AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-je
December 08, 2009 - December 24, 2009
elapsed time in exact compliance with either of the FAR time definitions is
not likely.
So what is the builder / pilot to do? My suggestions:
a) Don't get all wrapped around the axle about generating time. Many people
are not recording flight time or time in service the same way that you are.
b) Pick some hardware and a system of documentation that seems to fit your
needs and go with it.
c) Be consistent in how you do things so that you can view and show the
results with some confidence.
d) Be wary of someone else's time claims, but don't make a big deal of time
unless you are billing by the hour.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: My choice for my airplane was just to record "Tach time" from my engine
electronic data system for both flight time and TIS. My engine data system
generates zero
tach time anytime the engine RPM is less than 1,500 RPM and constant equal
running time in hours and tenths any time the engine RPM is above 1,500 RPM.
Recording this time for both flight time and TIS short changes me on pilot
flight time since a fair amount of time while practicing landings in the
landing pattern the engine is below 1,500 RPM. On
the other hand it will take much longer elapsed time for my engine to reach
its 2,000 hour TIS to be due for overhaul. This approach greatly simplifies
my bookkeeping.
Back when I was flying rental aircraft I just went with the flow and used
the FBO's Hobbs meter time for flight time -- I paid for it, I should be
able to log it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Who Has Got The Time? |
Couple of observations.
1. Regardless of all the wiz bang stuff out there, piloting is still
very much a human engineered activity. The rolling time is what the
pilot enters in his/her logbook and swears to it based on their
signature. If the FAA had the resources (and they don't) they could
easily match Hobbs with book entries to see how much you're cheating.
Until they begin using biometrics which are fed wirelessly to the FBI
database to log activity around and in aircraft, your word is good. I
hope I don't give anyone at the FAA any ideas?
2. Have you ever seen or flown antique aircraft? They don't have spit
for gauges. Ok, one airspeed dial and oil pressure. Again, pilot rules
the books and the sky.
3. Hobbs are useful in rental aircraft for obvious reasons and yes, it's
natural to log from them if you subtract the time the plane wasn't
actually moving under its own power, but idling there trying to warm up,
waiting for you etc. Someday we'll all have remote starters with
automatic shutdown if there is a problem so we can spend more time
drinking coffee by the window and BS'n in the pilot lounge while our
climate controlled cabins warm up.
4. Like many I am more interested in how long to my next service
interval than I am struggling to amass 10,000 hours in my log book.
Accuracy is good at all plateaus. I have two Dynons of which each has
more clocks and time settings than a Swiss train station.
Glenn E. Long
-----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
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Who Has Got The Time?
12/6/2009 (and again on 11/8/2009)
Hello Fellow Pilots and Builders, The aeroelectric list has been filled
lately with discussions of hardware (meters) that keep track of time.
Just
exactly what time is being kept, and for what purpose, is unclear. To
shed
some light on the subject let's start by taking a look at what 14 CFR
(FAR's) say about time.
We'll take flight time first, then TIS (Time In Service):
1) Here is how pilot flight time is defined in section 1.1 of the FAR's
:
"Flight time means: Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves
under
its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes
to
rest after landing;"
I am not aware of any meter that could keep accurate track of such time.
You'll find many pilots, and airlines, that do not keep track of flight
/
pilot time in conformance with this definition. Standard compliance by
all
pilots with this definition is unlikely because there is room for
interpretation.
Does "moves under its own power for the purpose of flight" mean the
instant
the wheels start to roll as you leave the parking space in order to go
flying? Then that XXX minutes plus that you spend taxiing, doing engine
run
up, and waiting for takeoff clearance at the end of the runway, would
all be
flight time. Considering the delays involved in operating at some
airports
one could become a multi thousand hour flight time pilot very quickly
using
that interpretation.
On the other hand one is certainly exercising some very important PIC
duties
from the time he leaves the parking space until starting takeoff roll.
Should all of that time be ignored and not recognized in some fashion?
2) Here is how section 1.1 of FAR's defines TIS (Time In Service):
"Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the
time
from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it
touches
it at the next point of landing."
I suppose that there is hardware that could record this exact time, but
it
certainly is not in common use in our category of airplanes.
So let's take a look at three common timing devices: the Hobbs meter,
the
mechanical engine RPM based tachometer, and the software associated with
electronic flight instrumentation or engine instrumentation:
A) The Hobbs meter (you can look here for a quick review):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbs_meter
It doesn't take very long to conclude that "Hobbs meter" has become a
very
generic term (like Kleenex or Scotch tape) and that Hobbs meters come in
wide varieties and can be connected to record a wide variety of time. I
guess it is possible for a Hobbs meter to be connected up so that it
records
one of the time definitions in the FAR's, but it doesn't seem easy.
B) FAR 91.205 (a) and (b) require an engine tachometer to be installed
in
any powered standard category civil aircraft even for day VFR
operations. By
far the most common type of tachometer found is the mechanical RPM based
tachometer. Presumably the purpose of the required tachometer is to
inform
the pilot of his engine's RPM at any given instant, but somewhere along
the
line these tachometers began including the total time of engine
operation.
This required someone to decide how to convert instantaneous RPM into
total
elapsed time of engine operation.
If, say 2,000 RPM were chosen as the standard mechanical ratio to
convert
one minute at this RPM into one minute of elapsed engine operating time
then
any engine operation at less than 2,000 RPM generates less than one
minute
of elapsed engine operating time and any RPM greater than 2,000
generates
more than one minute of elapsed engine operating time. See some of the
tachometer conversion ratios between RPM and time available here:
http://tghaviation.rtrk.com/?scid=387399&kw=3649251
In any case it does not appear that any mechanical engine tachometer can
generate either of the elapsed times defined by the FAR's.
C) There is such a huge variety of electronic flight and engine
instrumentation systems and their associated software (and the ability
of
the operator to modify the software in some cases) that any accurate
comparison of one airplane's / engine's / pilot's time to another
airplane's
/ engine's / pilot's time would require some detailed examination of the
processes used to generate that time.
Again the probability that an electronic system would automatically
generate
elapsed time in exact compliance with either of the FAR time definitions
is
not likely.
So what is the builder / pilot to do? My suggestions:
a) Don't get all wrapped around the axle about generating time. Many
people
are not recording flight time or time in service the same way that you
are.
b) Pick some hardware and a system of documentation that seems to fit
your
needs and go with it.
c) Be consistent in how you do things so that you can view and show the
results with some confidence.
d) Be wary of someone else's time claims, but don't make a big deal of
time
unless you are billing by the hour.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: My choice for my airplane was just to record "Tach time" from my
engine
electronic data system for both flight time and TIS. My engine data
system
generates zero
tach time anytime the engine RPM is less than 1,500 RPM and constant
equal
running time in hours and tenths any time the engine RPM is above 1,500
RPM.
Recording this time for both flight time and TIS short changes me on
pilot
flight time since a fair amount of time while practicing landings in the
landing pattern the engine is below 1,500 RPM. On
the other hand it will take much longer elapsed time for my engine to
reach
its 2,000 hour TIS to be due for overhaul. This approach greatly
simplifies
my bookkeeping.
Back when I was flying rental aircraft I just went with the flow and
used
the FBO's Hobbs meter time for flight time -- I paid for it, I should be
able to log it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fran & Joe" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs MeterHobbs Meter |
This link works:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU 7-0077&gclid=
CISGmb-Lx54CFQ_xDAodcwNRrA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
alternators from high stress loads...
Not sure there is "benefit" to be realized for shielding
an alternator from "high stress" loads.
As converters of mechanical to electrical energy, these
devices have specifications. They also tend to be designed
for a particular marketplace task. The prudent designers,
manufacturers and installers of such devices understand the
capabilities and limits. That understanding is factored
into satisfaction of design goals and establishment
of maintenance programs.
Subscribing to the notion of "stress mitigation" on
an alternator by programming the manner in which loads
are applied to the machine suggests that design goals,
capabilities and limits are suspect or perhaps known
to be poorly married.
The aux battery management module for OBAM aircraft was
first proposed in an article I wrote for Sport Aviation
many moons ago. The intent of this device was to provide
automatic management of an auxiliary battery included
to power flight critical electro-whizzies. The ABMM
prevented connection of the aux battery to the system
unless bus voltage was high enough to avoid discharging
the battery (i.e. alternator on line). Hence the 13.0
volt switchpoint calibration for closing the contactor.
The corollary idea was that the ABMM opens the contactor
automatically during alternator shut down or failure
thus isolating the aux battery and preserving contained
energy for a specific task.
The product being discussed appears to perform in
precisely the same manner where it's desirable
to isolate a RV vehicle battery from recreational
electro-whizzies battery unless the alternator
is available to service BOTH batteries.
This is a PARTICULAR case where the recreational
battery is EXPECTED to be deeply discharged. Now,
if the vehicle battery has not been abused while
parked, then the bus is expected to rise above
13.0 (or 13.2) volts seconds after the engine
starts. This device would spare the alternator
from "high stress" loads only if BOTH batteries are
deeply discharged. But even then, I can't imagine
that the bus will stay below 13.2 volts for very
long even if the vehicle battery was drawn down
completely and the engine was started with jumper cables.
Finally, irrespective of number of batteries and
no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
If not, there's something wrong with the selection
of alternator or the manner in which it has been
installed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor (P.S.) |
At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
alternators from high stress loads...
. . . . irrespective of number of batteries and
no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
If not, there's something wrong with the selection
of alternator or the manner in which it has been
installed.
P.S. There's another article I wrote in 1998 that
speaks to the physics and operational considerations
of diodes vs. contactors for battery management. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
The link in the previous post did not work, but this one should:
Joe
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU 7-0077&gclid=CISGmb-Lx54CFQ_xDAodcwNRrA
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276718#276718
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
This brings to mind a question as to what happens to the alternator when the load
placed on it exceeds it's output capacity? Will the output voltage start to
drop as capacity is exceeded? If overload is continued are the diodes the weak
link in the chain? Will the diodes fail before overheating of the stator
windings? What is the common failure mode?
Chris Stone
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>Sent: Dec 8, 2009 11:55 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
>
>
>At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>Chris,
>Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
>alternators from high stress loads...
>
> Not sure there is "benefit" to be realized for shielding
> an alternator from "high stress" loads.
>
> As converters of mechanical to electrical energy, these
> devices have specifications. They also tend to be designed
> for a particular marketplace task. The prudent designers,
> manufacturers and installers of such devices understand the
> capabilities and limits. That understanding is factored
> into satisfaction of design goals and establishment
> of maintenance programs.
>
> Subscribing to the notion of "stress mitigation" on
> an alternator by programming the manner in which loads
> are applied to the machine suggests that design goals,
> capabilities and limits are suspect or perhaps known
> to be poorly married.
>
> The aux battery management module for OBAM aircraft was
> first proposed in an article I wrote for Sport Aviation
> many moons ago. The intent of this device was to provide
> automatic management of an auxiliary battery included
> to power flight critical electro-whizzies. The ABMM
> prevented connection of the aux battery to the system
> unless bus voltage was high enough to avoid discharging
> the battery (i.e. alternator on line). Hence the 13.0
> volt switchpoint calibration for closing the contactor.
> The corollary idea was that the ABMM opens the contactor
> automatically during alternator shut down or failure
> thus isolating the aux battery and preserving contained
> energy for a specific task.
>
> The product being discussed appears to perform in
> precisely the same manner where it's desirable
> to isolate a RV vehicle battery from recreational
> electro-whizzies battery unless the alternator
> is available to service BOTH batteries.
>
> This is a PARTICULAR case where the recreational
> battery is EXPECTED to be deeply discharged. Now,
> if the vehicle battery has not been abused while
> parked, then the bus is expected to rise above
> 13.0 (or 13.2) volts seconds after the engine
> starts. This device would spare the alternator
> from "high stress" loads only if BOTH batteries are
> deeply discharged. But even then, I can't imagine
> that the bus will stay below 13.2 volts for very
> long even if the vehicle battery was drawn down
> completely and the engine was started with jumper cables.
>
> Finally, irrespective of number of batteries and
> no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
> alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
> full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
> If not, there's something wrong with the selection
> of alternator or the manner in which it has been
> installed.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switchology Question |
> You won't see any output from the SD-8 without being
> well above 2000 rpm.
This caught me off guard and triggered me to look at the specs on the
B&C website.
I often cruise at 2200rpm.
Their web site says that for a Lycoming engine, the vacuum pad runs
1.3:1 compared to the crankshaft.
So at 2200 rpm, the SD-8 is turning 2860 rpm.
Interpolating their chart idicates about 6A at that speed.
While idling, I will get a low voltage indication on my aux bus that I
hadn't anticipated. Perhaps I should be considering an SD-20.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Battery Contactor |
Chris,
As Bob noted, the alternator will continue to output at its rated capacity as long
as the regulator is demanding it. Each alternator should be able to run at
its rated capacity for N hours before failing (some calculus test performed at
the factory).
The bigger question is what are you doing in your cockpit while you are waiting
for the alternator to explode and your bus architecture to melt down? Answer,
you should be activating your fire gear. No, a diode won't immediately melt if
you drop to 8 volts, but by then you should have your contingency plan in action.
Should you experience 1 or more failures in any situation, you should start
shedding load and if the alternator seems to be a problem, shut it down.
Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two alternators are better
than 2-3 batteries any day.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Stone
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
This brings to mind a question as to what happens to the alternator when the load
placed on it exceeds it's output capacity? Will the output voltage start to
drop as capacity is exceeded? If overload is continued are the diodes the weak
link in the chain? Will the diodes fail before overheating of the stator
windings? What is the common failure mode?
Chris Stone
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>Sent: Dec 8, 2009 11:55 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
>
>
>At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>Chris,
>Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
>alternators from high stress loads...
>
> Not sure there is "benefit" to be realized for shielding
> an alternator from "high stress" loads.
>
> As converters of mechanical to electrical energy, these
> devices have specifications. They also tend to be designed
> for a particular marketplace task. The prudent designers,
> manufacturers and installers of such devices understand the
> capabilities and limits. That understanding is factored
> into satisfaction of design goals and establishment
> of maintenance programs.
>
> Subscribing to the notion of "stress mitigation" on
> an alternator by programming the manner in which loads
> are applied to the machine suggests that design goals,
> capabilities and limits are suspect or perhaps known
> to be poorly married.
>
> The aux battery management module for OBAM aircraft was
> first proposed in an article I wrote for Sport Aviation
> many moons ago. The intent of this device was to provide
> automatic management of an auxiliary battery included
> to power flight critical electro-whizzies. The ABMM
> prevented connection of the aux battery to the system
> unless bus voltage was high enough to avoid discharging
> the battery (i.e. alternator on line). Hence the 13.0
> volt switchpoint calibration for closing the contactor.
> The corollary idea was that the ABMM opens the contactor
> automatically during alternator shut down or failure
> thus isolating the aux battery and preserving contained
> energy for a specific task.
>
> The product being discussed appears to perform in
> precisely the same manner where it's desirable
> to isolate a RV vehicle battery from recreational
> electro-whizzies battery unless the alternator
> is available to service BOTH batteries.
>
> This is a PARTICULAR case where the recreational
> battery is EXPECTED to be deeply discharged. Now,
> if the vehicle battery has not been abused while
> parked, then the bus is expected to rise above
> 13.0 (or 13.2) volts seconds after the engine
> starts. This device would spare the alternator
> from "high stress" loads only if BOTH batteries are
> deeply discharged. But even then, I can't imagine
> that the bus will stay below 13.2 volts for very
> long even if the vehicle battery was drawn down
> completely and the engine was started with jumper cables.
>
> Finally, irrespective of number of batteries and
> no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
> alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
> full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
> If not, there's something wrong with the selection
> of alternator or the manner in which it has been
> installed.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Who Has Got The Time? |
Good Afternoon OC,
I tried to make the same point when this message first surfaced, but no one
seems to care!
Such is life.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/8/2009 7:11:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
12/6/2009 (and again on 11/8/2009)
Hello Fellow Pilots and Builders, The aeroelectric list has been filled
lately with discussions of hardware (meters) that keep track of time. Just
exactly what time is being kept, and for what purpose, is unclear. To shed
some light on the subject let's start by taking a look at what 14 CFR
(FAR's) say about time.
We'll take flight time first, then TIS (Time In Service):
1) Here is how pilot flight time is defined in section 1.1 of the FAR's :
"Flight time means: Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under
its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to
rest after landing;"
I am not aware of any meter that could keep accurate track of such time.
You'll find many pilots, and airlines, that do not keep track of flight /
pilot time in conformance with this definition. Standard compliance by all
pilots with this definition is unlikely because there is room for
interpretation.
Does "moves under its own power for the purpose of flight" mean the instant
the wheels start to roll as you leave the parking space in order to go
flying? Then that XXX minutes plus that you spend taxiing, doing engine run
up, and waiting for takeoff clearance at the end of the runway, would all
be
flight time. Considering the delays involved in operating at some airports
one could become a multi thousand hour flight time pilot very quickly using
that interpretation.
On the other hand one is certainly exercising some very important PIC
duties
from the time he leaves the parking space until starting takeoff roll.
Should all of that time be ignored and not recognized in some fashion?
2) Here is how section 1.1 of FAR's defines TIS (Time In Service):
"Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time
from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it
touches
it at the next point of landing."
I suppose that there is hardware that could record this exact time, but it
certainly is not in common use in our category of airplanes.
So let's take a look at three common timing devices: the Hobbs meter, the
mechanical engine RPM based tachometer, and the software associated with
electronic flight instrumentation or engine instrumentation:
A) The Hobbs meter (you can look here for a quick review):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbs_meter
It doesn't take very long to conclude that "Hobbs meter" has become a very
generic term (like Kleenex or Scotch tape) and that Hobbs meters come in
wide varieties and can be connected to record a wide variety of time. I
guess it is possible for a Hobbs meter to be connected up so that it
records
one of the time definitions in the FAR's, but it doesn't seem easy.
B) FAR 91.205 (a) and (b) require an engine tachometer to be installed in
any powered standard category civil aircraft even for day VFR operations.
By
far the most common type of tachometer found is the mechanical RPM based
tachometer. Presumably the purpose of the required tachometer is to inform
the pilot of his engine's RPM at any given instant, but somewhere along the
line these tachometers began including the total time of engine operation.
This required someone to decide how to convert instantaneous RPM into total
elapsed time of engine operation.
If, say 2,000 RPM were chosen as the standard mechanical ratio to convert
one minute at this RPM into one minute of elapsed engine operating time
then
any engine operation at less than 2,000 RPM generates less than one minute
of elapsed engine operating time and any RPM greater than 2,000 generates
more than one minute of elapsed engine operating time. See some of the
tachometer conversion ratios between RPM and time available here:
http://tghaviation.rtrk.com/?scid=387399&kw=3649251
In any case it does not appear that any mechanical engine tachometer can
generate either of the elapsed times defined by the FAR's.
C) There is such a huge variety of electronic flight and engine
instrumentation systems and their associated software (and the ability of
the operator to modify the software in some cases) that any accurate
comparison of one airplane's / engine's / pilot's time to another
airplane's
/ engine's / pilot's time would require some detailed examination of the
processes used to generate that time.
Again the probability that an electronic system would automatically
generate
elapsed time in exact compliance with either of the FAR time definitions is
not likely.
So what is the builder / pilot to do? My suggestions:
a) Don't get all wrapped around the axle about generating time. Many
people
are not recording flight time or time in service the same way that you are.
b) Pick some hardware and a system of documentation that seems to fit your
needs and go with it.
c) Be consistent in how you do things so that you can view and show the
results with some confidence.
d) Be wary of someone else's time claims, but don't make a big deal of time
unless you are billing by the hour.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: My choice for my airplane was just to record "Tach time" from my engine
electronic data system for both flight time and TIS. My engine data system
generates zero
tach time anytime the engine RPM is less than 1,500 RPM and constant equal
running time in hours and tenths any time the engine RPM is above 1,500
RPM.
Recording this time for both flight time and TIS short changes me on pilot
flight time since a fair amount of time while practicing landings in the
landing pattern the engine is below 1,500 RPM. On
the other hand it will take much longer elapsed time for my engine to reach
its 2,000 hour TIS to be due for overhaul. This approach greatly simplifies
my bookkeeping.
Back when I was flying rental aircraft I just went with the flow and used
the FBO's Hobbs meter time for flight time -- I paid for it, I should be
able to log it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Who Has Got The Time? |
At 04:32 PM 12/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>Old Bob and OC,
>
>I read both your posts and appreciate the time spent to write them.
>Guess I should have said something. Problem is, then I'd have to
>write every day! This list is a great resource and I for one
>appreciate being able to lurk while others solve problems and
>present a variety of opinions and solutions. I'm sure I'm not the
>only one. Both of you and everyone else, PLEASE continue posting,
>there's a lot of us out here reading them.
In our own self-interested way, we're participants and
exploiters of what Thomas Friedman has identified as a
constellation of forces that are "flattening the world". See:
http://future.iftf.org/2006/05/thomas_friedman.html
for a brief peek at his thinking.
When EAA was but a gleam in Father Paul's eye,
what we knew and could learn about this hobby we
cherish came through narrow pipes of communication
with barely enough content and clarity to get a
VW powered Headwind flying.
35 years later we find ourselves members of a
world wide community that successfully builds and flies
aircraft that rival (if not surpasses) the cost-
performance figures for the highly touted
production machines. Mr. Friedman has astutely
identified a combination of milestones in our
planet's culture that made this all possible.
Here on the Matronics lists and elsewhere, folks
have an opportunity to tap the time, talents and
resources of thousands of fellow travelers in the
world of OBAM aviation. It grew up not by any
particular grand plan but spontaneously as the
Ten Great Flattenters evolved.
We live in fascinating times of unprecedented
opportunity. We would do well by ourselves and
our children not to screw it up . . . or let anyone
else screw it up either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery Contactor |
At 02:40 PM 12/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>Chris,
>
>As Bob noted, the alternator will continue to output at its rated
>capacity as long as the regulator is demanding it. Each alternator
>should be able to run at its rated capacity for N hours before
>failing (some calculus test performed at the factory).
In the aviation world we test alternators/generators/motors to rated
loads and worst case temperatures to meet specifications. If the customer
observes published limits, they have a high probability of seeing
the laboratory experience repeated in the field.
>The bigger question is what are you doing in your cockpit while you
>are waiting for the alternator to explode and your bus architecture
>to melt down? Answer, you should be activating your fire gear. No, a
>diode won't immediately melt if you drop to 8 volts, but by then you
>should have your contingency plan in action. Should you experience 1
>or more failures in any situation, you should start shedding load
>and if the alternator seems to be a problem, shut it down.
>
>Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two
>alternators are better than 2-3 batteries any day.
Exactly. I'll re-enforce that idea with the notion that
except for unanticipated failure, NOTHING that goes on
in your electrical system should be a surprise. I've written
often about failure mode effects analysis wherein all
normal and abnormal operating conditions are deduced,
studied for deleterious effect to be mitigated by design.
The ONLY way you're going to beat the @#$@# out of your
alternator is to jump-start with a DEAD battery and
then launch into the blue with all your electro-whizzies
turned on. Until the battery's recharge demands begin to
taper, the alternator will be running flat-out. The duration
of this event is generally a few tens of minutes at the
most. All other times, I would hope that the builder has
PREDICTED what loads can be serviced under any/all
conditions and is operating the airplane accordingly.
Chapter 17 in the 'Connection speaks to this process
in detail. I've also suggested that the hierarchy of
importance for surviving the flight experience stacks
up like this:(a) airframe, (b) owner/builder/pilot
(c) powerplant (d) all other things.
The significance of the second item goes far beyond
the knowledge and skills needed AFTER the wheels are
up. There is a great deal that can be done in the
craftsmanship, understanding and decisions made long
before the airplane leaves the shop . . . like due
diligence to the study of category (d).
Bob . . .
>Glenn
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Stone
>Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:20 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
>
>
>This brings to mind a question as to what happens to the alternator
>when the load placed on it exceeds it's output capacity? Will the
>output voltage start to drop as capacity is exceeded? If overload
>is continued are the diodes the weak link in the chain? Will the
>diodes fail before overheating of the stator windings? What is the
>common failure mode?
>
>Chris Stone
>RV-8
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> >Sent: Dec 8, 2009 11:55 AM
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
> >
>
> >
> >At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Chris,
> >Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
> >alternators from high stress loads...
> >
> > Not sure there is "benefit" to be realized for shielding
> > an alternator from "high stress" loads.
> >
> > As converters of mechanical to electrical energy, these
> > devices have specifications. They also tend to be designed
> > for a particular marketplace task. The prudent designers,
> > manufacturers and installers of such devices understand the
> > capabilities and limits. That understanding is factored
> > into satisfaction of design goals and establishment
> > of maintenance programs.
> >
> > Subscribing to the notion of "stress mitigation" on
> > an alternator by programming the manner in which loads
> > are applied to the machine suggests that design goals,
> > capabilities and limits are suspect or perhaps known
> > to be poorly married.
> >
> > The aux battery management module for OBAM aircraft was
> > first proposed in an article I wrote for Sport Aviation
> > many moons ago. The intent of this device was to provide
> > automatic management of an auxiliary battery included
> > to power flight critical electro-whizzies. The ABMM
> > prevented connection of the aux battery to the system
> > unless bus voltage was high enough to avoid discharging
> > the battery (i.e. alternator on line). Hence the 13.0
> > volt switchpoint calibration for closing the contactor.
> > The corollary idea was that the ABMM opens the contactor
> > automatically during alternator shut down or failure
> > thus isolating the aux battery and preserving contained
> > energy for a specific task.
> >
> > The product being discussed appears to perform in
> > precisely the same manner where it's desirable
> > to isolate a RV vehicle battery from recreational
> > electro-whizzies battery unless the alternator
> > is available to service BOTH batteries.
> >
> > This is a PARTICULAR case where the recreational
> > battery is EXPECTED to be deeply discharged. Now,
> > if the vehicle battery has not been abused while
> > parked, then the bus is expected to rise above
> > 13.0 (or 13.2) volts seconds after the engine
> > starts. This device would spare the alternator
> > from "high stress" loads only if BOTH batteries are
> > deeply discharged. But even then, I can't imagine
> > that the bus will stay below 13.2 volts for very
> > long even if the vehicle battery was drawn down
> > completely and the engine was started with jumper cables.
> >
> > Finally, irrespective of number of batteries and
> > no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
> > alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
> > full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
> > If not, there's something wrong with the selection
> > of alternator or the manner in which it has been
> > installed.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
This is off the airplane subject, but concerns electricity and I don't know
where to find a more knowledgeable group.
I was shown a device today called the Power Mizer which is supposed to be a
capacitor that will reduce the current draw of inductive devices. An
electric motor pulled about 10A on startup and then settled down to about 6A
without the device turned on. With it on, the start up draw dropped to
about 5A and the steady state draw to about 2.4A.
This makes no sense to me. I smell a rat. Check out this video and let me
know if this is hogwash.
You can contact me off line to keep the traffic down on the list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZjWkbF9bQ&feature=related
Thanks for the assistance.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I don't think this is a new idea.. Power factor correction is probably
nearly as old as AC power distribution.
There's a fairly good description of power factor correction on the
Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> This is off the airplane subject, but concerns electricity and I don't
> know
> where to find a more knowledgeable group.
> I was shown a device today called the Power Mizer which is supposed to be
> a
> capacitor that will reduce the current draw of inductive devices. An
> electric motor pulled about 10A on startup and then settled down to about
> 6A
> without the device turned on. With it on, the start up draw dropped to
> about 5A and the steady state draw to about 2.4A.
