AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ly

October 04, 2013 - October 15, 2013



          the first hole is drilled.
      
          Not a really big deal . . . most electrical bad days
          in the cockpit are the product of poor craftsmanship
          and/or maintenance as opposed to selection of
          components and architecture. Very rarely do we
          hear of an instance where architecture was the
          driving force for a bad day in the airplane.
      
          I'm still waiting for permission to share the
          data from one such case that is now settled.
          The folks who paid my exorbitant fees to
          analyze the event own the work product.
          I hope to have some videos and other documents
          to share.
      
          In any event, one does not have to 'bake somebody
          else's cookies' to avoid serious error. That's what
          we do here on the List.  Carlos is putting the
          frosting and chocolate sprinkles on a recipe
          with a proven track record so our imaginings are
          already bounded . . . and that's okay.
      
      
         Bob . . . 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charging the Aux Battery
At 01:46 PM 9/29/2013, you wrote: > >Bob and all > >This is probably a dumb question but I will make it anyway. >In a Dual battery electric system architecture, like Z-14 for >example, the Aux Battery will not be charging in flight unless the >aux batt. Switch is flipped On (thus closing the Aux Batt contactor), right? Carlos, Now that the edges of the sandbox have been discovered, how do you envision that a second battery would be integrated into a V-P system and how would it fit into your plans for dealing with failure? Are you considering a second alternator of ANY size on the vacuum pump pad? As I recall, V-P attends to second alternator and/or battery . . . does their installation literature speak to these options? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2013
From: Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Subject: Re: Dual voltage output from fuel quantity senders
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: RE: Electric System architecture
Date: Oct 04, 2013
Bob Please don't be demotivated by the VP-X word... That box is not much more than an encapsulated Buss, with some electronic features allowing things to be seen in a screen (instead of V & A indicators and a bunch of colored lights of an annunciator panel) .. :-) I still have to decide about the architecture ... batteries, alternators, power source ... protection Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Robert L. Nuckolls, III Enviada: 3 de outubro de 2013 21:22 Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Electric System architecture (was Charging the Aux Battery) --> > > > Do any of these accessories feature built in > back up batteries and/or connections brought > out for dual power sourcing? >Yes, the EFIS will be dual power sourcing. >I am using a VP-X Pro box. Oopa . . . okay, there's not much I can do for you in terms of architecture . . . that's pretty much carved in stone. We can certainly continue to discuss application and suitability of various parts, but I'm not sure there's much I can contribute for architecture decisions that are not pre-determined out of the box. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Charging the Aux Battery
Date: Oct 04, 2013
Please see answers below -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Robert L. Nuckolls, III Enviada: 4 de outubro de 2013 16:11 Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charging the Aux Battery --> < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> At 01:46 PM 9/29/2013, you wrote: >--> < trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> > >Bob and all > >This is probably a dumb question but I will make it anyway. >In a Dual battery electric system architecture, like Z-14 for example, >the Aux Battery will not be charging in flight unless the aux batt. >Switch is flipped On (thus closing the Aux Batt contactor), right? Carlos, Now that the edges of the sandbox have been discovered, how do you envision that a second battery would be integrated into a V-P system and how would it fit into your plans for dealing with failure? There are several objectives I am trying to reach with the decision of including a second battery: (I mean objectives directly related with electric features, because there are the side consequences in weight - bad for the Total weight of the bird, but perhaps good for the W & B calculations when travelling alone.) - Spare juice for the starter cranking power - Back-up power for the VP-X box and features - Back-up power for the EFIS and radio - Back-up power for the fuel pump - Are you considering a second alternator of ANY size on the vacuum pump pad? I am considering an SD-8 or an SD-20, but I am not sure it will be overkill to have 2 batteries and 2 alternators (even considering the big bunch of electron consumers aboard the modern OBAM aircraft.) As I recall, V-P attends to second alternator and/or battery . . . does their installation literature speak to these options? Yes it does. I am at my job place right now, and the manual is at home, but I will try to find it online and copy paste the competent pages Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: VP-X Pro manual
Date: Oct 04, 2013
Here You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 - paragraph 4.4 Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 - paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 - paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 - paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 Hope this helps Carlos De: Carlos Trigo [mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt] Enviada: 4 de outubro de 2013 17:03 Para: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com' Assunto: RE: AeroElectric-List: Charging the Aux Battery Please see answers below -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Robert L. Nuckolls, III Enviada: 4 de outubro de 2013 16:11 Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charging the Aux Battery --> < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> At 01:46 PM 9/29/2013, you wrote: >--> < trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> > >Bob and all > >This is probably a dumb question but I will make it anyway. >In a Dual battery electric system architecture, like Z-14 for example, >the Aux Battery will not be charging in flight unless the aux batt. >Switch is flipped On (thus closing the Aux Batt contactor), right? Carlos, Now that the edges of the sandbox have been discovered, how do you envision that a second battery would be integrated into a V-P system and how would it fit into your plans for dealing with failure? There are several objectives I am trying to reach with the decision of including a second battery: (I mean objectives directly related with electric features, because there are the side consequences in weight - bad for the Total weight of the bird, but perhaps good for the W & B calculations when travelling alone.) - Spare juice for the starter cranking power - Back-up power for the VP-X box and features - Back-up power for the EFIS and radio - Back-up power for the fuel pump - Are you considering a second alternator of ANY size on the vacuum pump pad? I am considering an SD-8 or an SD-20, but I am not sure it will be overkill to have 2 batteries and 2 alternators (even considering the big bunch of electron consumers aboard the modern OBAM aircraft.) As I recall, V-P attends to second alternator and/or battery . . . does their installation literature speak to these options? Yes it does. I am at my job place right now, and the manual is at home, but I will try to find it online and copy paste the competent pages Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Multiplexing 7-segment LED displays
From: "TravisBryant" <christopher55(at)buyhidkits.com>
Date: Oct 04, 2013
[quote="james(at)etravel.org"]I'm wondering if anyone can answer this question: I'd like to build a new fuel gauge based around 7-segment LED displays, driven by a PIC / Arduino, etc. Instead of running dozens of IO lines, I'd like to multiplex the displays so that the total number of lines is 7 + (no. of digits). The idea would be to switch on a common line for each digit in turn, and set the state for the seven segment lines for the digit that's currently lit. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, I'm sure the software will be straightforward enough (he says!) but it's the circuitry with which I need some help. Can anyone recommend a few components to drive the LED displays from the PIC, along with a circuit diagram? I have a bunch of resistors and general purpose transistors in my electronics kit. I'd probably test this on a PIC18F4680, because I have a neat little prototype board with this particular chip, along with HDSP-315E 7-segment digits, which is acommon anode type. Happy to share my findings with anyone who's interested! Many thanks, James > [b] Very interesting information.. Can you share more details about the project as I would like to work on it Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409851#409851 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ROTAX 912ULS ALT flicker..... Help?!
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 04, 2013
Newer alternators probably have electronics that illuminate a red LED to warn of low voltage. But for almost a century the low voltage lamp was a little incandescent lamp. Swapping it with an LED is not stone simple, since the internal regulator might depend on the characteristics of the incandescent lamp. So here is an LED that "looks like" an incandescent lamp. Attached. http://www.jimcotest.com/docs/JIMCO%20Alternator%20Test%20Lead%20Picture%20Guide.pdf -------- 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=409855#409855 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/alternator_led_170.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual voltage output from fuel quantity senders
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 04, 2013
> I have 2 fuel gauges in my airplane that work on 12v and 5v, and only > one (resistance type) sender. I am trying to figure out how to get both > gauges to work and be accurate. The 12v gauge is a straight analogue > device with a pointer. The 5v gauge is part of an EFIS. At present I am > using the analogue gauge only and the EFIS is continually upset at > having no fuel quantity input. > > I have looked into a solution using an Arduino, sampling the data in > doesn't seem to be too difficult, using the analogue input and a voltage > divider circuit to drop the input voltage. I think I can get the Arduino > to drive something like a MCP41100 8 bit dual digital potentiometer as > an output device, with the 2 channels one for each of the 12v & 5v > circuits. However these devices work at 5v and low current. > > So my question to the smart people here is how to I use the output of > these digipots to look to the gauges as though they are a 30-240 ohm > fuel quantity sender? > > Regards, Peter > sampling the data in doesn't seem to be too difficult, using the analogue input and a voltage divider circuit to drop the input voltage So Peter, why not run that output into the Efis? Or if this won't do, then reduce the 12V ratiometric voltage with an op amp. I think your approach is getting way too complicated to start adding an Arduino. What am I missing? -------- 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=409857#409857 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Dual voltage output from fuel quantity senders
> So Peter, why not run that output into the Efis? Or if this won't do, then reduce the 12V ratiometric voltage with an op amp. I think your approach is getting way too complicated to start adding an Arduino. What am I missing? Perhaps nothing!! I just don't know very much about analogue electronics. If I could avoid the Arduino that would be great. I will find out about what the EFIS is expecting and try to characterise the steam gauge as Bob suggested. It may take a few days, but thanks both for the pointers. Peter On 04/10/2013 19:13, Eric M. Jones wrote: > > >> I have 2 fuel gauges in my airplane that work on 12v and 5v, and only >> one (resistance type) sender. I am trying to figure out how to get both >> gauges to work and be accurate. The 12v gauge is a straight analogue >> device with a pointer. The 5v gauge is part of an EFIS. At present I am >> using the analogue gauge only and the EFIS is continually upset at >> having no fuel quantity input. >> >> I have looked into a solution using an Arduino, sampling the data in >> doesn't seem to be too difficult, using the analogue input and a voltage >> divider circuit to drop the input voltage. I think I can get the Arduino >> to drive something like a MCP41100 8 bit dual digital potentiometer as >> an output device, with the 2 channels one for each of the 12v & 5v >> circuits. However these devices work at 5v and low current. >> >> So my question to the smart people here is how to I use the output of >> these digipots to look to the gauges as though they are a 30-240 ohm >> fuel quantity sender? >> >> Regards, Peter > > >> sampling the data in doesn't seem to be too difficult, using the analogue input and a voltage divider circuit to drop the input voltage > > So Peter, why not run that output into the Efis? Or if this won't do, then reduce the 12V ratiometric voltage with an op amp. I think your approach is getting way too complicated to start adding an Arduino. > > What am I missing? > > -------- > 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=409857#409857 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: >Here > >You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here > ><http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf>http://verti calpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf > >Information about the Dual Buss feature, but >only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 ' paragraph 4.4 >Information about using a 2nd alternator is on >page 28 ' paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d >Information about wiring back-up circuits is on >pages 43 to 46 ' paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e >Information about using a 2nd battery is on >pages 47 to 49 ' paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 > >Hope this helps I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over this for a bit . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim. Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offer? It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results? I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. Apologies for the rather negative post. Peter On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: >> Here >> >> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here >> >> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf >> <http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf> >> >> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy >> source, is on pages 9 and 10 -- paragraph 4.4 >> Information about using a 2^nd alternator is on page 28 -- paragraphs >> 5.9c and 5.9d >> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 -- >> paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e >> Information about using a 2^nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 -- >> paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 >> >> Hope this helps > > I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over > this for a bit . . . > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: test
Date: Oct 04, 2013
test ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: VP-X Pro manual
Date: Oct 05, 2013
Very well said ... Jan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01 Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim. Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offer? It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results? I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. Apologies for the rather negative post. Peter On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: Here You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf <http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 - paragraph 4.4 Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 - paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 - paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 - paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 Hope this helps I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over this for a bit . . . Bob . . . <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

Very well said …

 

Jan

 


From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual

 

I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money.

