suggestion
>made by George, gmcjetpilot, on the discussion forums at Doug Reeves' site:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4278
>(referencing specifically his first schematic; I'm not yet
>ready to change from an ER/OVP alternator just yet.)
>It seems to me his architecture would be reasonably safe,
>provided the ANL fuses in the fat wires were employed as
>depicted, and there might be no need of a separate endurance
>bus with the current drain of a battery contactor eliminated
>(loads could be shed with individual switches on each device
>on the main battery bus?) Certainly, if one went with the
>lighter-duty master relay he espouses, there would be the issue
>of bi-directional conductivity if a solid-state device were used.
>Could charging current from the alternator be routed directly to
>the PM starter solenoid terminal (Z-22-style) in a system where
>the power distribution topology was essentially as George proposes,
>or would this introduce something unsafe or uncontrollable that
>I'm not seeing? That would allow use of a unidirectional, SS
>relay in the 40 A-range for battery master service. What do
>you think of that idea?
>Thanks for your time. If you deem this of general interest,
>feel free to re-post to the List; I'd have no objection at all.
Over the years I've had dozens of alternative architectures
proposed to me and there have been dozens more incorporated
into what must by now be hundreds of airplanes flying.
No doubt the vast majority of owners of these projects will
report "great performance."
It's really easy to get into finely tuned debate on single
features of any change with plenty of opportunity for stirring
hyperbole and scare words when it comes to "safety".
Absolute safety in electrical system design is achieved when
one makes sure that catastrophic events like hard faults that
burn things and runaway events that also burn things are
brought to heal in a timely and unspectacular manner. Once
this is achieved, all issues of "safety" are covered.
Now we have to sort design goals which are selected for
a variety of motivations. The most important is
increasing probability of a no-sweat arrival for
any flight where the pilot has launched into conditions
suited to his/her skills and capability of the equipment.
Here's where I depart from many discussions where folks
suggest that selection of certain equipment items and/or
crafting of back-up systems are safety issues. The word
"safe" implies freedom from harm; affording
safety or security from danger, risk, or difficulty.
I'm sorry but automobiles, snow boards, airplanes and roller
skates are not entitled to a characterization of "safe".
One must utilize these tools with the knowledge that
users must have the skills to use them properly under
conditions favorable to successful outcome. They must conduct
preventative maintenance to reduce risks of intolerable
failure. Failure to respect all limitations offers a
swift and relentless outcome that makes these tools
far from safe . . . and most times for reasons that
have nothing to do with design.
In aircraft electrical systems we have an opportunity
to design failure tolerant systems. That has been a goal
of the 'Connection since day-one. No-one should ever
suggest that following a Z-figure is the Yellow Brick
Road to a "safe" airplane. It's only one feature of a
complex system that becomes less risky when it's simple,
user friendly, failure tolerant and tailored to the owner's
missions.
There is little doubt that what you've described above
will be functional. The questions you need to craft
and answer should focus on: "How do I find any existing
recommendation (like a Z-figure) insufficient? Are there
changes that would improve simplicity, cost of ownership, user
friendliness, consistency with traditional design goals,
etc." If you find some alternative design goals attractive,
those are your choices to make.
While researching battery chargers at RAC a few years
ago I had occasion to review about a dozen US patents
on various charger schemes. No doubt every one of them
would charge a battery. But the vast majority of the
patents lacked any evaluation of what was really
necessary to efficiently charge a battery. No consideration
for cost of ownership nor quest for the elegant design.
It's a sure bet that none of those patents were ever
licensed to someone who went out an sold $millions$
worth of product. The Z-figures have been distilled
for nearly 20-years under the 'Connection label. The
final word? Of course not. Compliant with design goals
stated? Yes, and modified from time to time to
improve on compliance.
It's a time consuming and generally unproductive
effort for me to join discussions on major shifts to
the Z-figures. Not because the Z-figures represent
any golden solutions but because they illustrate
design goals under which I provide goods and services
to my boss's customers and my own customers. If
anyone has a new design to offer, I would hope and
expect the designer to educate his/her customers as
to the design goals addressed and how those goals
are equal to or better than goals addressed in other
architectures.
This is the competitive capitalistic way of moving
technology and consumer acceptance forward. I know
this response doesn't help you . . . but you really
don't need my "help" . . . particularly when it's
likely to incite more smoke and hyperbole than real
understanding.
You need to be a responsible consumer and draw your
prospective supplier out. Make him/her explain how
The Next Great Thing is better and how well it embraces
your own need for simplicity, low cost of ownership
and failure tolerant design. Avoid injection of
terms like "safe" and "reliable" . . . they're
generally non-quantifiable and don't add understanding.
Any new concept should be solidly founded on
simple-ideas easily explained by the supplier and
understood by the customer. It's not believable unless
it's understandable. If you don't understand it,
don't do it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
>
>Bob:
>
>seeking your opinion on the advisability of using a temp-compensating
>regulator such as the LR-3 if I decide to move my Odyssey PC-628 to the
>forward side of the RV-6 firewall. In light of the recent temp data
>posted here from the well-instrumented engine compartment of a
>WittmanTailwind, I'm not sure I need to spend $318 on regulation hardware
>to keep my Odyssey RG battery happy for 1-2 yrs before its scheduled
>replacement.
Temperature compensation was crafted for the B&C
products about 15 years ago when a specific customer
complained about poor charging performance in his
GlasAir. Seems he spend HOURS at altitude with a rear
mounted battery that became cold-soaked. In hops
over the big pond, the battery would become so cold
that it would not accept a full charge after starting
the engine for the next leg of the trip. End result
was a soggy battery unsuited for standby power (or even
cranking) after the second or third hop.
Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
from adding the temperature compensation option.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0354 1.0000 -1.7923
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Craig
Payne"
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?-- Craig>>
12/17/2005
Hello Craig, The Klein catalog stripper number 1004 (with spring) and 1003
(without spring) is a very inexpensive manually operated stripper that will
do a good job. http://www.kleintools.com/. No dies, grips, or fancy
semi-automation to worry about.
The key to using this stripper is to make sample strips of the wire to be
stripped, examine each sample strip with a magnifying glass and make stop
screw adjustments until you get just the right depth of cut or pinch (your
choice) of the insulation.
You need to go through this trial and error process for each different size
or brand of wire that you are stripping, but once the stop screw is properly
set for that particular wire then stripping is a fast process.