> This makes no sense to me. I smell a rat. Check out this video and let
> me
> know if this is hogwash.
>
> You can contact me off line to keep the traffic down on the list.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZjWkbF9bQ&feature=related
>
> Thanks for the assistance.
>
> Bill B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>I smell a rat. Check out this video and let me
>know if this is hogwash.
It depends . . . but your skepticism is not unwarranted.
In the DC power world of our airplanes, the power system
is very UNdynamic. I.e. relatively steady state levels
of voltage and current. For our purposes, Watts of beneficial
power is simply a matter of multiplying volts x amps. In
the AC world, it doesn't HAVE to be more difficult. The
lowly incandescent lamp and heaters in your water heater
do not present a highly reactive load on the power source.
As soon as you wrap wires around cores of magnetic materials,
'stuff' happens. The counter EMF of magnetic fields building
in cores will lag behind the applied voltage thus causing
current to no longer be in phase with the applied voltage.
Apparent power is still volts x amps. But true power
consumed is multiplied by the cosine of the difference
in phase angles between current and voltage to produce
a correction value or "power factor".
The BIG downside of powering large loads of poor
power factor is that the WIRE size in the motor, sizes
of breakers, feeder wires, and wires in transformers
must be rated for apparent current. The industry uses
capacitors at judicious places throughout their distribution
systems and large users will use capacitors in their
installations to counteract the inductive components of
low power factor loads.
Watt-hour meters on the back of your house measure
true power consumed. I.e. they're corrected for any
differences between true and apparent power. Now, if your
house is plagued with lots of continuous duty, low power
factor loads, the overall system efficiency can be degraded
due to increased heating in the wiring needed to supply
the SAME amount of energy to the working task.
The demonstration in the video was with an unloaded
motor which has decidedly different characteristics
compared with a motor that is loaded to name-plate
rated horsepower. Hence the demonstration was bogus.
Further, measurement of current alone is NOT a true
indication of system efficiency.
I've written to the company to see if they'll share
a engineering report on the testing claimed in their
promotional videos and literature. I'm betting that they
won't.
Bottom line is that while adding capacitors to a
system with a lagging power factor will increase
the ohmic efficiency (let you get the same energy
out the other end of the wire at slightly less
current . . . and I DO mean slightly) it won't
have more than a similarly slight effect on your
light bill.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/yln6gwv
A few years back there was a big "gee whiz" promotion
on devices that would "save you a gazillion dollars"
that were inserted in a line between the
wall plug and appliance. I've not seen those critters
being hyped lately . . . I think they're out of
fashion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Thanks,
> Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary.
>
> BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED
> High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy"
>
> Amazing.
Yes, I agree with your first comment.
The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at higher
drive levels.
We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered
LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now, but
to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle.
It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially 50
watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively.
35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from a 100
watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single
and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same 1600
lumens.
The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same lumens
as a 35 watt HID.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276789#276789
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr SHANNON STEWART" <oneeasy73(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Trying to resubscribe to the EZ group website HELP |
I have tried to resubscribe to the EZ list with your website as i
changed my email address and provider. I am on your list and get info
from you. when it tells me toclick on my name site I'm not sure what
that means....I did not get the return mail that i received the time i
changed and resubmitted my new email address...what am i doing wrong?
Shannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | PM /OV filter and OV protection kit for Jab3300 |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi
I have a standard Jab 3300 with the single phase 20 Amp PM Alt. I was going to
Use the B&C PM /OV filter and OV protection kit 505-1, as it said it was good
up to 30 Amps and the 504-1 kit was only good for up to 15 Amps.
The 505-1 kit when it came shoes a wiring diagram for a 3 phase PM Alt have I
got the wrong one? I wanted a kit that could handle the single phase 20 Amp load.
I was going to use the Z21 drawing as my starting point
What Z diagram did most people use with the Jab engine/Alt. / Reg combo?
My aircraft is just a Night VFR 2 seater.
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276795#276795
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | PM /OV filter and OV protection kit for Jab3300 |
Chris
Just reviewed the products listed and wiring diagram.
That's the unit I installed on my Sonex/Jab3300 with single phase ALT. I wi
red it just like the drawing.
The 3 phase v 1 phase issue is related to the voltage regulator (VR)=2C I t
hink. I used the "standard" Kubota regulator and have had no problem at all
. That is=2C after I connected the yellow wire (not shown in B&C drawing)
to the VR output. It's a voltage probe and the VR won't charge unless it ca
n sense its own output. Or mebbe it's sensing the battery condition. At any
rate. If you connect the yellow wire (assumes Kubota VR) to the red output
wire the VR should work as advertised and so will the OVPM.
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free=2Cexclusive gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery Contactor |
Great thread! Thanks.
Chris
>>
>>Chris,
>>
>>As Bob noted, the alternator will continue to output at its rated
>>capacity as long as the regulator is demanding it. Each alternator
>>should be able to run at its rated capacity for N hours before
>>failing (some calculus test performed at the factory).
>
> In the aviation world we test alternators/generators/motors to rated
> loads and worst case temperatures to meet specifications. If the customer
> observes published limits, they have a high probability of seeing
> the laboratory experience repeated in the field.
>
>>The bigger question is what are you doing in your cockpit while you
>>are waiting for the alternator to explode and your bus architecture
>>to melt down? Answer, you should be activating your fire gear. No, a
>>diode won't immediately melt if you drop to 8 volts, but by then you
>>should have your contingency plan in action. Should you experience 1
>>or more failures in any situation, you should start shedding load
>>and if the alternator seems to be a problem, shut it down.
>>
>>Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two
>>alternators are better than 2-3 batteries any day.
>
> Exactly. I'll re-enforce that idea with the notion that
> except for unanticipated failure, NOTHING that goes on
> in your electrical system should be a surprise. I've written
> often about failure mode effects analysis wherein all
> normal and abnormal operating conditions are deduced,
> studied for deleterious effect to be mitigated by design.
>
> The ONLY way you're going to beat the @#$@# out of your
> alternator is to jump-start with a DEAD battery and
> then launch into the blue with all your electro-whizzies
> turned on. Until the battery's recharge demands begin to
> taper, the alternator will be running flat-out. The duration
> of this event is generally a few tens of minutes at the
> most. All other times, I would hope that the builder has
> PREDICTED what loads can be serviced under any/all
> conditions and is operating the airplane accordingly.
>
> Chapter 17 in the 'Connection speaks to this process
> in detail. I've also suggested that the hierarchy of
> importance for surviving the flight experience stacks
> up like this:(a) airframe, (b) owner/builder/pilot
> (c) powerplant (d) all other things.
>
> The significance of the second item goes far beyond
> the knowledge and skills needed AFTER the wheels are
> up. There is a great deal that can be done in the
> craftsmanship, understanding and decisions made long
> before the airplane leaves the shop . . . like due
> diligence to the study of category (d).
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>>Glenn
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Stone
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:20 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>This brings to mind a question as to what happens to the alternator
>>when the load placed on it exceeds it's output capacity? Will the
>>output voltage start to drop as capacity is exceeded? If overload
>>is continued are the diodes the weak link in the chain? Will the
>>diodes fail before overheating of the stator windings? What is the
>>common failure mode?
>>
>>Chris Stone
>>RV-8
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>> >Sent: Dec 8, 2009 11:55 AM
>> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery Contactor
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >At 05:34 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Chris,
>> >Thanks for the tip and lead on a great solution for preserving
>> >alternators from high stress loads...
>> >
>> > Not sure there is "benefit" to be realized for shielding
>> > an alternator from "high stress" loads.
>> >
>> > As converters of mechanical to electrical energy, these
>> > devices have specifications. They also tend to be designed
>> > for a particular marketplace task. The prudent designers,
>> > manufacturers and installers of such devices understand the
>> > capabilities and limits. That understanding is factored
>> > into satisfaction of design goals and establishment
>> > of maintenance programs.
>> >
>> > Subscribing to the notion of "stress mitigation" on
>> > an alternator by programming the manner in which loads
>> > are applied to the machine suggests that design goals,
>> > capabilities and limits are suspect or perhaps known
>> > to be poorly married.
>> >
>> > The aux battery management module for OBAM aircraft was
>> > first proposed in an article I wrote for Sport Aviation
>> > many moons ago. The intent of this device was to provide
>> > automatic management of an auxiliary battery included
>> > to power flight critical electro-whizzies. The ABMM
>> > prevented connection of the aux battery to the system
>> > unless bus voltage was high enough to avoid discharging
>> > the battery (i.e. alternator on line). Hence the 13.0
>> > volt switchpoint calibration for closing the contactor.
>> > The corollary idea was that the ABMM opens the contactor
>> > automatically during alternator shut down or failure
>> > thus isolating the aux battery and preserving contained
>> > energy for a specific task.
>> >
>> > The product being discussed appears to perform in
>> > precisely the same manner where it's desirable
>> > to isolate a RV vehicle battery from recreational
>> > electro-whizzies battery unless the alternator
>> > is available to service BOTH batteries.
>> >
>> > This is a PARTICULAR case where the recreational
>> > battery is EXPECTED to be deeply discharged. Now,
>> > if the vehicle battery has not been abused while
>> > parked, then the bus is expected to rise above
>> > 13.0 (or 13.2) volts seconds after the engine
>> > starts. This device would spare the alternator
>> > from "high stress" loads only if BOTH batteries are
>> > deeply discharged. But even then, I can't imagine
>> > that the bus will stay below 13.2 volts for very
>> > long even if the vehicle battery was drawn down
>> > completely and the engine was started with jumper cables.
>> >
>> > Finally, irrespective of number of batteries and
>> > no matter how you've abused the batteries, your
>> > alternator should be EXPECTED to happily deliver
>> > full rated output for an indefinite period of time.
>> > If not, there's something wrong with the selection
>> > of alternator or the manner in which it has been
>> > installed.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying to resubscribe to the EZ group website |
HELP
At 05:19 AM 12/9/2009, you wrote:
>I have tried to resubscribe to the EZ list with your website as i
>changed my email address and provider. I am on your list and get
>info from you. when it tells me toclick on my name site I'm not
>sure what that means....I did not get the return mail that i
>received the time i changed and resubmitted my new email
>address...what am i doing wrong?
>
>Shannon
Your query was posted to the Aeroelectric-List
hosted on Matronics.com
Go to:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
and you can check the subscription status of both
old and new e-mail addresses. You can kill all
subscriptions to the old address (although this
probably happens automatically when the system
gets bounces to the old address). You can also
subscribe to the lists of interest using your
new email address. If you've attempted this
task but with unexpected results, then it's
likely that you mis-typed your email address
into the subscription process. Try again.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> "Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two alternators are better
than 2-3 batteries any day." And Bob Nuckolls replied, "Exactly. I'll re-enforce
that idea . . . . ."
I am not disagreeing but have questions:
Suppose that it is impractical to install two alternators on an electrically dependent
engine in a VFR airplane. If a battery is properly maintained and periodically
tested for capacity, is its risk of failure high enough to warrant
a backup battery?
What if a cell in the battery shorts out? Will the alternator keep working? If
no, then will the battery still have enough voltage and contain enough energy
to supply the ignition system until a landing can be made? I assume yes, but
do not know.
A small backup battery will provide peace of mind, knowing that there is an alternate
current path in case of a failed terminal or connection in the main circuit.
But is the benefit worth the extra weight?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276838#276838
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Joe, I have an electrically dependent VFR plane, and I concluded that yes,
it is worth it= to have the second battery. I like to fly long cross
countrys and from time to time I am over very lonely territory.-
Did you do a full electrical analysis of your devices for takeoff, climb,
cruise, descent, landing, etc? That should point out what you need. I'm
going to try attaching one for you, if it doesnt go I will e-mail it to you
offline. It's not perfect, but you get the idea.
I wound up using two batteries of the same size. I figured in the long run
that would simplify things for me.
Regards.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM, user9253 wrote:
> >
>
>
> > "Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two alternators
> are better than 2-3 batteries any day." And Bob Nuckolls replied, "Exactly.
> I'll re-enforce that idea . . . . ."
>
> I am not disagreeing but have questions:
>
> Suppose that it is impractical to install two alternators on an
> electrically dependent engine in a VFR airplane. If a battery is properly
> maintained and periodically tested for capacity, is its risk of failure high
> enough to warrant a backup battery?
>
> What if a cell in the battery shorts out? Will the alternator keep
> working? If no, then will the battery still have enough voltage and contain
> enough energy to supply the ignition system until a landing can be made? I
> assume yes, but do not know.
>
> A small backup battery will provide peace of mind, knowing that there is an
> alternate current path in case of a failed terminal or connection in the
> main circuit. But is the benefit worth the extra weight?
>
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276838#276838
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
Joe,
Fair question. Certainly not every installation (especially air-motive
types) will lend themselves to dual alternators. The second best backup
would be a second battery. As far as the alternator is concerned, let's
say for example the airplane started under its own power and the battery
had an issue as you flew along. The alternator would still generate
charging energy because it is already excited, however the battery is no
longer benefiting as it will not absorb the charge.
You may have experienced this in your car. You start your car, drive to
work and upon leaving work your car doesn't start, yes? Same deal. This
is why the landfill is full of old batteries and Pep
Boys is rich.
I find this retarded, but did you ever see someone jump start an
airplane and then take off into the wild blue yonder with their
alternator charging a junk battery? Happens every day. I, like you am
electrically dependent and my pet peeve is to ensure I have a battery
that will hold a starting charge for at least two weeks and perform at
normal or below temperatures when requested. It should, on occasion pass
Bob's recommended battery stress test.
A respectable RG battery will not have a catastrophic failure but will
go bad over time. Is the benefit of the extra battery worth it? How many
hours have you flown on one battery with your teeth grinding? One may
never fail, but two will make you feel better. For me two alternators
and one well maintained battery offers ample security and redundancy.
If I had a Subaru or other electrically dependent alternative air-motive
engine without second alt , I'd have a second battery, period.
Get out and fly!
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
user9253
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Battery Contactor
> "Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two
alternators are better than 2-3 batteries any day." And Bob Nuckolls
replied, "Exactly. I'll re-enforce that idea . . . . ."
I am not disagreeing but have questions:
Suppose that it is impractical to install two alternators on an
electrically dependent engine in a VFR airplane. If a battery is
properly maintained and periodically tested for capacity, is its risk of
failure high enough to warrant a backup battery?
What if a cell in the battery shorts out? Will the alternator keep
working? If no, then will the battery still have enough voltage and
contain enough energy to supply the ignition system until a landing can
be made? I assume yes, but do not know.
A small backup battery will provide peace of mind, knowing that there is
an alternate current path in case of a failed terminal or connection in
the main circuit. But is the benefit worth the extra weight?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276838#276838
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
Sam,
FYI, great job on the plane! I've always liked this design. Maybe next
build.
Glenn
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Battery Contactor
Joe, I have an electrically dependent VFR plane, and I concluded that
yes, it is worth it= to have the second battery. I like to fly long
cross countrys and from time to time I am over very lonely territory.-
Did you do a full electrical analysis of your devices for takeoff,
climb, cruise, descent, landing, etc? That should point out what you
need. I'm going to try attaching one for you, if it doesnt go I will
e-mail it to you offline. It's not perfect, but you get the idea.
I wound up using two batteries of the same size. I figured in the long
run that would simplify things for me.
Regards.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM, user9253 wrote:
> "Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two
alternators are better than 2-3 batteries any day." And Bob Nuckolls
replied, "Exactly. I'll re-enforce that idea . . . . ."
I am not disagreeing but have questions:
Suppose that it is impractical to install two alternators on an
electrically dependent engine in a VFR airplane. If a battery is
properly maintained and periodically tested for capacity, is its risk of
failure high enough to warrant a backup battery?
What if a cell in the battery shorts out? Will the alternator keep
working? If no, then will the battery still have enough voltage and
contain enough energy to supply the ignition system until a landing can
be made? I assume yes, but do not know.
A small backup battery will provide peace of mind, knowing that there is
an alternate current path in case of a failed terminal or connection in
the main circuit. But is the benefit worth the extra weight?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276838#276838
="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
le, List Admin.
-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
At 11:00 AM 12/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > "Two heads are better than one and one good battery and two
> alternators are better than 2-3 batteries any day." And Bob
> Nuckolls replied, "Exactly. I'll re-enforce that idea . . . . ."
>
>I am not disagreeing but have questions:
>
>Suppose that it is impractical to install two alternators on an
>electrically dependent engine in a VFR airplane. If a battery is
>properly maintained and periodically tested for capacity, is its
>risk of failure high enough to warrant a backup battery?
"Risk of failure high enough" is not quantified.
Even if it WERE quantified, suppose I tell you that
configuration A offers a 3.5 x 10^-6 failure rate
and configuration B is 9.3 x 10^-6 failure rate.
Hmmm . . . obviously configuration A is the better
choice.
Now, suppose the difference in dollars to install
configuration A versus B is $1600 and perhaps adds
8 pounds to the airplane's empty weight. How would
that influence your decision?
The point is that design goals for your project
are personal to you . . . a host of trade-offs
for operation, performance, convenience, weight,
initial costs, maintenance costs, etc. etc.
>What if a cell in the battery shorts out?
Flooded batteries USED to suffer cell shorts . . .
but only after they had been abused to internal
self-destruction in ground vehicles. Had those
batteries been maintained for aircraft service,
their ability to crank the engine would still
be quite strong when the replacement decision
is made. Further, their plates would still have
a good grip on the chunks of stuff that were
responsible for shorted cells.
The RG battery is physically incapable of
shorting. Active materials in plate pockets
is held captive by insulating materials. See
sequence of photos at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Concorde/
Here you see cast plates, fiberglas mat material,
porous jacket, which are placed around the negative
plate of a "buttered" plate. Alternating (+) and (-)
plates are sorted, stacked and weighed to match
cell-to-cell capacity. Finally, matched stacks are
installed in a battery case ready to attach inter-
cell connectors. There's no way that any (+) plate
is going to become shorted to a (-) plate in
any cell.
> Will the alternator keep working? If no, then will the battery
> still have enough voltage and contain enough energy to supply the
> ignition system until a landing can be made? I assume yes, but do not know.
If it DID happen, the alternator would go into
current limited full output which would destroy remaining
"good" cells in what has to be an abused and flooded
battery. Since you're not going to use a flooded
battery . . . and you're going to implement a
battery maintenance program . . . shorted cells
are of zero concern.
>A small backup battery will provide peace of mind, knowing that
>there is an alternate current path in case of a failed terminal or
>connection in the main circuit. But is the benefit worth the extra weight?
What are you willing to "pay" for peace of mind?
None of us can properly advise you in that
decision. What we can offer is the proposition
that when you assemble a failure tolerant system
with good craftsmanship, likelihood of more than
one failure on any single tank full of fuel is
exceedingly remote.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | re: Power Opti-Miser |
Here's an exchange with supplier of the product
being examined:
------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Power Opti-Miser Performance Data?
Good morning,
I'm a consulting engineer retired after 40+ years in
aviation and industrial electrical systems design. I've
been retained by a client to evaluate suitability
of the Power Opti-Miser to several applications.
I am writing to inquire as to the availability of
reports on testing cited in some of the product
promotions I found on the 'net. Can you tell me
if the product is patented? If so, can you cite
patent numbers?
After evaluating any technical data you might provide,
we'll probably order an exemplar device for evaluation
in our labs. Thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Garza" <frank.garza(at)usa.net>
Subject: Re: Power Opti-Miser Performance Data?
Hello Mr. Nuckolls,
The Power Opti-Miser is Patented....
All you questions you may have can be answered by reviewing
my website Frequently Asked Questions Page (FAQs)...
Thank you for your interest in my porduct
sincerely,
Frank (Owner)
---------------------------------------------
I have searched the website for anything that
speaks to patents, reports or tests with no
hits. I've written back to ask for clarification.
I don't expect to receive a reply.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
To Sam and Glenn,
Thanks for your responses. And Sam, I received your Excel spreadsheet. I asked
the above questions about dual batteries on behalf of my brother who is building
a Corvair powered 601XL. I am building a RV-12 whose Rotax engine has dual
independent ignition systems (except for the rotating permanent magnets).
It seems that this is one of those situations where there is more than one way
to do something. If it is someone else's airplane, then 1 battery is enough.
But if you are going to be flying in the plane, then two batteries are better.
:D
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276862#276862
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Thanks for the reply, Bob. From your explanation, it seems highly unlikely that
the battery will short out. The alternator is the main power source and the
battery is a backup power source (for a limited amount of time). The Essential
Bus switch is the backup for the main power contactor. The wires and terminals
are not backed up, but they can be checked during pre-flight.
> What are you willing to "pay" for peace of mind?
One could ask that same question about a BRS parachute. The weight and cost penalty
are great for a system that will most likely never be used. But just think
of the peace of mind that system offers. These are personal decisions that
each builder has to make.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276875#276875
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
At 02:45 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply, Bob. From your explanation, it seems highly
>unlikely that the battery will short out. The alternator is the
>main power source and the battery is a backup power source (for a
>limited amount of time). The Essential Bus switch is the backup for
>the main power contactor. The wires and terminals are not backed
>up, but they can be checked during pre-flight.
Wires and terminals properly installed have about the same
order of reliability as prop bolts. This means proper tools
matched to terminals applied to wires that don't wave around
in the wind. Generally not difficult to accomplish.
What engine/alternator combination are you contemplating
and what devices are required for continued engine operations?
>One could ask that same question about a BRS parachute. The weight
>and cost penalty are great for a system that will most likely never
>be used. But just think of the peace of mind that system
>offers. These are personal decisions that each builder has to make.
Yup, that's the universe we live in . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Contactor |
And thanks Bob for teaching so many of us how to use "proper tools
matched to terminals applied to wires that don't wave around
in the wind".
"Generally not difficult to accomplish" Sounds so simple and yet this
pilot/unauthorized repair station managed to smoke a glider cockpit with
astoundingly poor wiring. Yes, a glider. I'm doing better now.
Thanks!
>> Thanks for the reply, Bob. From your explanation, it seems highly
>> unlikely that the battery will short out. The alternator is the main
>> power source and the battery is a backup power source (for a limited
>> amount of time). The Essential Bus switch is the backup for the main
>> power contactor. The wires and terminals are not backed up, but they
>> can be checked during pre-flight.
>
> Wires and terminals properly installed have about the same
> order of reliability as prop bolts. This means proper tools
> matched to terminals applied to wires that don't wave around
> in the wind. Generally not difficult to accomplish.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | re: Power Opti-Miser |
Bob,
I can't thank you enough for all the help you have given us. You have
likely saved me (and no telling how many others) $1000 by fully explaining
how this thing works and why we would be wasting our money. It just looked
too good to be true and I could only think of one place to get an answer and
you came through again!
Thanks! Bob.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: Power Opti-Miser
Here's an exchange with supplier of the product
being examined:
------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Power Opti-Miser Performance Data?
Good morning,
I'm a consulting engineer retired after 40+ years in
aviation and industrial electrical systems design. I've
been retained by a client to evaluate suitability
of the Power Opti-Miser to several applications.
I am writing to inquire as to the availability of
reports on testing cited in some of the product
promotions I found on the 'net. Can you tell me
if the product is patented? If so, can you cite
patent numbers?
After evaluating any technical data you might provide,
we'll probably order an exemplar device for evaluation
in our labs. Thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Garza" <frank.garza(at)usa.net>
Subject: Re: Power Opti-Miser Performance Data?
Hello Mr. Nuckolls,
The Power Opti-Miser is Patented....
All you questions you may have can be answered by reviewing
my website Frequently Asked Questions Page (FAQs)...
Thank you for your interest in my porduct
sincerely,
Frank (Owner)
---------------------------------------------
I have searched the website for anything that
speaks to patents, reports or tests with no
hits. I've written back to ask for clarification.
I don't expect to receive a reply.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | source for relay |
I'm back on the list after a couple of years building hiatus, and now am
wiring my RV10. I need a source for a high quality, low holding current,
20 amp or more rated, continuous duty relay. I need one for the avionics
master, and one for the alternate ebus source. I've checked the
archives, and couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a source for
these?
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: source for relay |
At 06:12 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote:
>I'm back on the list after a couple of years building hiatus, and
>now am wiring my RV10. I need a source for a high quality, low
>holding current, 20 amp or more rated, continuous duty relay. I need
>one for the avionics master, and one for the alternate ebus source.
>I've checked the archives, and couldn't find anything. Does anyone
>have a source for these?
>Chris Hukill
Not sure what your criteria is for "low holding current".
The physics of relay construction are rather limiting when
trading off pull in voltage vs. holding current vs. meeting
specs over a wide temperature range.
For years we've recommended plastic, automotive relays
having fast-on tabs that are not unlike this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/Plastic_Relay_2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704-1l.jpg
These are inexpensive and available from dozens of
suppliers.
However, given that electro-mechanical relays are the
LEAST reliable of all your power control devices,
they should be used in situations where loss of function
is either no big deal -OR- backed up with a Plan-B.
Before folks run out and start ripping relays out
of their airplanes, understand that the statement above
is comparative. Certainly our cars are fitted with
buckets full of relays. Nonetheless, most of us are
unaware of their presence because we're very seldom
faced with a need to replace one. But those are CARS
and not AIRPLANES. The rule of thumb for factoring
a relay into an airborne system design calls for due
consideration and mitigation of failure mode effects.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 11:20 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I can't thank you enough for all the help you have given us. You
>have likely saved me (and no telling how many others) $1000 by fully
>explaining how this thing works and why we would be wasting our
>money. It just looked too good to be true and I could only think of
>one place to get an answer and you came through again!
>
What you're experiencing is the beneficial fall-out for
what scientists call perpetual skepticism. There is NO
idea, new, old, obscure or widely practiced that should be
shielded from questions. Good ideas offered by honorable people
welcome the opportunity to share. Some folks must resist
questions about bad ideas when the answers shine a bright
light on their ignorance/dishonesty. It's the
difference between being a teacher and a huckster.
For the limited times I subject myself to what
spews from contemporary television broadcasting,
I sometimes amuse myself with a fantasy about writing
to the advertisers of many products and services to
ask some questions. Obviously a waste of time. We KNOW
it's unlikely that any answer at all will be gratifying.
Their sales depends on how much folks DON'T know about
the product or service being offered. I would be simply
dismissed as a nuisance.
>Thanks! Bob.
No problem. Now YOU are armed with some concepts and
facts that qualify you to teach what you've learned.
Use it in good heath for the benefit of those who are
important to you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was initially
puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I remembered that
NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent
+ 20 years...hey!).
Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and you will
get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around 1980.
The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the power factor
to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor correction and I
can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on inductive loads as
far as I remember.
The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay off
the device varies.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Just a wag, but from long ago, I seem to recall that an electric motor
(inductor) had the voltage lagging the current by 90 deg phase (or perhaps
it was the current lagging the voltage), in any case, you get the maximum
efficiency out of the juice if the voltage and current are in phase. I
can't recall the details, but seems I recall a capacitor was used to shift
the phase of the current to be in phase with the voltage.
Or perhaps something I dreamed as a youth {:>)
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was
initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I
remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the
early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!).
Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and
you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around
1980.
The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the
power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor
correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on
inductive loads as far as I remember.
The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay
off the device varies.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
You are on the right track Ed, an inductive load, such as a motor, will
produce a lagging current (the current phase angle lags, or is 'behind', the
voltage phase angle). An ideal inductor will produce a lag angle of 90deg,
and an ideal capacitor will produce a lead angle of 90deg, hence they cancel
one another (should you have an ideal inductor and capacitor of the same
size connected to your system) and the current is thus in phase with the
voltage.