The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim.

Do we really need to know the status of  the electrical system? In a conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offer?

It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results?

I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.

For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.

Apologies for the rather negative post.

Peter

On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:

Here
 
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
 
http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_ VP-X_P_S.pdf
 
Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 – paragraph 4.4
Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 – paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d
Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 – paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 – paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27
 
Hope this helps


  I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
  this for a bit . . .



  Bob . . .

 
<
      b> 
 

 

 
 
http://www
      .matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
      
http://forums.matronics.com
<
      /pre>
 

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Oct 05, 2013
Hi Pete Is everything Ok with you? I hope so. I obviously respect your opinions about this box, I even agree with most of y our comments... But it was (is) not my intention to start a discussion on the VP-X Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 05/10/2013, =C3-s 00:01, Peter Pengilly es creveu: > I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenent s it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth pa ying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it we re, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand o ver pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where t he manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It i s marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. > > The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical impo rtance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeti ng a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring ca n support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really cur rent monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the e xpected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit i f the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'elect ronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection f unction, why not call them what they are , something like an active current m onitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring func tions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers a re yesterday's way of achieving the aim. > > Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conve ntional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Cu rrent monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something th at just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offe r? > > It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight cont rols (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable t he flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and comm unicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity w ay I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed m ean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results? > > I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separat e endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit i n hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. > > For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. > > Apologies for the rather negative post. > > Peter > > > On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: >>> Here >>> >>> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here >>> >>> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf >>> >>> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source , is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4 >>> Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragra phs 5.9c and 5.9d >>> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93 paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e >>> Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 par agraphs 5.26 and 5.27 >>> >>> Hope this helps >> >> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over >> this for a bit . . . >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
Date: Oct 05, 2013
I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is entitled to t heir opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10. Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the val ue. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly bash t he product. So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either. The y have software that control critical systems without letting you know what s tandards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units. What about elect ronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where do you draw the line? In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented that w ould indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised? I'm certainl y not aware of any. As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in spe nding my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's probably impo ssible to change it. But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS. Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either. Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in faster ai rcraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much strife in the l ife of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full deflection, or moved at a h igh speed when the aircraft is at cruise speed. Products like Vertical Power , Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and others prevent these type of mishaps fro m happening. These products control the movement, speed, and duration the s ervos can operate. Your argument implies you don't trust these products eit her. This may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many. In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic ignit ion, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed information ab out the components that comprise your electrical system. I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form our opin ions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing products without fu lly understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's time. For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always been more than h appy to explain their products. I too had some perceptions that weren't tru e. Marc was willing and took the time to have dialogue to explain all the p ro and cons, as well as the companies design goals for each feature. It too k awhile, but after many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am ver y satisfied with the product. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan wrote: > > Very well said > > Jan > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly > Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual > > I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenent s it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth pa ying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over p retty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the m anufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is m arketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. > > The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical impo rtance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can su pport. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expe cted current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if t he current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electron ic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection func tion, why not call them what they are , something like an active current mon itor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functi ons to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than j ust switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers ar e yesterday's way of achieving the aim. > > Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conve ntional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Cu rrent monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something th at just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offe r? > > It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the f laps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communic ated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean t hat the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially seri ous results? > > I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separat e endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit i n hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. > > For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. > > Apologies for the rather negative post. > > Peter > > >> On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: >> >> Here >> >> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here >> >> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf >> >> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4 >> Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragrap hs 5.9c and 5.9d >> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93 p aragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e >> Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 para graphs 5.26 and 5.27 >> >> Hope this helps >> >> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over >> this for a bit . . . >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://forums.matronics.com > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
Boab, You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people know. You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses fuses. To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed (or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take. There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are doing. Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction. I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash' the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator, that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some time talking with Mr Ausman. Peter On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote: > I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that > hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is > entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and > Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10. > > Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand > the value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to > publicly bash the product. > > So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot > either. They have software that control critical systems without > letting you know what standards they meet, unless you are installing > TSO'd units. What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their > firmware? Where do you draw the line? > > In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented > that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised? > I'm certainly not aware of any. > > As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting > in spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's > probably impossible to change it. > > But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS. > Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you > don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either. > > Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in > faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much > strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full > deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise > speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and > others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products > control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. > Your argument implies you don't trust these products either. This > may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many. > > In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic > ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed > information about the components that comprise your electrical system. > > I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't > engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can > all form our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. > Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of > anyone's time. > > For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc > Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always > been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some > perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to > have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the > companies design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after > many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied > with the product. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan > wrote: > >> Very well said >> >> Jan >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >> >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >> *Peter Pengilly >> *Sent:* 05 October 2013 00:01 >> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> >> *Subject:* Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual >> >> I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic >> tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so >> its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not >> true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, >> you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system >> to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to >> disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are >> designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed >> very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. >> >> The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical >> importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me >> neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical >> means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more >> current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit >> breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is >> really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, >> compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current >> draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic >> circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection >> function, why not call them what they are , something like an active >> current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current >> monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it >> do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit >> protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of >> achieving the aim. >> >> Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a >> conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will >> not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage >> monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What >> additional benefit does the VP-X offer? >> >> It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and >> flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of >> flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also >> claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is >> that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is >> implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too >> happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the >> flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially >> serious results? >> >> I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely >> separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I >> see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. >> >> For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. >> >> Apologies for the rather negative post. >> >> Peter >> >> On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >>> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: >>> >>> Here >>> >>> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here >>> >>> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf >>> >>> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy >>> source, is on pages 9 and 10 paragraph 4.4 >>> Information about using a 2^nd alternator is on page 28 paragraphs >>> 5.9c and 5.9d >>> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 >>> paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e >>> Information about using a 2^nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 >>> paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 >>> >>> Hope this helps >>> >>> >>> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over >>> this for a bit . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> * * >>> * * >>> * * >> >> * * >> * * >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* >> ** >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> * * >> * >> >> D============================================ >> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> D============================================ >> //forums.matronics.com >> D============================================ >> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> D============================================ >> >> * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: VP-X Pro manual