If you decide to be primarily pinching and tearing the tough Tefzel
insulation then a pair of pliers with smooth jaws can be used to hold the
wire to be stripped while pulling off the short piece of insulation to be
removed.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
This is an update on a topic many of you helped
me with several months (years?) ago.
I am installing an auto conversion, which needs a
reliable source of power to the engine computer.
I had planned on installing a connection to the
computer from two busses. I recently found that
the ECU (ECM) has two physical connections for power.
I originally thought there was only one.
My concern is that if I use two different busses
to connect to these two different power inputs,
I might be creating a bridge between my two busses
via the engine computer - something I think I should
avoid. Here's a small write-up and a couple of
diagrams.
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040406145425120
I think having two physical connections to the ECU
will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
problems. As you may have guessed, I have no real
technical documentation on the ECU.
Will having diodes installed as shown be enough to
protect the respective busses? Any other hints or
things to watch out for?
Many thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
Craig, You can buy a good generic stripper here:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page21.html . It does a good job on
M22759/16 tefzel insulated wire. Cheap too!
Gaylen
Terminaltown
Craig Payne wrote:
>
>Bob gives the anatomy of a good "no nick" wire stripper at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
>where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
>ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
>use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
>location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?
>
>-- Craig
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
> of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
> very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
> from adding the temperature compensation option.
Don't you mean to say that, if you live in a very cold or very hot
environment you want this feature? While I was living in the Virgin
Islands I discovered that batteries died very quickly, I suspect from
overcharging in the perpetually warm environment. I also suspect that
someone who spends a lot of time at high altitude would probably want
that too as the batt is going to get cold soaked.
Going back and forth to the VI I would spend a LOT of time at altitude
(12,000'-17,000'), at least two 4-hour hops and then one more hop of 2-3
hours at lower (10,000') altitude. I bet the battery got cold-soaked
even in the tropics. Batteries don't last more than a year. I would
prefer to have temp compensation.
BTW, does anyone make a temperature-compensated regulator for production
aircraft?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Mickey
If it is like my Soob the two pins are physically connected in the
computer. This is often done just in case one set of pins gets damaged
or dirty. An ohmeter will confirm this. Certainly the diodes will do
what you want but they also introduce more connections etc. If you use
diodes I'd go with the same ones that Bob uses for his E bus.
I suspect that a separate battery makes us feel better but doesn't
really add much reliability. There are a lot of individual wires that
are essential in such a set up. -power to the ignition coils, power to
the injectors, the main ignition relay if it uses one, grounds, etc. I
think if I were going to run a single string system and use two
batteries, I'd either just parallel two batteries or set it up with
separate switches from each battery and forget about diodes. That would
leave it up to me to select which battery is engaged. I'd probably use
breakers (instead of fuses) and more likely two switch breakers if
concerned about momentary high current going from one battery to the
other after a short, or engaging the starter with both switches
erroneously selected on, or something else.
Ken
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>This is an update on a topic many of you helped
>me with several months (years?) ago.
>
>I am installing an auto conversion, which needs a
>reliable source of power to the engine computer.
>
>I had planned on installing a connection to the
>computer from two busses. I recently found that
>the ECU (ECM) has two physical connections for power.
>I originally thought there was only one.
>
>My concern is that if I use two different busses
>to connect to these two different power inputs,
>I might be creating a bridge between my two busses
>via the engine computer - something I think I should
>avoid. Here's a small write-up and a couple of
>diagrams.
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040406145425120
>
>I think having two physical connections to the ECU
>will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
>problems. As you may have guessed, I have no real
>technical documentation on the ECU.
>
>Will having diodes installed as shown be enough to
>protect the respective busses? Any other hints or
>things to watch out for?
>
>Many thanks,
>Mickey
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative architectures |
snip...
>>There is little doubt that what you've described above
will be functional. The questions you need to craft
and answer should focus on: "How do I find any existing
recommendation (like a Z-figure) insufficient? Are there
changes that would improve simplicity, cost of ownership, user
friendliness, consistency with traditional design goals,
etc." If you find some alternative design goals attractive,
those are your choices to make.<< snip...
Bob: thanks for the considerable time you took to reply to my inquiry. It was
actually more helpful than you might imagine, especially the Socratic aspects
;-)
My specific interest in the suggested departure form Z-13/8 architecture is rooted
in "the relentless pursuit of weight reduction," which is one of the few remaining
creative avenues open to airplane builders once their project is finished,
flying, and the peformance, while stellar, has become a bit routine. I
trust you understand that. It's exactly what would drive me to replace my welding
cable battery leads with Eric's fatwire - an expensive diversion, but far
less so than ordering a new airplane kit.
Here, we have the opportunity to shed two rather heavy contactors, one of which
is enough of a current hog to justify the existence of an entirely separate "endurance
bus" with its own feed provisions. I'm simply asking a far more experienced
pair of eyes to look over my shoulders in case I'm overlooking any obvious
perils or "gotcha's" before heading off in George's suggested direction.
I've soldered enough homebrew ham gear in my time to know that gremlins conceal
themselves cleverly from the unexpecting...
You have not pointed out any pitfalls in the proposed design, which does seem to
offer some simplification and weight savings over what I was about to embark
on, so you are either waiting for "Grasshopper" to see the error of his Kung
Fu, or else the path ahead indeed looks clear from your lofty perch. I will study
this move awhile longer before I say "final answer," (am I mixing enough
metaphors here?) but I will admit it looks acceptable so far.
BTW, you've convinced me that the TC regulator is not going to be necessary. If
I end up moving my Odyssey to FWF in the RV, I would be glad to be your test
dummy for the instrumented flights you proposed earlier.
Tnx agn, OM.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | TC regulator needed for FWF RG battery? |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > Less than 1% of all OBAM aircraft can make good use
> > of this feature. If you plan to use your airplane in
> > very cold or very hot environs, you will not benefit
> > from adding the temperature compensation option.
>
>Don't you mean to say that, if you live in a very cold or very hot
>environment you want this feature? While I was living in the Virgin
>Islands I discovered that batteries died very quickly, I suspect from
>overcharging in the perpetually warm environment. I also suspect that
>someone who spends a lot of time at high altitude would probably want
>that too as the batt is going to get cold soaked.