The angle between the voltage and current is called the phase relation angle
and is also termed 'phi' from the greek symbol used in diagrams to
illustrate it. The Cosine of phi is termed the power factor. The smaller
the angle the more cos phi tends to 1, which is what you want. Reactive
power, which is also called the 'non-real' component of power is the
bug-bear of AC systems and one tries to minimise this. Reactive power is
calculated by considering the sine of phi, viz: Q= VxIxsin phi where Q is
reactive power. Active power, P, is calculated by using P= VxIxcos phi.
That as background; in AC systems most loads are inductive but the 'phi'
angle is not 90deg (lagging), but more like 30deg. Similarly, capacitors
are also not perfect and do not have a 90deg leading angle.
When one attempts power factor correction it only really works well when
your load, and load angle (phi) is constant; then you can match capacitors
to the lagging load angle and get it as close to zero as possible. However,
in the real world loads are seldom constant; their actual load varies,
voltage conditions vary from the supplier, and also from other nearby loads
as they switch in and out. Thus a fixed size capacitor cannot keep the load
angle to a constant minimum. Some power factor correction systems switch
various capacitor sizes in and out but they are normally too slow to react
accurately. The cost of maintenance on capacitors and such switching
systems usually means that they seldom save the user costs in the long run;
a combination of the installation costs, maintenance and poor real savings
(as a result of how power is generally costed).
Newer systems employ a special transformer that can be 'driven' in and out
of saturation (which then controls its lagging power angle) and these,
together with switched capacitors, appear to be able to offer real savings
in the long term. Their capital cost ensures that they are only used in
fairly large installations- say 400kVA and larger.
Another power saving device that one wants to steer clear of is something
called the 'Magniwork' generator. It promises substantial power savings and
a search of the web will get many hits that appear to verify the claim. A
colleague of mine paid the $60 for the plans and asked me to evaluate them.
They appeared impressive at first glance but it soon became apparent that it
was absolute nonsense and that the author was working on the 'bullshit
baffles brains' principle.
At least the capacitors are based on real engineering knowledge...
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
Just a wag, but from long ago, I seem to recall that an electric motor
(inductor) had the voltage lagging the current by 90 deg phase (or perhaps
it was the current lagging the voltage), in any case, you get the maximum
efficiency out of the juice if the voltage and current are in phase. I
can't recall the details, but seems I recall a capacitor was used to shift
the phase of the current to be in phase with the voltage.
Or perhaps something I dreamed as a youth {:>)
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was
initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I
remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the
early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!).
Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and
you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around
1980.
The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the
power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor
correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on
inductive loads as far as I remember.
The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay
off the device varies.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Hmmmm...
I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had anything to do with
PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor correction" did get some hits
for power factor correction on spacecraft. What am I missing?
Chris Stone
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>Sent: Dec 10, 2009 1:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
>
>
>Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was initially
puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I remembered that
NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent
+ 20 years...hey!).
>
>Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and you
will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around 1980.
>
>The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the power
factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor correction and I
can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on inductive loads as
far as I remember.
>
>The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay off
the device varies.
>
>--------
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge, MA 01550
>(508) 764-2072
>emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Explanation was Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Ah, Thanks Jay, for the refresher course - it has been a long time since
that bit of knowledge tried to take root in my brain. Excellent
explanation, clear and concise! Yes, I can see where unless there is a
constant load the phase angle would wander making it difficult to "match"
with the right capacitor value.
As usually, there is no "Free Lunch" in the real world and the number of
"bull hockey baffles the brain" promises on the web truly boggles the mind.
Unfortunately, a lot is swallowed by many folks who dish out there money
for the devices. The old saying "... if it sounds too good to be true..."
usually holds true.
By the way, how would like to extend the range of your aircraft by 500%,
I've got this design for a hydrogen catalytic stoichiometric mixer which
will enhance your fuel efficiency by 300% - verified by laboratory test
(conducted in my garage by me) Reasonably priced, cheap to operate and if
dissatisfied, you can return it for a newer, more efficient model for only
an 120% of the cost of the original - I mean how can you pass up a deal like
this{:>)
Thanks again, Jay
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
You are on the right track Ed, an inductive load, such as a motor, will
produce a lagging current (the current phase angle lags, or is 'behind', the
voltage phase angle). An ideal inductor will produce a lag angle of 90deg,
and an ideal capacitor will produce a lead angle of 90deg, hence they cancel
one another (should you have an ideal inductor and capacitor of the same
size connected to your system) and the current is thus in phase with the
voltage.
The .... SNIP....
Another power saving device that one wants to steer clear of is something
called the 'Magniwork' generator. It promises substantial power savings and
a search of the web will get many hits that appear to verify the claim. A
colleague of mine paid the $60 for the plans and asked me to evaluate them.
They appeared impressive at first glance but it soon became apparent that it
was absolute nonsense and that the author was working on the 'bullshit
baffles brains' principle.
At least the capacitors are based on real engineering knowledge...
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
Just a wag, but from long ago, I seem to recall that an electric motor
(inductor) had the voltage lagging the current by 90 deg phase (or perhaps
it was the current lagging the voltage), in any case, you get the maximum
efficiency out of the juice if the voltage and current are in phase. I
can't recall the details, but seems I recall a capacitor was used to shift
the phase of the current to be in phase with the voltage.
Or perhaps something I dreamed as a youth {:>)
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was
initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I
remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the
early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!).
Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and
you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around
1980.
The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the
power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor
correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on
inductive loads as far as I remember.
The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay
off the device varies.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 08:35 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hmmmm...
>
>I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had
>anything to do with PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor
>correction" did get some hits for power factor correction on
>spacecraft. What am I missing?
I'm not sure the NASA based commercial off the shelf
products were ever touted as "power factor" correction devices.
WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
called "Tech Briefs". I used to read them as a young
buck tech writer at Cessna about 1964. These were
"ideas for design" offered into public domain when
the idea was not critical to national security or
some such. One could get a low or zero cost license
to use the idea by petitioning NASA . . . a sort of
back-door patent that only the government could pull
off so slickly.
I don't recall reading any briefs on "power saving"
devices for AC motors but some guy name Nola at NASA
probably published a very technical, properly
disclosed and accurately described idea on some means
of improving power distribution efficiency. See page 67
from this 1980 issue of Popular Science:
http://tinyurl.com/y8hfqla
Once you dump such ideas into the public domain,
all manner of entrepreneur is free to exploit that
information in the free market. Unfortunately,
the human condition all but guarantees that some
individuals will cherry pick, distort or even
grossly mis-represent both source for and effectiveness
of an idea.
The corollary factor of the human condition is that
the imagination of the ignorant and unwary consumer is
tweaked by phrases like: "developed by NASA", "proven in
independent laboratory tests", or even "Tiger Woods
wouldn't be without one."
The first flag to go up on any claim of power savings
is to check the numbers . . . 20, 25 or even 30% savings?
If a system that consumes say 10A at 120 VAC (1200 VAR)
is LOOSING 30% of its consumed power, then 300 watts
of LOST energy has to be coming off as heat. We know
that the only way an electro-mechanical device can
squander energy is by the diversion from useful output
to heat (friction) + I(squared)*R. We know further that
copper wire used to wind the motor has losses that cannot
be "corrected for".
So the nameplate efficiency ratings for any motor
(Eff% = power-out/power-in) takes those losses into
account AT THE NAMEPLATE current draw of the motor.
An endeavor to reduce losses from outside the motor
can only exploit our ability to correct power factor
thus reducing the I(squared)*R losses for the same
power output. While the efficiency of the motor may
go up (you now need to use more gas to heat the shop)
the effect on your power factor corrected light meter
is minimal. To gain 30% savings in I(squared)*R losses,
the current reduction for same power output has
to be reduced by 16% (.84 x .84 = .7). This means
PERFECT tuning of power factor (hard to do). Now,
apply these savings to a device like a table
saw, drill press or even your air compressor.
Assume you can wipe out ALL power factor induced
losses for a device with a 1% duty cycle over
a month's period of time. What "savings" are there
to be realized?
The TV hucksters are fond of showing you before/
after meter readings on an unloaded motor. The
REAL test is to put a 1 h.p. dynamometer load
on the motor for say, 10 hours. Then do a before/after
reading on your light-meter at the back of the house!
This is why I asked for a test report from the
promoter of the Opti-Miser. Any well crafted,
properly conducted, honestly reported cost study
of this product's effectivity would tell us exactly
how the claims are justified.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote:
> WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
> called "Tech Briefs".
And they still publish the Tech Briefs today...
http://www.techbriefs.com/
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is spelled a bunch
of different ways.
This will make it easier:
Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992
Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe the government
don't you????
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277176#277176
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/alternatiff_printout_504.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 10:22 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is
>spelled a bunch of different ways.
>
>This will make it easier:
>
>Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992
. . . and how does this article argue with anything
I've written?
>Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe
>the government don't you????
What's NOT to believe? In the abstract for the patent
(all pages posted here: http://tinyurl.com/yeq6pvr )
the operational description cites a REDUCTION of power
to an unloaded motor. Okay, this is exactly how the
Opti-Miser was demonstrated in the YouTube video.
Now, we know that the thing was designed to work with
induction motors. We know that it improves on efficiencies
that manifest during an excursion from max operating load
to some lower load (like between cuts of lumber on
your table saw). We read further in the Popular
Science article that wattage reductions (translated
into realized savings) were most evident during
no load conditions . . . but still manifest during
high load situations. The article ends with the a
caveat: "Power savers work but you have to use them
wisely." Gee, do you suppose using them on a table
saw, drill press or air compressor is not especially
wise? Okay how about the compressor motor on your
air conditioner? That's a higher duty cycle, higher
energy load. But does it not run pretty much constant
load? And do you suppose that the capacitors already
bolted to the side of the machine have been selected
for pretty good operation out of the box?
Further, an examination of the circuitry in the patent
suggests why Mr. Nola called it a "controller"
as opposed to a "corrector". The classic approach to
power factor correction in an LCR network calls for
incorporation of good guy reactions (capacitors)
complimentary to bad guy reactions (inductors) so that
wasteful losses (in resistors) can be mitigated. Mr.
Nola's patent offers no complimentary reaction. It
simply watches for situations of light loading and
reduces applied power (with duty cycle switching) to
some lower but still useful value that keeps the motor
spinning. It is indeed a controller . . . not a
corrector.
I have yet to read ANY article wherein the author
compares real-watts-out (horsepower of a motor)
with real-watts-in and demonstrates a positive
return on investment as recorded on your light meter.
If you're aware of any such study, I'd be pleased to
read it. Do you have access to the reports cited
in the footnotes of the energyexperts.org article?
This isn't about what I believe. It's
about what I or anyone else can demonstrate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 10:07 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>> WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
>> called "Tech Briefs".
>
>And they still publish the Tech Briefs today...
>
>http://www.techbriefs.com/
cool. thanks!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How
about lumens/$ ?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
XeVision wrote:
>
>
> Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Thanks,
>> Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary.
>>
>> BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED
>> High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy"
>>
>> Amazing.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I agree with your first comment.
>
> The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at higher
drive levels.
>
> We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered
LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now,
but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle.
>
> It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially 50
watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively.
35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from a
100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single
and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same
1600 lumens.
> The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same
lumens as a 35 watt HID.
>
> --------
> LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276789#276789
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How about lumens/$
?
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
Ed,
Lumens per dollar is probably not an interesting number. The battery cost and power
supply cost and replacement costs are more important. A magnesium flare excels
in lumens per dollar.
Light bulbs are usually classed in lumen-hours per dollar. For the pilot this is
less important than factors such as lumens per pound (all other things being
equal) lifetime, etc.
What is best, is a matter of accounting.
One more issue...the matter of "Throw". This is not a contemporary photometric
unit, and is expressed in "Peak Beam Candlepower". It is the brightest spot on
a far-field light beam. It is a function of the optics, not the lamp (or whatever
you want to call the thing that makes light in an LED.
To achieve the highest "throw" for given lumens, you need the tiniest source and
the biggest reflector (or short-focus huge lens). It is also true that the lumens
put out decrease on the sides if you send them to the middle, since lumens
are what the lamp puts out, regardless of how they are steered.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277211#277211
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
Ed,
Great question and glad you asked it.
A better way to compare them (than cost per lumen) is cost per hour (actual usage).
In the cost per lumen approach as you suggest, the INSTALLED cost for Halogen
is about $0.05 per lumen, for HID INSTALLED cost it is about $0.15 per lumen
so about triple the cost per lumen of the Incandescent option. Using $850
installed on HID (50 watt) ~5500 lumens and $80 installed on a 4509 with 1600
~lumens.
The incandescent lamps are good for 20-100 hours. Being liberal (optimistic) we
will use 50 hours for this calculation as a safe avg. For a very common usage
100 watt GE4509 delivered (shipping) you can expect to pay at least $20 / 50
hours = $0.40 per hour. This does not consider down time costs or labor costs
to install the GE4509 replacement, which likely raises this cost by a very significant
factor. It might cost $60 for a mechanic to install the replacement 4509.
This would now push the cost per usage hour to $1.60
For a 35 watt HID installed $500 HID + $300 (High estimated install cost) = $800
/ 3000 (3000 warranty) = $0.27 per hour. (27 cents per hour).
In all fairness, since the max warranty is 5 years, if you only fly 100 hours per
year X 5 = 500 hours. $800/500 hrs = $1.60 per hour. That is assuming it fails
at 5 years and 500 hours which is NOT very likely.
The 100 watt unit only produces about 1600 lumens of light while the HID about
3200 lumens, about double plus it is a much whiter more useful light. Better contrast
etc.
Since LED in our opinion is not yet suitable as a landing light except for possibly
VERY slow landing aircraft, I will not bother to compare them. They can be
a very good taxi light at this time.
When comparing these 2 technologies (HID & Incandescent) on a cost per hour basis,
HID is a clear winner by a very large margin. And the performance comparison,
there is "NO comparison". The 100 watt GE4509 is a "candle" compared to even
a 35w HID.
Dan
[quote="bicyclop(at)pacbell.net"]HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt
than halogen. How about lumens/$ ?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
XeVision wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Eric M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary.
> > >
> > > BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED
> > > High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy"
> > >
> > > Amazing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I agree with your first comment.
> >
> > The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at
higher drive levels.
> >
> > We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered
LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now,
but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle.
> >
> > It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially
50 watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively.
35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from
a 100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single
and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same
1600 lumens.
> > The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same
lumens as a 35 watt HID.
> >
> > --------
> > LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This
is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> [b]
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277214#277214
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "Noplugs" <qas44n(at)yahoo.com> |
I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice thing there
is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it in stock.
http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=1274376
http://www.texomajet.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
http://www.allaeroparts.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277253#277253
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dba_600percent20brochure_381.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 07:14 PM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice
>thing there is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that
>have it in stock.
Yeah, they've really jumped up compared to their
straight cousins. That's what prompted this article
some years ago.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
I found a number of lucid explanations on the 'net concerning the return on investment
for devices like the Power Opti-Miser. One particularly engaging article
has been captured and added to the reference documents library of my website:
http://tinyurl.com/y875vlp
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277286#277286
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Gee Bob...you can find anything you want on the 'net. The piece you linked to
does not come up to your ordinarily high standards.
Check: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/er5.html and the previous postings. Google "frank nola induction motor"
To poo-poo the device is just absurd. Let's assume the device was made to save
power on induction motors (which it was) which compose 50% of the energy load
of the world. Let's even assume the savings are small.
Wouldn't that be a pretty good thing?
Common Bob...Buck it up. I'll give $100 to your favorite charity and a really good
jar of Jalapeno peppers to you if you can find someone with real cred who
agrees with you that it is all just a scam.
How about it?
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277296#277296
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
Use a 90 degree BNC adapter if you like, but I recommended against using
them. I had a tight spot for an antenna connection and used a 90 degree
BNC. I had very poor radio transmissions. I sent the radio back to Garmin
for repairs, I changed the coax and recrimped new connectors, I checked the
antenna - nothing seemed to help. I finally decided to try removing the 90
degree and ran the coax straight into the antenna. Instantly the problem
was solved. I don't know what the problem was with the 90 BNC, but I
recommend never using them.
But, I'm just an ignorant layman. Just ask my wife.
Stan Sutterfield
I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice thing
there
is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it in stock.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Johnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
I'm going to be running a 24v system on a Velocity. All the supplied trim
motors are designed for a 12v electrical system. I looked but have been
unable to find equivalent motors for my 24v system. So I started looking at
voltage converters such as:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lonestar24to12.php
Then I saw Vertical Power at Sun-n-Fun. Not only do their systems have a
number of 12v pick-offs but they completely eliminate traditional circuit
breakers.
http://www.verticalpower.com/VP100.html
One of my electrical "advisors" is wary of such new-fangled gizmos. He feels
that traditional CB's and fuses are easier to troubleshoot.
Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve my
24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim, not
mine).
Don Johnston
Velocity-XL/RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
Good Morning Don,
Here I go again commenting in an area of which I have no knowledge, but
what would happen if you used two batteries to get your twenty-four volts then
tapped a twelve volt buss off at the center connection between the two
batteries?
As to the Vertical Power concept, once again, no knowledge, but I would
lean toward more conventional wiring devices.
Of course, if everyone felt like I do we would still be driving Model "T"
Fords and cranking our telephones.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 12/12/2009 9:11:04 A.M. Central Standard Time,
don(at)numa.aero writes:
I'm going to be running a 24v system on a Velocity. All the supplied trim
motors are designed for a 12v electrical system. I looked but have been
unable to find equivalent motors for my 24v system. So I started looking at
voltage converters such as:
_http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lonestar24to12.php_
(http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lonestar24to12.php)
Then I saw Vertical Power at Sun-n-Fun. Not only do their systems have a
number of 12v pick-offs but they completely eliminate traditional circuit
breakers.
_http://www.verticalpower.com/VP100.html_
(http://www.verticalpower.com/VP100.html)
One of my electrical "advisors" is wary of such new-fangled gizmos. He
feels that traditional CB's and fuses are easier to troubleshoot.
Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve my
24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim, not
mine).
Don Johnston
Velocity-XL/RG
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
>I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice
>thing there is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that
>have it in stock.
Yeah, they've really jumped up compared to their
straight cousins. That's what prompted this article
some years ago.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
Bob . . .
Radio Shack has a right angle, no solder, BNC connector at $4.99 P/N
278-126.
I don't know the quality, but it might be worth looking into.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Why would 90 degree connectors all be faulty because one person had one?
It's probably not a good use of time to do a survey of the membership of
this list, but I for one use a 90 degree BNC connector to my com antenna
and my GPS antenna and both are fine. I suspect, Stan, that you had a
dud and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with 90 degree, or any
other connector for that matter, that a manufacturer puts time, tooling,
testing effort into.
Ian Brown
-----Original Message-----
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:13:52 -0500 (EST)
Use a 90 degree BNC adapter if you like, but I recommended against using
them. I had a tight spot for an antenna connection and used a 90 degree
BNC. I had very poor radio transmissions. I sent the radio back to
Garmin for repairs, I changed the coax and recrimped new connectors, I
checked the antenna - nothing seemed to help. I finally decided to try
removing the 90 degree and ran the coax straight into the antenna.
Instantly the problem was solved. I don't know what the problem was
with the 90 BNC, but I recommend never using them.
But, I'm just an ignorant layman. Just ask my wife.
Stan Sutterfield
I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea.
Nice thing there
is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it
in stock.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 12/12/2009 9:40 AM, Don Johnston wrote:
> Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve
> my 24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim,
> not mine).
You may also look at the Approach Fast Stack product to assist with
easier wiring <http://approachfaststack.com/>. Combined with the
Vertical Power system, the panel wiring should only take a fraction of
the time it would take using traditional CBs/fuses.
So far I have not heard anything negative from people using Vertical
Power, just good comments. It is what I hope to use when I get to that
part of my project.
My half cents, FWIW,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 08:43 AM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>Gee Bob...you can find anything you want on the 'net. The piece you
>linked to does not come up to your ordinarily high standards.
>
>Check: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/er5.html and the
>previous postings. Google "frank nola induction motor"
>
>To poo-poo the device is just absurd. Let's assume the device was
>made to save power on induction motors (which it was) which compose
>50% of the energy load of the world. Let's even assume the savings are small.
75 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot . . .
Are you telling us that 50% of the energy consumed by
your household is used to run inductive motors under
widely variable loads wherein any capacitors that
come WITH the motor are not tailored for optimum
performance at the design load for the motor?
Wouldn't that be a pretty good thing?
Are you further suggesting that an improvement
in a small fraction of losses sensitive to power
factor amounts to . . . let's see . . . if I'm going
to reduce my electric bill by 20% then I have to
make a 40% improvement in the 50% of my loads which
are motors. Oops . . . all the motors in my house
run perhaps 20% or less . . . that suggests . . .
WOW! . . . assuming my light meter knows that
my motors have been sprinkled with pixie dust,
I can run them for free!
The reason I posted this particular article
was due to the first paragraph. The author says
he has at least one reader that has MEASURED
a benefit. As a scientist he is obligated to
play in the game called perpetual skepticism.
Just as I have gone to the shop and made measurements
to share concerning the physics of simple-ideas
I use in my job, this author is going to the lab
to confirm/deny the assertions that savings
at the light meter CAN be realized.
>Common Bob...Buck it up. I'll give $100 to your favorite charity and
>a really good jar of Jalapeno peppers to you if you can find someone
>with real cred who agrees with you that it is all just a scam.
>
>How about it?
Eric, you give me waaaayyy to much credit. It's not
about expecting people to agree with me. It's about
MY agreement with many folks who have taken the time
to craft demonstrations and offer explanations about
VERY OLD simple-ideas in physics.
These are my teachers. If you don't find value in
the explanation of what I've learned from others,
fine. I'll confess that my own teaching methods
may not be adequate to every honorable endeavor.
So if we're reduced to making book on the outcome
experiments repeated millions every day on the backs
of folks houses, then I'll up you one.
I'll give YOU $1000 and pay for any extra equipment
you needed to purchase in order to set up, demonstrate,
document and publish an article that shows a return
on investment for adding any POWER FACTOR correction
device to your home's wiring. Do I presume correctly
that you have one already? The power factor correcting
meter is already on the back of your house. But you
can purchase some devices with finer resolution for
$200 or less . . . add it to the tab.
By the way, you can improve on the odds for a
positive return on investment by purchasing capacitors
from your local supplier and crafting your own
magic box. Keep in mind too that present trends
plotted into the future suggest that the cost
of electrical power is gong to escalate markedly
over the next ten years. Should we consider this
in calculating return on investment for an
effect that your light meter cannot measure?
I look forward to reading your test setup, experiment
procedure and the raw data. I think Mr. Bluebird would
be equally interested in seeing it too . . . and
he's not even risking any expense for having discovered
it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
At 06:40 AM 12/12/2009 Saturday, you wrote:
>I'm going to be running a 24v system on a Velocity. All the supplied trim motors
are designed for a 12v electrical system. I looked but have been unable to
find equivalent motors for my 24v system. So I started looking at voltage converters
such as:
>
><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lonestar24to12.php>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lonestar24to12.php
>
>Then I saw Vertical Power at Sun-n-Fun. Not only do their systems have a number
of 12v pick-offs but they completely eliminate traditional circuit breakers.
>
><http://www.verticalpower.com/VP100.html>http://www.verticalpower.com/VP100.html
>
>One of my electrical "advisors" is wary of such new-fangled gizmos. He feels that
traditional CB's and fuses are easier to troubleshoot.
>
>Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve my 24v-12v
issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim, not mine).
>
>Don Johnston
>Velocity-XL/RG
Hi Don,
I can't speak to the 24v vs. 12v issue and whether the Vertical Power solution
would be the right answer or not. However, I can say that I have been extremely
pleased by the functionality and ease of installation of the Vertical Power
VP-200 system in my RV-8. The system is top notch all the way through, and the
customer support from Vertical Power and Marc Ausman had been superb.
If you are at a point in your project where you can choose to install a Vertical
Power system over traditional breakers and switches - DO IT.
I've attached a few pictures of my installation. The big red box is the Control
Unit and you can get those harnesses pre-made from VP. They just plug into
the red box and you run the wire to the given device. Its just that simple.
My Rating: 5/5
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com
Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
I was too far along when Vertical Power came out but I have the Approach
Fast Stack Pro and it has been a big help. Tim Hass at Approach has been a
big help whenever needed. And I got my stuff from him over two years ago.
What wiring I have done (all the switches, cbs, fuses, terminal strips,
etc.) has been tedious and probably much simplified with Vertical Power
product.
Been at the wiring for 16 months or so but closing in on being finished.
I'm kind of slow.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Finishing wiring
N808AF reserved
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power?
On 12/12/2009 9:40 AM, Don Johnston wrote:
> Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve
> my 24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim,
> not mine).
You may also look at the Approach Fast Stack product to assist with
easier wiring <http://approachfaststack.com/>. Combined with the
Vertical Power system, the panel wiring should only take a fraction of
the time it would take using traditional CBs/fuses.
So far I have not heard anything negative from people using Vertical
Power, just good comments. It is what I hope to use when I get to that
part of my project.
My half cents, FWIW,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
I was too far along when Vertical Power came out but I have the Approach
Fast Stack Pro and it has been a big help. Tim Hass at Approach has been a
big help whenever needed. And I got my stuff from him over two years ago.
What wiring I have done (all the switches, cbs, fuses, terminal strips,
etc.) has been tedious and probably much simplified with Vertical Power
product.
Been at the wiring for 16 months or so but closing in on being finished.
I'm kind of slow.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Finishing wiring
N808AF reserved
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power?
On 12/12/2009 9:40 AM, Don Johnston wrote:
> Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve
> my 24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim,
> not mine).
You may also look at the Approach Fast Stack product to assist with
easier wiring <http://approachfaststack.com/>. Combined with the
Vertical Power system, the panel wiring should only take a fraction of
the time it would take using traditional CBs/fuses.
So far I have not heard anything negative from people using Vertical
Power, just good comments. It is what I hope to use when I get to that
part of my project.
My half cents, FWIW,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
I'd second the recommendation of the Approach Fast Stack for DIY panel
builders. I haven't flown it yet but it enabled me to build my own 3
GRT panel with all the bells and whistles and it all works. Essentially
got a completely custom and documented wiring harness with lot's of
panel design skills behind it.
Can't comment on Vertical.
Bill Watson
RV10
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2009 9:40 AM, Don Johnston wrote:
>
>> Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to resolve
>> my 24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring" (their claim,
>> not mine).
>>
>
>
> You may also look at the Approach Fast Stack product to assist with
> easier wiring <http://approachfaststack.com/>. Combined with the
> Vertical Power system, the panel wiring should only take a fraction of
> the time it would take using traditional CBs/fuses.
>
> So far I have not heard anything negative from people using Vertical
> Power, just good comments. It is what I hope to use when I get to that
> part of my project.
>
> My half cents, FWIW,
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Reid" <allthegooduseridsaregone(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Two completely isolated busses |
I have what may be a somewhat unique situation, flying behind a Jabiru 5100
with its dual-alternator option. Each alternator is identical, integral to
the engine, permanent-magnet type, externally regulated, producing 25A Max
and 20A continuous. With "everything on", including pitot heat and landing
lights, etc., I'll need about 35A, exceeding the supply of just one
alternator. So I'll need to have them BOTH online for normal operations.