At 06:38 AM 10/5/2013, you wrote: I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's time. For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always been more than happy to explain their products. This isn't about 'bashing', 'fear mongering' or taking the honorable Mr. Ausman at his word. It'a not about erecting silos around 'personal opinions'. It's about the science behind the art of crafting the simplest, most cost effective system that meets user design goals while striving for the least risk. Most pilots who walk into the showroom for a Bonanza don't have the first notion of what this is all about . . . they are wrapped in what promises to be a protective shell crafted from the ideas that bubble up from FAR23, ISO9000, DO160, DO178, FAR91, FAR43, and a library of documents prepared mostly by people who have never piloted much less owned an airplane or any similarly un-forgiving vehicle. The owner/operators of TC aircraft are enticed by the siren call of golden policy and procedures manuals, micro-managed work instructions and qualification specs by the boat load . . . a notion that says, "anything produced to such demanding requirements must be the very best anyone knows how to do." Ergo it follows that, "If it's the very best THEY know how to do, then it must be appropriate to my NEEDS. Sure, it has everything I WANT and more . . . but surely, somewhere in all that thrashing of paper, training of workers and threats for failure to perform, my NEEDS are also met." The first time I offered up the ideas in Chapter 17 (System Reliability) was at OSH. I gave a presentation in the tents that explored the notion of just what one NEEDS to go flying with a very low probability of breaking a sweat before putting one's feet back on the ground. For those who don't have the book handy, I've copied Chapter 17 to the website here http://tinyurl.com/ncrju9x This chapter starts with a story. A Dark-n-Stormy Night story taken from the pages of AOPA Pilot Magazine. The editors of the General Aviation journals have long believed that publishing such stories offered the readers a service . . . a sort of 'forewarned is forearmed' notion. But never have I seen the same publication produce an analysis of such stories for the purpose of gleaning understanding that comes with being truly forewarned. I spent much of my career reading accident reports, sifting through accident photos, and combing depositions of witnesses to sift out nuggets of fact that assembled into a picture of the physics that defined events in an accident. Physics that may have challenged the understanding of the victims and presented them with a no-win situation . . . NOT necessarily because the machinery was lacking but because the operators were OVERWHELMED with options not understood and therefore not exercised. I am reminded of the plight of JFK Jr. who's life was ended (along with passengers) when a very well equipped airplane hit the water during a flight into not terribly challenging weather. http://tinyurl.com/ofcn9en Peter's concerns are not about the ability of V-Power, EXP-Bus, http://tinyurl.com/o828jj8 or even Greg Ricther's power distribution proposals http://tinyurl.com/omnuypr to FUNCTION as advertised, it's about probabilities of failure to function and the challenges such failures place on the pilot as an operator of the airplane and the owner as the one who has invest $time$ to fix it. This is what Failure Modes Effects Analysis is all about. It's a search for a minimum expenditure of value to craft a low parts-count system that offers no insurmountable risks due to a failure of any one part. A system that encourages a simple Plan-B response to such failures such that the pilot is not distracted from doing pilot-things that keep him and his airplane from flying into hard or wet places. Most of my career was conducted with one foot in the TC world; the other in the OBAM world. I would LOVE to learn to fly a Beechjet or a Premier . . . but taking family a friends for a ride in these machines is another matter . . . its a PROFESSION to achieve the levels of understanding that make me as safe in a Premier as I would be in say a steam-guage C172. It has nothing to do with the relative capabilities of the airplane and everything to do with potential for distracting challenges while airborne. The greatest challenge for pilot management of risk arises from mission planning. Yeah, that Premier can be launched into some pretty hairy flight conditions with confidence . . . it has lots of bells and whistles. Conditions I would not even consider in my C-172. What's the risk? After all, all those goodies in the Premier have been presided over by the largest bureaucracy ever assembled in the free-market exchange of value . . . what could go wrong? http://tinyurl.com/q66wu2z Peter is simply reminding us that for every box with a connector on it, things going on inside are of interest to us for the purposes of achieving understanding necessary to craft a comfortable Plan-B when ANYTHING breaks. The challenge for crafting an UNDERSTOOD Plan-B is made harder when things that go on INSIDE a black box are beyond your understanding and control. Whether you're sitting in the left seat of a Premier or an RV10, all that glass in front of you presents both a challenge and a duty to yourself and anyone in the airplane with you. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's where the rubber hits the road in the marriage between you and your machine . . . and risks for becoming a passenger instead of a pilot of that machine. See: http://tinyurl.com/oz9klsx http://tinyurl.com/pdqxfjm It takes a lot of time and data beyond the "peek through the journalistic/bureaucratic knothole" to understand how these pilots became passengers in their airplanes. What we do here on the List is offer an opportunity to explore as much understanding, confidence and competence in YOUR airplane as you're willing and able to seek out an acquire. A guiding principal of my creative endeavors was offered by a smart cookie centuries ago when he suggested that it is wise to avoid making a thing unnecessarily complex. http://tinyurl.com/n9ng I find comfort in the notion that a fuse, some wire and a switch represents a rather simple, well understood means by which some electro-whizzy can be controlled at very low risk with a lucid failure modes effects analysis. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael McMahon" <mike(at)aeromotogroup.com>
Subject: VP-X Pro manual
Date: Oct 05, 2013
I found Mr. Leffler=99s post to be one man=99s thought-provoking opinion, I didn=99t read it as bashing. I appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven=99t considered, ESPECIALLY when it=99s related to potential risks in aviation. I=99m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler=99s when they=99re rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue to see such posts here. Michael From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual Boab, You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people know. You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses fuses. To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed (or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take. There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are doing. Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction. I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash' the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator, that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some time talking with Mr Ausman. Peter On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote: I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10. Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly bash the product. So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either. They have software that control critical systems without letting you know what standards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units. What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where do you draw the line? In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised? I'm certainly not aware of any. As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's probably impossible to change it. But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS. Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either. Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. Your argument implies you don't trust these products either. This may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many. In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed information about the components that comprise your electrical system. I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's time. For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the companies design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied with the product. Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan wrote: Very well said Jan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01 Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim. Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offer? It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results? I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. Apologies for the rather negative post. Peter On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: Here You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4 Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93 paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 Hope this helps I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over this for a bit . . . Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D //forums.matronics.com D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael McMahon" <mike(at)aeromotogroup.com>
Subject: VP-X Pro manual
Date: Oct 05, 2013
Oops! I meant Mr. Pengilly=99s original post, not Mr. Leffler=99s response. Sorry for the confusion. From: Michael McMahon [mailto:mike(at)aeromotogroup.com] Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual I found Mr. Leffler=99s post to be one man=99s thought-provoking opinion, I didn=99t read it as bashing. I appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven=99t considered, ESPECIALLY when it=99s related to potential risks in aviation. I=99m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler=99s when they=99re rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue to see such posts here. Michael From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual Boab, You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people know. You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses fuses. To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed (or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take. There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are doing. Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction. I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash' the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator, that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some time talking with Mr Ausman. Peter On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote: I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10. Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly bash the product. So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either. They have software that control critical systems without letting you know what standards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units. What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where do you draw the line? In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised? I'm certainly not aware of any. As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's probably impossible to change it. But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS. Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either. Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. Your argument implies you don't trust these products either. This may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many. In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed information about the components that comprise your electrical system. I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's time. For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the companies design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied with the product. Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan wrote: Very well said Jan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01 Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money. The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim. Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offer? It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious results? I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility. Apologies for the rather negative post. Peter On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote: Here You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4 Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93 paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 Hope this helps I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over this for a bit . . . Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D //forums.matronics.com D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Electric System architecture