Opps, got my tongue tangled around my eyeteeh and couldn't see
what I was saying . . . and certainly the desire/need to make voltage
adjustments vs. temperature is not unique to high altitude
cold. The T-6 we sell to the military was cooking batteries
like crazy down in Texas until we recommended a fleet wide
drop in regulator set-point. Our Canadian customers likewise
run a higher than average setpoint. Obviously, this product would
benefit from temperature compensated charging controls.
>Going back and forth to the VI I would spend a LOT of time at altitude
>(12,000'-17,000'), at least two 4-hour hops and then one more hop of 2-3
>hours at lower (10,000') altitude. I bet the battery got cold-soaked
>even in the tropics. Batteries don't last more than a year. I would
>prefer to have temp compensation.
It's certainly available.
>BTW, does anyone make a temperature-compensated regulator for production
>aircraft?
Not that I'm aware of. I've often lamented that fact. For example:
A number of years ago, NiCads were battery du jour for bizjets
and turbine aircraft. After a few battery fires due to inability
of charging system to accommodate unique needs of NiCads, the
folks back east decided the best approach was to put another
instrument on the panel (battery temp), some warning lights.
They expanded the pilot's operating handbook to make him a battery
overheat manager too.
A relatively simple mod to existing regulator designs could have
given a regulator sufficient data to accommodate the battery
and let the pilot concentrate on doing what pilots are hired for.
Come to think of it, there MAY be some $high$ regulators for
turbines that offer temperature compensation. Concord has several
batteries with thermistors between the cells and a connector
on the outside.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Concord_Temp_Sense.jpg
I'll have to ask Skip if these are for temperature compensation
or overheat warning and what airplanes they apply to. Certainly
the utility of having such features has been around for a long
time. I offered it to Cessna's single engine group about 30
years ago. This was after I had become a supplier of regulators
to Cessna. I wrote the recommendations for seasonal
adjustment of regulator voltage in the maintenance manual
when I was a Cessna tech writer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1256 1.0000 -1.2416
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Bill
Denton"
<>
12/18/2005
Hello Bill, Exactly the point I raised in my 12/15/2005 posting on this
subject----- "Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a
real nuisance and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going to
be to remove and reinstall the EFIS yourself?"
It may be possible to build in both electronic and pressure / static
external connection points to your system as part of the initial
installation that would allow the shop technician to do his testing job
without removing the EFIS from the airplane.
But even if you do provide external test equipment connection points suppose
the encoder needs calibration adjustment? How is that done, or ever even
needed for a digital unit?
I would suggest that the owners of these kinds of units contact the unit
manufacturer and get the manufacturer's suggestions regarding the best way
to accomplish the IFR cert requirements.
Please pass on anything learned. Thanks.
OC
PS: It is obvious that my local shop much prefers that the altimeter and
encoder be brought into the shop and put into their chamber for testing, any
calibration, and data recording. Yes, they have the mobile equipment to do
it at plane side, but it is much more convenient / quicker / reliable for
them to have their expert inside bench guy do the testing and calibration in
the shop than have the mobile technician do it at plane side. The mobile
technician may even encounter "difficulties" that require the items to be
removed (at greater expense unless the customers does it) even if the
customer's intent is to have the entire test done at plane side.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Mickey
So it seems that an alternator failure or even a broken battery terminal
would not stop the engine since normal operation would have both
batteries paralleled. Sounds like you've already got the power supply
covered. IMO there is little point in further trying to cater to a
double unrelated failure as far as a source of power is concerned. As it
is, after an alternator failure you even have the option of opening both
battery contactors to conserve power until the primary battery is drained.
One of the things I did with wiring was to run a separate wire from two
different ecu ground pins all the way back to the forest of tabs. Of
course if one of those wires disconnected, I'd never know about it until
the second one also disconnected. I'm rambling here but I suppose you
could always do something similar on the positive side and run two wires
from the two power pins all the way to the same battery bus. I'd guess
that might be overkill though (two switches?, two fuses?). Decent
wiring is probably more reliable than several of the other components.
Now that I've wired mine according to what I've learned here, I find I'm
really not very concerned about wire reliability any more.
Ken
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>Hi Ken,
>
>Thanks for the info. I'll check the computer with an ohm meter
>tomorrow. My batteries will be in parallel when each
>of the battery contactors is on. This will be the normal
>case. In a very extreme case, I may be running only on the
>battery bus.
>
>You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
>I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
>where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
>path is as robust as possible.
>
>My diagram is based on Z11 + Z30 with a Perihelion IR
>alternator OVP thrown in for a bit of spice.
>
>http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20041121101637759
>
>Best regards,
>Mickey
>
>
snip
>>>I think having two physical connections to the ECU
>>>will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
>>>problems.
>>>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
If you have redundant power and ground paths (which is probably a
good idea for items that would kill the engine if they lost power),
you really ought to come up with a way to confirm all paths are
working on some sort of periodic basis. Maybe there could be a check
as part of the annual conditional inspection. Otherwise, as you
noted, one of the redundant paths could be inoperative, and you would
have no way to know until you needed it.
Kevin Horton
On 18 Dec 2005, at 10:11, Ken wrote:
>
> Mickey
>
> So it seems that an alternator failure or even a broken battery
> terminal
> would not stop the engine since normal operation would have both
> batteries paralleled. Sounds like you've already got the power supply
> covered. IMO there is little point in further trying to cater to a
> double unrelated failure as far as a source of power is concerned.
> As it
> is, after an alternator failure you even have the option of opening
> both
> battery contactors to conserve power until the primary battery is
> drained.
>
> One of the things I did with wiring was to run a separate wire from
> two
> different ecu ground pins all the way back to the forest of tabs. Of
> course if one of those wires disconnected, I'd never know about it
> until
> the second one also disconnected. I'm rambling here but I suppose you
> could always do something similar on the positive side and run two
> wires
> from the two power pins all the way to the same battery bus. I'd guess
> that might be overkill though (two switches?, two fuses?). Decent
> wiring is probably more reliable than several of the other components.
> Now that I've wired mine according to what I've learned here, I
> find I'm
> really not very concerned about wire reliability any more.
>
> Ken
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>> matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. I'll check the computer with an ohm meter
>> tomorrow. My batteries will be in parallel when each
>> of the battery contactors is on. This will be the normal
>> case. In a very extreme case, I may be running only on the
>> battery bus.
>>
>> You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
>> I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
>> where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
>> path is as robust as possible.