The thing is, I don't know of any way to wire two alternators to charge a
single battery safely. I think that this is a no-no.
So what I've been thinking is to use two smaller (identical) batteries, with
one alternator connected to each, independently. I'd have two completely
independent power busses, and arrange my avionics redundancy so that I could
fly with EITHER of them active. Of course I'd have them both on normally,
powering all of my stuff. But I could still make it home with just one side
or the other.
The only time that the two busses could OPTIONALLY be connected together, by
a third battery contactor, would be if I disconnected one of the alternators
... tho' not sure how this would be accomplished for these permanent-magnet
alternators, short of adding still two MORE battery contactors (5
total?!?!). I'd do this to supply extra cranking juice on cold mornings,
for example.
Of course I'd need two ammeters, two low-voltage warnings, two ... you name
it. Two completely independent, isolated, and identical busses.
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Eric,
Maybe you should read the same articles you link to more closely.
Here is some text from the link.
"The motor controller is used in industries and applications where
motors operate under variable loads"
I think Bob has been quite clear about PF and how this might work in
average homes. A quick inventory of the inductive loads in my home
show no major variable ones. The two biggest ones, the AC compressor
unit and the circulation fan each have - what I have assumed to be -
appropriate capacitors attached.
As I do have a shop for making my airplane, I do have inductive loads
that might qualify. However, I have been working on my airplane for
three years and would be hard pressed to think that with the short
time, on a percentage basis, that these tools have been on, I could
have saved any money.
Second, the article Bob linked to had some references that certainly
qualify as being more authoritative than you seem to want to admit.
Following up on those references to BC Hydro and Consumer Reports lead
to even more interesting discoveries.
This link for example...
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2009/07/power-factor-kilowatt-hours-volt-amperes-edison-electric-institute-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.html
... confirms that residential customers don't currently pay for bad PF
- not that low PF still wouldn't be wasteful. It also has an
interesting discussion of PF in regards to compact fluorescent bulbs
vs incandescent bulbs.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On Dec 12, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> >
>
> Gee Bob...you can find anything you want on the 'net. The piece you
> linked to does not come up to your ordinarily high standards.
>
> Check: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1997/er5.html and the
> previous postings. Google "frank nola induction motor"
>
> To poo-poo the device is just absurd. Let's assume the device was
> made to save power on induction motors (which it was) which compose
> 50% of the energy load of the world. Let's even assume the savings
> are small.
>
> Wouldn't that be a pretty good thing?
>
> Common Bob...Buck it up. I'll give $100 to your favorite charity and
> a really good jar of Jalapeno peppers to you if you can find someone
> with real cred who agrees with you that it is all just a scam.
>
> How about it?
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277296#277296
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 09:19 AM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>Why would 90 degree connectors all be faulty because one person had
>one? It's probably not a good use of time to do a survey of the
>membership of this list, but I for one use a 90 degree BNC connector
>to my com antenna and my GPS antenna and both are fine. I suspect,
>Stan, that you had a dud and that there is nothing fundamentally
>wrong with 90 degree, or any other connector for that matter, that a
>manufacturer puts time, tooling, testing effort into.
>
>Ian Brown
Agreed. There is merit to the notion of improving
reliability through the reduction in parts count . . .
but if you look at how a 90-degree connector is
fabricated, it STILL has a female socket into which
a pin crimped to the center conductor is mated before
the shield sleeve is crimped.
So the only parts reduction that can be realized by
going to an "on purpose" as opposed to "po'man's cluge"
is elimination of the second bayonet retention mechanism.
Combine this with a VERY long history of coax connectors
of ALL types. Properly installed, they are very low on
the list of common troubles in avionics systems.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
At 09:19 AM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>Good Morning Don,
>
>Here I go again commenting in an area of which I have no knowledge,
>but what would happen if you used two batteries to get your
>twenty-four volts then tapped a twelve volt buss off at the center
>connection between the two batteries?
You reduce the life of both batteries to a small
fraction of their normal lives.
>
>As to the Vertical Power concept, once again, no knowledge, but I
>would lean toward more conventional wiring devices.
Depends on design goals. Enhanced power distribution products
with any sort of successful market experience pretty much
deliver on their stated performance and features. This includes
virtually all such systems with few exceptions.
>
>Of course, if everyone felt like I do we would still be driving
>Model "T" Fords and cranking our telephones.
Not sure this is true. When we upgraded Model T systems, operational
capabilities, costs, and reliability all improved through year-to-year
advancements in technology. Increases in acquisition costs
increased incrementally at worst . . . but for the most part
went DOWN as volume production techniques kept up with increasing
demand.
But if a builder's design goals include exploitation of features
unique to the integrated power distribution product -AND-
he/she's willing to carry the added costs, then by all means.
However, I'll suggest that upgrading to a super-capable,
integrated power distribution system just to get a 12v source
for some trim actuators may not yield a great return on
investment . . .
>I'm going to be running a 24v system on a Velocity. All the supplied
>trim motors are designed for a 12v electrical system. I looked but
>have been unable to find equivalent motors for my 24v system. So I
>started looking at voltage converters such as:
This may be a huge overkill. What are the current
requirements for your 12 trim motors? Are these
Ray-Allen linear actuators? These take VERY little
power to operate. Replacing a potentiometer with a
fixed resistor can turn something like a 1/2A
variable dimmer . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim5-14.jpg
into a fixed, 12 volt output power source. If your
trim motors are a bit bigger, then perhaps this
approach is called for . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim15-14.jpg
Given the very intermittent power requirements
for trim motors, the down-regulator doesn't need
to be big or expensive. Tell us what your power
needs are . . .
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two completely isolated busses |
At 02:03 PM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I have what may be a somewhat unique situation, flying behind a Jabiru 5100
>with its dual-alternator option. Each alternator is identical, integral to
>the engine, permanent-magnet type, externally regulated, producing 25A Max
>and 20A continuous. With "everything on", including pitot heat and landing
>lights, etc., I'll need about 35A, exceeding the supply of just one
>alternator. So I'll need to have them BOTH online for normal operations.
>
>The thing is, I don't know of any way to wire two alternators to charge a
>single battery safely. I think that this is a no-no.
It CAN be done. I have done it. But it's not easy or
inexpensiver.
>So what I've been thinking is to use two smaller (identical) batteries, with
>one alternator connected to each, independently. I'd have two completely
>independent power busses, and arrange my avionics redundancy so that I could
>fly with EITHER of them active. Of course I'd have them both on normally,
>powering all of my stuff. But I could still make it home with just one side
>or the other.
>
>The only time that the two busses could OPTIONALLY be connected together, by
>a third battery contactor, would be if I disconnected one of the alternators
>... tho' not sure how this would be accomplished for these permanent-magnet
>alternators, short of adding still two MORE battery contactors (5
>total?!?!). I'd do this to supply extra cranking juice on cold mornings,
>for example.
>
>Of course I'd need two ammeters, two low-voltage warnings, two ... you name
>it. Two completely independent, isolated, and identical busses.
See chapter 17 of the AeroElectric Connection and
particularly the discussion and notes on Figure Z-14
in the back of the book and available from the website
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf
What you propose is entirely feasible . . . in fact
recommended for the situation you've been given.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Perhaps I'm dated but most capacitor start motors only used the
capacitor to get a phase change for starting. The capacitor did not do
anything for running PF correction IIRC. Have things changed?
Ken
>The two biggest ones, the AC compressor unit
> and the circulation fan each have - what I have assumed to be -
> appropriate capacitors attached.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
Anybody interested in the Approach Fast Stack can get a deal. I have the
Pro-G Hub (for Garmin stuff) and several cables that I have for sale.
Contact me off line if interested.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Mauledriver Watson
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power?
-->
I'd second the recommendation of the Approach Fast Stack for DIY panel
builders. I haven't flown it yet but it enabled me to build my own 3 GRT
panel with all the bells and whistles and it all works. Essentially got a
completely custom and documented wiring harness with lot's of panel design
skills behind it.
Can't comment on Vertical.
Bill Watson
RV10
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2009 9:40 AM, Don Johnston wrote:
>
>> Just wondering what if there are any opinions on using this to
>> resolve my 24v-12v issue with the added feature on "easier wiring"
>> (their claim, not mine).
>>
>
>
> You may also look at the Approach Fast Stack product to assist with
> easier wiring <http://approachfaststack.com/>. Combined with the
> Vertical Power system, the panel wiring should only take a fraction of
> the time it would take using traditional CBs/fuses.
>
> So far I have not heard anything negative from people using Vertical
> Power, just good comments. It is what I hope to use when I get to
> that part of my project.
>
> My half cents, FWIW,
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
Good Evening 'Lectric Bob,
Like I said, It's an area in which I have no knowledge, but thanks to you
and this list, I am learning.
Slowly maybe, but still learning!
Anybody have any ideas as to what the failure mode would be on the Vertical
Power unit? Is there a likely single failure mode that could take out all
electrical devices?
How does the total weight compare to legacy stuff?
Lots of interesting possibilities out there. But I still know how to crank
that ringer!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 12/12/2009 2:59:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 09:19 AM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
Good Morning Don,
Here I go again commenting in an area of which I have no knowledge, but
what would happen if you used two batteries to get your twenty-four volts
then tapped a twelve volt buss off at the center connection between the two
batteries?
You reduce the life of both batteries to a small
fraction of their normal lives.
As to the Vertical Power concept, once again, no knowledge, but I would
lean toward more conventional wiring devices.
Depends on design goals. Enhanced power distribution products
with any sort of successful market experience pretty much
deliver on their stated performance and features. This includes
virtually all such systems with few exceptions.
Of course, if everyone felt like I do we would still be driving Model "T"
Fords and cranking our telephones.
Not sure this is true. When we upgraded Model T systems, operational
capabilities, costs, and reliability all improved through year-to-year
advancements in technology. Increases in acquisition costs
increased incrementally at worst . . . but for the most part
went DOWN as volume production techniques kept up with increasing
demand.
But if a builder's design goals include exploitation of features
unique to the integrated power distribution product -AND-
he/she's willing to carry the added costs, then by all means.
However, I'll suggest that upgrading to a super-capable,
integrated power distribution system just to get a 12v source
for some trim actuators may not yield a great return on
investment . . .
I'm going to be running a 24v system on a Velocity. All the supplied trim
motors are designed for a 12v electrical system. I looked but have been
unable to find equivalent motors for my 24v system. So I started looking at
voltage converters such as:
This may be a huge overkill. What are the current
requirements for your 12 trim motors? Are these
Ray-Allen linear actuators? These take VERY little
power to operate. Replacing a potentiometer with a
fixed resistor can turn something like a 1/2A
variable dimmer . . .
_http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim5-14.jpg_
(http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim5-14.jpg)
into a fixed, 12 volt output power source. If your
trim motors are a bit bigger, then perhaps this
approach is called for . . .
_http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim15-14.jpg_
(http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/dim15-14.jpg)
Given the very intermittent power requirements
for trim motors, the down-regulator doesn't need
to be big or expensive. Tell us what your power
needs are . . .
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Anybody have any ideas as to what the failure mode would be on the Vertical
Power unit? Is there a likely single failure mode that could take out all
electrical devices?
The short answer is yes to both questions. The unit does have an essential
buss that can power circuits independent of the CU. Also, when the CU
fails, it is suppose to fail in whatever state they were in at failure time.
i.e. on stays on and off stays off. You can also wire manual switches for
emergency access to connect devices to the essential buss. For those that
are truly anal, you can install two CUs for redundancy.
How does the total weight compare to legacy stuff?
Depends, the VP-50 is probably lighter. I'm sure the VP-200 is heavier.
Mark reads this list, so I'm sure he'll provide his two cents worth then.
My experience with Mark and the team at Vertical Power is that they are more
than happy to discuss any potential failure scenarios and how they can be
overcome with their gear. They are very accessible and eager to assist
whenever they can.
I'm putting in a VP-200 in my RV-10.
bob
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power?
Good Evening 'Lectric Bob,
Like I said, It's an area in which I have no knowledge, but thanks to you
and this list, I am learning.
Slowly maybe, but still learning!
Anybody have any ideas as to what the failure mode would be on the Vertical
Power unit? Is there a likely single failure mode that could take out all
electrical devices?
How does the total weight compare to legacy stuff?
Lots of interesting possibilities out there. But I still know how to crank
that ringer!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman N3977A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
-------------------snip-----------------------------------
>
> You reduce the life of both batteries to a small
> fraction of their normal lives.
------------------snip-----------------------------------
I was not aware of this effect. Can someone educate me or direct me to a
resource so I can educate myself?
Thanks,
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
Good Evening Ray,
Since I used the center tap method on a boat I owned many years ago, I
would be very interested as well. Never noted any problem on my sailboat
batteries.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/12/2009 8:42:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
raymondj(at)frontiernet.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ray
-------------------snip-----------------------------------
>
> You reduce the life of both batteries to a small
> fraction of their normal lives.
------------------snip-----------------------------------
I was not aware of this effect. Can someone educate me or direct me to a
resource so I can educate myself?
Thanks,
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
| From: | "n395v" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> Since I used the center tap method on a boat I owned many years ago, I would
be very interested as well. Never noted any problem on my sailboat batteries.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
It largely has to do with your charging device.
When you tap off the center of (2) 14V batteries in series one will discharge more
than the other.. Your alternator will put 28 V across both batteries overcharging
one and undercharging the other which will shorten the life of both batteries.
A battery equalizer ........................
http://www.vanner.com/client/images/manual_Battery_Equalizer.pdf
will solve the problem.
--------
Milt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277398#277398
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "Noplugs" <qas44n(at)yahoo.com> |
The 90Deg replacement I mentioned previously is not a the common of the shelf BNC
90deg adapter. It is a replacement for the TED 9-30-10. I have them in my Terra
radio trays. I see that ICOM has a straight version also, I understand they
are used with several manufacture's equipment like King. So IF you have the
"TED 9-30-10", the DBA-600 looks to be a nice clean application replacement for
the "TED 9-30-10" Look at my attachment it shows both connectors and you can
see it is not the common BNC 90deg adapter.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277407#277407
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dba_600percent20brochure_187.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Perhaps I'm dated but most capacitor start motors only used the
> capacitor to get a phase change for starting. The capacitor did not do
> anything for running PF correction IIRC. Have things changed?
> Ken
There are capacitor start - capacitor run motors. See:
http://tristate.apogee.net/mnd/mfmscsc.asp
> "The motor controller is used in industries and applications where motors operate
under variable loads"
I agree with Bob Meyers. Those motor controllers are designed for industrial
applications where the motor load varies. The controllers achieve energy savings
by reducing voltage to the motor when it is not heavily loaded. Most of
the motors in residences operate a fixed load and will not benefit from operating
at a reduced voltage. In fact, operating a motor at a lower then designed
voltage will cause a motor (under load) to use more current. Home appliances
such as refrigerators have stickers on them in the store showing the annual
operating cost. Manufactures compete to make their appliances efficient. It
is hard to economically make the appliances more efficient.
Adding capacitors makes sense in an industrial setting. I worked in a factory
where motors used the majority of electricity. The power company charged a
penalty for low power factor. To avoid the penalty, capacitor banks as big as
desks were connected to the primary transformers. And some motors had capacitors
installed at the motor starter.
In rural areas, long runs of parallel utility lines create a capacitance which
reduces the power factor, but in the opposite direction as inductive loads.
The utility company counteracts this excessive capacitance by installing inductors
on the electric poles. Perhaps you have noticed what appears to be transformers
on poles and wondered why they were there with no houses around.
Theoretically a Power Opti-Miser will save energy. And theoretically a fly
landing on an aircraft carrier will cause the ship to displace more water. But
is it significant? It would seem that a manufacture of energy saving devices
would conduct tests and post the results to promote their product. The lack
of test results casts doubt on the manufacture's claims. To those who strongly
believe that the Power Opti-Miser will help to achieve an energy savings, I
suggest they purchase and install the unit and report back to us on the monthly
savings and the payback period. Meanwhile, I am going to save energy by shutting
off the big wide-screen TV and go work on my airplane in the garage. :-)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277412#277412
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Reid" <allthegooduseridsaregone(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two completely isolated busses |
Thanks for the quick response, Bob. OK, so it looks like I'll go with the
split bus. But I have a follow-on question/concern regarding the Z14
diagram's introduction:
"In normal operations, the crossfeed contactor is left open and the two
systems operate independently of each other. Should one alternator fail, the
crossfeed contactor may be used for the failed system to
borrow power from the working system."
Yes, that's how I see it working, as described initially. But wouldn't it
be REALLY BAD to crossfeed when both alternators are still WORKING?
Well, I don't see in Z14N anywhere that closing the crossfeed will
automatically disable either alternator. Shouldn't there at least be a
manual means (e.g. split master/alt switch) to turn off the field of
alternator A or B before closing the crossfeed? As currently shown in Z14N,
turning off the master switch on one side would turn off the alternator
field (good) but also turn off the battery contactor that is in series with
the cross-feed (bad).
In MY case, with permanent-magnet alternators to turn off, I have no field
wire of course so I'll use a relay in series with each
alternator-to-regulator, as shown in Rotax Z16M. (I notice that you still
haven't updated the Jabiru Z14 diagram to move that relay to the somewhat
better alternator-to-regulator position rather than the regulator-to-battery
position.)
I don't much like the fact that I'll have to remember to turn off a "failed"
alternator before closing the crossfeed. What bad things would happen (and
how quickly) if I forgot to do so, so that both of my permanent-magnet
alternators were connected to the crossfed busses?
Thanks again,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
[quote="Matt Dralle"]At 06:40 AM 12/12/2009 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
> I can't speak to the 24v vs. 12v issue and whether the Vertical Power solution
would be the right answer or not. However, I can say that I have been extremely
pleased by the functionality and ease of installation of the Vertical Power
VP-200 system in my RV-8. The system is top notch all the way through, and
the customer support from Vertical Power and Marc Ausman had been superb.
>
> If you are at a point in your project where you can choose to install a Vertical
Power system over traditional breakers and switches - DO IT.
>
> I've attached a few pictures of my installation. The big red box is the Control
Unit and you can get those harnesses pre-made from VP. They just plug into
the red box and you run the wire to the given device. Its just that simple.
>
> My Rating: 5/5
>
>
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com
> Final Assembly
Matt,
Thanks (to everyone) for responding.
I'm already planning on the the Approach Stack solution.
And since I'm going with a two screen GRT panel, the VP-200 seemed like overkill
so I was alternating between the VP-50 and VP-100.
Don Johnston
www.velocity-xl.com
Barrington, IL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277416#277416
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
I'm planning a center-tap system to supply intermittent 12V loads such as a
trim motor and hydraulic pump for raising my gear on my Velocity.- Due t
o the high load imposed by the hydraulic pump,-using a voltage converter
-was prohibitively expensive (I looked at swapping out the hydraulic pump
for a 24V model, but the control electronics are all set up for 12V as wel
l). -My understanding is that by using a reasonably inexpensive battery e
qualizer, the negative effects of center-tapping can be mitigated.- Becau
se the hydraulic pump only operates twice per flight, I can get away with a
reasonably low amperage equalizer (I think I got 2 or 5 amp capacity).-
Any thoughts on these equalizers out there?-
-
Dan=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
> Manufactures compete to make their appliances efficient.
> It is hard to economically make the appliances more efficient.
Exactly. If it were possible for any current
manufacturer to make their product more "green"
there's certainly plenty of political and
economic pressure to do it.
> In rural areas, long runs of parallel utility lines create a
> capacitance which reduces the power factor, but in the opposite
> direction as inductive loads. The utility company counteracts this
> excessive capacitance by installing inductors on the electric
> poles. Perhaps you have noticed what appears to be transformers on
> poles and wondered why they were there with no houses around.
I think you've got it reversed. Transmission lines
offer small inductive reactances that become significant
when the lines are very long. Hence the occasional addition
of an array of power factor correcting capacitors on
some isolated pole. One capacitor for across each of
three phases.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 03:25 PM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>Perhaps I'm dated but most capacitor start motors only used the
>capacitor to get a phase change for starting. The capacitor did not
>do anything for running PF correction IIRC. Have things changed?
No . . . digging around in the gray matter seems to
dredge up some things I used to teach about induction
motors at Great Lakes. The capacitor(s) on a motor
are for starting (the BIG guy) paired with the
occasional second, smaller device for running.
My central air conditioners and shop air compressor
are fitted with a pair of Start/Run capacitors.
And you're right, those capacitors are selected for
optimized rotation of a magnetic field in the stator
when only single-phase power is available. They're in
series with one or more windings and NOT for PF correction.
P.F. correction needs to be in parallel with the main
winding.
So, depending on how high the resistive losses in
the main winding, there could be some significant
degradation of power factor. But the motor guys
are as sensitive to temperature rise due to I(squared)*R
as are the guys who transformers and other wiring.
They'll do what economically practical to minimize
said losses.
I think one of the articles that were cited over
the past few days suggested that average power
factor for a home was .90 . . . so it would be
difficult to realize much savings in I(squared)*R
R losses when the majority of said losses are
spread over ALL the building's distribution system.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two completely isolated busses |
At 11:16 AM 12/13/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks for the quick response, Bob. OK, so it looks like I'll go
>with the split bus. But I have a follow-on question/concern
>regarding the Z14 diagram's introduction:
>
>"In normal operations, the crossfeed contactor is left open and the
>two systems operate independently of each other. Should one
>alternator fail, the crossfeed contactor may be used for the failed system to
>borrow power from the working system."
>
>Yes, that's how I see it working, as described initially. But
>wouldn't it be REALLY BAD to crossfeed when both alternators are
>still WORKING?
No . . . the alternator with the higher set-point
will hog the load. When it's capability limits are
reached, the bus voltage sags and the relaxed alternator
wakes up to carry the difference.
Now, this assumes that the dynamics of the two
regulators are not antagonistic to paralleled
operation . . . I've seen regulators designed
for slow response but tight voltage control go into
a see-saw oscillation when paralleled.
All of my regulator designs have gone for
stability under all conditions as opposed to
very tight voltage regulation. Further, regulators
for PM alternators are also fast response, loose
regulation so you're not going to see this phenomenon
pop up.
>
>Well, I don't see in Z14N anywhere that closing the crossfeed will
>automatically disable either alternator. Shouldn't there at least
>be a manual means (e.g. split master/alt switch) to turn off the
>field of alternator A or B before closing the crossfeed? As
>currently shown in Z14N, turning off the master switch on one side
>would turn off the alternator field (good) but also turn off the
>battery contactor that is in series with the cross-feed (bad).
Nope. No risks
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center-tapped batteries . . . |
At 12:06 PM 12/13/2009, you wrote:
>I'm planning a center-tap system to supply intermittent 12V loads
>such as a trim motor and hydraulic pump for raising my gear on my
>Velocity. Due to the high load imposed by the hydraulic pump, using
>a voltage converter was prohibitively expensive (I looked at
>swapping out the hydraulic pump for a 24V model, but the control
>electronics are all set up for 12V as well).
Rethink this decision. What's in the control electronics?
If it's nothing more than relays and contactors, those are
easy to change too.
> My understanding is that by using a reasonably inexpensive
> battery equalizer, the negative effects of center-tapping can be
> mitigated. Because the hydraulic pump only operates twice per
> flight, I can get away with a reasonably low amperage equalizer (I
> think I got 2 or 5 amp capacity). Any thoughts on these equalizers out there?
If your equalizer is a 5A device, then it cannot
"equalize" effects on a series pair of batteries
wherein the bottom battery is sourcing 40+ amps
of pump loads simultaneously with the top battery
getting a 40+ amp overcharge event.
Running your 100 mA trim actuators from a tapped
battery is no big deal. But much more than that
directly affects battery service life.
If you must center tap two batteries as proposed,
I swap upper an lower batteries every dozen flights
or so. I'd also cap and load-check the batteries
more aggressively.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 10:14 AM 12/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>The 90Deg replacement I mentioned previously is not a the common of
>the shelf BNC 90deg adapter. It is a replacement for the TED
>9-30-10. I have them in my Terra radio trays. I see that ICOM has a
>straight version also, I understand they are used with several
>manufacture's equipment like King. So IF you have the "TED 9-30-10",
>the DBA-600 looks to be a nice clean application replacement for the
>"TED 9-30-10" Look at my attachment it shows both connectors and you
>can see it is not the common BNC 90deg adapter.
We got lost. The thread topic was asking about "90 degree,
BNC" connectors. The conversation stroked off down that
BNC river. The self-aligning, blind engagement connectors
like the TED 9-20-10 are not members of BNC family
of coaxial connectors. I don't think the tray
connectors have been named as a family . . .
Further, since the right angle, TED 9-20-10 attaches
right to the end of a piece of coax, it's not generally
referred to as an "adapter". It appears that the
straight-line product offered by ICOM is indeed
an adapter offering between-series mating of a
BNC male connector-on-coax with the blind-mating
connector at the back of the radio.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
At 10:13 AM 12/13/2009 Sunday, you wrote:
>
>[quote="Matt Dralle"]At 06:40 AM 12/12/2009 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Don,
>>
>> I can't speak to the 24v vs. 12v issue and whether the Vertical Power solution
would be the right answer or not. However, I can say that I have been extremely
pleased by the functionality and ease of installation of the Vertical Power
VP-200 system in my RV-8. The system is top notch all the way through, and
the customer support from Vertical Power and Marc Ausman had been superb.
>>
>> If you are at a point in your project where you can choose to install a Vertical
Power system over traditional breakers and switches - DO IT.
>>
>> I've attached a few pictures of my installation. The big red box is the Control
Unit and you can get those harnesses pre-made from VP. They just plug into
the red box and you run the wire to the given device. Its just that simple.
>>
>> My Rating: 5/5
>>
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>> http://www.mattsrv8.com
>> Final Assembly
>
>
>Matt,
>
>Thanks (to everyone) for responding.
>
>I'm already planning on the the Approach Stack solution.
>
>And since I'm going with a two screen GRT panel, the VP-200 seemed like overkill
so I was alternating between the VP-50 and VP-100.
>
>Don Johnston
>www.velocity-xl.com
>Barrington, IL
Rethink the over-kill, Don! I've got three GRT HX screens and the VP-200... See
attached.
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com
Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
>It largely has to do with your charging device.
>
>When you tap off the center of (2) 14V batteries in series one will
>discharge more than the other.. Your alternator will put 28 V across
>both batteries overcharging one and undercharging the other which
>will shorten the life of both batteries.
>
>A battery equalizer ........................
>
>http://www.vanner.com/client/images/manual_Battery_Equalizer.pdf
>
>will solve the problem.
I'd not encountered this style of "equalizer" before . . .
A study of it's ratings suggests that the device contains
a switchmode power supply designed for charging 12v
batteries from a 28v source.
Obviously, if you want to totally isolate your top
battery from the effects of overcharge . . . and
the bottom from the effects of unbalanced discharge
with respect to the top, then the power supply needs
to be rated for as much or more current than you
expect to demand from the 12v tap on the battery.
This makes the "equalizer" into a 28/14v "down
converter". If you take a small device capable of
delivering say 10A, then you can expect the two batteries
to experience pretty equal treatment up to and including
10A loads on the battery tap.
If you hit the tap with a hydraulic pump load or other
load exceeding the rating of the equalizer, then the
equalizer will deliver rated current with the lower
battery making up the difference. Under these conditions,
the lower battery voltage sags, the upper battery gets
some quantity of "super-charge" and the lower battery
makes up the difference between equalizer rating and
system loads.