At 10:29 PM 10/6/2013, you wrote: >Speaking of SA, is the article on the downwind turn (page 12, Oct. >issue) as off the mark as I think, or do I need to study my physics? What side of the fence did the author argue? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Electric System architecture
When he started talking about the the wind accelerating to aircraft during the turn, he lost me. I hope the article gets attached. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 10/07/2013 09:55 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 10:29 PM 10/6/2013, you wrote: >> Speaking of SA, is the article on the downwind turn (page 12, Oct. >> issue) as off the mark as I think, or do I need to study my physics? > > What side of the fence did the author argue? > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: Perplexing problem???
Date: Oct 07, 2013
Bob, et. al., The volts and amps on my RV-6 continually fluctuate in flight. The volts oscillate rapidly (about 2 - 3 seconds per cycle) and continuously between 13 and 14.5, sometimes as high as 14.9 and sometimes as low as 12.6. The amps stay a steady 27 after start, but once the battery is charged, the amps begin cycling between 4 and 22, sometimes reading 00 for brief periods. I've flown the bird for nearly 300 hours, and the fluctuations have been pretty continuous since the bird was new. I've not been able to isolate a problem system as turning on or off landing lights, strobes, radios, etc., doesn't seem to change the readings or vary the oscillations. The crowbar over voltage circuit has never tripped the circuit breaker and the 3 year old PC-680 battery is fully charged after a flight, reading about 13.2 volts when manually checked with a hand held multi-meter. I've checked all the wires and grounds connections throughout the electrical system and all appear tight with no signs of shorts and/or burns. My electrical system is based on Z-13, All Electric On a Budget, with a B&C alternator and a generic Ford regulator. The regulator is mounted high on the cockpit side of the firewall and shouldn't have any heat related issues. The indicator is a VicroVision VM-1000. The volts are sensed off of the endurance bus, and with the alternator off, reads a steady 12.6 battery voltage (about .7 volts lower than the actual battery voltage due to the diode between the main and endurance bus.) The amps are really an alternator load meter measured by a Hall sensor on the alternator supply line. Before I change regulators or pull the alternator for bench checking, I'm looking for solutions and/or recommendations or even confirmation that I have a problem. Charlie Brame RV-6A, N11CB San Antonio ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: The dreaded downwind turn . . .
At 10:48 AM 10/7/2013, you wrote: >When he started talking about the the wind accelerating to aircraft >during the turn, he lost me. As soon as he says "a lighter aircraft will accelerate faster than a heavier aircraft" and bases the statement on an analysis of "square feet of sail" . . . he blew it. I sat next to a guy for several years who wrote heavy duty software for autopilots that flew UAV's of all stripe from 80Kts to 500 Kts. He tapped simple-ideas to from my high school physics to describe how the airplane flies. I've been meaning to do an article on the physics of this maneuver and have some drawings done . . . somewhere on the hard drive. I'll see if I can dig them up and perhaps finish the article. But while you read the words of folks wrestling with the 'dreaded downwind turn' go to the POH data for your airplane and get one number. Target IAS for best glide angle. This is the speed at which your distance over the ground versus altitude lost is at a maximum. When folks are talking about the physics of flight, they're talking about airplanes that are being 'flown' . . . in other being controlled to conditions that maximize performance. This generally calls for a speed well above best rate of climb combined with a 270 degree turn at 45 degrees of bank into the crosswind to get pointed back toward the runway. When the engine quits with a runway close behind you, its easy for those performance numbers get obscured by other things running around in your head. It takes a Bob Hoover like attitude to first get the nose down to achieve best glide angle whether you are turning or not; stack in a 45-degree banked turn on top of really adds pucker factor. At speeds below best glide, lift/drag ratios can go into the toilet in a hurry. On of my most cherished flight instructors was checking me out in a Beech Flying Club A36 one day. After three or four by-the-book touch and goes he said "let me show you something." "Stay at pattern altitude until you're on final." "Uh, okay . . ." As I turned final I reached for the throttle . . . "Nope, not yet . . ." The runway disappeared under the nose and I reached for the throttle . . . "Nope, not yet . . . " A few seconds later he said, "Okay. Close the throttle and give me 75 MPH." I set it up and was amazed. Sink rate went to something around 1200 ft/min. A few seconds later I acquired a better short-final view of the runway and he said, "Power up to arrest your descent, push the nose down and give me 90 MPH over the numbers." After that, the landing proceeded normally. The point being that maneuvering around at speeds below best glide is where the airplane sinks fast even if you're not turning . . . faster still if you turn. Best glide is well above those speeds at which perturbations in IAS due to gusting can begin to eat into your energy margins for maneuvering. Best rate and particularly best angle of climb speeds have the nose really high with a commensurate boat-load of drag. Whether the airplane remains controllable just before contact with the ground isn't a matter of winds, it's a matter of altitude and the pilot's willingness/ability to EXCHANGE energy stored on that altitude for controllable airspeeds. Airspeeds that bring you to the ground with energy to flare and keep the wheels attached to the airplane. The alternative is a 1000+ feet per minute descent rate, no energy to flare and a probability of having to eat your wheels. There are two magic numbers that drive your decision to turn around best glide speed and ground clearance KNOWN to be sufficient to the airplane's demands as determined by experiment and practice. Barry Schiff tells us how in this article. http://tinyurl.com/mo8wux4 Note that Barry mentions nothing about controllability hazards for having made a downwind turn. That's because the target approach speed for greatest probability of success is well above that where perturbations in wind velocity make any difference at all. See: http://tinyurl.com/kzr95lk http://tinyurl.com/m29yg5y http://tinyurl.com/k9y3z4y http://tinyurl.com/mmgmojr It's all about lift/drag ratios and energy budgets. If your choice of pitch angle is poor (IAS) or your stored energy (altitude) is lacking then it's a bit specious to drag 'hazards of downwind turns' into the discussion . . . things were probably not going to go well anyhow. You become a passenger in your airplane doing experiments with the controls. Bottom line is that EAA, of ALL organizations, should have folks with talents on a par with the honorable Mr. Schiff to vet their articles. http://tinyurl.com/mtn32qf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Perplexing problem???
At 02:10 PM 10/7/2013, you wrote: Bob, et. al., The volts and amps on my RV-6 continually fluctuate in flight. The volts oscillate rapidly (about 2 - 3 seconds per cycle) and continuously between 13 and 14.5, sometimes as high as 14.9 and sometimes as low as 12.6. The amps stay a steady 27 after start, but once the battery is charged, the amps begin cycling between 4 and 22, sometimes reading 00 for brief periods. I've flown the bird for nearly 300 hours, and the fluctuations have been pretty continuous since the bird was new. I've not been able to isolate a problem system as turning on or off landing lights, strobes, radios, etc., doesn't seem to change the readings or vary the oscillations. The crowbar over voltage circuit has never tripped the circuit breaker and the 3 year old PC-680 battery is fully charged after a flight, reading about 13.2 volts when manually checked with a hand held multi-meter. I've checked all the wires and grounds connections throughout the electrical system and all appear tight with no signs of shorts and/or burns. My electrical system is based on Z-13, All Electric On a Budget, with a B&C alternator and a generic Ford regulator. The regulator is mounted high on the cockpit side of the firewall and shouldn't have any heat related issues. The indicator is a VicroVision VM-1000. The volts are sensed off of the endurance bus, and with the alternator off, reads a steady 12.6 battery voltage (about .7 volts lower than the actual battery voltage due to the diode between the main and endurance bus.) The amps are really an alternator load meter measured by a Hall sensor on the alternator supply line. Before I change regulators or pull the alternator for bench checking, I'm looking for solutions and/or recommendations or even confirmation that I have a problem. =========================== Don't change the regulator . . . We've had several discussions on this phenomenon but they formatted badly in the archives. Let me repeat an exchange from last spring with some formatting. PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:46 pm Post subject: Charging System Debug steps and success... At 12:04 PM 4/8/2013, you wrote: Greetings All, From time-to-time people have posted assorted problems, and gotten answers to, charging system issues. Many of these are of the wandering or oscillating voltage nature. Yes. The "galloping ammeter" syndrome is almost exclusive to alternator/regulator systems wherein the wire with duties to sense bus voltage ALSO carries alternator field current. This is a VERY common configuration in tens of millions of cars and tens of thousands of airplanes. A typical at-risk system uses the legacy FORD regulator featured in many of my writings and schematics. As my charging system (LongEz, externally regulator "ford-style" charging with regulator and battery in the nose) developed an oscillating attitude I had the "opportunity" to collect, review and then apply the information Bob has generously provided and thought an overview might prove useful for the next guy down the road. I'll start with key summary points for those who don't have the current need or desire to read through the details. My symptoms were an oscillating (2 - 6 Hz maybe?) charging voltage visible with the old (WesTach) panel meter. It was sufficient to pop the over-voltage crowbar once. It might also be related to an transient undervoltage alarm I got once. After isolating the problem, I fixed it by replacing the store-bought regulator connector (which had pig-tails, the bad connection was on the factory-made regulator +V crimp) with good-quality Fast-ons direct to the regulator. This dropped the alternator B+ to regulator V+ resistance from 528mOhms to ~140mOhms which fixed the problem. btw: the 140 ohms, which is still higher than I would like, seems to be roughly evenly shared by the fuse-link, breaker and switch (and associated wiring). Of course the ideal supply loop resistance is zero ohms. However a Bode plot of the closed-loop response of the alternator-regulator-aircraft system usually shows that several hundred mOhms can be tolerated before control loop stability margin becomes risky. The details and references for "the next guy": The debug strategy was to start by checking the resistance (using techniques appropriate for milliohm measurments), without doing any disconnecting of the current loop path from alternator B+ to the regulator and then back from the regulator ground (i.e. case) to the alternator ground (i.e. case). My plan was to keep dividing the problem in half to minimize debug time (i.e. binary search). I wanted to do as much testing as I could without taking anything apart as I didn't want to inadvertently change the problem (i.e. wiggle something and have the problem go away...) In the case that no problems were uncovered via the milliohm measurements, I then planned to follow Bob's charging component problem isolation technique which is in chapter 3 of the Aeroelectric connection book. This involves making measurements while the engine is running but I didn't need go to that step and I certainly didn't want to start there. For lots of charging system background and debug information, search Bob's site (www.aeroelectric.com) for "charging" and ignore all the stuff on plug-in-the-wall battery chargers. Bob has written articles and has product related to making good milliohm measurements using an applied current. I prefer having the current source (whether a bench supply or other similar to Bob's milliohm probes) separate rather than combining it with the volt-meter probes. Also, as Bob has covered in his articles, you don't need a regulated-to-a-known-value current source. It suffices to have an unregulated current source (like a D-cell, in a pinch) if you are using a second meter to measure the current. For more information on accurate milliohm measurements, search Bob's site for "milliohm". I conceptually divided the loop in half (ground side vs power side) and picked the ground side first. I put a current source (bench supply with an accurate current limit set to 1A (and set the voltage limit to be 2V though I didn't expect it to ever run in voltage mode regulation)) between the alternator case and the regulator case (which, on my LongEz is the length of the entire aircraft). I then measured the voltage (using separate wires) between the two cases and got 33.9mV which, at one amp, means 33.9mOhms. This is well below the ~200mOhms threshold area of concern (per Bob's annotations contained in "Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf"). Therefore the problem is in the V+ side. I repeated this on the V+ side which is a little bit trickier to measure as the "master" progressive switch needs to be in the "Alternator on" position which can add more currents to deal with (though, it turns out, not much). With the switch on, I measured the voltage from alternator B+ to regulator V+ both with the current source connected, and not connected. The value I care about is the connected value minus the not connected value. (though it still applies, I won't repeat this detail from now on). I measured 528mV (=528mOhms) which is well above the 200mOhm area of concern. So I've identified one (but maybe only the first?, it turned out to be only) problem. I then listed all (well, sort of, I didn't list both side of each wire...) of the connections between Alternator B+ and regulator V+. For me, starting from B+: Near side of load-meter shunt, near side of ANL, near side of fuse-link, near side of over-voltage breaker, nearside of alternator switch, V+ at the regulator. I kept the current source running between B+ on the alternator and regulator V+ (no reason to move it) and picked the point in the middle (near side ANL), B+ to near side ANL was only 11mV (=11mOhms). I continued the divide (roughly in half) and conquer approach (continuing to measure from B+ to my point of interest) which led me quickly to the crimp at the regulator. In the future I *might* start by measuring any connections I didn't personally make (of which there are very very few) before switching to the more disciplined binary search approach. In this case I would have gotten lucky but, in truth, it would not have saved much time. The time was spent going through Bob's articles and developing a plan. The execution of the plan went very fast. Repair and run-up test showed success. Specific Bob articles I found