>>
>> My diagram is based on Z11 + Z30 with a Perihelion IR
>> alternator OVP thrown in for a bit of spice.
>>
>> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20041121101637759
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mickey
>>
>>
> snip
>
>>>> I think having two physical connections to the ECU
>>>> will reduce the chance of failure due to mechanical
>>>> problems.
>>>>
> snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Yes good advice and with push on PIDG connectors it wouldn't be
difficult to pull off individual wires to check periodically.
My own system is similar to Z-14, with another set of injectors and an
independant Megasquirt engine control system running in standby should I
have any problem with the subaru system. Preflight will test both.
Ken
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>If you have redundant power and ground paths (which is probably a
>good idea for items that would kill the engine if they lost power),
>you really ought to come up with a way to confirm all paths are
>working on some sort of periodic basis. Maybe there could be a check
>as part of the annual conditional inspection. Otherwise, as you
>noted, one of the redundant paths could be inoperative, and you would
>have no way to know until you needed it.
>
>Kevin Horton
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax vaccum pad alternator failures? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Curious
Is it a common occurance to have the alternator shaft break on a ND
alternator that was modified to fit and work on accessory pad (sold by
Flight Crafters) on and at Rotax 900 series speeds?
How many hours of trouble free operations do users have/get on this
alternator?
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Direct Current Air Conditioner Compressor |
I am looking for a source for an air conditioner compressor that is powered
by a DC motor. Similar to a refrigerator except DC not AC.
Anyone have an inexpensive source??
You can contact me offline if desired at bbradburry at allvantage.com.
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Current Air Conditioner Compressor |
bbradburry(at)allvantage.com wrote:
>
>I am looking for a source for an air conditioner compressor that is powered
>by a DC motor. Similar to a refrigerator except DC not AC.
>
>Anyone have an inexpensive source??
>
>You can contact me offline if desired at bbradburry at allvantage.com.
>
>Thanks,
>Bill Bradburry
>
Maybe a motor home dealer? Using an sine wave inverter & an ac
compressor might end up being cheaper & easier.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Compressor |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Current Air Conditioner |
Compressor
>
>I am looking for a source for an air conditioner compressor that is powered
>by a DC motor. Similar to a refrigerator except DC not AC.
>
>Anyone have an inexpensive source??
>
>You can contact me offline if desired at bbradburry at allvantage.com.
Electric compressor drive for vapor phase A/C is very common
in aircraft but exceedingly power hungry. Northcoast is the
only company I'm aware of right now that caters to the
OBAM aircraft community. See:
http://www.airplanedeice.com/aeroAir/
Electrically driven compressors are commonplace in
aircraft. Usually straight automotive compressors
driven by BIG motors. You might be able to build
your own compressor by mating an off-the-shelf
compressor with the right motor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Hi Mickey ...
Have you considered using a circuit breaker switch to tie the two battery
busses together. A buss tie would allow going around a failed switch in
the battery parallel circuit. Circuit breaker switches are available in
higher amperage than are NORMALLY seen in RV type circuits. They are also
available for around $15 ... $20 in low Amps to 70Amps.
My 2 cents ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: two connections to ECU (engine computer)
>
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Thanks for the info. I'll check the computer with an ohm meter
> tomorrow. My batteries will be in parallel when each
> of the battery contactors is on. This will be the normal
> case. In a very extreme case, I may be running only on the
> battery bus.
>
> You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
> I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
> where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
> path is as robust as possible.
>
> My diagram is based on Z11 + Z30 with a Perihelion IR
> alternator OVP thrown in for a bit of spice.
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20041121101637759
>
> Best regards,
> Mickey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Current Air Conditioner Compressor |
>I am looking for a source for an air conditioner compressor that is powered
>by a DC motor. Similar to a refrigerator except DC not AC.
Google "DC air conditioner -washington".
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"When the Oakies left Oklahoma and moved to California, it raised the I.Q.
of both states."
--Will Rogers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Converting IR to ER |
Excellent -- thank you, Tim.
It took me about 20 minutes to perform the conversion after getting these
instructions. My alternator was not exactly the same, but a little up close
& personal time using my multi-tester was all I needed to figure it out. I
also performed the post-conversion tests, and got results that were
dead-bang on.
Thanks very much -- perfect!
Mark Supinski
On 12/16/05, Tim Lewis wrote:
>
>
> Photos and text from my alternator conversion are at:
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/alternator.htm>
>
> --
> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
> RV-6A N47TD -- 790 hrs
> RV-10 #40059 under construction
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Current Air Conditioner Compressor |
I've worried over this one for several years. The easiest thing to do
is get an a/c compressor off a Geo or equivalent, and let your engine
drive it, even if you have to build the mounts. The other methods are
considerably heavier, and/or costlier.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III Compressor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am looking for a source for an air conditioner compressor that is powered
>>by a DC motor. Similar to a refrigerator except DC not AC.
>>
>>Anyone have an inexpensive source??
>>
>>You can contact me offline if desired at bbradburry at allvantage.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> Electric compressor drive for vapor phase A/C is very common
> in aircraft but exceedingly power hungry. Northcoast is the
> only company I'm aware of right now that caters to the
> OBAM aircraft community. See:
>
>http://www.airplanedeice.com/aeroAir/
>
> Electrically driven compressors are commonplace in
> aircraft. Usually straight automotive compressors
> driven by BIG motors. You might be able to build
> your own compressor by mating an off-the-shelf
> compressor with the right motor.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative architectures |
>
>
>snip...
> >>There is little doubt that what you've described above
> will be functional. The questions you need to craft
> and answer should focus on: "How do I find any existing
> recommendation (like a Z-figure) insufficient? Are there
> changes that would improve simplicity, cost of ownership, user
> friendliness, consistency with traditional design goals,
> etc." If you find some alternative design goals attractive,
> those are your choices to make.<< snip...
>
>
>Bob: thanks for the considerable time you took to reply to my inquiry. It
>was actually more helpful than you might imagine, especially the Socratic
>aspects ;-)
>
>My specific interest in the suggested departure form Z-13/8 architecture
>is rooted in "the relentless pursuit of weight reduction," which is one of
>the few remaining creative avenues open to airplane builders once their
>project is finished, flying, and the peformance, while stellar, has become
>a bit routine. I trust you understand that. It's exactly what would
>drive me to replace my welding cable battery leads with Eric's fatwire -
>an expensive diversion, but far less so than ordering a new airplane kit.