When the load goes away, the equalizer will "recharge"
the lower battery but it cannot do anything about the
super-charge on the upper battery. The IDEAL equalizer
installation calls for carrying ALL expected 14v system
loads to prevent super-charging the upper battery.
A similar capability can be crafted by installing
two alternators. A 28v alternator attached to the
top of the battery string, a 14v alternator attached
to the tap half way down on the string.
In terms of economics and quest for an elegant
solution, this is NOT a simple choice to figure
out. The number of variables is huge and a large
component of the decision hinges on the builder's
acceptance of complexity, weight increase, less-
predictable battery life and increased cost of
ownership for making sure that what USED to be
the most reliable source of power on the airplane
is still the most reliable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
> Rethink the over-kill, Don! I've got three GRT HX screens and the VP-200... See
attached.
>
> Matt Dralle
Matt,
All I can say is... just damn! 8)
But I'm thinking about it from the perspective of I'll be using one of the GRT
screens for engine monitoring. So the real estate of the VP-200 and many of the
features (access-code, remote control, etc.) just didn't appeal to me.
Nice panel though.
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277450#277450
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
Matt Dralle a crit :
>
> Rethink the over-kill, Don! I've got three GRT HX screens and the VP-200...
See attached.
>
>
Matt,
Awesome indeed.
I took the liberty of forwarding your picture to a group of pilots
buddies and got lots of questions in return.
Would you mind giving more details about your setup ?
Thanks,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 05:53 PM 12/13/2009, you wrote:
>Ian,
>You are correct.
>For my aircraft, I will never again use a 90 degree BNC
>connector. I will find another way to make the desired connection(s).
>Stan Sutterfield
Adapters for coax connections come in hundreds of varieties.
Most adapters are used to make reliable connections between
different series. For example, the majority of my RF test
equipment comes with series N connectors while my shop
and product preference is for BNC or SMA connectors. Hence,
I almost never have an RF testing task that does not include
one or more adapters in the setup. A small but exemplar
selection of such devices can be seen here:
http://www.amphenolconnex.com/catalog/adapters.pdf
The only difference for the adapter Stan wrestled with
is that BOTH ends attach to the SAME connector series.
One could probably find somebody who makes a BNC/SMA
right angle, or TNC/N or UHF/BNC, etc. . . . The folks
at TED would be pleased to whip out any needed
configuration.
Stan's experience with the bad adapter is unfortunate
but fortunately very rare. I've replaced dozens of connectors
that were damaged or improperly assembled over the years
including some adapters. At the same time, I've worked
in facilities that had literally thousands of connectors
AND adapters of all styles that were never touched after
the initial installation except for servicing some piece
of equipment.
Stan has professed to being and "ignorant layman". I'll
suggest that now he has uniquely benefited from a memorable
if expensive lesson in his own classroom/shop. By
sharing his experience with us, he has armed us with
new ideas to explore when investigating poor performance
from some device that hooks to an antenna. Let us continue
to improve the return on investment for Stan's expense by
storing his experience away in our own gray-matter
archives.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
If a NOLA type controller was cheap enough, I think it would give a
return on investment (saved I squared * R) on some air conditioner
compressors. The load and current draw of some of these compressors
varies significantly (at least 25%) with outside temperature and the
motor is sized to handle the worst case situation. In air conditioners
any wasted motor heat is paid for at a premium in that you have to
provide additional cooling (use more power) to get rid of that heat.
I'm thinking of piston type compressors where the motors run at the same
speed regardless of load which means they are loafing along much of the
time.
Of course even better would be modern compressors capable of running at
two speeds and which also give better humidity control and more constant
supply temps as well. I can't think of any residential use other than
air conditioners and heat pumps where I would even bother to test one of
these "energy saving" devices.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 03:25 PM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I'm dated but most capacitor start motors only used the
>> capacitor to get a phase change for starting. The capacitor did not do
>> anything for running PF correction IIRC. Have things changed?
>
> No . . . digging around in the gray matter seems to
> dredge up some things I used to teach about induction
> motors at Great Lakes. The capacitor(s) on a motor
> are for starting (the BIG guy) paired with the
> occasional second, smaller device for running.
> My central air conditioners and shop air compressor
> are fitted with a pair of Start/Run capacitors.
>
> And you're right, those capacitors are selected for
> optimized rotation of a magnetic field in the stator
> when only single-phase power is available. They're in
> series with one or more windings and NOT for PF correction.
> P.F. correction needs to be in parallel with the main
> winding.
>
> So, depending on how high the resistive losses in
> the main winding, there could be some significant
> degradation of power factor. But the motor guys
> are as sensitive to temperature rise due to I(squared)*R
> as are the guys who transformers and other wiring.
> They'll do what economically practical to minimize
> said losses.
>
> I think one of the articles that were cited over
> the past few days suggested that average power
> factor for a home was .90 . . . so it would be
> difficult to realize much savings in I(squared)*R
> R losses when the majority of said losses are
> spread over ALL the building's distribution system.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
For RF connectors of all types try...
90 degree
http://www.aaarfproducts.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=43
RF connectors
http://www.pasternack.com/
Cable and connectors
http://www.fccable.com/
Chris Stone
RV-8
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR
>
>
>I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice thing there
is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it in stock.
>
>http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=1274376
>
>http://www.texomajet.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
>
>
>http://www.allaeroparts.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277253#277253
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/dba_600percent20brochure_381.pdf
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
My 10 cents is that the 9-30-10 is not an adaptor. The item in the A200 installation
picture attached is a 9-30-10 from lanepilot.com. $25.00 with shipping.
(or $52 from ICOM)
This part was a supplied item with the A200. They stopped when they came out with
the A210.
Now a question.
I have soldered the connection in two places as shown.
When I solder the antenna connector on the other end. Should I also solder the
braid to the connector body or should I separate the braid and ground it to the
airframe or should I trim it back and not solder it anywhere. (I soldered braid
to connector body)
Reason I'm asking is that all I'm getting from the speaker is a hissing sound.
To keep it simple I started by hooking up the speaker only. nothing else. I suspect
my coaxial wire (RG58 A/U) because when I pull the coax out of the A200
the noise is unchanged..Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277493#277493
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/9_30_10_solder_618.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Equalizers (was: Vertical Power?) |
Thanks-Bob,-in your response, you indicated a lack of familiarity with
-battery equalizers and their functioning:-
-
"I'd not encountered this style of "equalizer" before . . .--A study of
it's ratings suggests that the device contains-a switchmode power supply
designed for charging 12v-batteries from a 28v source."
Does anyone else on the list have any experience with these units?- The a
dvertising and claims suggest they're designed to extend the lives of batte
ries wired in series by shuttling power between the two batteries (bi-direc
tionally) to ensure they always have the same voltage.- Folks use these e
xtensively in electric vehicles and for maintaining long strings of batteri
es for storing energy derived from solar power in stand-alone systems.- A
nyone with some experience to share with the list?
-
Dan=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
My house is not connected to the power grid, which makes me both a power
generator and a power consumer. If we look at this issue from that
perspective, things change.
Let's say I install some compact fluorescent lights to save electricity.
Assume I have the misfortune to select ones with a bad power factor.
If I were connected to the power grid, my electrical meter would measure
real watts, which in this case is 70 watts for all the lights I
installed. That's a big savings over the tungsten filament lights I
removed. So far, so good.
But since I'm my own power producer, I have to make enough extra
electricity to accommodate the lousy power factor. In this case, let's
say the power factor is 0.7. That means I have to make 100 watts of
apparent power to run my 70 watts of compact fluorescent lights. Still
a savings over the tungsten bulbs, but not as much as expected.
I have measured the actual amperage taken out of my battery bank to
power compact fluorescent lights and these numbers are in the ballpark.
I want to warn everyone that I have no background in electrical
engineering but have had a lifelong tinkerer's interest in it and
studied everything I could find when designing and installing my
off-grid solar home. So I could be way off here, and hope I'm corrected
if I'm wrong about any of this.
My conclusion is that both sides of this camp might be at least
partially correct. Since residential power meters measure real watts,
the residential consumer isn't penalized for the extra power the utility
has to generate to run bad power factor appliances. Therefore, the
residential consumer shouldn't expect to see any savings on the utility
bill.
However, the utility has to generate the extra electricity, even though
they aren't getting paid for it (which is already built into the rate
structure). But if consumers could do something to improve the power
factor of their appliances, it would reduce the amount of electricity
produced, reducing the unfavorable environmental consequences of making
electricity. That would be good for everyone (assuming the
environmental effects of making the correction devices resulted in a net
gain, of course).
I have no opinion as to whether the devices under discussion actually
reduce apparent watts. It may well be that the most recent appliances
include better internal power factor correction. I know that the last
batch of compact fluorescent bulbs I bought seem to have very good power
factor.
Dennis
Long-time Home Power magazine subscriber http://www.homepower.com/home/
Wikipedia power factor reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
At 03:42 PM 12/13/2009 Sunday, you wrote:
>
>Matt Dralle a crit :
>>
>>Rethink the over-kill, Don! I've got three GRT HX screens and the VP-200...
See attached.
>>
>>
>Matt,
>
>Awesome indeed.
>I took the liberty of forwarding your picture to a group of pilots buddies and
got lots of questions in return.
>Would you mind giving more details about your setup ?
>
>Thanks,
>Best regards,
>--
>Gilles
>http://contrails.free.fr
Thanks!
Here is a link to my builder's log, specifically regarding the avionics installation.
Lots of pictures and dialog describing the system. Let me know if you
have any questions.
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/category.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2971
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com
Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Geoff -
The insulating and jacketing materials used in RG-58 are vulnerable to
the temps encountered in soldering operations. RG-400 is much better
suited to this application.
When using coax to feed an antenna, the shield must be electrically
connected at both ends. On antennas that employ a BNC-type connector,
the connector shells provide the circuit path from the radio case ground
to the aircraft skin, which serves as the antenna ground plane. Whether
the braid is soldered or clamped to the shell with some sort of threaded
or crimped fastener is determined by the particular connector design.
It is quite possible that the heat of soldering was sufficient to melt
the foam insulation separating the center conductor and the braided
shield. If the two get together, things don't work so good, and
transmitting could damage the radio's RF output circuit.
Finally, if you haven't checked/adjusted the radio's squelch setting, it
may be set low enough that the hiss you're hearing is normal white
noise. Tighten the squelch and see if the hiss goes away.
Neal
N8ZG
-----Original Message-----
Now a question.
I have soldered the connection in two places as shown.
When I solder the antenna connector on the other end. Should I also
solder the braid to the connector body or should I separate the braid
and ground it to the airframe or should I trim it back and not solder it
anywhere. (I soldered braid to connector body)
Reason I'm asking is that all I'm getting from the speaker is a hissing
sound. To keep it simple I started by hooking up the speaker only.
nothing else. I suspect my coaxial wire (RG58 A/U) because when I pull
the coax out of the A200 the noise is
unchanged=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=C3=A2=82=AC=C2..Geoff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Aeroelectric listers,
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind of
trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam, that
would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems, such as
GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody have
any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
Hi Sam,
One of the old fashion systems might be considered.
Mounting a gun sight device on a tripod and having some young person,
with good tracking reflexes man it. Maybe a skeet and trap gunner. He
sights on the aircraft nose and as it comes over the finish line, the
swinging and tracking of the gun sight rides over a micro switch with a
very fast make or break. This swt. action starts and/or stops a clock.
If the operator has trouble tracking the nose of the aircraft, then all
bets are off of course.
You are sure right about gps. All but, maybe some military designs do
not update fast enough. You would probably need one that updates and
calculates at a minimum of 1 millisec. or faster.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: Aerolectric List
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 1:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.
Aeroelectric listers,
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind
of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far
end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam,
that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne
systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something.
Anybody have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind
of
trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far
end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam,
that
would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems,
such as
GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody
have
any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
Sam,
Have you considered a hand held radar gun, similar to the ones police
departments use for traffic speed??
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
You didn't indicate rather the speed sensor could be mounted in the plane o
r needed to be on the ground.- If it could be mounted on the plane I woul
d say that a low powered laser similar to those use in a grocery check out
could be used with ground based reflectors.- I-can't see any problem wi
th using-the same-system with a ground based-unit since the lights ar
e of brief duration and low power.- They are widely used by police and hi
ghway patrols.- The accuracy would be great.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______________
__________________=0AFrom: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>=0ATo: Aerole
ctric List =0ASent: Mon, December 14, 2009
3:01:20 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor n
eeded.=0A=0AAeroelectric listers,=0A=0AWe're looking for a bright idea.-
Preferably an inexpensive one.=0A=0AThe Sport Air Racing League, http://www
.sportairrace.org/ is trying to develop an accurate and reliable way to tim
e the speed of- an aircraft zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so.- T
hey are looking for some kind of trigger that will start the clock at one e
nd, and stop it at the far end.=0A=0AWe don't really want to erect pylons t
o fly through to break a beam, that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys hav
e looked at airborne systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate e
nough.=0A=0AThe SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something.
- Anybody have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?=0A=0AThanks for
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert D. Taylor" <FLYDAD57(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
Would a radar gun, like the cops use, work??
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: Aerolectric List
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 4:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.
Aeroelectric listers,
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind
of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far
end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam,
that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne
systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something.
Anybody have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Radar guns were used with the AirVenture Cup racers several years ago and I
think they didn't work too well. The SARL guys are looking for some precise
timing.
They currently are using sighting rods and triangulation, but it is leaving
too much judgment to the timing person. I think that would also apply to
David's suggestion.
They want to capture a full runway length of time, to have a more
representative view of true speed, rather than just a snapshot that a radar
gun might provide.
An aircraft mounted lasar system might to it, but how.where would you mount
it to many different kinds of aircraft, and in such a way that it would not
create drag?
These are the problems the SARL guys are trying to work around.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Sam
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Robert D. Taylor wrote:
> Would a radar gun, like the cops use, work??
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sam Hoskins
> *To:* Aerolectric List
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2009 4:01 PM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.
>
> Aeroelectric listers,
>
> We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
>
> The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
> develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
> zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind of
> trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far end.
>
> We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam, that
> would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems, such as
> GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
>
> The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody
> have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
>
> Thanks for any ideas.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Race 22!
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
Google "race car timing systems" and you will get lots of hits for
transponder type systems. Don't know how they would relate to your budget,
but they are widely used, and not just at the professional level, so
hopefully there would be one that would work for you.
Will Slaughter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 3:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.
Aeroelectric listers,
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind of
trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam, that
would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems, such as
GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody have
any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 09:55 AM 12/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>My 10 cents is that the 9-30-10 is not an adaptor.
Correct. It's a specialized connector.
>Now a question.
> I have soldered the connection in two places as shown.
>When I solder the antenna connector on the other end.
Why are you using a soldered connector on this end?
Crimped is MUCH easier to install for reliable connector.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Cable_Male.jpg
> Should I also solder the braid to the
> connector body or should I separate the braid
> and ground it to the airframe or should I trim
> it back and not solder it anywhere. (I soldered braid to connector body)
???? I'm not aware of any connector design (other than
the arcane UHF series) that calls for soldering to the
braid. If you use a connector designed for crimping
as above, then the braid attaches under the sleeve.
The only BNC connector I've ever soldered was this
style:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Solder_Cable_Male.jpg
and soldering was to the center conductor only. The
shield gets captured under the shield clamp. Installation
instructions . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Install_1.jpg
> Reason I'm asking is that all I'm
> getting from the speaker is a hissing sound. To
> keep it simple I started by hooking up the
> speaker only. nothing else. I suspect my
> coaxial wire (RG58 A/U) because when I pull the
> coax out of the A200 the noise is unchanged..Geoff
I would not necessarily expect the no-signal noise
levels to change by simple adding or deleting an antenna
connection. You need to check first with a hand-held as
an external signal source. Then check on your local
ground services, approach control or ATC radar sector
frequency for traffic with other aircraft.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
At 03:01 PM 12/14/2009, you wrote:
>Aeroelectric listers,
>
>We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
>
>The Sport Air Racing League,
><http://www.sportairrace.org/>http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying
>to develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an
>aircraft zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking
>for some kind of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and
>stop it at the far end.
>
>We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam,
>that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne
>systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
>
>The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with
>something. Anybody have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Yes, photo cells looking straight up though a tube of 2 - 4"
and length adjusted so that subtended angle of view is sufficiently
small that the "shadow" of any part of the aircraft blocks the
skylight. There are some self-calibrating level sensor circuits
that will adjust for slow variability in sky light levels.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert D. Taylor" <FLYDAD57(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
College cross country teams use transponders to track runners and their
positions crossing the finish line. Maybe some adaptation of this
equipment could be employed.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Slaughter
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor
needed.
Google "race car timing systems" and you will get lots of hits for
transponder type systems. Don't know how they would relate to your
budget, but they are widely used, and not just at the professional
level, so hopefully there would be one that would work for you.
Will Slaughter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Aerolectric List
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.
Aeroelectric listers,
We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind
of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far
end.
We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam,
that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne
systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something.
Anybody have any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
Thanks for any ideas.
Sam Hoskins
Race 22!
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric
-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
On 15 Dec 2009, at 4:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Yes, photo cells looking straight up though a tube of 2 - 4"
> and length adjusted so that subtended angle of view is sufficiently
> small that the "shadow" of any part of the aircraft blocks the
> skylight. There are some self-calibrating level sensor circuits
> that will adjust for slow variability in sky light levels.
>
> Bob . . .
>
This would work well - even if the light sensor wasn't in a tube,
calibrated correctly, the change from direct sunlight to shadow should
be enough to trigger a timing device of some description. I would
suggest two or three sensors in a line across the runway. Then use the
second or third sensor that is triggered so that you know it's the
wing that's causing the shadow both times, and not the wing on the
first end, and the spinner on the second (which would skew results).
Even a very simple microprocessor would be able to do the timing
accurately enough, and could display the result on an LCD screen
without too much effort.
There is one downside to this, if you're keen on using either end of a
runway, I guess you're looking for about 1km between sensors. That's a
lot of wire to wind up at the end of each competition! There may be
some simple radio interfaces that could be substituted...?
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Sorry. I wasn't complaining about the hiss. I was complaining that, that was all
i got. I live under Philadelphia approach. Commercial craft at a couple thousand
feet most of the day. I thought I would be picking up some of that. I'll
borrow a hand held and test it with that on Saturday.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277599#277599
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
Matt Dralle a crit :
>
> Here is a link to my builder's log, specifically regarding the avionics installation.
Lots of pictures and dialog describing the system. Let me know if you
have any questions.
>
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/category.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2971
>
>
Matt,
Thanks.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
If the laser were ground mounted the only thing required on the plane might
be a couple of identifiable stripes of paint on the underside of the aircr
aft.- It would not require a high powered laser and shouldn't pose any da
nger to the pilot since the directionality of the beam would be vertical an
d not directed at the pilot.=0A=0AIf the laser were mounted inside the plan
e it-wouldn't require more than a dime sized opening that could be covere
d with glass.- The laser beam would be setup to oscillate back and forth
with a ground based sensor to detect the beam as the plane crossed the dete
ction points.- The size of current low power lasers are so small that the
re should be no problem with either weight or drag.- =0A=0ABob=0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@gmail.
com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list =0ASent: Mon,
December 14, 2009 8:01:49 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Kind of off
topic. Speed sensor needed.=0A=0ARadar guns were used with the AirVenture
Cup racers several years ago and I think they didn't work too well.- The
SARL guys are looking for some precise timing.=0A=0AThey currently are usin
g sighting rods and triangulation, but it is leaving too much judgment to t
he timing person.- I think that would also apply to David's suggestion.
=0A=0AThey want to capture a full runway length of time, to have a more rep
resentative view of true speed, rather than just a snapshot that a radar gu
n might provide.=0A=0AAn aircraft mounted lasar system might to it, but how
.where would you mount it to many different kinds of aircraft, and in such
a way that it would not create drag?=0A=0AThese are the problems the SARL g
uys are trying to work around.=0A=0AThanks for the suggestions.=0A=0ASam=0A
=0A=0AOn Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Robert D. Taylor wrote:=0A=0AWould a radar gun, like the cops use, work??=0A>-=0A>=0A>-
---- Original Message ----- =0A>>From: Sam Hoskins =0A>>To: Aerolectric Lis
t =0A>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 4:01 PM=0A>>Subject: AeroElectric-Li
st: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed.=0A>>=0A>>Aeroelectric listers,
=0A>>=0A>>We're looking for a bright idea.- Preferably an inexpensive one
.=0A>>=0A>>The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is try
ing to develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of- an airc
raft zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so.- They are looking for some
kind of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the fa
r end.=0A>>=0A>>We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to brea
k a beam, that would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne
systems, such as GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.=0A>>=0A>>The S
ARL group is having a hard time coming up with something.- Anybody have a
ny thoughts how we might accomplish this?=0A>>=0A>>Thanks for any ideas.=0A
>>=0A>>Sam Hoskins=0A>>Race 22!=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>href="http://www.
aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>>=0A>>href="http://www.builders
books.com">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>>href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">
www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">ht
tp://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec
tric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0A>>href=
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>>=0A>>=0A>=0A>
=0A>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>=0A>.com" target="_blank">www.builder
sbooks.com=0A>="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>_blank">http://www.matro
nics.com/contribution=0A>ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?AeroElectric-List=0A>tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A=0A_
-========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | xm weather connector |
I have the xmweather receover, geneeration 1
this small plastic , crimped on conncetor failed at the entrance to the pl
ug. ( No stress relief I might add.) would anybody know a part number
so the whole 40 buck antenna does not need To be replaced.
http://www.anywheremap.com/detail.aspx?ID=154
The link shows the picture. I paged through mouser but didn't see anythin
g
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Geoff Heap,
Have you tried a portable antenna? Even a 22" wire will work. Just do not transmit.
If you can not get the hiss to go away with the squelch adjustment, there
is another squelch control on top of the radio accessible through a hole hidden
under round aluminum foil.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277613#277613
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
On 15 Dec 2009, at 4:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
Yes, photo cells looking straight up though a tube of 2 - 4"
and length adjusted so that subtended angle of view is sufficiently
small that the "shadow" of any part of the aircraft blocks the
skylight. There are some self-calibrating level sensor circuits
that will adjust for slow variability in sky light levels.
E: This would work well - even if the light sensor wasn't in a tube,
calibrated correctly, the change from direct sunlight to shadow
should be enough to trigger a timing device of some description.
You need to constrain the view angle . . .preferably
without the use of optics. Long tubes seem the simplest
approach.
E: I would suggest two or three sensors in a line across the runway.
Then use the second or third sensor that is triggered so that you
know it's the wing that's causing the shadow both times, and not the
wing on the first end, and the spinner on the second (which would
skew results).
That would be useful . . . depending on how "loose"
the rules are for alignment with the runway ceneterline,
an array of senors of any number could be used.
E: Even a very simple microprocessor would be able to do the timing
accurately enough, and could display the result on an LCD screen
without too much effort.
Sure, the jellybean PIC products offer one set of
solutions.
E: There is one downside to this, if you're keen on using either end
of a runway, I guess you're looking for about 1km between sensors.
That's a lot of wire to wind up at the end of each competition! There
may be some simple radio interfaces that could be substituted...?
Ten years ago, I helped some RC racers craft a timing system
that required communication over a many acres of event
venue. Off the shelf, 433 MHz transmiter and receiver
modules provided links. Controlling atency and jitter in
detecting event-edges would be a critical design goal.
Assuming 300 mph (440 f/s) over 5000 feet of runway
(11.3 seconds) a .1% accuracy in timing would call for
control of variability to less than 10 milliseconds.
If shorter runs are anticipated, the number gets tighter.
+/-1 millisecond would probably be a practical design goal.
Sam. Define "accurate". What are the design goals for
the reduction of uncertainty?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
Hi Sam,
Are you wanting something that displays/announces the avg speed in near real-time
(ie after the plane passes the end of the runway) or this something that is
announced at the end of show?
/\/elson
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> Aeroelectric listers,
>
> We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
>
> The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to
> develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft
> zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are looking for some kind of
> trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop it at the far end.
>
> We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam, that
> would be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems, such as
> GPS tracking, but it's not accurate enough.
>
> The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody have
> any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
>
> Thanks for any ideas.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Race 22!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Sam,
How about using two clocks and two cameras? Synchronize two very accurate clocks
or stop watches and locate them at opposite ends of the runway. Take fast
pictures of the plane (including the clock) as it passes starting and ending points.
Review the pictures and note the times on the clocks and subtract.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277622#277622
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Hello Bob,
I am using the Z-19 system for a dual battery, single alternator
application. In the system the Engine Battery has OFF/ON/AUTO settings and
I see that this battery will switch in when an undervoltage is detected on
the Main Power Distribution Bus, when in AUTO mode. If one operates it in
AUTO mode all the time how does it ever get charged? The obvious answer
seems to be to operate the ENG BAT switch in the ON position all the time,
but this makes the AUTO mode redundant.
An additional question is, can both batteries be safely charged via one
alternator?
Thanks
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
Jay,
As I understand the drawing and operation of low voltage warning devices,
the Engine Battery contactor will OPEN upon low voltage if switch is in
Auto. Idea is to save the Engine Battery for powering the electrically
dependent engine.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 wiring
Eggenfellner Subaru E6 powered
N808AF reserved
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-19
Hello Bob,
I am using the Z-19 system for a dual battery, single alternator
application. In the system the Engine Battery has OFF/ON/AUTO settings and
I see that this battery will switch in when an undervoltage is detected on
the Main Power Distribution Bus, when in AUTO mode. If one operates it in
AUTO mode all the time how does it ever get charged? The obvious answer
seems to be to operate the ENG BAT switch in the ON position all the time,
but this makes the AUTO mode redundant.
An additional question is, can both batteries be safely charged via one
alternator?
Thanks
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:21 PM 12/15/2009, you wrote:
>Jay,
>
>As I understand the drawing and operation of low voltage warning
>devices, the Engine Battery contactor will OPEN upon low voltage if
>switch is in Auto. Idea is to save the Engine Battery for powering
>the electrically dependent engine.
>
>Allen Fulmer
>RV7 wiring
>Eggenfellner Subaru E6 powered
>N808AF reserved
>
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
>Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:25 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-19
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>I am using the Z-19 system for a dual battery, single alternator
>application. In the system the Engine Battery has OFF/ON/AUTO
>settings and I see that this battery will switch in when an
>undervoltage is detected on the Main Power Distribution Bus, when in
>AUTO mode. If one operates it in AUTO mode all the time how does it
>ever get charged? The obvious answer seems to be to operate the ENG
>BAT switch in the ON position all the time, but this makes the AUTO
>mode redundant.
Allen is right. The LVABMM works like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.pdf
The design goal for such devices is to automatically
disconnect the auxiliary battery during such times that
the alternator is not producing enough output to maintain
the battery.
>An additional question is, can both batteries be safely charged via
>one alternator?
You can charge as many batteries as you like.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 11:30 AM 12/14/2009, you wrote:
>My house is not connected to the power grid, which makes me both a
>power generator and a power consumer. If we look at this issue from
>that perspective, things change.
>My conclusion is that both sides of this camp might be at least
>partially correct. Since residential power meters measure real
>watts, the residential consumer isn't penalized for the extra power
>the utility has to generate to run bad power factor appliances.
>However, the utility has to generate the extra electricity, even
>though they aren't getting paid for it (which is already built into
>the rate structure).
The utility doesn't have to generate any extra watts. It only has
to choose wire sizes that carry an artificially high current that
doesn't participate in the running of devices with poor p.f.