helpful (in addition to those on milliohm measurement): Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf 03_Alternator_12A2.pdf (i.e. the current chapter 3 in the aeroelectric connection, start at page 3-7 for debug info) Happy debugging! The phenomenon we're exploring is the twin brother of a 'ground loop'. In a ground loop, a potential noise current shares a conduction path with a potential victim (audio system, radio, etc). In our 'buss-loop', a noisy current (field supply) shares a pathway with a potential victim (voltage regulator). Operating currents for the alternator field can be anywhere between a few hundred milliamps (very light load, high rpm) to 3 or 4 amps (low rpm, high, load). The number and kind of accessories turned on at the time have a second order effect on control loop stability. If you have 500 milliohms of field supply resistance feeding a moderately loaded alternator current of say 2 amps, then the 2 amp x 0.5 ohms or 1 volt 'modulation' of voltage at the regulator's A/S terminals presents as a 1 volt error in the desired regulation set point. This is not a guarantee for unstable operation but the risks are very high. Wire resistance in the rest of the system has very low to zero risk for setting up the same condition. This problem came to light early on for single engine Cessnas. I addition to conductors that ran from bus to regulator, there were ohmic joints, (crimped pins, engaged pins, fast-ons, switch saddles, switch contacts, etc). I forget the exact number but I think I recall something like 19 ohmic joints in the Cessnas, far more than any other TC aircraft. About once a year I get an email from a TC Cessna owner asking about fixes for the 'galloping ammeter". Quite often, replacing one item in the constellation of system components provides relief . . . but it is temporary. My advice is to start at the bus and replace EVERYTHING with ohmic joints starting with breaker, master switch and it's fast-on terminals, and crimped on pins in all the Mate-n-Lok connectors. This 'shotgun' approach will reduce total path resistance to a value close to factory original values. Assuming the modern regulators have similar stability models, this approach should set the system up for another 40 years of stable operation. Steve, thank you so much for the validation of the simple-ideas offered as to root cause and remedy for this unique phenomenon. Good work my friend! ===================== Charlie, Check all the components from the bus, through the breaker, switch, and all connections that lead up to the (A) and (S) terminals on the regulator. Do an experiment to confirm that the problem is in this pathway: Unhook the wiring from (A) and (S) to the rest of the airplane. Hook a temporary wire from (A) and (S) to the alternator's b-lead terminal. Fire up the engine and see how the regulator behaves. I think you'll find that it's stable and that you need to refurbish the field power path. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 07, 2013
Bob, I mailed the DC to DC converter today. You should have it in a few days. It works for intermittent duty but can not handle 1.5 amps continuously. And so it could be used for short term brownout protection, but not as part of the normal power supply circuit. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410040#410040 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 07, 2013
Bob, I mailed the DC to DC converter today. You should have it in a few days. It works for intermittent duty but can not handle 1.5 amps continuously. And so it could be used for short term brownout protection, but not as part of the normal power supply circuit. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410041#410041 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: The dreaded downwind turn . . .
I was thinking the same thing: If you can't trust an article from the EAA... I'll be interested to see if/how they walk back the article in the next issue. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine > > Bottom line is that EAA, of ALL organizations, should > have folks with talents on a par with the honorable > Mr. Schiff to vet their articles. > > http://tinyurl.com/mtn32qf > <http://tinyurl.com/mtn32qf> > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2013
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Ray Allen position sensors
I would like the Dynon Skyview to record the position of my ailerons and elevators. Has anyone used the Ray Allen position sensors for this ? Are they suitable for the continuous movement, or will they wear out ? Do they provide mechanical resistance that would be felt as drag on the control stick ? How much off axis motion will the plunger accept before binding ? Alternatively, are there any automotive products that might be suitable, such as throttle position sensors ? The one used on my vehicle would be impractical to mount. Thanks, Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent
Brownout At 08:16 PM 10/7/2013, you wrote: > >Bob, >I mailed the DC to DC converter today. You should have it in a few >days. It works for intermittent duty but can not handle 1.5 amps >continuously. And so it could be used for short term brownout >protection, but not as part of the normal power supply circuit. >Joe > >-------- >Joe Gores Can't be used as brown-out protection either (for the application you had in mind.) That 1.5A may be a valid continuous rating, but unlike other current sources that will grunt short term overloads, switchmode power supplies are not among them. The thing may go into a self-protective shutdown at some level not far above 1.5A. The device suited to this task will have to be rated for continuous support of the proposed load irrespective of how long we plan to load it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 08, 2013
http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.php?ci_id=50310 http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Honeywell/SS49E-L/?qs=%2fha2pyFadujjBQFozaeJvxILyylNJHM2nSeWyreXIzB4Z925QiG%2fMw%3d%3d If you want to make your own sensor, a hall effect sensor is very simple to make electrically speaking. The hard part will be the mechanical installation. A magnet attached to the control surface will cause a varying output voltage across a load resistor as the magnet moves. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410061#410061 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2013
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
Jeff,=0A=0A2 devices pop immediately to mind: a potentiometer (pot) or rota ry encoder (like the TPS uses).=0A=0ABut first a few questions:=0A1. where do you want to mount the sensor?=0A--- -somewhere near the aileron=0A --- -near the bell crank=0A--- -near aileron axis of the stick =0A--- -??=0A=0A2. what type of input does the Dynon have for this pu rpose.- Is it expecting an analog voltage or a string of bits?=0A=0AWith a pot, it is trivial to deliver an analog voltage proportional to surface d eflection.- With a rotary encoder you will need some circuitry.=0A=0AAs f ar as connecting linkages & arms, you might look into RC model aircraft har dware.- There are all kinds of arms, clevises, ball links, etc that could do the job.- See these links for starters:=0A=0Ahttp://www.servocity.com /html/servo_power_gearbox_arms.html=0Ahttp://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/ wti0095p?FVPROFIL=&FVSEARCH=aluminum+servo+arms&search=Go=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A________________________________=0A From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>=0A ctober 7, 2013 8:12 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen position sen is.com>=0A=0AI would like the Dynon Skyview to record the position of my ai lerons and elevators.=0A=0AHas anyone used the Ray Allen position sensors f or this ?=0A=0AAre they suitable for the continuous movement, or will they wear out ?=0ADo they provide mechanical resistance that would be felt as dr ag on the control stick ?=0AHow much off axis motion will the plunger accep t before binding ?=0A=0AAlternatively, are there any automotive products th at might be suitable, such as throttle position sensors ?- The one used o n my vehicle would be impractical to mount.=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0AJeff Page=0AD - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ==== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Date: Oct 08, 2013
Bob, Congratulations on your contract. Nothing like having an improved cash flow doing something you enjoy. Blue skies & tailwinds, Bob Borger Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop. Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP 3705 Lynchburg Dr. Corinth, TX 76208-5331 Cel: 817-992-1117 rlborger(at)mac.com On Oct 8, 2013, at 7:26 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com>
Subject: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Date: Oct 08, 2013
Good for you! Congratulations. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:27 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: An opportunity too good to miss . . . --> It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mark donahue" <markdonahue(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Date: Oct 08, 2013
Bob, Its amazing that you were not fully employed before this. Looks to me like Cessna gets the best end of the deal. Good luck to you. I have enjoyed your comments and contributions to this list. I have learned a lot due to you. Mark Donahue -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:27 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: An opportunity too good to miss . . . --> It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: GNS-650 Installation Manual
Date: Oct 08, 2013
Does anyone have an electronic .PDF file for the GNS-650 GPS/NAV/COMM ?? I'm trying to help a friend setup his panel and need to know more about the setup parameters. Fred Stucklen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 08, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. Kelly kellym at aviating dot com On 10/8/2013 7:27 PM, Fred Stucklen wrote: > > Does anyone have an electronic .PDF file for the GNS-650 GPS/NAV/COMM > ?? Im trying to help a friend setup his panel and need to know more > about the setup parameters. > > Fred Stucklen > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Subject: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Date: Oct 09, 2013
>Its amazing that you were not fully employed before this. Looks to me like Cessna gets the best end of the deal. Good luck to you. >I have enjoyed your comments and contributions to this list. I have learned a lot due to you. I fully agree... thanks again for all you've taught us... I hope you'll still be around on the list! Sacha ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com>
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Date: Oct 08, 2013
Congratulations, Robert. Michael Orth ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:26 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: An opportunity too good to miss . . . It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Subject: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
Congrats Bob! I'm sorry I don't get to ICT anymore; I still owe you a trip to Connie's- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The dreaded downwind turn . . .
Date: Oct 09, 2013
When he started talking about the wind accelerating the aircraft during the turn, he lost me. As soon as he says "a lighter aircraft will accelerate faster than a heavier aircraft" and bases the statement on an analysis of "square feet of sail" . . . he blew it. Yes. I went back and tried to figure out what he was *actually* thinking when he calculated the sail area necessary to accelerate the plane. From the numbers he is using, I figured out that he is calculating the surface that a flat 2000lb object would have to present to a 20kt wind to produce an acceleration from 100kts to 140kts in 16 seconds: A wind V will produce a force on the airplane equal to F = (1/2 p V^2).C.S. Here the first term in brackets is the dynamic pressure (p is the density of air), S is the =9Csail area=9D (the cross-sectional area presented by the aircraft perpendicularly to the wind) and C is the drag coefficient. Since this force is also equal to m.a (mass times acceleration), we can solve for S: S = 2.m.a / (p.V^2.C) If we convert everything to compatible units (I=99ve used metric here) we get V=10.3m/s, p=1.225 kg/m^3, m = 2000 lb = 909kg and a = 40/16 kts/s = 1.275 m/s^2 Plugging everything and assuming C = 1 gives S = 17.83 m2 or 192 sq ft of sail area. Why is this nonsense? Well, first, C for the profile of an aircraft is bound to be lower than 1 after all, the reason it flies is that it has a somewhat aerodynamic shape! Let=99s look at the numbers for a normally loaded PA-28 whose weight is approx. 2000lb. The wing surface is 160 sqft. But the surface that the aircraft would present to the wind during the downwind turn would be less than that, probably no more than 50-100 sqft, with a C that probably varies from 0.1 to 0.5, depending on the angle the aircraft makes with the wind. That already reduces the magnitude of the force applied by the wind by a factor somewhere between 4 and 20 Put it another way; if C really were 1 and the aircraft presented a cross-sectional surface of only 50 sqft during normal S&L flight at max speed (123 kts), then the power necessary to sustain S&L flight would be P F . V = =C2=BD p. V^3.C.S, which comes out to about 1000 hp, about 8 times what an 0-320 engine can deliver. As Bob correctly states, what does in fact accelerate the plane from 100 kts GS to 140 kts GS as the aircraft completes the downwind turn is mostly the power produced by the engine (in a normal turn), or the tradeoff of potential energy vs kinetic energy (in a descending gliding turn) and the normal aerodynamic forces that the IAS produces on the airfoil... =C3=98 a 270 degree turn at 45 degrees of bank into the crosswind to get pointed back toward the runway. its=99 actually 180+45=225 degrees back to intersect the runway and then a 45 degree turn to line up again which means the total required turning is 270 degs. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Subject: The dreaded downwind turn . . .
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Put it another way; if C really were 1 and the aircraft presented a cross-sectional surface of only 50 sqft during normal S&L flight at max speed (123 kts), then the power necessary to sustain S&L flight would be P = F . V = =C2=BD p. V^3.C.S, which comes out to about 1000 hp, about 8 times what an 0-320 engine can deliver. Actually my estimate above is an underestimate because some that power has to go towards producing lift, not just overcoming drag Sacha ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R. curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Date: Oct 09, 2013
> It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that > was just too good to go begging - I'll be work > there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly > sooner. Bob, It's about time that a young guy like you quit messing around and start a career. Have fun with your new gig. I'm sure you will. Roger -- Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Hi All, Thanks for the help. This list is GREAT! I now have the manual via the "Cloud" as the file was so large. Fred Stucklen I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. Kelly kellym at aviating dot com On 10/8/2013 7:27 PM, Fred Stucklen wrote: > > Does anyone have an electronic .PDF file for the GNS-650 GPS/NAV/COMM > ?? I'm trying to help a friend setup his panel and need to know more > about the setup parameters. > > Fred Stucklen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