>
>Here, we have the opportunity to shed two rather heavy contactors, one of
>which is enough of a current hog to justify the existence of an entirely
>separate "endurance bus" with its own feed provisions. I'm simply asking
>a far more experienced pair of eyes to look over my shoulders in case I'm
>overlooking any obvious perils or "gotcha's" before heading off in
>George's suggested direction. I've soldered enough homebrew ham gear in
>my time to know that gremlins conceal themselves cleverly from the
>unexpecting...
>
>You have not pointed out any pitfalls in the proposed design, which does
>seem to offer some simplification and weight savings over what I was about
>to embark on, so you are either waiting for "Grasshopper" to see the error
>of his Kung Fu, or else the path ahead indeed looks clear from your lofty
>perch. I will study this move awhile longer before I say "final answer,"
>(am I mixing enough metaphors here?) but I will admit it looks acceptable
>so far.
Your focus is on weight reduction. Certainly a laudable goal.
When Rutan was designing Voyager, he beat folks up for grams
in empty weight. With the original engines, it took 5# of fuel
to carry 1# of airplane around the world. Every pound of empty
weight reduction was 6# of gross weight reduction at
takeoff.
Lightweight starters, alternators, and smaller batteries
made practical by lower e-bus loads and/or lightweight
backup alternators have enabled us to carve MANY pounds
out of electrical system hardware compared to the typical
1985 era spam cans.
The Bolder TMF battery may offer another quantum jump
in the near future . . . we shall see. You've correctly
identified opportunities for further weight reductions.
Each opportunity needs to be evaluated for its return
on investment . . . in this case your "investments" include
acceptance of alternative design goals for making the
system as "cold" as possible when all switches are OFF,
potential for reduced margins in crash-worthiness,
and $time$ invested to research, purchase and fabricate
the new configuration.
I've not found it particularly useful to struggle
for a few pounds. I figure if weight reductions on
that order are really useful, I can forego the calories
in sugared drinks, ditch the fries from a meal-deal
and probably gain whatever advantage those weight
reductions might offer and get healthier in the process
without hammering on hardware.
Now, if Burt were setting a mission for your airplane,
he might be taking a file to the spars, substituting
.020 skins for .030 etc. In fact, unbeknownst to me
he took the electronics (mounted on the lid) of the
LR-3's off the lower housing and installed just the
tops in Voyager on spacers for a savings of a few
ounces. He didn't fly this one past us and we had no
way of anticipating the heat rejection in the regulator
under anticipated flight loads. I was sleepless enough
while that flight was in progress . . . I would have
been REALLY worried had I known what he did to the
regulators.
Let us suppose you can carve another 2-3 pounds out of
the empty weight. How will this manifest itself in
the operation of your airplane? Will you actually
pat yourself on the back when you find you can throw
an extra day worth of clean clothes in the bag
when packing for your trip? The 15-20 pound delta
for "old" versus "new" electrical system translates to
perhaps 3 gallons more fuel (assuming you have tankage
to hold it) and perhaps 75 miles more range at best
efficiency power. This is a real and demonstrable
difference in performance. If I were buying your airplane
from you 10 years hence, would I be favorably disposed
to purchase your airplane as opposed to some other because
of a 3 pound delta in empty weights? I'm not so clear on how
a couple more pounds is going to benefit you in
a demonstrable way
>BTW, you've convinced me that the TC regulator is not going to be necessary.
If experience proves otherwise in the future, it's
an easy addition.
> If I end up moving my Odyssey to FWF in the RV, I would be glad to
> be your test dummy for the instrumented flights you proposed earlier.
I'm finishing the layouts on a 4-channel, 10-bit data
acquisition module that we hope to bring to our
product line for about $60 including software to run
it from a PC. It's #2 on our list of new product development
efforts. #1 is being programmed now. When you're ready to fly,
I'll provide you with a suite of hardware and help craft a
test plan to go get some real numbers off your airplane. Let's do
it whether or not your battery is up front.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative architectures |
At 06:19 AM 12/19/2005, you wrote:
>I'm not so clear on how
> a couple more pounds is going to benefit you in
> a demonstrable way
It's not. Saving weight is a mind-set. You don't evaluate each weight
savings on its merits; you do it as a matter of course. The question is
not, "Is it really worth saving a few pounds?" Rather it's, "What is the
compelling reason for this extra weight?" Same question, but with different
priorities. When I worked in the America's Cup on 55,000# lead mines
designers often thought I was crazy, shaving pounds here and there. They
were more than happy, though, when I offered them 600# more lead for their
keel bulb.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative architectures |
>
>At 06:19 AM 12/19/2005, you wrote:
> >I'm not so clear on how
> > a couple more pounds is going to benefit you in
> > a demonstrable way
>
>It's not. Saving weight is a mind-set. You don't evaluate each weight
>savings on its merits; you do it as a matter of course. The question is
>not, "Is it really worth saving a few pounds?" Rather it's, "What is the
>compelling reason for this extra weight?" Same question, but with different
>priorities. When I worked in the America's Cup on 55,000# lead mines
>designers often thought I was crazy, shaving pounds here and there. They
>were more than happy, though, when I offered them 600# more lead for their
>keel bulb.
Then it's not a design goal but simply a pleasing activity
like a hobby, or listening to music. In this instance,
proponents of weight savings at any cost should make it
clear that there is zero, negative or an indeterminate
return on investment. Further, enthusiasm for the act
should not be mistaken as a discovery of a really good deal.
As a professional, I've been bound by the simple-ideas of
economics to make sure the techniques I suggest are based
on good numbers. It's up to the folks in marketing to
close deals on our products by drawing attention to paint
schemes, cabin layouts, racy lines or the prestige of
flying a Beech.
Now, there's an obvious and quite notable exception to
these two avenues of thought: Education. The task I
suggested to go get real numbers during flight tests
of an airplane is an investment with indeterminate value;
unless we're looking for root cause of a specific
problem. Education is always expensive and speculative.
But the best feature of education is that the ideas
and data can be shared and re-used many times over without
repeating the original investment. So exploring for the
pleasure of finding things out can be something like
exploring for oil: There are more 'dry' than 'wet' holes
but when the wet one pays out, it more than offsets costs
of the dry ones and then some.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Mic press to talk wiring |
Van's airplane:
My Garmin audio panel diagram for the mic PTT has a wire going from the Mic key
lead on the mic jack to the PTT switch in my stick grip and then all the way
back to the mic jack and connects to the Mic (lo). My question is, since my stick
has other switches that all use a common ground, can I use that common ground
or do I need to run a dedicated ground wire back to the Mic jack?