> But if consumers could do something to improve the power factor
> of their appliances, it would reduce the amount of electricity
> produced, reducing the unfavorable environmental consequences of
> making electricity. That would be good for everyone (assuming the
> environmental effects of making the correction devices resulted in
> a net gain, of course).
The "goodness" comes only from the fact that the same work
can be done over smaller wires with less heating of the
wires. A significant savings when your transmission lines
are measured in miles instead of feet and transformers are
in 100's of KVAR instead of 2 KVAR.
>
>I have no opinion as to whether the devices under discussion
>actually reduce apparent watts. It may well be that the most recent
>appliances include better internal power factor correction. I know
>that the last batch of compact fluorescent bulbs I bought seem to
>have very good power factor.
Yes. And the folks who do switchmode power supplies
for computers and other electronics have been prodded
by dozens of articles for how p.f. can be improved for
over 20 years.
See chapter 11 in Volume 2 of the basic electronics
document below . . .
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/index.html
If your AC power generation devices are pseudo sine
wave (finely stepped square wave) then the output
power has more harmonic content than the stuff
coming out of the wall. This puts a whole new
twist on the problem of optimizing power factor.
Have you measured the aggregate power factor for
household loads on your system? It may well be that
the losses are so small that doing anything about
them is economically impractical. When talking about
small losses, keep in mind that your house wiring
is not zero ohms material. Depending on how long
the runs are, you may find that copper losses
are already significant and only slightly aggravated
by the effects of p.f.
Lord Kelvin reminded us often that without access
to the real numbers, our knowledge is of a meager
kind.
Your situation cries out for a long term study
of aggregate quality for your total household load.
A true RMS voltmeter, ammeter and power-factor meter
recording to a hard drive over a long period of time
would give you a basis for doing more detailed
studies followed up by useful changes to your
hardware.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Equalizers |
At 10:12 AM 12/14/2009, you wrote:
Thanks Bob, in your response, you indicated a lack of familiarity
with battery equalizers and their functioning:
"I'd not encountered this style of "equalizer" before . . . A study
of it's ratings suggests that the device contains a switchmode power
supply designed for charging 12v batteries from a 28v source."
Does anyone else on the list have any experience with these
units? The advertising and claims suggest they're designed to extend
the lives of batteries wired in series by shuttling power between the
two batteries (bi-directionally) to ensure they always have the same
voltage. Folks use these extensively in electric vehicles and for
maintaining long strings of batteries for storing energy derived from
solar power in stand-alone systems. Anyone with some experience to
share with the list?
The term "battery equalizer" is a really broad brush
with which to draw a schematic or write a description
of how it functions.
The folks doing development work on Li-Ion aircraft
batteries have already described a host of "electronic
enhancements" to make sure that each one of the relatively
small bundles of energetic chemistry are not mistreated to
destruction . . . or worse yet, catastrophic failure.
This is a worry for the electrically enhanced vehicle
business too.
Equalization COULD be nothing more than precision
shunt regulators that prevent voltage in any single
cell from rising above some not-to-exceed levels.
It COULD be an array of such devices individually
commanded from some smart device like a micro-controller.
The "equalizer" we were discussing seems to be a single
precision power supply designed to simply offset the
effects of loading the lower half of a two battery
string. In this case, each string has twelve cells
divided into two sections . . . equalization philosophy
is therefor coarser.
The ideal "equalizer" for a pair of six-cell batteries
array might be a pair of switch-mode chargers feeding
each battery independently . . . each capable of
sourcing the highest anticipated load on each battery.
I'm not trying to be obtuse but until one identifies
and understands exactly how any particular "equalizer"
is designed to function, and matches the knowledge
with design goals for the system, sharing of experiences
may not be all that useful.
Exactly how would you like to use two 12v batteries
in a 28v system?
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
That reminds me! I saw this system used in a rowing race (over several
miles), 2 cameras at the start, and 2 at the finish (in case of failure
- 400 boats competing), all cameras filmed a 'master clock' to
synchronise their own clocks before the start. Does require some effort
after the speed runs, but only cost is 2 digital camcorders.
Peter
user9253 wrote:
>
> Sam,
> How about using two clocks and two cameras? Synchronize two very accurate clocks
or stop watches and locate them at opposite ends of the runway. Take fast
pictures of the plane (including the clock) as it passes starting and ending
points. Review the pictures and note the times on the clocks and subtract.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277622#277622
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Here are the symptoms/conditions:
1. King KX125, Plane Power 60a alternator, Lycoming O-320-D2A, PS
Engineering 1000II intercom, Lightspeed 20XLc headsets.
2. After engine startup initially while the battery is being re-charged, if
I press the PTT button to transmit to unicom, I'll hear a very loud
hi-pitched whistle in my headset (side-tone)- my guess is it's around 8Khz.
It doesn't appear that transmitting gets through.
3. The radio recieves very clearly during this period - say listening to
AWOS for example.
4. With the intercom off, it does the same thing.
5. After the battery is recharged, and from then on in the flight (including
re-starts after re-fuel) the radio transmits and recieves clearly.
6. There is a 2.2uF at the positive output lead of the alternator to ground.
There is a noise filter between the main bus and avionics buss.
7. A single point multi-tab ground is used.
Any ideas what to look at next??
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Feedback while transmitting |
I am getting a loud feedback noise in my headset when-I press the PTT.-
It only seems to happen-70% of the time - having the engine-running, o
r not, is of no difference.--Today in-the hangar I pressed the PTT an
d could hear the feedback coming out of the speakers-of my-jam-box radi
o several feet-away! The radio on the jam-box was on but the volume turne
d all the way down. When I unplugged it I could no longer hear the noise in
the-jam-box, but it was VERY present in my headphones. Of course, this i
n a new installation in my airplane - flown the plane 2 times now.- Not b
eing able to her yourself talk is frustrating! Oh.. yeah, the receiving end
-ALWAYS hears me "loud & clear."- =0A=0AAnyone have a good FIRST place
to start looking to fix this problem. It seems- like it might be a simple
fix.... a ground maybe? Inadequate antenna? - =0A=0AThanks! =0A-Michae
l Hilderbrand=0ADerby, Kansas=0AHttp://www.kansasflying.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power? |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
As with any new technology, there needs to be education to answer questions. I'd
be more than happy to answer any questions you have about failure modes, weight,
feature comparison between various products, etc. Just call! Our number is
505 715 6172. Or email marc 'at' verticalpower.com
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277788#277788
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
Well, the turn signals, horn, and high beams are great new features for airplanes.
Be the first on your block...
Seriously though, this product is designed for automobiles. Vertical Power is designed
for aircraft and therefore it's working in its intended environment.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277789#277789
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Feedback while transmitting |
did not seem to post-the first time... please scroll down.=0A-Michael H
ilderbrand=0ADerby, Kansas=0AHttp://www.kansasflying.com =0A=0A=0A=0A-----
Forwarded Message ----=0AFrom: Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand@sbcglobal
.net>=0ATo: Aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, December 16, 2009
5:06:37 PM=0ASubject: Feedback while transmitting=0A=0A=0AI am getting a lo
ud feedback noise in my headset when-I press the PTT.- It only seems to
happen-70% of the time - having the engine-running, or not, is of no d
ifference.--Today in-the hangar I pressed the PTT and could hear the
feedback coming out of the speakers-of my-jam-box radio several feet-
away! The radio on the jam-box was on but the volume turned all the way dow
n. When I unplugged it I could no longer hear the noise in the-jam-box, b
ut it was VERY present in my headphones. Of course, this in a new installat
ion in my airplane - flown the plane 2 times now.- Not being able to her
yourself talk is frustrating! Oh.. yeah, the receiving end-ALWAYS hears m
e "loud & clear."- =0A=0AAnyone have a good FIRST place to start looking
to fix this problem. It seems- like it might be a simple fix.... a ground
maybe? Inadequate antenna? - =0A=0AThanks! =0A-Michael Hilderbrand=0AD
erby, Kansas=0AHttp://www.kansasflying.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gus Schlegel <airgus(at)kc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback while transmitting |
Michael Hilderbrand wrote:
> I am getting a loud feedback noise in my headset when I press the
> PTT. It only seems to happen 70% of the time - having the
> engine running, or not, is of no difference. Today in the hangar I
> pressed the PTT and could hear the feedback coming out of the
> speakers of my jam-box radio several feet away! The radio on the
> jam-box was on but the volume turned all the way down. When I
> unplugged it I could no longer hear the noise in the jam-box, but it
> was VERY present in my headphones. Of course, this in a new
> installation in my airplane - flown the plane 2 times now. Not being
> able to her yourself talk is frustrating! Oh.. yeah, the receiving
> end ALWAYS hears me "loud & clear."
>
> Anyone have a good FIRST place to start looking to fix this problem.
> It seems like it might be a simple fix.... a ground maybe? Inadequate
> antenna?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael Hilderbrand
> Derby, Kansas
> Http://www.kansasflying.com
> *
> *
I had the same problem, intermittent feedback - until I started moving
my headset cables around and voila! At a certain position in relation to
the antenna cable it started squealing. I rerouted my antenna cable and
the problem went away.
Gus Sonex N7770R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 - Instrument Panel Power Coat & Silkscreen... |
Listers,
I got the instrument panel back from power coat and silkscreen today and I just
couldn't wait to stick the instruments in to see what it looks like!
Sweet!!
I can hardly wait to get it mounted and powered back up!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 - Instrument Panel Power Coat & Silkscreen... |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Equalizers |
Bob,
The planned use for the battery equalizer is to allow the charge state of t
he two batteries in a 24V system to equalize after one battery is used (via
the center tap) to run the 12V hydraulic pump.- My thought is that the b
attery will easily supply the 20A load for 30 seconds or so to required to
raise the gear, after which the equalizer will act to direct energy to it i
n order to bring its charge state up to equal that of the other battery.-
The particular unit I've chosen is called PowerCheq and appears to be desi
gned for just such an application.- It's produced by a company called Pow
er Designers, here's a link to the manual for the unit:-
-
http://www.evsource.com/datasheets/powercheq/powercheq_operations_manual.pd
f
-
and here's a link to a white paper on its design and testing:
-
http://www.fleetcareequipment.com/files/phatfile/PowerCheqPaper_MotivePower
.pdf
-
I'm not a Double-E, so I welcome comment from you and others out there rega
rding the usefulness of such a beast.
-
Dan=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Battery Equalizers |
I've come into this thread on the back end, but why not just change the
hydraulic powerpac to 24V?
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
Fritz
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Equalizers
Bob,
The planned use for the battery equalizer is to allow the charge state
of the two batteries in a 24V system to equalize after one battery is
used (via the center tap) to run the 12V hydraulic pump. My thought is
that the battery will easily supply the 20A load for 30 seconds or so to
required to raise the gear, after which the equalizer will act to direct
energy to it in order to bring its charge state up to equal that of the
other battery. The particular unit I've chosen is called PowerCheq and
appears to be designed for just such an application. It's produced by a
company called Power Designers, here's a link to the manual for the
unit:
http://www.evsource.com/datasheets/powercheq/powercheq_operations_manual
.pdf
and here's a link to a white paper on its design and testing:
http://www.fleetcareequipment.com/files/phatfile/PowerCheqPaper_MotivePo
wer.pdf
I'm not a Double-E, so I welcome comment from you and others out there
regarding the usefulness of such a beast.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, I think that 1 millisecond accuracy would be fine. I think, just my
opinion, if we could determine speed to one digit, it would be fine, eg.
234.6 mph. Of course, two digits would be better.
Thanks to all who contributed suggestions. I have complied and posted all
of them to the SARL racers group.
For anyone who may be interested and wish to join, the e-mail list is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SARL-Racers/
Sam
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2009, at 4:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Yes, photo cells looking straight up though a tube of 2 - 4"
> and length adjusted so that subtended angle of view is sufficiently
> small that the "shadow" of any part of the aircraft blocks the
> skylight. There are some self-calibrating level sensor circuits
> that will adjust for slow variability in sky light levels.
>
> E: This would work well - even if the light sensor wasn't in a tube,
> calibrated correctly, the change from direct sunlight to shadow should be
> enough to trigger a timing device of some description.
>
> You need to constrain the view angle . . .preferably
> without the use of optics. Long tubes seem the simplest
> approach.
>
> E: I would suggest two or three sensors in a line across the runway. Then
> use the second or third sensor that is triggered so that you know it's the
> wing that's causing the shadow both times, and not the wing on the first
> end, and the spinner on the second (which would skew results).
>
> That would be useful . . . depending on how "loose"
> the rules are for alignment with the runway ceneterline,
> an array of senors of any number could be used.
>
> E: Even a very simple microprocessor would be able to do the timing
> accurately enough, and could display the result on an LCD screen without too
> much effort.
>
> Sure, the jellybean PIC products offer one set of
> solutions.
>
> E: There is one downside to this, if you're keen on using either end of a
> runway, I guess you're looking for about 1km between sensors. That's a lot
> of wire to wind up at the end of each competition! There may be some simple
> radio interfaces that could be substituted...?
>
> Ten years ago, I helped some RC racers craft a timing system
> that required communication over a many acres of event
> venue. Off the shelf, 433 MHz transmiter and receiver
> modules provided links. Controlling atency and jitter in
> detecting event-edges would be a critical design goal.
>
> Assuming 300 mph (440 f/s) over 5000 feet of runway
> (11.3 seconds) a .1% accuracy in timing would call for
> control of variability to less than 10 milliseconds.
> If shorter runs are anticipated, the number gets tighter.
> +/-1 millisecond would probably be a practical design goal.
>
> Sam. Define "accurate". What are the design goals for
> the reduction of uncertainty?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stec 30 Autopilot & GPSS conversion |
I'd like to make contact with anyone in this group who has recent
experience or knowledge with regard to wiring this autopilot.
I have a couple of questions/issues which may ultimately be of
interest here but please contact me directly for now.
Thanks,
Angier Ames
Lancair 360
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stec 30 Autopilot & GPSS conversion |
I'd like to make contact with anyone in this group who has recent
experience or knowledge with regard to wiring this autopilot.
I have a couple of questions/issues which may ultimately be of
interest here but please contact me directly for now.
Thanks,
Angier Ames
Lancair 360
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | I need a larger photo, please |
Matt,
Your panel looks super. However, I can only read, maybe, the N
number. Is there a way for you to post a larger photo of your panel
so I can see more in detail how your powder coated panel labels read
and look.
And exactly how were the labels done? We are just about to have our
panel powder coated and labeled. Boy, is it difficult to figure out
the wording for each switch, etc.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
At 07:28 AM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, I think that 1 millisecond accuracy would be fine. I think,
>just my opinion, if we could determine speed to one digit, it would
>be fine, eg. 234.6 mph. Of course, two digits would be better.
It's technically feasible to get about any resolution
you want but the costs of producing a user-friendly
system can go up really fast as you add those decimal
points!
I did a drag track clocking system design many many
moons ago wherein we used telescopes looking across
the track at a strong light source. Magnification was
so high that the entire illumination disk (6" roundel)
filled the field of view in the telescope eyepiece.
This system was vacuum tube sensor systems driving
an HP counter/timer that was also vacuum tube and
used columns of neon bulbs to display measured
result.
In this instance, ambient light had no measurable
effect on triggering accuracy. It worked equally
well at night or bright sunlight. Further, uncertainty
of trigger timing was limited to the time it took
for the vehicle to cross the 6" field of view. So
back in 1974 or thereabouts, we had 0.1 mS resolution
and 1 mS accuracy of timing over the distance between
sensors. I think they installed them 10' apart at the
end of the track. At 150 f/s, the interval of interest
was about 66 milliseconds so we could calculate speed
with an accuracy of about 1.5% Folks were impressed
by that kind of capability back then.
Photo-detectors looking at sky-light through tubes
(or even cheap telescopes) offers a means by which
uncertainty in trigger timing (dd/dt) can be very small.
But as others pointed out, very small apertures,
require resolution of the differences between a prop
spinner and leading edge of wing. So an array of
sensors driving a discriminator calling for two
or more sensors to be triggered before the hack
is marked seems to offer a solution.
The use of radio to tie the ends of the system together
is quite practical. There are inexpensive, off the shelf
timers available with micro-second resolution/accuracy.
The proof of the pudding is in the sensor array.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-8 - Instrument Panel Power Coat & Silkscreen... |
Great job Matt - Don't forget to look out the window while watching
those DVD's :)
I'm going to ditch my aluminum stuff and cut mine out of Carbon Fiber.
That stuff is so strong and easy to work with, I see not use in paying
the painter.
Enjoy.
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RV-8 - Instrument Panel Power Coat &
Silkscreen...
Listers,
I got the instrument panel back from power coat and silkscreen today and
I just couldn't wait to stick the instruments in to see what it looks
like!
Sweet!!
I can hardly wait to get it mounted and powered back up!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deene Ogden " <deene(at)austin.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warm-up Problem |
You should check your alternator to see if the diode bridge is OK. If a
diode fails, then the output from the alt will be very noisy and especially
at higher output levels.
Deene Ogden
RV8
CFII, MEI, CFIG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback while transmitting |
Thanks Gus, =0A=0AMy headphone jacks (and headsets) are in close proximity
of the antenna.--The jacks are located on the first former behind the s
eat and the antenna is just above all that on-top of the turtle deck. =0A
=0AI will move things around and see what happens.--=0A-Michael Hilde
rbrand=0ADerby, Kansas=0AHttp://www.kansasflying.com =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______
_________________________=0AFrom: Gus Schlegel <airgus(at)kc.rr.com>=0ATo: aer
oelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, December 16, 2009 8:07:39 PM=0ASu
bject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Feedback while transmitting=0A=0A--> AeroElec
tric-List message posted by: Gus Schlegel =0A=0AMichael H
ilderbrand wrote:=0A> I am getting a loud feedback noise in my headset when
I press the PTT.- It only seems to happen 70% of the time - having the e
ngine running, or not, is of no difference.- Today in the hangar I presse
d the PTT and could hear the feedback coming out of the speakers of my jam-
box radio several feet away! The radio on the jam-box was on but the volume
turned all the way down. When I unplugged it I could no longer hear the no
ise in the jam-box, but it was VERY present in my headphones. Of course, th
is in a new installation in my airplane - flown the plane 2 times now.- N
ot being able to her yourself talk is frustrating! Oh.. yeah, the receiving
end ALWAYS hears me "loud & clear."- Anyone have a good FIRST place to s
tart looking to fix this problem. It seems- like it might be a simple fix
.... a ground maybe? Inadequate antenna?- Thanks!=0A>- Michael Hilderbr
and=0A> Derby, Kansas=0A> Http://www.kansasflying.com=0A> *=0A> *=0AI had t
he same problem, intermittent feedback - until I started moving my headset
cables around and voila! At a certain position in relation to the antenna c
able it started squealing. I rerouted my antenna cable and the problem went
-=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Drall
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
> The use of radio to tie the ends of the system together
> is quite practical. There are inexpensive, off the shelf
> timers available with micro-second resolution/accuracy.
> The proof of the pudding is in the sensor array.
What is the size of the "box" that the aircraft must stay inside
and what height above the ground is the lower edge of that box?
I occurs to me that if you have a 100' wide by 100' high
box with lower edge at 100' agl, the number of sensors
required to cover that up-look area with any resolution
could be pretty big. Fortunately, they're cheap and easy
to build. So is the electronics for resolving the presence
of an airplane "shadow"
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I need a larger photo, please |
At 06:34 AM 12/17/2009 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Matt,
>
>Your panel looks super. However, I can only read, maybe, the N number. Is there
a way for you to post a larger photo of your panel so I can see more in detail
how your powder coated panel labels read and look.
>
>And exactly how were the labels done? We are just about to have our panel powder
coated and labeled. Boy, is it difficult to figure out the wording for each
switch, etc.
>
>Dee
>
>DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
>406 N Mulberry St
>Richmond, VA 23220-3320
>(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
>SKYPE: hilltopkid
>dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
Here is the full-resolution shot of the panel. I used a textured power coat that
looks really nice. Same as I used on the engine baffles. The silk screen
looks okay. In retrospect, I think that I would have power coated the panel gloss
black, did the silk screen, then had them put a clear texture power coat
over the top.
For the right side control panel, I'm having them use a "label" the full size of
the panel. The stuff looks just like the power coated panel in both texture
and color. The lettering, however is super crisp. I'll post some pictures when
I get it back. I also had them make up some similar labels for the various
remote controls like the Alternate Air and Cabin Heat.
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com
Final Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
The box would be the width of the runway, with the pilot striving to stay
pretty much on the center line. Probably as low as 20 feet and as high as
100 feet - maybe 75.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> The use of radio to tie the ends of the system together
>> is quite practical. There are inexpensive, off the shelf
>> timers available with micro-second resolution/accuracy.
>> The proof of the pudding is in the sensor array.
>>
>
> What is the size of the "box" that the aircraft must stay inside
> and what height above the ground is the lower edge of that box?
>
> I occurs to me that if you have a 100' wide by 100' high
> box with lower edge at 100' agl, the number of sensors
> required to cover that up-look area with any resolution
> could be pretty big. Fortunately, they're cheap and easy
> to build. So is the electronics for resolving the presence
> of an airplane "shadow"
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warm-up Problem |
If that was the case, wouldn't the frequency of the shriek be lower?? -
and continue to be noisy all the time? It ouzzles me that on stops where
I re-fuel and startup again - there's no noise right after startup...
Thanks for your input - I thought I'd get a lot more suggestions from
the group. Everyone must be shopping :-)
Dave (N365DL)
PS. 40.5 hrs today! Phase 1 complete!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Deene Ogden
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Warm-up Problem
You should check your alternator to see if the diode bridge is OK. If
a diode fails, then the output from the alt will be very noisy and
especially at higher output levels.
Deene Ogden
RV8
CFII, MEI, CFIG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback while transmitting |
At 10:09 AM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks Gus,
>
>My headphone jacks (and headsets) are in close proximity of the
>antenna. The jacks are located on the first former behind the seat
>and the antenna is just above all that on top of the turtle deck.
>
>I will move things around and see what happens.
Just a reminder to the List about risks for
the proximity of certain things . . .
The Comm transmit antenna is the STRONGEST
potential antagonist for deleterious effects
of EMC in the airplane. Microphone wiring
(indeed all audio wiring) is a close second
place to thermocouple wiring for most likely
victims to RF interference.
The mic and thermocouple wires are generally
limited as to routing and connections. The
antenna is by far the easiest thing to get
as far as practical from the firewall and
cockpit.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Feedback while transmitting |
Just a reminder to the List about risks for
the proximity of certain things . . .
The Comm transmit antenna is the STRONGEST
potential antagonist for deleterious effects
of EMC in the airplane. Microphone wiring
(indeed all audio wiring) is a close second
place to thermocouple wiring for most likely
victims to RF interference.
The mic and thermocouple wires are generally
limited as to routing and connections. The
antenna is by far the easiest thing to get
as far as practical from the firewall and
cockpit.
Bob
Would I be correct in assuming that there should be very little interference
picked up in the mic and thermocouple wires if they are run next to the com
coax, as long as they are not near the antenna, i.e. bundled together behind
the instrument panel?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <flylists(at)dbarrett.net> |
I'm piecing together an HID landing light system and need to decide between
D1S and D2S bulbs. D1S has the igniter in the bulb, and D2S has it in the
ballast. Is there any advantage in eliminating the relatively short
high-voltage run between the ballast and bulb by using the D1S type? The
bulb and ballast will be in the wingtip along with a VOR antenna. Will the
bulb type make a difference if I decide to install a wig-wag flasher?
David Barrett
RV-7 Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HID bulb types |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
flylists(at)dbarrett.net wrote:
> I'm piecing together an HID landing light system and need to decide between
> D1S and D2S bulbs. D1S has the igniter in the bulb, and D2S has it in the
> ballast. Is there any advantage in eliminating the relatively short
> high-voltage run between the ballast and bulb by using the D1S type? The
> bulb and ballast will be in the wingtip along with a VOR antenna. Will the
> bulb type make a difference if I decide to install a wig-wag flasher?
>
> David Barrett
> RV-7 Wings
The noise difference between D1S and D2S is significant, especially if pulsing
because of the noisy on pulses. D1S is what you definitely want with the high
voltage igniter at the bulb, not in the ballast.
If you use D2S anyway, at least make sure the HV cable to the bulb and the socket
are shielded.
The bulb types will not matter for wig-wag. D2S or D1S are both ok for that as
long as you warm the bulbs up (steady on) for 20 seconds minimum and 30 seconds
is even better, before you start wigwag. Make sure you are pulsing at about
1Hz (no more than 1/2 second off on each channel and at least 1/2 second on for
each pulse). This is for good bulb life.
Many HID ballasts will have a short life if you wig-wag. Most of them (automotive)
were not designed for this punishment. The SAE design specs for Automotive
ballasts are only ~20,000 starts.
That is one of many reasons why XeVision designs and makes our own ballasts. Designed
from the start (ground up) for Wig-wag capability. Also, on our newest
ballast systems, it is not required to interrupt main power to the ballast for
the wig-wag function. Our new XePulse II provides a very small trigger signal
to the ballast for on/off wig-wag function. This extra 3rd wire only needs to
be 20 or 22 awg for mechanical strength. Our newer ballasts use a 3 wire input
connector, 2 wires for + and - and the 3rd for the on/off wig-wag trigger. This
is a much better way to control wig-wag in HID systems. The XePulse II only
weighs about an ounce and can trigger about 250 ballasts per channel (obviously
way overkill). It is only about 1.5 X 1.5 X .75 inches and uses a 9 pin d-sub
connection.
All of this new proprietary ballast and HID wig-wag technology makes for a very
quiet (EMI / RFI) system. This wig-wag system IS patented as of Nov 10, 2009
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278002#278002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Follow Up to Power Opti-Miser |
Bob, thanks so much for replying to my post about my experience with low
power factor appliances. I see that I need to study some more so I can
understand this better. I've stubbed my toe on power factor questions
before, so I'm not surprised. You've asked good questions that I'll
address after I study up!
Thanks,
Dennis
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
At 11:30 AM 12/14/2009, you wrote:
>My house is not connected to the power grid, which makes me both a
>power generator and a power consumer. If we look at this issue from
>that perspective, things change.
>My conclusion is that both sides of this camp might be at least
>partially correct. Since residential power meters measure real
>watts, the residential consumer isn't penalized for the extra power
>the utility has to generate to run bad power factor appliances.
>However, the utility has to generate the extra electricity, even
>though they aren't getting paid for it (which is already built into
>the rate structure).
The utility doesn't have to generate any extra watts. It only has
to choose wire sizes that carry an artificially high current that
doesn't participate in the running of devices with poor p.f.
> But if consumers could do something to improve the power factor
> of their appliances, it would reduce the amount of electricity
> produced, reducing the unfavorable environmental consequences of
> making electricity. That would be good for everyone (assuming the
> environmental effects of making the correction devices resulted in
> a net gain, of course).
The "goodness" comes only from the fact that the same work
can be done over smaller wires with less heating of the
wires. A significant savings when your transmission lines
are measured in miles instead of feet and transformers are
in 100's of KVAR instead of 2 KVAR.
>
>I have no opinion as to whether the devices under discussion
>actually reduce apparent watts. It may well be that the most recent
>appliances include better internal power factor correction. I know
>that the last batch of compact fluorescent bulbs I bought seem to
>have very good power factor.
Yes. And the folks who do switchmode power supplies
for computers and other electronics have been prodded
by dozens of articles for how p.f. can be improved for
over 20 years.
See chapter 11 in Volume 2 of the basic electronics
document below . . .