Jeff, The most likely place for an aileron or elevator connection is to the bellcrank in the wing (aileron) and under the cabin floor (elevator). So the end of the rod connected to the bellcrank will swing an arc and the other end of the rod would connect to the sensor. The Ray Allen sensor might work, but only if it doesn't mind the slightly off axis forces and the continuous motion (higher wear rate than a trim or flap indicator). If the Ray Allen is unsuitable, than another potentiometer device would work, since the Dynon has analog 0-5V inputs. That open possibilities of automotive throttle position sensors etc., but most will likely be harder to mount and connect a rod to. Joe Gores hall effect device has possibilities I will need to look into (Thanks Joe !), although it looks like I might need to find a way to temperature compensate it. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen position sensors > > Jeff, > > 2 devices pop immediately to mind: a potentiometer (pot) or rotary encoder > (like the TPS uses). > But first a few questions. Where do you want to mount the sensor ? -somewhere > near the aileron -near the bell crank -near aileron axis of the stick ?? > What type of input does the Dynon have for this purpose ? - Is it > expecting an > analog voltage or a string of bits? > With a pot, it is trivial to deliver an analog voltage proportional > to surface > deflection. - With a rotary encoder you will need some circuitry. As far as > connecting linkages & arms, you might look into RC model aircraft hardware. > There are all kinds of arms, clevises, ball links, etc that could do the job > See these links for starters: > http://www.servocity.com/html/servo_power_gearbox_arms.html > http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0095p?FVPROFIL=&FVSEARCH=aluminum+servo+arms&search=Go ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
At 09:14 PM 10/8/2013, you wrote: > >So, tell more!! Anything interesting on the horizon that you can share? > >Congrats on the job, and my condolences on having to spend time away >from family and friends. Hope you are as productive as you plan to be. > I'm thinking that this change in direction may be relatively transparent to my activities here on the List . . . I won't be checking much during time walled-off for Cessna but I don't expect to change the over-all level of participation. Many have expressed concerns that other activities might have to be placed on the back burner because of new taxations on my time . . . Actually, this opportunity may accelerate those activities because I'll have discretionary cash that opens more options for how my time is used as opposed to hiring the time others. It will also relieve the bottlenecks for new product development in want of seed money. I've been taking the free, Hillsdale online courses in history and economics. I was thinking last night about how this change in direction for my personal behaviors will have a ripple effect that extends far beyond those things that occupy my own waking hours. I highly recommend these courses to any with curiosity and a need to better understand how 'spontaneous order' can emerge from what appears chaotic. So 'bon voyage' flowers are not necessary . . . you're not going to get rid of me that easy! But thank you all for your encouraging words. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
Well, that makes it easy -- a 5-volt regulator, 10k pot driven from the bel l crank & you're in business...=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________________________ ___=0A From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics. com =0ASent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:22 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric -List: Ray Allen position sensors=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message po sted by: Jeff Page =0A=0A=0AJeff,=0A=0AThe most likely pla ce for an aileron or elevator connection is to the bellcrank in the wing (a ileron) and under the cabin floor (elevator).- So the end of the rod conn ected to the bellcrank will swing an arc and the other end of the rod would connect to the sensor.- The Ray Allen sensor might work, but only if it doesn't mind the slightly off axis forces and the continuous motion (higher wear rate than a trim or flap indicator).=0A=0AIf the Ray Allen is unsuita ble, than another potentiometer device would work, since the Dynon has anal og 0-5V inputs.- That open possibilities of automotive throttle position sensors etc., but most will likely be harder to mount and connect a rod to. =0A=0AJoe Gores hall effect device has possibilities I will need to look in to (Thanks Joe !), although it looks like I might need to find a way to tem perature compensate it.=0A=0AJeff Page=0ADream Aircraft Tundra #10=0A=0A=0A =0A> From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>=0A> Subject: Re: AeroElectric- List: Ray Allen position sensors=0A> =0A> Jeff,=0A> =0A> 2 devices pop imme diately to mind: a potentiometer (pot) or rotary encoder=0A> (like the TPS uses).=0A> But first a few questions. Where do you want to mount the sensor ? -somewhere=0A> near the aileron -near the bell crank -near aileron axis of the stick ??=0A> What type of input does the Dynon have for this purpose ? - Is it expecting an=0A> analog voltage or a string of bits?=0A> With a pot, it is trivial to deliver an analog voltage proportional to surface=0A> - deflection. - With a rotary encoder you will need some circuitry. As fa r as=0A> connecting linkages & arms, you might look into RC model aircraft hardware.=0A> There are all kinds of arms, clevises, ball links, etc that c ould do the job=0A> See these links for starters:=0A> http://www.servocity. com/html/servo_power_gearbox_arms.html=0A> http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi -bin/wti0095p?FVPROFIL=&FVSEARCH=aluminum+servo+arms&search=Go=0A=0A =========================0A =================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
One of the reasons I installed a GPJ was that I thought that I would be able to hook up my battery maintainer through it. But when the Schumacher XC-10 is connected, there's not sufficient power to light the GP indicator lamp or close the GPG contactor. How do I make this happen? Thanks, John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410145#410145 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/z8_20td_final_191.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
I am not sure about the Ray Allen position sensors, but if you do use a pot, make sure it is one designed to be used in such an application where it will be almost continuously adjusted. All pots have a projected life before they start acting flaky (technical term ;-) ). Some are designed to be continuously adjusted, others are intended to be used only occasionally. While what you are contemplating is not a safety of flight issue, at least how I interpret what you want to do, it would be a pain if you had to replace the pot every few months because it wore out and responded erratically. Dick Tasker Jeff Luckey wrote: > Well, that makes it easy -- a 5-volt regulator, 10k pot driven from the bell crank & you're in business... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jeff Page > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:22 AM > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen position sensors > > > Jeff, > > The most likely place for an aileron or elevator connection is to the bellcrank in the wing (aileron) and under the > cabin floor (elevator). So the end of the rod connected to the bellcrank will swing an arc and the other end of the > rod would connect to the sensor. The Ray Allen sensor might work, but only if it doesn't mind the slightly off axis > forces and the continuous motion (higher wear rate than a trim or flap indicator). > > If the Ray Allen is unsuitable, than another potentiometer device would work, since the Dynon has analog 0-5V inputs. > That open possibilities of automotive throttle position sensors etc., but most will likely be harder to mount and > connect a rod to. > > Joe Gores hall effect device has possibilities I will need to look into (Thanks Joe !), although it looks like I might > need to find a way to temperature compensate it. > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > > > From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net <mailto:jluckey(at)pacbell.net>> > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen position sensors > > > > Jeff, > > > > 2 devices pop immediately to mind: a potentiometer (pot) or rotary encoder > > (like the TPS uses). > > But first a few questions. Where do you want to mount the sensor ? -somewhere > > near the aileron -near the bell crank -near aileron axis of the stick ?? > > What type of input does the Dynon have for this purpose ? - Is it expecting an > > analog voltage or a string of bits? > > With a pot, it is trivial to deliver an analog voltage proportional to surface > > deflection. - With a rotary encoder you will need some circuitry. As far as > > connecting linkages & arms, you might look into RC model aircraft hardware. > > There are all kinds of arms, clevises, ball links, etc that could do the job > > See these links for starters: > > http://www.servocity.com/html/servo_power_gearbox_arms.html > > http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0095p?FVPROFIL=&FVSEARCH=aluminum+servo+arms&am; sp; > -=============== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Multiplexing 7-segment LED displays
From: "bcabebe" <n303bc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
james(at)etravel.org wrote: > Instead of running dozens of IO lines, I'd like to multiplex the displays so that the total number of lines is 7 + (no. of digits). We use PIC's and 7-segment LED's in products, so I can give you one way to do it. I can't give you the actual schematic we use, but I can describe the circuity and logic. By the use of five logic chips, we run four digits with 6 control lines. The logic IC's we use are: 74HC595 - 8-bit serial in, parallel out shift register with output latches. One for each 7-segment LED. 74HC238 - 3 to 8 line decoder non-inverting. Qty. 1. Logic connections: Connect outputs from a `595 to the inputs on a 7-segment LED. Tie all serial data input pins on the `595's together and connect to a pin on the PIC. We'll call this the "Data" line. Tie all shift register clock input pins from the `595's together and connect to a pin on the PIC. We'll call this the "Clock" line. Connect each storage register clock input from each `595 to a different Yx output on the `238. Connect A0 - A2 input pins from the `238 to the PIC. We'll call these the "Address" lines. Connect one enable input from the `238 to PIC. We'll call this the "Latch" line. Connect the other enable inputs to their active level, either high or low. Usage: The general idea is to clock in the desired segment settings using the "Clock" and "Data" lines. Then select which digit it applies to with the "Address" lines. Finally, latch the settings to the digit by pulsing the "Latch" line. In detail ... Set "Latch" line to inactive state. This keeps all `595's from latching the following data to their outputs, indirectly, by putting the outputs of the `238 into their inactive state. Bit bang the desired segment settings using the "Clock" and "Data" lines. Note that the data will go to all the `595's in parallel, but won't appear on the any digit until you latch the data to the outputs of one of the `595's. Select the desired digit with the "Address" lines. Note we could run up to eight digits with the same number of control lines. If we only wanted to run three digits, we could eliminate the use of the `238 (and one control line) by connecting the `595 storage register clock inputs directly to the PIC. Push the segment settings to the desired digit by pulsing the "Latch" line active momentarily. This decodes the "Address" lines and makes only one of the outputs of the `238 active, thereby latching data on only one of the `595's. Repeat the sequence three more times for the other three digits. You can run the control lines pretty fast, in the MHz. You can update all four digits so they appear to all change at once. Using this circuitry and method, the PIC doesn't have to periodically refresh the digits, it's a set and forget control method. There are connections on the `595 that I didn't explain how to use, I thought their use was straightforward. Best Regards, Brian Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410148#410148 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
Well, my opinion of Cessna went up several levels. Congratulations Bob, we all know Cessna will benefit, and it sounds very good for you too. Ralph Finch On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> > > At 09:14 PM 10/8/2013, you wrote: > >> >> So, tell more!! Anything interesting on the horizon that you can share? >> >> Congrats on the job, and my condolences on having to spend time away from >> family and friends. Hope you are as productive as you plan to be. >> >> > I'm thinking that this change in direction > may be relatively transparent to my activities > here on the List . . . I won't be checking much > during time walled-off for Cessna but I don't > expect to change the over-all level of participation. > > Many have expressed concerns that other activities > might have to be placed on the back burner because > of new taxations on my time . . . > > Actually, this opportunity may accelerate > those activities because I'll have discretionary > cash that opens more options for how my time is > used as opposed to hiring the time others. It will > also relieve the bottlenecks for new product development > in want of seed money. > > I've been taking the free, Hillsdale online courses in > history and economics. I was thinking last night about > how this change in direction for my personal behaviors > will have a ripple effect that extends far beyond those > things that occupy my own waking hours. > > I highly recommend these courses to any with curiosity > and a need to better understand how 'spontaneous order' > can emerge from what appears chaotic. > > So 'bon voyage' flowers are not necessary . . . you're > not going to get rid of me that easy! But thank you > all for your encouraging words. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Subject: Looking for programmable electrical test box
I don't know what to call it, but I'm looking for a programmable electrical test box: a gizmo that I can program to apply a certain voltage or resistance or current to its connections, that I can program to vary the V, I, or R as a function of time or measured electrical parameter. So for instance I want to apply a draining current to a battery load, such that the draining current is constant (the gizmo will vary the resistance applied to achieve the constant current). The gizmo should record time, V, I, and R so I can download them via bluetooth or USB flash drive. Does such a gizmo exist? Ralph Finch Davis, CA RV-9A build ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking for programmable electrical test box
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
You are looking for a programmable load with extras. Plus a smart ten-year old. You might start here: http://www.amazon.com/Tekpower-TP3710A-Programmable-Electronic-Watts/dp/B008NBGOM6 -------- 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=410153#410153 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking for programmable electrical test box