Thanks in advance,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charger data |
After 2 months a WM1562A maintainer on a flooded sealed auto battery the
voltage is 13.34/13.39v with two different meters.
More interesting:
2 batteries in parallel on a single Schumacher SE-1-12S maintainer for the
last 6 months.
The batteries are a large flooded truck battery (1000 cca) (not sealed),
and a yellow deep cycle Optima (750 cca). Size 65 and 35
The voltage on the flooded one is 13.01/12.91v
The voltage on the Optima is 12.98/12.94v
The xxx/yyy are the readings for the two meters.
For those no familiar, the Optima is a sealed spiral cell like the Bolder
but with the original thicker Gates design internals.
The two maintainers are similar and are supposed to keep the battery at
13+ volts by charging and resting periodically. Both units operate as
advertised. The 1562 seems to agree with Bob's plot posted previously.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Hi Mickey ...
I'm designing two batteries into an RV8A and the attachment is one of the
plans I'm looking at. It's rather flexible in that either batt can run
either bus. The primary batt is the forward one and is primary for
starting. The rear batt is for engine inst on startup. In flight or on
ground either or both can power the 1 &/or 2 bus.
All the switches are circuit breaker switches. The closed switch, closest
to the rear batt, protects the line going to the next switch.
With this arrangement there's about 5-6 feet of AWG4 and that is going to
the starter. All the rest of the wire is approx #12 and that's going to the
1 & 2 busses.
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
> You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
> I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
> where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
> path is as robust as possible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two connections to ECU (engine computer) |
Hi Mickey ...
I'm designing two batteries into an RV8A and the attachment is one of the
plans I'm looking at. It's rather flexible in that either batt can run
either bus. The primary batt is the forward one and is primary for
starting. The rear batt is for engine inst on startup. In flight or on
ground either or both can power the 1 &/or 2 bus.
All the switches are circuit breaker switches. The closed switch, closest
to the rear batt, protects the line going to the next switch.
With this arrangement there's about 5-6 feet of AWG4 and that is going to
the starter. All the rest of the wire is approx #12 and that's going to the
1 & 2 busses.
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
> You are totally correct about the other points of failure.
> I'm doing everything I can to add redundancy. In places
> where there is only one path, I want to make sure that
> path is as robust as possible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax 914/912 Alternator |
I noticed some comments concerning the addition of a second alternator to the Rotax
912 on this list in the last few days. I copied a second alternator solution
from Jim Nelson a fellow Europa pilot and it works very well. Basically
I mounted a B&C L60 alternator on a bracket that mounts to the Rotax engine frame
(the white tubular ring at the rear of the engine). The alternator is driven
off the rear of the crankshaft and thus operates at about 5000 rpm. This
gives 46 amps with a L60 and 33 amps with a L40. I have supplied the parts for
this mod for others. If you are interested or want more information, contact
me off list.
Jim Butcher
Europa XS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New Loadmeters in stock |
The UPS truck just delivered our stocking order of
shunts to go with a new, much better quality loadmeter
than we were able to offer a few years ago. Better yet,
these are less expensive than the old offering. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/
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" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charger data |
>
>After 2 months a WM1562A maintainer on a flooded sealed auto battery the
>voltage is 13.34/13.39v with two different meters.
>
> More interesting:
>2 batteries in parallel on a single Schumacher SE-1-12S maintainer for the
>last 6 months.
>The batteries are a large flooded truck battery (1000 cca) (not sealed),
>and a yellow deep cycle Optima (750 cca). Size 65 and 35
>
>The voltage on the flooded one is 13.01/12.91v
>The voltage on the Optima is 12.98/12.94v
>
>The xxx/yyy are the readings for the two meters.
>For those no familiar, the Optima is a sealed spiral cell like the Bolder
>but with the original thicker Gates design internals.
The Optima is a direct descendant of the first RG batteries
to hit the market in the US. B&C was selling these batteries
about 1985 for about $175 as I recall. Great cranking batteries
but gave them up due to persistent failures of the (-) terminal
attachment inside the cell. "You've come a long way baby!"
> The two maintainers are similar and are supposed to keep the battery at
>13+ volts by charging and resting periodically. Both units operate as
>advertised. The 1562 seems to agree with Bob's plot posted previously.
>
>Paul
Paul, Thank you for the follow-up and sharing the outcome of your
repeatable experiment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic press to talk wiring |
>
>Van's airplane:
>My Garmin audio panel diagram for the mic PTT has a wire going from the
>Mic key lead on the mic jack to the PTT switch in my stick grip and then
>all the way back to the mic jack and connects to the Mic (lo). My
>question is, since my stick has other switches that all use a common
>ground, can I use that common ground or do I need to run a dedicated
>ground wire back to the Mic jack?
>Thanks in advance,
PTT circuits can generally share grounds with other controls
in the stick. The PTT circuit is not a potential victim for
noise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charger data |
I use a Schumacher and it charges momentarily to 14 point something and then
shuts off and the battery internally discharges down to 13.00 or 12.99 volts
and the charger turns back on. Takes a fully charged battery about 1 or 2
seconds to reach the 14+ v shutoff and takes 15' or 30' (a long time) for
the battery to discharge back down to 13.00
So, Paul's voltage readings for the Schumaker are exactly what I see.
The WM1562A must not ever drop down to 13.00, must drop down to 13.34 or
thereabouts before it turns on again. With 6 cells, the diff in total
voltage (13 vs 13.34) is .34. Divide by 6 and you get about .06 v per cell
difference in "charge" or "per cell voltage" with the two different
chargers/maintainers. Not significant? Both doing well.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charger data
>
>
>
>>
>>After 2 months a WM1562A maintainer on a flooded sealed auto battery the
>>voltage is 13.34/13.39v with two different meters.
>>
>> More interesting: 2 batteries in parallel on a single Schumacher
>> SE-1-12S maintainer for the last 6 months.
>>The batteries are a large flooded truck battery (1000 cca) (not sealed),
>>and a yellow deep cycle Optima (750 cca). Size 65 and 35
>>
>>The voltage on the flooded one is 13.01/12.91v
>>The voltage on the Optima is 12.98/12.94v
>>
>>The xxx/yyy are the readings for the two meters.