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/index.html
If your AC power generation devices are pseudo sine
wave (finely stepped square wave) then the output
power has more harmonic content than the stuff
coming out of the wall. This puts a whole new
twist on the problem of optimizing power factor.
Have you measured the aggregate power factor for
household loads on your system? It may well be that
the losses are so small that doing anything about
them is economically impractical. When talking about
small losses, keep in mind that your house wiring
is not zero ohms material. Depending on how long
the runs are, you may find that copper losses
are already significant and only slightly aggravated
by the effects of p.f.
Lord Kelvin reminded us often that without access
to the real numbers, our knowledge is of a meager
kind.
Your situation cries out for a long term study
of aggregate quality for your total household load.
A true RMS voltmeter, ammeter and power-factor meter
recording to a hard drive over a long period of time
would give you a basis for doing more detailed
studies followed up by useful changes to your
hardware.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow Up to Power Opti-Miser |
At 07:56 PM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, thanks so much for replying to my post about my experience with
>low power factor appliances. I see that I need to study some more
>so I can understand this better. I've stubbed my toe on power
>factor questions before, so I'm not surprised. You've asked good
>questions that I'll address after I study up!
My pleasure sir. I'd like to know more about
your homepower experiences. At the least, an
off-list conversation would be welcome . . .
but I'm pretty certain that out of 1800
subscribers, there's a significant interest
in the practice and technology.
Shucks, some of the folks might have remote
hangars they'd like to "power up". What ever
you're comfortable with is fine with me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow Up to Power Opti-Miser |
>
> My pleasure sir. I'd like to know more about
> your homepower experiences. At the least, an
> off-list conversation would be welcome . . .
> but I'm pretty certain that out of 1800
> subscribers, there's a significant interest
> in the practice and technology.
>
> Shucks, some of the folks might have remote
> hangars they'd like to "power up". What ever
> you're comfortable with is fine with me.
>
> Bob . . .
I vote for a public discussion so we all can learn a little.
--------
Scott
I second that request!
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | will LR3C work with the Z-13/8? |
I'm tallying up another order to B&C as I build the bones of Z-13/8 and cam
e up with this question: -Will the B&C LR3C controller (which functions a
s a all-in-one regulator, over-voltage protection and low-voltage warning)
work with Z-13/8? -I ask because the tech sheet says the LR3C only works
with "Type B" alternator systems, which I think means the regulator sits be
tween the bus and the alternator. -Looking at Z-13/8, it appears as if it
is designed for a "Type A" alternator whereby the alternator output (the B
lead) gets sent directly to the bus. -It may be that I'm mixed up and th
ey are referring to need to have the field line run from the bus, thru the
regulator and then to the alternator. -Anyone successfully using the LR3C
controller with Z-13/8? -Comments, corrections and suggestions encourage
d...
Lincoln KeillRV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kind of off topic. Speed sensor needed. |
Hi Sam,
How about a Wii game console remote? These little remotes have a 3-axis
accelerometer, Bluetooth, and an IR camera all for the cost of about $40/ea.
They are durable and available at any Wal-Mart so replacements easy should they
ever get lost, damaged, etc.
There are several examples of interfacing these guys w/ PC's, also. In fact,
some scientific communities are using them instead of high dollar/special
purpose sensors:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/wiimote-science/
Some more example usage and some Wii remote specs:
http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/
More info on the remote can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Remote
What I was thinking was:
1) With the accelerometer, they can be accurately aimed straight up thus
ensuring that the distance between the two points is accurate regardless of the
height of the aircraft.
2) Provide a good IR source pointing up.
3) Place some reflective tape on the bottom of the aircraft in such a manner
that it won't affect the surface.
4) Do this on both ends of the runway, throw in some WiFi (to allow
communications and to synchronize the time) , some WiFi and Bluetooth enabled
laptops (Bluetooth dongles cost $20/ea), some programming (there are C, C# and
python libraries available for free), and I'd think you'd have a fairly
inexpensive setup assuming that equipment could be donated, borrowed, and/or
purchased as used.
Some testing would have to be done if a target could even be detected at 100'
AGL in strong daylight. Given that, everything else is doable.
One could go so far as to build dedicated enclosures using micro-ATX
motherboards with all the included components for very reasonable prices.
If you know of anybody with a Wii remote and a Linux based PC, have them look
into the "CWiid" package. It comes with a 'wmgui' demo program so that you, or
anybody else, can get a feel for how things work.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> Aeroelectric listers,
>
> We're looking for a bright idea. Preferably an inexpensive one.
>
> The Sport Air Racing League, http://www.sportairrace.org/ is trying to develop an accurate and reliable way to time the speed of an aircraft zooming down a runway, at 50 feet or so. They are
> looking for some kind of trigger that will start the clock at one end, and stop
it at the far end.
>
> We don't really want to erect pylons to fly through to break a beam, that would
be unwieldy. Some of the guys have looked at airborne systems, such as GPS
tracking, but it's not accurate
> enough.
>
> The SARL group is having a hard time coming up with something. Anybody have
any thoughts how we might accomplish this?
>
> Thanks for any ideas.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Race 22!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: will LR3C work with the Z-13/8? |
At 02:48 PM 12/18/2009, you wrote:
>I'm tallying up another order to B&C as I build the bones of Z-13/8
>and came up with this question: Will the B&C LR3C controller (which
>functions as a all-in-one regulator, over-voltage protection and
>low-voltage warning) work with Z-13/8?
Sure
> I ask because the tech sheet says the LR3C only works with "Type
> B" alternator systems, which I think means the regulator sits
> between the bus and the alternator. Looking at Z-13/8, it appears
> as if it is designed for a "Type A" alternator whereby the
> alternator output (the B lead) gets sent directly to the bus. It
> may be that I'm mixed up and they are referring to need to have the
> field line run from the bus, thru the regulator and then to the
> alternator. Anyone successfully using the LR3C controller with Z-13/8?
LR3 series regulators are designed to work with
any, wound field, externally regulated alternator
wherein one field brush is permanently connected
to ground (type B). See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/External_Regulator.jpg
Any B&C alternator other than permanent magnet
devices are type B. Virtually all alternators
on type certificated aircraft are type B.
Type A connection is found on INTERNALLY regulated
alternators and feature one field brush connected
to the alternator output or B-terminal are
conventionally called type A. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Internal_Regulator.jpg
This is the most popular convention for the vast
majority of automotive alternators.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net> |
Folks;
Looking for some help in locating an ammeter installation kit of some sort,
similar to B&C AEC9035-1 (discontinued). Ideally, it would have a current
sensor such as a Tamura L08P050D15 (50 amp or a little smaller) with the
required signal processing built in and come with an edgewise 50-0-50 (or
30-0-30) analog panel meter. I was surprised there was not something already
made up (or at least easier to find) as I would think there would be a
market for it. All help greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
-- Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
At 01:18 AM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>Folks;
>Looking for some help in locating an ammeter installation kit of
>some sort, similar to B&C AEC9035-1 (discontinued). Ideally, it
>would have a current sensor such as a Tamura L08P050D15 (50 amp or a
>little smaller) with the required signal processing built in and
>come with an edgewise 50-0-50 (or 30-0-30) analog panel meter. I was
>surprised there was not something already made up (or at least
>easier to find) as I would think there would be a market for it. All
>help greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>
>-- Keith
>
>
The AEC9035 was a proposed project that never
made it to the market. Too complex and too expensive
to build for the value delivered. Battery ammeters
are of limited utility and require a higher level
of understanding to be as useful as a simple LV
warning light and perhaps alternator load-meters.
In a system that's designed with attention to failure
mode effects analysis and complimented by (Plans-B
for critical failures), the ammeter offers no
useful data for operating the airplane. Its most
powerful function is as a diagnostics tool.
Hence, the market is small. We do offer a customized
kit for the installation of load meters on one
or dual alternator systems. These use the simple,
stable, accurate metallic shunts and simple, low
cost, pivot and jewel, d'Arsonval meters . . .
Emacs!
See:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9007/9007.html
This approach proved the most elegant for ruggedness,
stability of calibration and cost of ownership when
the builder desires a panel display of current.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help (oops . . . bad URL) |
At 01:18 AM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>Folks;
>Looking for some help in locating an ammeter installation kit of
>some sort, similar to B&C AEC9035-1 (discontinued). Ideally, it
>would have a current sensor such as a Tamura L08P050D15 (50 amp or a
>little smaller) with the required signal processing built in and
>come with an edgewise 50-0-50 (or 30-0-30) analog panel meter. I was
>surprised there was not something already made up (or at least
>easier to find) as I would think there would be a market for it. All
>help greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>
>-- Keith
>
The AEC9035 was a proposed project that never
made it to the market. Too complex and too expensive
to build for the value delivered. Battery ammeters
are of limited utility and require a higher level
of understanding to be as useful as a simple LV
warning light and perhaps alternator load-meters.
In a system that's designed with attention to failure
mode effects analysis and complimented by (Plans-B
for critical failures), the ammeter offers no
useful data for operating the airplane. Its most
powerful function is as a diagnostics tool.
Hence, the market is small. We do offer a customized
kit for the installation of load meters on one
or dual alternator systems. These use the simple,
stable, accurate metallic shunts and simple, low
cost, pivot and jewel, d'Arsonval meters . . .
Emacs!
See THE RIGHT LINKAGE here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/9007.html
This approach proved the most elegant for ruggedness,
stability of calibration and cost of ownership when
the builder desires a panel display of current.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 120 volt connectors |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi all,
i am making up a wiring harness for silicon pad heaters for my jab. 6
heaters at 50-100 watts each. i would like to use a connector for each pad
lead . any suggestions for a 120 volt set up like this?
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Wow. 2-minutes from plug-in to oil temps in the green, eh? 600 watts ought
to get you there!
I have been planning to use a computer power supply cord and cannibalized AC
chassis socket in the side of my cowl for this job, but have never gotten
around to it. Aversion to fiberglass work set in shortly after I got her
flying a decade ago ;-)
Bill Boyd RV-6A
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> i am making up a wiring harness for silicon pad heaters for my jab. 6
> heaters at 50-100 watts each. i would like to use a connector for each pad
> lead . any suggestions for a 120 volt set up like this?
> bob noffs
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
Keith,
This is a very tidy, versatile unit at an attractive price. Check out
the user manual.
http://www.aircraftdigital.com/DIGITAL_AMMETER.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
At 10:15 AM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>Wow. 2-minutes from plug-in to oil temps in the green, eh? 600
>watts ought to get you there!
>
>I have been planning to use a computer power supply cord and
>cannibalized AC chassis socket in the side of my cowl for this job,
>but have never gotten around to it. Aversion to fiberglass work set
>in shortly after I got her flying a decade ago ;-)
>
>Bill Boyd RV-6A
>
>On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, bob noffs
><icubob(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>hi all,
> i am making up a wiring harness for silicon pad heaters for my
> jab. 6 heaters at 50-100 watts each. i would like to use a
> connector for each pad lead . any suggestions for a 120 volt set up like this?
How about knife-splices with heat-shrink covers for
harness work under the cowl. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg
Bill's suggestion for a detachable line cord is sound.
You can salvage a recessed chassis mount male connector
from about any old piece of computing hardware. One
of my customers on 1K1 did the same thing. His heater
connector was accessible through the oil filler door
on top of the cowl.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
At 02:02 PM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>
>This is a very tidy, versatile unit at an attractive price. Check
>out the user manual.
>
><http://www.aircraftdigital.com/DIGITAL_AMMETER.html>http://www.aircraftdigital.com/DIGITAL_AMMETER.html
I've seen this (or similar) instruments used
as a loadmeter. You set it up to read a 100A
shunt (50mv = 100.0) and then size the shunt
to the full scale value of alternator. A little
label over the AMPS nomenclature to read LOAD
allows the single instrument to be switched to
multiple systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i guess my question wasn.t clear. i am concerned about what type of radio
shack connector will be acceptable for 120 volts where each heatpad lead
connects to the ''main'' lead. i would see the ''main lead'' wired into the
ac chassis socket.
bob noffs
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:15 AM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>
> Wow. 2-minutes from plug-in to oil temps in the green, eh? 600 watts ought
> to get you there!
>
> I have been planning to use a computer power supply cord and cannibalized
> AC chassis socket in the side of my cowl for this job, but have never gotten
> around to it. Aversion to fiberglass work set in shortly after I got her
> flying a decade ago ;-)
>
> Bill Boyd RV-6A
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> i am making up a wiring harness for silicon pad heaters for my jab. 6
> heaters at 50-100 watts each. i would like to use a connector for each pad
> lead . any suggestions for a 120 volt set up like this?
>
>
> How about knife-splices with heat-shrink covers for
> harness work under the cowl. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg
>
> Bill's suggestion for a detachable line cord is sound.
> You can salvage a recessed chassis mount male connector
> from about any old piece of computing hardware. One
> of my customers on 1K1 did the same thing. His heater
> connector was accessible through the oil filler door
> on top of the cowl.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | dual battery charging |
I have a dual battery system in my Glasair. Is there an easy way to charge both
battery simultaneously. I do have a Xconnect switch to connect both systems
if necessary. Could that be used to charge both batteries at the same time?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasairlll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
On 12/20/2009 3:41 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> i guess my question wasn.t clear. i am concerned about what type of
> radio shack connector will be acceptable for 120 volts where each
> heatpad lead connects to the ''main'' lead. i would see the ''main
> lead'' wired into the ac chassis socket.
> bob noffs
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 10:15 AM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>> Wow. 2-minutes from plug-in to oil temps in the green, eh? 600
>> watts ought to get you there!
>>
>> I have been planning to use a computer power supply cord and
>> cannibalized AC chassis socket in the side of my cowl for this
>> job, but have never gotten around to it. Aversion to fiberglass
>> work set in shortly after I got her flying a decade ago ;-)
>>
>> Bill Boyd RV-6A
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, bob noffs > > wrote:
>>
>> hi all,
>> i am making up a wiring harness for silicon pad heaters for
>> my jab. 6 heaters at 50-100 watts each. i would like to use a
>> connector for each pad lead . any suggestions for a 120 volt
>> set up like this?
>>
>
> How about knife-splices with heat-shrink covers for
> harness work under the cowl. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg
>
> Bill's suggestion for a detachable line cord is sound.
> You can salvage a recessed chassis mount male connector
> from about any old piece of computing hardware. One
> of my customers on 1K1 did the same thing. His heater
> connector was accessible through the oil filler door
> on top of the cowl.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Boy, it sure is hard to follow a conversation in RPN.... :-)
PIDG connectors (or solder) should be good if you weatherproof the
container where you join all the cables. If you want to plug in each
heater to a box, I'd think about salvaging some modern under-hood
automotive connectors for their moisture protection value. It's hard to
believe that 120 V would be a problem on any modern insulation.
A thought on the actual primary connector. It might be a good idea to
use a 'standard' chassis mount or pigtail AC connector (available online
or at any good electrical supply house) instead of a computer power
connector, if you ever expect to pre-heat away from home. That way, most
any extension cord should plug in. Unlikely that you would find a spare
computer cord at the airport in East Podunk.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual battery charging |
At 07:57 PM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>I have a dual battery system in my Glasair. Is there an easy way to
>charge both battery simultaneously. I do have a Xconnect switch to
>connect both systems if necessary. Could that be used to charge
>both batteries at the same time?
>Jim
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
and figure Z-30 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z29K_30K.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
At 03:41 PM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>i guess my question wasn.t clear. i am concerned about what type of
>radio shack connector will be acceptable for 120 volts where each
>heatpad lead connects to the ''main'' lead. i would see the ''main
>lead'' wired into the ac chassis socket.
"Acceptable" is a hard term to define. The concerns
for any wiring that carries a lot of voltage and
supplied from an energetic source (15A or better
breaker) is integrity of the connections. When
folks wire such devices in houses, they're either
spliced permanently and independently insulated
or semi-permanent connection (wire nut, screw clamp,
etc) inside a suitable enclosure.
The knife splices are as close as you can get to
permanent and still open the joints for maintenance.
Soldered splices under heat shrink would be the
most "acceptable" in terms of mechanical robustness.
If you're prepared to live with anything less, then
about any connector in the catalog will do.
Bob . . .
>\
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2009 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
The 2009 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of
weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. Its
the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible.
Their generous
contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running.
You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I also want to thank Bob, Jon, Andy, and John for their generous support through
the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great products and
I encourage you to visit their respective web sites:
Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - www.aeroelectric.com
Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - www.homebuilthelp.com
Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - www.buildersbooks.com
John Caldwell - HowToCrimp - www.howtocrimp.com
And finally, I'm proud to present The 2009 Fund Raiser List of Contributors:
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2009.html
Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi all,
thanks for all the ideas. i think i will go with the computer receptacle
and knife splices. i would only need the knife splices if a heat pad fails
and i can carry the computer cord in the airplane.
bob noffs
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> At 03:41 PM 12/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>> i guess my question wasn.t clear. i am concerned about what type of radio
>> shack connector will be acceptable for 120 volts where each heatpad lead
>> connects to the ''main'' lead. i would see the ''main lead'' wired into the
>> ac chassis socket.
>>
>
> "Acceptable" is a hard term to define. The concerns
> for any wiring that carries a lot of voltage and
> supplied from an energetic source (15A or better
> breaker) is integrity of the connections. When
> folks wire such devices in houses, they're either
> spliced permanently and independently insulated
> or semi-permanent connection (wire nut, screw clamp,
> etc) inside a suitable enclosure.
>
> The knife splices are as close as you can get to
> permanent and still open the joints for maintenance.
> Soldered splices under heat shrink would be the
> most "acceptable" in terms of mechanical robustness.
>
> If you're prepared to live with anything less, then
> about any connector in the catalog will do.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> \
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
I came across a great inline battery fuse that simplified my life a lot- see
the picture.
I found it at our local RS Components store (part number 337-7921 for the
75A version). Search www.rssouthafrica.com <http://www.rssouthafrica.com/>
using the part number to see more. I'm sure that you will be able to find
similar things elsewhere.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
Jay,
Nice looking product. Many auto manufacturers use a similar approach
with a cheaper fuse link or glass fuse (old jobs). Do they have one for
a 10mm bolt?
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
Hyde
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: In-line Battery Fuse; great find
I came across a great inline battery fuse that simplified my life a lot-
see the picture.
I found it at our local RS Components store (part number 337-7921 for
the 75A version). Search www.rssouthafrica.com
<http://www.rssouthafrica.com/> using the part number to see more. I'm
sure that you will be able to find similar things elsewhere.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
With the cold weather, I see great interest in homemade 120 VAC powered pre-heat
systems for our aircraft. A truly wonderful and very inexpensive device was
developed quite some time ago that can easily save you life; the Ground Fault
Circuit Interrupter. Fuses and circuit breakers do absolutely NOTHING to protect
you; they are sized to protect wiring and equipment. One tenth of one amp
(0.1 amp) can quite easily kill a healthy adult (I am not kidding). If you
are planning to drag extension cords through the snow, you definitely need GFCI
protection.
Since they sense differential current, GFCIs offer protection even when operating
off of old style 2-wire (ungrounded) circuits. You can buy a plug-in GFCI
for use at the airport or even better, make your own extension cord by mounting
a normal GFCI into a steel electrical box along with a heavy 3-wire appliance
cord and use it for ALL your power tools. This setup wont protect if you are
dumb enough to put your fingers across hot and neutral, but works extremely
well if you touch something electrically hot and your body happens to be even
slightly grounded (through dampness or touching grounded metal) or are using that
old metal housing portable electric drill you found in the trash with frayed
insulation and with the grounding prong clipped off.
Seriously, always power your 120 VAC tools through a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter
protected circuit. Also, before you use that homemade pre-heat setup in
the snow, please remember these four letters: GFCI. We are having too much
fun. It could save your life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278441#278441
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
| From: | Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Since a GCFI protects everything downstream of it, why would you not simply
install one in place of the hangar receptacle and use a regular extension
cord?
Rick Girard
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM, racerjerry wrote:
> gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> With the cold weather, I see great interest in homemade 120 VAC powered
> pre-heat systems for our aircraft. A truly wonderful and very inexpensiv
e
> device was developed quite some time ago that can easily save you life; t
he
> Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter. Fuses and circuit breakers do absolute
ly
> NOTHING to protect you; they are sized to protect wiring and equipment.
One
> tenth of one amp (0.1 amp) can quite easily kill a healthy adult (I am no
t
> kidding). If you are planning to drag extension cords through the snow,
you
> definitely need GFCI protection.
>
> Since they sense differential current, GFCI=92s offer protection even whe
n
> operating off of old style 2-wire (ungrounded) circuits. You can buy a
> plug-in GFCI for use at the airport or even better, make your own extensi
on
> cord by mounting a normal GFCI into a steel electrical box along with a
> heavy 3-wire appliance cord and use it for ALL your power tools. This se
tup
> won=92t protect if you are dumb enough to put your fingers across hot and
> neutral, but works extremely well if you touch something electrically hot
> and your body happens to be even slightly grounded (through dampness or
> touching grounded metal) or are using that old metal housing portable
> electric drill you found in the trash with frayed insulation and with the
> grounding prong clipped off.
>
> Seriously, always power your 120 VAC tools through a Ground Fault Circuit
> Interrupter protected circuit. Also, before you use that homemade pre-he
at
> setup in the snow, please remember these four letters: GFCI. We are havi
ng
> too much fun. It could save your life.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278441#278441
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 120 volt connectors |
At 06:13 AM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
>hi all,
> thanks for all the ideas. i think i will go with the computer
> receptacle and knife splices. i would only need the knife splices
> if a heat pad fails and i can carry the computer cord in the airplane.
If you can, see what the Tannis folks do about wiring
up heaters on TC aircraft. Have the "computer"
cord receptacle face downward in the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
At 06:25 AM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
>I came across a great inline battery fuse that simplified my life a
>lot- see the picture.
>
>I found it at our local RS Components store (part number 337-7921
>for the 75A version). Search
><http://www.rssouthafrica.com/>www.rssouthafrica.com using the part
>number to see more. I'm sure that you will be able to find similar
>things elsewhere.
In what applications have you found this
product to be useful?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Quote: "Since a GCFI protects everything downstream of it, why would you not simply
install one in place of the hangar receptacle and use a regular extension
cord?
Rick Girard "
I strongly agree; replacement of the wall outlet with a standard GFCI is ABSOLUTELY
THE PREFERRED METHOD! BUT, if you have to use someone else's facility, or
are temporarily operating off of a power pole, a portable GFCI setup is a viable
alternative. Also, use an inexpensive plug-in polarity checker to check
for reversed wiring.
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278451#278451
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
Just a thought, but you may not own the hangar or have rights to change
stuff? You may be parked outside and dragging a 50ft extension from the
nearest plug while standing in melting snow?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
racerjerry
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS
Quote: "Since a GCFI protects everything downstream of it, why would you
not simply install one in place of the hangar receptacle and use a
regular extension cord?
Rick Girard "
I strongly agree; replacement of the wall outlet with a standard GFCI is
ABSOLUTELY THE PREFERRED METHOD! BUT, if you have to use someone else's
facility, or are temporarily operating off of a power pole, a portable
GFCI setup is a viable alternative. Also, use an inexpensive plug-in
polarity checker to check for reversed wiring.
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278451#278451
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
Doesn't look like it- but perhaps you can make an extension from your
battery post to go down to an 8mm hole as I described in my other mail.
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: 21 December 2009 05:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: In-line Battery Fuse; great find
Jay,
Nice looking product. Many auto manufacturers use a similar approach with a
cheaper fuse link or glass fuse (old jobs). Do they have one for a 10mm
bolt?
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: In-line Battery Fuse; great find
I came across a great inline battery fuse that simplified my life a lot- see
the picture.
I found it at our local RS Components store (part number 337-7921 for the
75A version). Search www.rssouthafrica.com <http://www.rssouthafrica.com/>
using the part number to see more. I'm sure that you will be able to find
similar things elsewhere.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
I used it to protect a long fat wire from my aux/ 2nd battery which is
located at the back of the aircraft. I had quite a small space to work
in
and hadn't thought about protecting the wire in the first place, but
realized that I needed to put some form of protection in. Whilst
searching
for a local ANL type device I came across this and realized that I
wouldn't
need to add the ANL base; since there wasn't much space to work in that
was
a great relief.
The picture that I added isn't completely clear- the device itself is
just
the white/cream coloured box with a clear top that is between the lug
and
the battery terminal. My battery terminals are flat but the holes in
them
are too small for an 8mm bolt so I added a copper extension with an 8mm
hole
to bolt the fuse to. I also had to make an insulating washer to
insulate
the nut as I had not ordered the insulating nut that is shown in the
picture.
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 21 December 2009 06:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: In-line Battery Fuse; great find
At 06:25 AM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
I came across a great inline battery fuse that simplified my life a lot-
see
the picture.
I found it at our local RS Components store (part number 337-7921 for
the
75A version). Search www.rssouthafrica.com
<http://www.rssouthafrica.com/>
using the part number to see more. I=12m sure that you will be able to
find
similar things elsewhere.
In what applications have you found this
product to be useful?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i agree with the importance of a gfi. my experience with the gfi
weatherproof receptacle for plugging my car block heaters in [20 below f is
common here] was that they were always tripping. i removed them and put in
gfi circuit breakers in my circuit breaker panel. reliability went way up.
yes, they are installed correctly in my panel.
bob noffs
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
>
> Just a thought, but you may not own the hangar or have rights to change
> stuff? You may be parked outside and dragging a 50ft extension from the
> nearest plug while standing in melting snow?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> racerjerry
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:52 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS
>
>
>
> Quote: "Since a GCFI protects everything downstream of it, why would you
> not simply install one in place of the hangar receptacle and use a
> regular extension cord?
>
> Rick Girard "
>
> I strongly agree; replacement of the wall outlet with a standard GFCI is
> ABSOLUTELY THE PREFERRED METHOD! BUT, if you have to use someone else's
> facility, or are temporarily operating off of a power pole, a portable
> GFCI setup is a viable alternative. Also, use an inexpensive plug-in
> polarity checker to check for reversed wiring.
>
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278451#278451
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
At 11:35 AM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
>I used it to protect a long fat wire from my aux/ 2nd battery which
>is located at the back of the aircraft. I had quite a small space
>to work in and hadn't thought about protecting the wire in the first
>place, but realized that I needed to put some form of protection
>in. Whilst searching for a local ANL type device I came across this
>and realized that I wouldn't need to add the ANL base; since there
>wasn't much space to work in that was a great relief.
Hmmmm . . . conventional wisdom in TC aircraft calls
for no single always-hot wire to be protected at more
than 5A (breakered) from which I extrapolated 7A (fused).
FAT feeders from a battery normally call for at least
a mini-contactor like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf
"If the bus isn't at the battery, it's not a battery bus"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | duracell battery leak |
Listers,
Just another data point. I had a Duracell AA battery sitting in a
battery holder on a shelf and I just looked at and the bottom had leaked
while it was sitting in the holder. This has been stored at room temp
and was slightly used but showed good on the little built in tester when
I put it in the holder.
Raymond Julian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS |
I wired my hangar a couple of years ago, running the wire through conduct.
I decided to use a common neutral wire between the two 120 volt phases to
reduce the size of the wire to be run through the conduct and to have two
separate circuits.