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
You're looking for an electronic load that has a computer connection for log ging and control. Hope you're feeling spendy! The B&K Precision 8540 is an example of something that might work for you. I have never used one though, so don't take that as a product recommendation. . The number of watts you need will determine the model and price. I would suggest that you consider using constant power mode if you're simula ting avionics loads, or other devices with built in power supplies like LED o r HID landing lights. Those devices typically consume a set amount of power a nd will pull more current as the voltage sags. --Daniel On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Ralph Finch wrote: > I don't know what to call it, but I'm looking for a programmable electrica l test box: a gizmo that I can program to apply a certain voltage or resista nce or current to its connections, that I can program to vary the V, I, or R as a function of time or measured electrical parameter. So for instance I w ant to apply a draining current to a battery load, such that the draining cu rrent is constant (the gizmo will vary the resistance applied to achieve the constant current). The gizmo should record time, V, I, and R so I can downl oad them via bluetooth or USB flash drive. > > Does such a gizmo exist? > > Ralph Finch > Davis, CA > RV-9A build > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Looking for programmable electrical test box
Not exactly what you want to test, but this might do what you want: http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba4 The previous revision has been mentioned on this forum before. I have one and it definitely works as advertized. Dick Tasker Daniel Hooper wrote: > You're looking for an electronic load that has a computer connection for logging and control. Hope you're feeling spendy! > > The B&K Precision 8540 is an example of something that might work for you. I have never used one though, so don't take > that as a product recommendation.. > > The number of watts you need will determine the model and price. > > I would suggest that you consider using constant power mode if you're simulating avionics loads, or other devices with > built in power supplies like LED or HID landing lights. Those devices typically consume a set amount of power and will > pull more current as the voltage sags. > > --Daniel > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Ralph Finch > wrote: > >> I don't know what to call it, but I'm looking for a programmable electrical test box: a gizmo that I can program to >> apply a certain voltage or resistance or current to its connections, that I can program to vary the V, I, or R as a >> function of time or measured electrical parameter. So for instance I want to apply a draining current to a battery >> load, such that the draining current is constant (the gizmo will vary the resistance applied to achieve the constant >> current). The gizmo should record time, V, I, and R so I can download them via bluetooth or USB flash drive. >> >> Does such a gizmo exist? >> >> Ralph Finch >> Davis, CA >> RV-9A build >> * >> >> ================================== >> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> ================================== >> cs.com >> ================================== >> matronics.com/contribution >> ================================== >> >> * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ray Allen position sensors
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
The Ray Allen pot can be mounted with a hinge. Then there will be no sideways force. I bought one of those hall effect sensors to play with. One end of a magnet will make the output voltage go up. The other end of the magnet will make the output voltage go down. I think that a horseshoe magnet will give the largest output range as the magnet moves. The magnet will have to be located near the control pivot point because it only needs to move a fraction of an inch. Another possibility is to use hall effect switches or magnetic reed switches. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410168#410168 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
I went flying yesterday. Before starting the engine, I turned on all electrical loads. After the Dynon D-180 booted up, I checked the fuel pressure from the electric fuel pump. Total full-load master-switch on time was not more than a minute or two. During engine start, the Dynon D-180 rebooted. I gave airplane rides that required 4 more engine starts that day. The DeSlumpifier prevented Dynon reboots on those 4 starts. It seems that the battery must be fully charged for the DeSlumpifier to work. I conclude that the DeSlumpifier works most of the time, but not always, depending on battery charge. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410169#410169 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for programmable electrical test box
At 12:30 PM 10/9/2013, you wrote: >I don't know what to call it, but I'm looking for a programmable >electrical test box: a gizmo that I can program to apply a certain >voltage or resistance or current to its connections, that I can >program to vary the V, I, or R as a function of time or measured >electrical parameter. So for instance I want to apply a draining >current to a battery load, such that the draining current is >constant (the gizmo will vary the resistance applied to achieve the >constant current). The gizmo should record time, V, I, and R so I >can download them via bluetooth or USB flash drive. > >Does such a gizmo exist? Yup. Really nice ones too . . . with prices to match. I've used a variety of commercial load banks and have built several more. Your choice of options is probably budget driven so I'll suggest the po' boy's appraoch. The last programmable load I built (or almost built) looked like this Emacs! It was a bank of 200W, 5 ohm resistors in a cabinet with a really good fan on the back. Switches on the front would allow me turn any one load ON, OFF, or transfer it to a power FET that was controlled out of a computer. The one shown above was intended to perturb the bus on a Horizon with pulses of various duty cycles and amplitudes up to 40A. This one didn't get finished because they (Beech) abandoned the program before I got it done. But the approach is simple. Let us suppose you want 1/2 amp resolution at 14V. The smallest resistor in your string would be 25 ohms. The next step is 12.5 (two 25's in parallel), the third step is 6.2 (three 20 in parallel), fourth is 3 ohms, 5th 1.5 ohms, 6th, 7th and 8th steps are .75 ohms each. Each resistor is controlled by power N-Fet that pulls the free end the resistor to ground. Depending on the 8-bit word written a discrete output port, you can command any combination of loads from about 1/2 amp to 76 amps in 1/2 amp steps. You monitor actual current via a op-amp looking at a shunt and diving an a/d converter. Same A/d converer can watch voltage across the load so that you can do either constant power or constant current operation. A relatively simple program in Basic, C, Pascal or even Forth can be crafted to wiggle gates on the FET array to keep driving toward the target test value. The last time I did this, I used Weeder Technologies modules on the serial port of a laptop running a Basic program. This rather pedestrian setup did a calculation/ correction cycle about 30 times a second. You can do a Rube Goldberg lash-up in a metal box (cheap toolbox from a garage sale using techniques that will hang together long enough for a few tests. If you're looking for something more robust, then a cabinet, fan, and electronic similar to that shown in the picture could be assembled with probably 1/2 again more$ and twice the labor. If you elect to go this route, I can probably dig up the BASIC software and maybe even the schematic. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
At 08:14 AM 10/9/2013, you wrote: >Hi All, > > Thanks for the help. This list is GREAT! I now have the manual > via the "Cloud" as the file was so large. > >Fred Stucklen > >I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. I've downloaded the manual . . . A review of Garmin materials on the website revealed some degree of disorganization and duplication. I've gathered the documents together, renamed to a uniform convention. It took 90 minutes to put the new data package up on the server . . . that's a boat-load of bytes. I've started the bundle upload . . . it takes about 30 minutes. I'll post a note when the 'new and improved' Garmin package is available. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent
Brownout At 06:42 PM 10/9/2013, you wrote: > >I went flying yesterday. Before starting the engine, I turned on >all electrical loads. After the Dynon D-180 booted up, I checked >the fuel pressure from the electric fuel pump. Total full-load >master-switch on time was not more than a minute or two. During >engine start, the Dynon D-180 rebooted. I gave airplane rides that >required 4 more engine starts that day. The DeSlumpifier prevented >Dynon reboots on those 4 starts. It seems that the battery must be >fully charged for the DeSlumpifier to work. I conclude that the >DeSlumpifier works most of the time, but not always, depending on >battery charge. >Joe If you put your voltmeter on a battery that the true 'open circuit' voltage of a battery cannon be read until it has sat unloaded for hours. For a good battery at 100% charge, this will be on the order of 12.8 to 13.0 volts. Open circuit voltage within minutes of having been connected to a 14.6v bus will be higher. It's the higher resting voltage that puts just enough 'snort' on the capacitor to stand off a re-boot event. Here's a thought. A 'tiny' DC/DC up-converter like the one you sent me could be used to charge the capacitors to the higher value. From a practical perspective, you've got all the time in the world to charge the capacitor in anticipation of supporting a brownout transient. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
At 09:45 PM 10/8/2013, you wrote: > >I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. >Kelly Kelly, the link you sent got me a manual on the GTN600/700 series devices. Was this an error on Fred's part? Is there such a thing as a GNS-650? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
> I've started the bundle upload . . . it takes about > 30 minutes. I'll post a note when the 'new and improved' > Garmin package is available. The Garmin data I've collected to date is available here. http://tinyurl.com/khk3hcv . . . I just noticed that the nice download that Kelly shared with me was for some GTN series systems, NOT GNS. I'm not seeing any mention of a GNS650 on the 'net. Were we talking about a GTN650 instead? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
The product is GTN650 and 750, and variants that delete com and or vor receivers. The GNS products were previous generation models. Kelly On 10/9/2013 6:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 09:45 PM 10/8/2013, you wrote: >> >> >> I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. >> Kelly > > Kelly, the link you sent got me a manual on the GTN600/700 series > devices. Was this an error on Fred's part? Is there such a thing > as a GNS-650? > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2013
> Here's a thought. A 'tiny' DC/DC up-converter > like the one you sent me could be used to charge > the capacitors to the higher value. The P6KE18CA voltage transient suppressor in the DeSlumpifier has an operating voltage of about 15 volts. The super capacitors are rated at 5 volts each, total of 20 volts for 4 in series. So the DeSlumpifier could be powered by up to 15 volts without a problem. There is also the FMEA consideration, more parts to fail. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410182#410182 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent
Brownout At 09:48 PM 10/9/2013, you wrote: > > > > Here's a thought. A 'tiny' DC/DC up-converter > > like the one you sent me could be used to charge > > the capacitors to the higher value. > >The P6KE18CA voltage transient suppressor in the DeSlumpifier has an >operating voltage of about 15 volts. The super capacitors are rated >at 5 volts each, total of 20 volts for 4 in series. So the >DeSlumpifier could be powered by up to 15 volts without a problem. >There is also the FMEA consideration, more parts to fail. >Joe Yup, . . . so it may be that having a dc/dc converter sized to the task is a lower parts count and probably lower cost than trying to store the transient support energy on capacitors alone. Garmin could have foreseen this and designed their inboard supply to accommodate the real-world of vehicular DC power systems. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
At 09:02 PM 10/9/2013, you wrote: > >The product is GTN650 and 750, and variants that delete com and or >vor receivers. >The GNS products were previous generation models. Aha! Thanks. So the GTN series manual is likely to address Fred's needs? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
I've published a compendium of articles on the B787 battery story at: http://tinyurl.com/ag2e9xk but in particular, there's a recent addition that adds a lot of useful information http://tinyurl.com/lyc5845 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
From: speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 09, 2013
Congrats, Bob. Cessna got the best end of that deal! Stan Sutterfield From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: An opportunity too good to miss . . . It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that was just too good to go begging - I'll be work there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly sooner. I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita away from distractions like workshops, bins full of parts, and too many tools. This will be used to get some writing projects under way, . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the 'Connection. This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously evolved and expanded on capabilities that Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided they could purchase that work product. They let all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. The first time was on the 310/320 production line wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! Worked that job for one week and gave them two weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna electronics design and development facilities that really got the juices going! My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- Thurs but we can make it work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 09, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: GTN-650 Installation Manual
Yes On 10/9/2013 8:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 09:02 PM 10/9/2013, you wrote: >> >> >> The product is GTN650 and 750, and variants that delete com and or >> vor receivers. >> The GNS products were previous generation models. > > Aha! Thanks. So the GTN series manual is likely > to address Fred's needs? > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
I am puzzled by the article of the recent addition, that states that a li-ion battery is especially prone to destructive thermal runaway when discharged. I do not believe this is true, on the contrary. Jan de Jong On 10/10/2013 5:03 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > I've published a compendium of articles on the B787 > battery story at: > > http://tinyurl.com/ag2e9xk > > but in particular, there's a recent addition that > adds a lot of useful information > > http://tinyurl.com/lyc5845 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GNS-650 Installation Manual