>>For those no familiar, the Optima is a sealed spiral cell like the Bolder
>>but with the original thicker Gates design internals.
>
> The Optima is a direct descendant of the first RG batteries to hit the
> market in the US. B&C was selling these batteries about 1985 for about
> $175 as I recall. Great cranking batteries but gave them up due to
> persistent failures of the (-) terminal attachment inside the cell.
> "You've come a long way baby!"
>
>> The two maintainers are similar and are supposed to keep the battery
>> at 13+ volts by charging and resting periodically. Both units operate as
>> advertised. The 1562 seems to agree with Bob's plot posted previously.
>>
>>Paul
>
> Paul, Thank you for the follow-up and sharing the outcome of your
> repeatable experiment.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sidey" <psidey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charger data |
I just wanted to follow up and ask you to take a look at our new web sites.
www.xelr8.biz/PaulSidey It is so simple to prospect with and I have had
people enroll before Ive even had a chance to call them because they saw
the awesome opportunity to be on the ground floor of this project with the
Star Power of the Nike of Nutrition and the team that is being built.
Best regards,
Paul Sidey
Tel: 303-537-3283
Fax: 303-537-3284
email: psidey(at)msn.com
http://www.xelr8.biz/PaulSidey
http://www.secretsofthemillionairemind.com/a/dollarsandsense
http://tomchenault.com
If you don't want to be on this list anymore, just type REMOVE and send
back. I do NOT want to spam you and I promise you won't hurt my feelings.
(Except you, mom) Thanks!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Carter
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charger data
I use a Schumacher and it charges momentarily to 14 point something and then
shuts off and the battery internally discharges down to 13.00 or 12.99 volts
and the charger turns back on. Takes a fully charged battery about 1 or 2
seconds to reach the 14+ v shutoff and takes 15' or 30' (a long time) for
the battery to discharge back down to 13.00
So, Paul's voltage readings for the Schumaker are exactly what I see.
The WM1562A must not ever drop down to 13.00, must drop down to 13.34 or
thereabouts before it turns on again. With 6 cells, the diff in total
voltage (13 vs 13.34) is .34. Divide by 6 and you get about .06 v per cell
difference in "charge" or "per cell voltage" with the two different
chargers/maintainers. Not significant? Both doing well.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charger data
>
>
>
>>
>>After 2 months a WM1562A maintainer on a flooded sealed auto battery the
>>voltage is 13.34/13.39v with two different meters.
>>
>> More interesting: 2 batteries in parallel on a single Schumacher
>> SE-1-12S maintainer for the last 6 months.
>>The batteries are a large flooded truck battery (1000 cca) (not sealed),
>>and a yellow deep cycle Optima (750 cca). Size 65 and 35
>>
>>The voltage on the flooded one is 13.01/12.91v
>>The voltage on the Optima is 12.98/12.94v
>>
>>The xxx/yyy are the readings for the two meters.
>>For those no familiar, the Optima is a sealed spiral cell like the Bolder
>>but with the original thicker Gates design internals.
>
> The Optima is a direct descendant of the first RG batteries to hit the
> market in the US. B&C was selling these batteries about 1985 for about
> $175 as I recall. Great cranking batteries but gave them up due to
> persistent failures of the (-) terminal attachment inside the cell.
> "You've come a long way baby!"
>
>> The two maintainers are similar and are supposed to keep the battery
>> at 13+ volts by charging and resting periodically. Both units operate as
>> advertised. The 1562 seems to agree with Bob's plot posted previously.
>>
>>Paul
>
> Paul, Thank you for the follow-up and sharing the outcome of your
> repeatable experiment.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Antennas- ground plane. |
Question Bob:
A while back you had some words of wisdom for a person who'd asked about
getting enough metal to metal contact for ground plane purposes with his
comm antenna. You mentioned to him that riveting his doubler plates to the
skin would provide plenty of contact when paint and other debris was
squeezed out during the riveting process. I have a little different twist
on this question. I made doubler plates to go inside the fuselage but don't
really want to rivet them on. The number of fasteners that hold the
antennas to the airplane will hold doublers to the skin and I don't see a
need to rivet the doublers on. This however, could cause trouble. Since
I've already primed the inside of the aluminum fuselage skin, would like to
prime the doublers so they don't corrode when water gets between them and
the fuselage skin and don't want to remove the primer from the skin......I
fear I will have insufficient connection to get good ground plane action.
The comm antennas come with a cork gasket that's supposed to go between the
outside skin and the antenna so that limits ground plane connection on the
outside skin (presently bare aluminum). Am I gonna have to bite the bullet
and rivet the doublers to get some connection or ????(the doublers have
nutplates riveted to them to accept the antenna fasteners). Any words of
wisdom here? The antennas are the standard store bought COMANT bent whips.
Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
All airframe/engine parts in FWF kit installed (wiring in process)!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow-up: Yet another ebay scam to watch |
out for
Any time that you suspect you might be being scammed, go and ask at
http://www.fraudwatchers.org or http:/scampatrol.org
I think it's interesting that every time someone asks, the answer is
always "yes".
If you think it might be a scam, it almost certainly is.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charger data |
>
>
>I use a Schumacher and it charges momentarily to 14 point something and then
>shuts off and the battery internally discharges down to 13.00 or 12.99 volts
>and the charger turns back on. Takes a fully charged battery about 1 or 2
>seconds to reach the 14+ v shutoff and takes 15' or 30' (a long time) for
>the battery to discharge back down to 13.00
>
>So, Paul's voltage readings for the Schumaker are exactly what I see.
>
>The WM1562A must not ever drop down to 13.00, must drop down to 13.34 or
>thereabouts before it turns on again. With 6 cells, the diff in total
>voltage (13 vs 13.34) is .34. Divide by 6 and you get about .06 v per cell
>difference in "charge" or "per cell voltage" with the two different
>chargers/maintainers. Not significant? Both doing well.
There are about a dozen protocols for battery maintenance
behavior some of which date back to the earliest use of
silicon controlled rectifiers as opposed to straight
diodes. The chassis I'm holding in this picture . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Mobilizer_3s.jpg
. . . mounts the battery charger and control relays for
the patient moving machine. Very simple circuitry but
looks really strange when you observe output current.
As the battery achieves full charge, the charger appears
to go into fits of apoplexy. The AVERAGE output current is
just what's needed to keep the battery up but the ammeter
would "jitter" in a random manner.