Well, the wiring worked fine. However, I decided to install GFCI circuit
breakers in the electric box to provide some protection. To make a long
story short, I discovered that some GFCI circuit breakers will not work
wired to a common neutral. I was attempting to use one plug on the socket
to carry one 120 volt circuit and the other plug to carry the other 120 volt
circuit and the common neutral. Just did not work and I finally found in
very fine print on the carton that this particular GFCI simply would not
work with my set up.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob noffs
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS
i agree with the importance of a gfi. my experience with the gfi
weatherproof receptacle for plugging my car block heaters in [20 below f is
common here] was that they were always tripping. i removed them and put in
gfi circuit breakers in my circuit breaker panel. reliability went way up.
yes, they are installed correctly in my panel.
bob noffs
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
Just a thought, but you may not own the hangar or have rights to change
stuff? You may be parked outside and dragging a 50ft extension from the
nearest plug while standing in melting snow?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
racerjerry
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GFCI and PRE-HEATERS
Quote: "Since a GCFI protects everything downstream of it, why would you
not simply install one in place of the hangar receptacle and use a
regular extension cord?
Rick Girard "
I strongly agree; replacement of the wall outlet with a standard GFCI is
ABSOLUTELY THE PREFERRED METHOD! BUT, if you have to use someone else's
facility, or are temporarily operating off of a power pole, a portable
GFCI setup is a viable alternative. Also, use an inexpensive plug-in
polarity checker to check for reversed wiring.
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278451#278451
-= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
omebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-Matt Dralle, Li - The AeroElectric-List
Email Forum -
:
oElectric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl==================
http://forums.m===========
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
Month --
Gifts!)
Raiser. Click on
out more about
Gifts provided
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 12:55 PM 12/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a
>device. I was initially puzzled how little technical stuff there
>was, but then I remembered that NASA worked on, published and
>licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!).
>
>Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser
>NASA" and you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives
>or patents around 1980.
>
>The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change
>the power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power
>factor correction and I can assure you saving money is possible.
>This works only on inductive loads as far as I remember.
>
>The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes
>to pay off the device varies.
THAT IS the big question. Given that improvements
in performance are achieved by improvements in
I-squared*R losses, then savings to be realized
are a function of just how "bad" the "bad" system is.
Most household motor loads tend to be small and
intermittent. Further, these loads have enjoyed
incremental improvements in efficiency over the
years. Bottom line is that if ALL the badness of
a stock system can be compensated for, the savings
are NOT going to be more than a few percent and
that's for devices which contribute to overall
"badness". If these loads are intermittent,
then the savings is multiplied by some duty
cycle that is less than 1.0.
Bottom line is, don't pay much for any such device
without having solid measurements that predict
improvements with an acceptable return on investment.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/3pbopt
P.S. Just because NASA did it does not make it
"golden" . . .
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
Folks;
Thanks to all who replied-all of it useful. However, I need an explanation,
most likely from Bob regarding ammeters.
Bob, I recently purchased rev 12 of the Connection. Page 4-9, last paragraph
says: A zero center, battery ammeter is the most desirable and should be
the first electrical system instrument you install.
Again, on page 7-12, last paragraph, you state: if you plan only one
electrical system instrument, make it a battery ammeter..
With the above being in your book and presumably vetted by yourself, I
became confused when I read in your response to my original post, the
following: Battery ammeters are of limited utility and again the
ammeter offers no useful data for operating the airplane
I need to ask did I completely misinterpret the book? I have Rev 12, which
I am led to believe is the most current (no pun intended), or has your mind
changed substantially since 12 was published? If that is the case, would you
be willing to expound and elucidate on the subject of the necessity of
ammeters in the cockpit? Thanks in advance.
* Keith
* PS The book is great. I did not become aware of it until I attended
an EAA SportAir class where it was highly recommended.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
Good point- I have a problem with the aircraft architecture though; the
kit
manufacturers don't tell you where you can drill holes into structural
members so I had to go around them and through different members. I
didn't
want to drill too many holes or stuff a lot of thinner wires into a
small
hole so I decided to run one fat wire that is well protected, both
electrically and mechanically (much easier to do with one fat wire than
many
thin ones) up to the front.
In this instance the battery bus is not a battery bus as defined, but I
have
been able to get a second battery in at the back of the aircraft without
making too many holes in important places.
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 21 December 2009 09:46 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: In-line Battery Fuse; great find
At 11:35 AM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
I used it to protect a long fat wire from my aux/ 2nd battery which is
located at the back of the aircraft. I had quite a small space to work
in
and hadn=12t thought about protecting the wire in the first place, but
realized that I needed to put some form of protection in. Whilst
searching
for a local ANL type device I came across this and realized that I
wouldn=12t
need to add the ANL base; since there wasn=12t much space to work in
that was
a great relief.
Hmmmm . . . conventional wisdom in TC aircraft calls
for no single always-hot wire to be protected at more
than 5A (breakered) from which I extrapolated 7A (fused).
FAT feeders from a battery normally call for at least
a mini-contactor like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf
"If the bus isn't at the battery, it's not a battery bus"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: duracell battery leak |
Question, can any one correlate the time frame when the Duracell's
began leaking more frequently. Since Gillette acquired them, Proctor
and Gamble has since acquired Gillette. One other thing, is there
any correlation to their leaking since product had been released the
Duracell as Ultra product and CopperTop. Sure would like to see them
get a handle on the problem and make them like they used to - you
could trust them not to leak in ones expensive toys like test
equipment, cameras, etc. By the way according to their customer
service department I was told if you should have one of their
alkaline batteries leak, use vinegar to clean to the terminals and
battery compartment area as alkaline is a base and is neutralized by
the acid in the vinegar.
jerb
At 03:20 PM 12/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>Listers,
>
> Just another data point. I had a Duracell AA battery sitting in a
>battery holder on a shelf and I just looked at and the bottom had leaked
>while it was sitting in the holder. This has been stored at room temp
>and was slightly used but showed good on the little built in tester when
>I put it in the holder.
>
>Raymond Julian
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
At 01:21 AM 12/22/2009, you wrote:
Folks;
Thanks to all who replied-all of it useful.
However, I need an explanation, most likely from Bob regarding ammeters.
Bob, I recently purchased rev 12 of the
Connection. Page 4-9, last paragraph says: A
zero center, battery ammeter is the most
desirable and should be the first electrical system instrument you install.
Again, on page 7-12, last paragraph, you state:
if you plan only one electrical system
instrument, make it a battery ammeter..
With the above being in your book and presumably
vetted by yourself, I became confused when I read
in your response to my original post, the
following: Battery ammeters are of limited
utility and again the ammeter offers no
useful data for operating the airplane
I need to ask did I completely misinterpret the
book? I have Rev 12, which I am led to believe is
the most current (no pun intended), or has your
mind changed substantially since 12 was
published? If that is the case, would you be
willing to expound and elucidate on the subject
of the necessity of ammeters in the cockpit? Thanks in advance.
Keith
PS The book is great. I did not become aware of
it until I attended an EAA SportAir class where it was highly recommended.
Aha! You read the book! I'm pleased that you've
not only noted this 'disconnect' but that you brought
it to the attention of the List . . . Oh yes, thank
you for the kind words. I'm pleased that you found the
work useful.
The chapter on instrumentation is one of the oldest
in the book . . . and is seriously in need of updating.
An explanation of what I've written (both times)
is in order.
Many, many moons ago, folks who where bolting the
first generators, batteries and rudimentary mobile
electro-whizzies to cars. They no doubt pondered the
best way to tell the operator of the automobile that
things were going well in the production, storage
and utilization of electrical energy.
If you had an opportunity to fill one hole on
the instrument panel with a electrical system
monitoring instrument in 1915, what would your
choice be? A voltmeter would be cool. 7 volts
or more with the engine running and all electro-
whizzies turned on would be a comforting thing
to know. But you could still have a soggy
battery. Hmmmm . . . well, we DO load test the
battery every time the car is started . . . but
then, there's not much advance warning of battery
aging . . .
Alternatives to voltmeters were ammeters . . .
simpler, much more rugged than voltmeters, but
where to install it? As it turns out, placing
a -0+ ammeter in series with the battery charge/
discharge line showed promise. If the ammeter
reads zero, then the battery is 'happy' (or
everything is turned off!). By 'happy' we mean that
bus voltage is high enough to keep the battery
from being discharged . . . and the battery has
taken on all the charge it can . . . AT THAT
PARTICULAR bus voltage. Hmmm . . . assuming that
the regulator's set-point is where it belongs
then the battery-ammeter's interpretation is
simple and accurate.
Now, you not only have a means by which day-to-
day wellness of the system can be watched,
you can compare today's ammeter actions after
engine-start with those you observed a month
ago . . . oh yeah, you DO take note of such
things while conducting a 3-page check-list,
right?
The battery ammeter was a useful and probably
the most practical thing you could do for a
machine that never leaves the ground.
But I'd bet not one driving citizen in 1000
understood and could accurately interpret what
the ammeter was telling them. I recall an
episode in my teenaged years where my favorite
mechanic was talking with a customer who just
drove up to complain that his battery "wasn't
charging". He had tried many times to explain
to the man that the battery would 'charge' only
when it needed to . . . and all other times
the ammeter should and would read zero.
So, in the context of my life-experiences
up to the time I wrote that chapter, yeah,
the battery ammeter was a pretty informative
device. Indeed, virtually all single engine
Cessna's sported this as the only electrical
system instrument for decades. In fact,
those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
have decreed:
FAR 23.1351(d) Instruments. A means must exist to indicate to
appropriate flight crewmembers the electric power system
quantities essential for safe operation.
(1) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with direct
current systems, an ammeter that can be switched into each generator feeder
may be used and, if only one generator exists, the ammeter may be in the
battery feeder.
(2) For commuter category airplanes, the essential electric power system
quantities include the voltage and current supplied by each generator.
Charles Kettering would probably be pleased that
his ideas from 1912 were adopted as policy by an
agency of government. Problem is that while battery
ammeters are capable of displaying some important
information about electrical system function, they
have serious drawbacks. (1) the folks looking
at the instrument need to understand what the readings
mean based on some 'empathy' with how various components in
the system are behaving and (2) they're not easily
implemented in the Z-figures using SHUNTS because
we'd like NOT to bring alternator b-leads into the
cockpit if we can avoid it. Furhter, we don't want
to run starter current through a shunt that is
trying to resolve readings down 1 or 2 amps on
a 2" instrument.
20 years later . . .
In our collective deliberations as designers,
fabricators, operators and maintainers of our
own airplanes we've adopted policy and practice
that MONITORS battery condition for the purpose of
meeting design goals for a lot more than 30 minutes
of battery-only endurance. It's unlikely that
even the most attentive pilot is able to resolve
a 20% drop in battery capacity by observing the
behaviors of a battery ammeter.
Further, accurate voltmeters are much easier
to come by compared to Uncle Charles' time. Shucks,
about everyone with a digital display throws a
voltmeter in just for grins. Regulator set-points
have become much more stable too. So as it turns
out now, the single most valuable electrical system
instrumentation today is a simple low voltage warning
light that says "Hey Zeek! . . . you're in battery-only
ops. Time to go to plan-B!".
Assuming your plan-B is well crafted and MAINTAINED,
you may confidently continue flight to airport of
intended destination without breaking a sweat.
This confidence comes with a price of admission.
You need to understand how all those things in your
airplane's electrical system work. What demands they
have for electrical power and what utility they
offer or comfortable termination of flight. You
then take it upon yourself to make sure those demands
are satisfied if and when the alternator quits. Even
with Z-13/8, you have greater ability or power electro-
whizzies if the big dog goes to sleep . . . but it
is STILL LIMITED.
The short answer is: The battery ammeter as a single
display of electrical system functionality can be and
has been quite useful for nearly 100 years. I
suggest that present day goals and expectations
for system performance would raise the eyebrows if
not elicit guffaws from our brethren who thought
their 1965 C-182 was the greatest thing on wings.
So without trashing what generators, flooded batteries,
venturi powered t/b, and yes . . . battery ammeters
offered us in the past . . . I'll suggest it's time to set
them aside in favor of more efficient and certainly more
capable recipes for success.
If your chunk of panel-glass comes with a hall-effect
sensor, you can certainly count the flow of electrons
in any wire you wish . . . including a battery cable.
No matter where you decide to install it, know that
the readings it offers are useful only if the observer
understands WHY they say what they do. The same observer
must be capable of sorting through the permutations that
resolve a sense of electrical system health. I.e.,
the ammeter is first a DIAGNOSTIC tool and a second a
poor warning tool. That little flashing LV WARNING
light is the elegant tool for flight operations.
Revision 13 to the book will have a whole new chapter
on monitoring the health of the electrical system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | In-line Battery Fuse; great find |
At 01:35 AM 12/22/2009, you wrote:
>Good point- I have a problem with the aircraft architecture though;
>the kit manufacturers don't tell you where you can drill holes into
>structural members so I had to go around them and through different
>members. I didn't want to drill too many holes or stuff a lot of
>thinner wires into a small hole so I decided to run one fat wire
>that is well protected, both electrically and mechanically (much
>easier to do with one fat wire than many thin ones) up to the front.
>
>In this instance the battery bus is not a battery bus as defined,
>but I have been able to get a second battery in at the back of the
>aircraft without making too many holes in important places.
>
>Jay
Then as an auxiliary battery with all feeders capable
of delivering hazardous levels of energy in a crash,
then incorporation of a battery contactor at the battery
is indicated.
I think I mentioned some years back an anecdote offered
by a good friend and colleague at Beech. Before joining
the electrical design group he spent a number of years
digging around in smoking holes. He noted once
at lunch that every crash he investigated when the
airplane didn't burn, the ship's battery was most likely
found tossed out somewhere into the woods. If the airplane
burned, the battery was most likely located in the
wreckage.
If you're not planning on an system for ejecting the
battery(ies) when on short final to the rocks, then
having a short-coupled battery contactor and/or minimally
fused battery busses is the next best thing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter help |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Keith,
The most important electrical instrument is the voltmeter. If the voltage is
above 14, then you know that the alternator is working and that the battery
is being charged. If the voltage is below 14 and is slowly dropping, then the
alternator is not working. Having a voltmeter or other low voltage warning is
essential. An ammeter is optional.
The location of the current shunt or sensor is a matter of personal preference.
The ammeter that you are considering, 30-0-30, measures current going into
or out of the battery. Current should usually only flow into the battery (above
zero indication) except when the engine is off or perhaps when short term
heavy loads are turned on, such as motors. The information provided by this
type of ammeter is not very useful because the voltmeter already tells if the
battery is being charged or not.
Another possible location for the current shunt is in the alternator B lead.
Current in the B lead only flows in one direction, so the meter would not have
a below-zero scale. Since the alternator normally supplies current to the aircraft
(not the battery), knowing this current is useful because you know that
the alternator is working; and you also know how much total current the aircraft
is using for charging the battery and operating the electrical equipment.
Once the battery is fully charged, not much current flows into it. Then the
ammeter indicates current being used by other electrical loads. If the alternator
fails, the ammeter will read zero and you will not know how much current
the aircraft is draining from the battery.
A third possible location for the ammeter shunt is in the wire supplying power
to the Main Power Distribution Bus. The meter would not have a below-zero
scale. In this location the ammeter will tell you exactly how much current is
being used by your electrical equipment. You could turn on one device at a time
to determine its current consumption. Wired like this, the ammeter will not
tell you if the current is coming from the battery or from the alternator (but
the voltmeter will).
It is up to the builder to decide if an ammeter is useful and if so, then where
in the circuit to install it.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=278585#278585
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Ammeter Help |
Keith thanks for bringing this up.
I was going to install an ammeter in my bird until this subject arose
and and I really started thinking about what useful info the meter would
provide.
I'm building an all electric plane and thought it would be useful to
have an ammeter on board to aid in alternator-out conditions. I intend
to conduct battery capacity tests, at my full E-bus load, between
annuals so that, with an ammeter indicating load on the battery(s), I
would have a reasonable idea of my electrical endurance during alt-out.
My first inclination would be to land at the first opportunity. But I
might choose a more convenient airport further away if I knew my
battery(s) would last with a margin.
I suppose that a voltmeter might be more useful because I know at what
voltage critical components become inop. Electronic ignition will work
down to 7 volts, but at a cost in amps. Ditto electronic fuel injection
with an even heavier amp load to drive injectors. Haven't tested my fuel
pumps but I suspect the motor would be an amp hog as well at low volts.
So with the knowledge of battery ampacity from semi-annual tests and a
knowledge of my full E-bus load, I would have a ballpark of my
electrical endurance during alt-out and the rate at which the voltmeter
was dropping would be a cross check.
OK! I now think that a voltmeter is more useful for determining
electrical endurance than an ammeter that just tells me my burn rate,
which I already know from system architecture calcs. An ammeter is
similar to a fuel flow meter. Knowing how much fuel you're burning is
not particularly useful without knowing how much fuel you have. If you
can see your fuel level, you can change throttle settings accordingly.
Ditto on electricity.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor Failure |
Bob,
Sorry to be so long in responding.
Very interesting analysis.
I will follow your advice.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
At 08:46 AM 12/2/2009, you wrote:
The continuous duty contactor I have installed is temporary. I will
replace it with an intermittent duty one.
I installed the Skytec starter as it arrived from the manufacturer -
that is, with the jumper from the contactor's control line to the
main terminal installed. I left the jumper installed because Skytec
recommend it - see
http://www.skytecair.com/images/Certified%20LS%20Wiring_1100.jpg. My
error, of course, was that I left out what they call the master solenoid.
I'm just guessing . . . but this configuration was probably
crafted to MINIMIZE changes to an existing system in a TC
aircraft. Adding the jumper to the starter contactor (a
technique adopted by B&C many years earlier) offers three
advantages. (1) you get a drop-in replacement of a previously
installed starter and (2) buffers existing ship's wiring from
experiencing the extra-ordinary inrush offered by the two-stage
solenoids as described in my article and (3) the PM motor inrush
current doesn't hit the system until BOTH the standard starter
and built-in contactors close. Since the standard contactor
closes first, there's a potential for improving life of this
contactor IF it's contacts are closed and stable when the
second set of contacts on the starter get closed a few milliseconds
later. The DOWNSIDE is the potential for suffering delayed
pinion dis-engagement.
This is Van's recommended wiring
http://www.skytecair.com/images/Van's%20Starter%20Wiring%20Lg.jpg,
but Skytec recommends against wiring this way.
This is pretty slick. The diagram suggests using the auxiliary
"I" (ignition boost) terminal available on most starter
contactors to close the starter-mounted contactor . . . again
with the idea of shifting motor inrush currents to the
starter's internal contactor. It has the advantage of breaking
the internal contactor's coil current when the external starter
contactor opens. This accomplishes the same goals as Z-22
but with an external STARTER CONTACTOR as opposed to an external
BUFFER RELAY.
Bob, are you implying that I should have removed the jumper wire from
the starter?
Not implying, recommending . . . based on what we learned
about (1) delayed disengagement and (2) higher stresses
on starter control contactor with substitution of PM
motor technology. If you already have an external contactor
installed (a la Van's suggestion) then making a simple change
to remove the jumper and wire the internal contactor control
terminal to the external contactor "I" terminal would be
a good move.
Van's drawing or Z-22 is the elegant solution for new design
in an OBAM aircraft. Skytec's drawing is the less than elegant
solution for minimizing changes to a TC aircraft when replacing
original starter called out on the ship's certification documents.
The way you had it wired ORIGINALLY wasn't all that hard on
the external contactor . . . assuming that it's contacts were
closed and stable before the internal contactor gets closed.
I've not had an opportunity to measure it but I suspect this
is the case. THEREFORE, I'm comfortable with suggesting that
your original sticking failure was probably an isolated case
and not indicative of a system design error. ADDING the battery
master contactor in series with cranking currents is the
firewall against a future repeat causing you to burn a battery
or starter.
Adding the wire to conform to Van's suggested configuration
would be a good move to take care of the potential for delayed
disengagement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Ammeter Help |
At 06:50 PM 12/22/2009, you wrote:
>Keith thanks for bringing this up.
>
>I was going to install an ammeter in my bird until this subject
>arose and and I really started thinking about what useful info the
>meter would provide.
>
>I'm building an all electric plane and thought it would be useful to
>have an ammeter on board to aid in alternator-out conditions. I
>intend to conduct battery capacity tests, at my full E-bus load,
>between annuals so that, with an ammeter indicating load on the
>battery(s), I would have a reasonable idea of my electrical
>endurance during alt-out. My first inclination would be to land at
>the first opportunity. But I might choose a more convenient airport
>further away if I knew my battery(s) would last with a margin.
Which is the basis for crafting Plan-B. When the
LV warning light comes on, it seems more useful to
KNOW in advance what equipment items you plan to
run. It's equally useful to KNOW in advance that
the battery was recently determined to contain
the energy YOU have set down in design goals
for YOUR plan B . . . of course this would include
any margins that contribute to your confidence
levels.
>
>I suppose that a voltmeter might be more useful because I know at
>what voltage critical components become inop. Electronic ignition
>will work down to 7 volts, but at a cost in amps. Ditto electronic
>fuel injection with an even heavier amp load to drive injectors.
>Haven't tested my fuel pumps but I suspect the motor would be an amp
>hog as well at low volts.
If you have an electrically dependent engine then
perhaps your plans should include a second alternator
capable of supporting the engine . . .
>
>So with the knowledge of battery ampacity from semi-annual tests and
>a knowledge of my full E-bus load, I would have a ballpark of my
>electrical endurance during alt-out and the rate at which the
>voltmeter was dropping would be a cross check.
It's inarguable that a voltmeter COULD be used to
assist you in worrying about what ever energy remains
in the battery. I'll simply suggest this is something
akin having discovered that you may not have accurately
accounted for fuel necessary to make the leg . . .
whereupon cursing those lousy fuel gages becomes a
distraction to your piloting duties.
Watching the voltmeter with an alternator dead
is no less a distraction . . .
>
>OK! I now think that a voltmeter is more useful for determining
>electrical endurance than an ammeter that just tells me my burn
>rate, which I already know from system architecture calcs. An
>ammeter is similar to a fuel flow meter. Knowing how much fuel
>you're burning is not particularly useful without knowing how much
>fuel you have. If you can see your fuel level, you can change
>throttle settings accordingly. Ditto on electricity.
Well considered. May I further suggest that you
are best served by having a well crafted Plan-B
paired with a confidence that your well maintained
equipment will perform as designed?
So, when the light comes on, you need only
configure for plan-B ops and arrange to be on the
ground within parameters set by your well
considered and accurately achieved design goals.
Once on the ground, you'll discover that troubleshooting
the system requires voltmeters and/or ammeters
to supplement any such indicators that already
exist on the panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: duracell battery leak |
I had a 3 cell Mag Light with Duracells in it. Following the marketing
hype I always thought they were the best so I bought them in large
packages. Being a plumber I used it on a fairly regular basis and I
noticed that I had to bump it sometimes to make it turn on. One day
when it wouldn't turn on at all so I pulled the cap and found that the
batteries had leaked inside and corroded the whole interior which made
them impossible to remove. I ended up having the throw it in the bin.
No, I didn't leave it on or leave it stored with dead batteries. This
wasn't the first time I had an experience with leaking Duracells.
Having heard about this previously I decided at that moment that the
best fix for me was to discontinue all use of Duracells and let others
know of my problem with them. If enough folks stop using them they'll
soon fix the problem...in the form of "new and improved ultra..."
Deke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Ammeter Help |
" If you have an electrically dependent engine then
perhaps your plans should include a second alternator
capable of supporting the engine . . ."I'm working on it. The
available vacumn pad on my Franklin turns at about 0.8:1 so the B&C 20
amp aux alternator won't put out enough juice below 2400 eng rpm to keep
my E-bus alive. The B&C "stack 'o pancakes" 30 amp model for
Continentals has some promise of fitting in a fuel pump drive hole on
the accessory case.Even without a spare alternator, I'm VFR comfortable
with the triple redundancy of an alternator and two batteriesto keep the
fires lit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Ammeter Help |
>Even without a spare alternator, I'm VFR comfortable with the triple
>redundancy of an alternator and two batteries
>
>to keep the fires lit.
Understand . . . let's strive to base your 'comfort'
on knowing as much about watt-seconds in the batteries
as you have gallons in the tanks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: duracell battery leak |
A few years ago I did a study of variability in various
brands of alkaline batteries. I concluded from the study
that there is no extra value to be realized for the
purchase of batteries that have high-dollar advertising
budgets. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
I suspect that any brand and any size of alkaline cell
is capable of leaking under some conditions. Further,
given today's business environment for farming out
the production about any kind of product, there's
not much you can hang a hat on for stating that
brand D's demonstrable leakage problems will go away
if one moves their loyalty to brand E.
If you dig around in my alkaline cell stock that
ranges from AAAA to D cells, you'll find a host of
different brands. I've not suffered a severe battery
leakage event in so long I don't recall the last time.
At the same time, we go through batteries pretty
quickly. No cell sits around in a seldom used
device.
The fact that some of us here on the
list have suffered a leakage event with a particular
brand is not a definitive study of the propensity
of that brand for failure. If say 90% of all cells
presently occupying the battery box of our favorite
accessories are Duracells . . . it's axiomatic that
the propensity of any failures will be in Duracells.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Was Ammeter Help- Now about switches |
Bob,
Now you've got me thinking Z-14. If I go with another alternator, I'm
one contactor away from Z-14.
One thing that is vexing to me is that I'm using Honeywell AML 34
switches because the aesthetics appeal to me. Problem is that they are
only available as DPST. I haven't thought about this too much, but I'm
assuming that I can accomplish the switching functions shown in Z-14
and other architectures with the Honeywell switches, but I'll just have
to use more of them and some behind-the-panel circuitry??? I can see the
S-700-2-5 being replaced with an AML 34 and a pusbutton switch. But what
combination would I use to achieve the function of S-700-2-10? In other
architectures I see this switch associated with some automatic function
that I don't understand.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: duracell battery leak |
Deke,
Sorry that you had to toss the 3-cell Mag Light. I would have made a
suggestion to try and save it. I had a 5-cell do that and with
Duracell's. At first I thought about sending the whole mess to Duracell
as they probably would have replaced the mag light. But, decided to see
if I could fix it. Using penetrating oil to soak the cell sides I was
able to tap out the bad cells with a dowel and light hammer work.
Amazingly, the mag light is made pretty well and it cleaned up just fine
with baking soda and oil. Now, I check the flashlight from time to time
as it is my emergency light for the car and gets little use.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: fox5flyer
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: duracell battery leak
I had a 3 cell Mag Light with Duracells in it. Following the
marketing hype I always thought they were the best so I bought them in
large packages. Being a plumber I used it on a fairly regular basis and
I noticed that I had to bump it sometimes to make it turn on. One day
when it wouldn't turn on at all so I pulled the cap and found that the
batteries had leaked inside and corroded the whole interior which made
them impossible to remove. I ended up having the throw it in the bin.
No, I didn't leave it on or leave it stored with dead batteries. This
wasn't the first time I had an experience with leaking Duracells.
Having heard about this previously I decided at that moment that the
best fix for me was to discontinue all use of Duracells and let others
know of my problem with them. If enough folks stop using them they'll
soon fix the problem...in the form of "new and improved ultra..."
Deke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net> |
Bob and all
Thanks for the responses and thanks to you Bob, for an enlightening
discussion.
On another subject: Leaking Duracell
I had to toss a mag-lite also and decided to never knowingly use a Duracell
battery again However, I have seen, in the past, that Duracell claimed they
would fix or replace any item sent to them that was made inoperable or
ruined by a leaking Duracell battery. Never tried it as I wont use them
anymore. Dont know if thats still their policy.
-- Keith
December 08, 2009 - December 24, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-je