Schumaker also built chargers just like that back then.
As the control technologies evolved, the outputs got
more predictable and certainly less agitated. So when comparing
various battery chargers even of the same brand . . . be
sure to consider both age and model number of the device.
There can be substantial variability in behavior between
models separated by just a few years.
The primary behavior your looking for is a charger
that takes a battery up to 14.0 to 14.8 volts for a
relatively short time depending on size of battery
but generally less than 2 hours. It then "relaxes"
to a level just above the normal open circuit voltage
for the battery (12.9 or thereabouts at room temp).
A "maintenance" voltage of 13.0 to 13.5 would make
sure that (1) the battery is NOT being over charged
and (2) ALL internal self discharge loads are being
supported by the charger and not the battery's
energy stores.
With the latest chargers, this is a one-shot cycle.
With some older designs, the charger will occasionally
go into a "boost" mode. These chargers probably do not
have any supporting output . . . they just wait until
the battery self discharges to a small value below
open circuit and then zaps it again. Give it another
couple of years and we may see something different
yet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | main battery contactor, hidden security issue?? |
As I did not get any feedback 2nd tryl,
>
> I was discussing recently with a guy which has NO main battery
> contactor (CB setup) about his setup and he did ask me something which
> I could not answer light heartily.
>
> The main battery contactor which is supposed to switch off the big
> juice in case of an emergency landing is switched through a cable
> going to ground. Now imagine your setup in a metal airplane and you
> crash, is there not a certain danger, that you break the cable going
> to the contactor and short it to ground, this switching on the main
> battery contactor and voila you have a bomb named battery in your
> crashing plane able to deliver several 100 Amps.
>
> This argument let me think and I would appreciate the insight of you
> folks on the list about that scenario?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Werner (Glastar with main battery contactor behind my seat)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: main battery contactor, hidden security issue?? |
Werner,
How likely is that wire controlling the contactor to "break," unless it passes
through the firewall and could experience shear forces that might cut the insulation?
I suppose you could activate the batery contactor from the high side,
switching the B+ to it instead of the ground, but then you have an always-hot
relay control wire that needs a fuse to protect it.
I'm carefully studying an alternative architecture to Z-13/8 that involves an ANL
fuse from the battery for protection from catastrophic shorts of the battery
cable and always-hot battery bus, while allowing a 75-amp Bosch-type relay to
be used as a battery contactor and uses no starter contactor at all. Like you,
I tried to get a critical review going here on the List, but was "turned down,"
you might say. The basics for this revised architecture are from Bob's
figure Z-22 and from George, aka "gmcjetpilot'" as posted on Doug Reeves' RV site.
So far, I don't see a downside to my hybrid design, and it will simplify
and save cost and weight. Nevertheless, I would welcome critical review before
I start changing stuff in my plane.
I think part of what frustrates efforts at dialog on this list is the technical
difficulty in posting diagrams of what we're talking about. It's a major hurdle
for me, at least.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: main battery contactor, hidden security issue??
As I did not get any feedback 2nd tryl,
>
> I was discussing recently with a guy which has NO main battery
> contactor (CB setup) about his setup and he did ask me something which
> I could not answer light heartily.
>
> The main battery contactor which is supposed to switch off the big
> juice in case of an emergency landing is switched through a cable
> going to ground. Now imagine your setup in a metal airplane and you
> crash, is there not a certain danger, that you break the cable going
> to the contactor and short it to ground, this switching on the main
> battery contactor and voila you have a bomb named battery in your
> crashing plane able to deliver several 100 Amps.
>
> This argument let me think and I would appreciate the insight of you
> folks on the list about that scenario?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Werner (Glastar with main battery contactor behind my seat)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: main battery contactor, hidden security issue?? |
Hi Stormy
Or you could just use a regular contactor instead of a 75 amp unit and
then you can route starter current through it. That might also eliminate
the need for the ANL fuse. Worked for me.
Gmcjetpilot is the only person to ever make my delete message filter
list so I am not familiar with any post he has made about this.
Hi Werner
I don't think the risk is significant either way but as it happens it
was convenient to feed fused +12 volts to the contactor that I mentioned
above. If something else pops that fuse it will open the contactor
though which might be a consideration. You do need a contactor that
doesn't have an internal coil connection to the battery post to do that
of course.
Ken
sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Werner,
>
>How likely is that wire controlling the contactor to "break," unless it passes
through the firewall and could experience shear forces that might cut the insulation?
I suppose you could activate the batery contactor from the high side,
switching the B+ to it instead of the ground, but then you have an always-hot
relay control wire that needs a fuse to protect it.
>
>I'm carefully studying an alternative architecture to Z-13/8 that involves an
ANL fuse from the battery for protection from catastrophic shorts of the battery
cable and always-hot battery bus, while allowing a 75-amp Bosch-type relay
to be used as a battery contactor and uses no starter contactor at all. Like
you, I tried to get a critical review going here on the List, but was "turned
down," you might say. The basics for this revised architecture are from Bob's
figure Z-22 and from George, aka "gmcjetpilot'" as posted on Doug Reeves' RV
site. So far, I don't see a downside to my hybrid design, and it will simplify
and save cost and weight. Nevertheless, I would welcome critical review before
I start changing stuff in my plane.
>
>I think part of what frustrates efforts at dialog on this list is the technical
difficulty in posting diagrams of what we're talking about. It's a major hurdle
for me, at least.
>
>-Stormy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: main battery contactor, hidden security issue??
>
>
>As I did not get any feedback 2nd tryl,
>
>
>
>>I was discussing recently with a guy which has NO main battery
>>contactor (CB setup) about his setup and he did ask me something which
>>I could not answer light heartily.
>>
>>The main battery contactor which is supposed to switch off the big
>>juice in case of an emergency landing is switched through a cable
>>going to ground. Now imagine your setup in a metal airplane and you
>>crash, is there not a certain danger, that you break the cable going
>>to the contactor and short it to ground, this switching on the main
>>battery contactor and voila you have a bomb named battery in your
>>crashing plane able to deliver several 100 Amps.
>>
>>This argument let me think and I would appreciate the insight of you
>>folks on the list about that scenario?
>>
>>Kind regards
>>
>>Werner (Glastar with main battery contactor behind my seat)
>>
>>
December 12, 2005 - December 20, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fd