From: Eddy <eddyfernan(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
GTN Garmin Touchscreen navigator. Eddy Fernandez On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > The product is GTN650 and 750, and variants that delete com and or vor receivers. > The GNS products were previous generation models. > Kelly > On 10/9/2013 6:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> At 09:45 PM 10/8/2013, you wrote: >>> >>> I would be happy to send copy to Bob's on line collection of manuals. >>> Kelly >> >> Kelly, the link you sent got me a manual on the GTN600/700 series >> devices. Was this an error on Fred's part? Is there such a thing >> as a GNS-650? >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Subject: Re: An opportunity too good to miss . . .
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Indeed they did. Godspeed, Bob. -Bill Boyd On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:48 PM, wrote: > Congrats, Bob. > Cessna got the best end of that deal! > Stan Sutterfield > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: An opportunity too good to miss . . . > > > It's official. Cessna has made me an offer that > was just too good to go begging - I'll be work > there as a contractor next week for sure, possibly > sooner. > > I'll be spending three nights a week in Wichita > away from distractions like workshops, bins > full of parts, and too many tools. This will be > used to get some writing projects under way, > . . . not the least of which is Rev 13 to the > 'Connection. > > This is kind of exciting. Cessna has continuously > evolved and expanded on capabilities that > Beech and Cessna shared about 25 years ago. > > Somewhere along the road, powers at Beech decided > they could purchase that work product. They let > all of their labs and skunk-werks facilities go. > > This will be the third time I've worked for Cessna. > The first time was on the 310/320 production line > wiring the nose wheel well. That was 50 years ago! > Worked that job for one week and gave them two > weeks notice . . . I got a short tour of the Cessna > electronics design and development facilities that > really got the juices going! > > My daytime activity on the List will be limited Mon- > Thurs but we can make it work. > > > Bob . . . > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
At 06:46 AM 10/10/2013, you wrote: > >I am puzzled by the article of the recent addition, that states that >a li-ion battery is especially prone to destructive thermal runaway >when discharged. >I do not believe this is true, on the contrary. Can you elaborate? I've read from several sources that the Li-Ion technologies are at greatest risk for unhappy thermal events when they're discharged and then RECHARGED without regard to their special needs. The cell's tendency to dissipate heat internally is highest when at a low state of charge (a state if higher internal resistance?) is combined with legacy recharge philosophies for allowing say a 60A alternator to run essentially full-bore to bring the battery back up to full charge. Hence, the "special chargers" that plug into dedicated connectors on some products for the purpose of achieving a fully charged battery after deep discharge. I think this is the condition being described in the article. It's also a condition that seems to be ignored the literature by some suppliers of Li-Ion products. It's a fundamental question to be explored about the suitability of an Li-Ion product as a drop-in, plug-n-play replacement for a lead-acid battery. Boeing seems to have given due diligence to this phenomenon by stating that a battery allowed to discharge below some value is considered 'scrap' . . . hence the multiple replacements of batteries in the field . . . batteries that were retired much too early. I wonder if these were 'recycled' in any way . . . perhaps returned to a battery lab where they were carefully recharged and perhaps returned to service? I think I've read elsewhere that some suppliers of commercial off the shelf Li-Ion batteries suggest that a battery not be discharged below 30% of full capacity. If this is good advice, then one would want to (1) either select new batteries with 30% more headroom for capacity in the endurance mode and then monitored for load-shedding at 30% and/or (2) take extra care in recharging the battery should you take it down too far . . . don't let your alternator do it. Our friends at Cessna are still sifting the simple-ideas that drive this technology. I'll be working in the same building with these folks which may add to my own understanding along with some simple-ideas that can be shared. Got to be careful here. Contractors and employees alike sign non-disclosure agreements. But no doubt, the simple ideas that drive the physics of battery performance are not going to be any kind of 'secret' . . . these are the ingredients that drive risks and successes in the marketplace and will have to be well understood by everybody. There is still much to learn my friends. I'll remain cautious with any advice I have for dropping this technology into an OBAM aircraft. Setting airplanes on fire is really bad for business. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
> Garmin could have foreseen this and designed their > inboard supply to accommodate the real-world of > vehicular DC power systems. Actually it is a Dynon D-180, not Garmin. To be fair, the D-180 has an optional internal Li-ion backup battery which prevents brownouts. My backup battery died. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410212#410212 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Joe, Thanks for testing the DeSlumpifier. Bob, Thanks for your comments. Putting in a DC-DC booster is possible, but it wouldn't be my design choice. IMHO-- I think that merely adding capacitance may do the trick. When the capacitors discharge, they slump depending on the load requirements. When the battery is at low voltage, the caps may not be charged up to a point where they can supply enough energy for long enough to prevent rebooting. Adding higher value caps is easy and cheap. Since the recharge time increases too, a judicious increase would be 2X. So Joe, if you send me the DeSlumpifier back I'll put bigger caps in it and return 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=410215#410215 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
This is a catch 22 situation. A smart battery charger will not turn on and start charging a battery unless it first sees a battery connected. And the aircraft ground power circuit will not turn on unless it first sees ground power connected. Even if a battery maintainer was able to energize the aircraft ground power contactor, that contactor might consume all of the maintainer output. The maintainer might not have enough energy left to charge or maintain the aircraft battery. I do not see a simple solution to this problem. There is an error in the schematic. The wire coming out of the top of the OV module should connect to the top of contactor coil, not the bottom of the coil. Bad things could happen if wired as drawn. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410222#410222 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: iPad charger?
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
I've been looking for an accessory adapter that will charge an iPad (while in use). All the adapters I've found so far either don't put out enough power to charge the iPad or, if they can, get really hot and eventually fail. Has anyone found a charging adapter that will work (on 14v and 28v aircraft)? I was also thinking of building one with a panel mount USB port. But so far, every circuit I've found has... issues. :( Does anyone have a suggestion for such a circuit? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410227#410227 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
I picked up a few cigarette lighter adapters from Dealxtreme that were supposed to be able to provide ipad current. Some couldn't, and one made my car radio unusable whenever it was plugged in. Sorry to not be able to provide any more help, other than to say that you may have mixed results with the seemingly easy and cheap import options. On Oct 10, 2013, at 13:22, "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote: > > I've been looking for an accessory adapter that will charge an iPad (while in use). All the adapters I've found so far either don't put out enough power to charge the iPad or, if they can, get really hot and eventually fail. > > Has anyone found a charging adapter that will work (on 14v and 28v aircraft)? > > I was also thinking of building one with a panel mount USB port. But so far, every circuit I've found has... issues. :( Does anyone have a suggestion for such a circuit? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410227#410227 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent
Brownout At 08:37 AM 10/10/2013, you wrote: > > > > Garmin could have foreseen this and designed their > > inboard supply to accommodate the real-world of > > vehicular DC power systems. > >Actually it is a Dynon D-180, not Garmin. To be fair, the D-180 has >an optional internal Li-ion backup battery which prevents >brownouts. My backup battery died. Opps . . . apologies to Dynon. Nonetheless, tailoring input power conditioning to accommodate starter inrush brownout isn't a big task. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dennis A Glaeser <dennis.glaeser(at)gm.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
Date: Oct 10, 2013
I use a 12 volt cigarette plug from Radio Shack that puts out the required amps for 2 iDevices. I haven't looked for a 28V charger. You do have to specify that is for an iDevice to get one with the proper po wer output. Dennis Glaeser Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature u nless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the person or entit y to which it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or privileged m aterial. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your co mputer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "CHARLES T BECKER" <ctbecker(at)atlanticbb.net>
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Why not have a 'manual' switch to activate the contactor for battery mainenance? "jonlaury" wrote: > > > One of the reasons I installed a GPJ was that I thought >that I would be able to hook up my battery maintainer >through it. > But when the Schumacher XC-10 is connected, there's not >sufficient power to light the GP indicator lamp or close >the GPG contactor. > How do I make this happen? > > Thanks, > John > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410145#410145 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/z8_20td_final_191.pdf > > > > >Un/Subscription, >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >Forums! >Admin. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Question on pwr. dist. diag. Z-19
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Bob, On Z-19, I note that the dual batteries are connected in parallel via a brass strap and via grounds which both go to the PNL; one feeds a "Main Battery Bus"; the other feeds the "Engine Battery Bus"; the ECU and fuel pump are fed from both busses via "Engine Primary" and "Engine Secondary" switches and diode bridges. What I don't understand is why, since the dual batteries are connected, are 2 busses necessary?...Why not just one bus being fed off either of the 2 batteries?...is there a battery failure mode with dual batteries which would preclude drawing current from the good battery thru the failed battery? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
Date: Oct 10, 2013
And you need to design so that the unit can be hard wired into the panel, not just portable. M. Haught On Oct 10, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Eric Page wrote: > flush with USB chargers of every size, brand, color and price. Sadly, apart from a few OEM products, they seem to share one trait in common: poor design, parts quality and manufacturing. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "Scott R. Shook" <scott(at)n696js.com>
I bought one from Best Buy about 3 years ago - I use it in my truck for my iPhone most of the time; but it has had no problem on long trips keeping the iPad going. It even has a USB adapter on the top of the cigarette plug that I have used simultaneously to charge another device. Works like a charm. Scott R. Shook On 10/10/13 10:22 , "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote: ><don@velocity-xl.com> > >I've been looking for an accessory adapter that will charge an iPad >(while in use). All the adapters I've found so far either don't put out >enough power to charge the iPad or, if they can, get really hot and >eventually fail. > >Has anyone found a charging adapter that will work (on 14v and 28v >aircraft)? > >I was also thinking of building one with a panel mount USB port. But so >far, every circuit I've found has... issues. :( Does anyone have a >suggestion for such a circuit? > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410227#410227 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Oct 10, 2013
You got lucky! I've got one that I use in my truck too that has been a good one. But the ones we took to Alaska were junk.....and 3 of them were expensive, which we bought under the premise that "you get what you pay for". Not so! We took all of them apart in the motel to see if we could fix them....just junk. I've got one from my old Noki smart phone that is really good, and two Apple units that are in constant use. M. Haught On Oct 10, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Scott R. Shook wrote: > > I bought one from Best Buy about 3 years ago - I use it in my truck for my > iPhone most of the time; but it has had no problem on long trips keeping > the iPad going. It even has a USB adapter on the top of the cigarette > plug that I have used simultaneously to charge another device. Works like > a charm. > > Scott R. Shook > > > > > > On 10/10/13 10:22 , "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote: > >> <don@velocity-xl.com> >> >> I've been looking for an accessory adapter that will charge an iPad >> (while in use). All the adapters I've found so far either don't put out >> enough power to charge the iPad or, if they can, get really hot and >> eventually fail. >> >> Has anyone found a charging adapter that will work (on 14v and 28v >> aircraft)? >> >> I was also thinking of building one with a panel mount USB port. But so >> far, every circuit I've found has... issues. :( Does anyone have a >> suggestion for such a circuit? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410227#410227 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Withdraw Question on pwr. dist. diag. Z-19
Date: Oct 10, 2013
Bob...question withdrawn, as I more carefully review the diagram...Fred Bob, On Z-19, I note that the dual batteries are connected in parallel via a brass strap and via grounds which both go to the PNL; one feeds a "Main Battery Bus"; the other feeds the "Engine Battery Bus"; the ECU and fuel pump are fed from both busses via "Engine Primary" and "Engine Secondary" switches and diode bridges. What I don't understand is why, since the dual batteries are connected, are 2 busses necessary?...Why not just one bus being fed off either of the 2 batteries?...is there a battery failure mode with dual batteries which would preclude drawing current from the good battery thru the failed battery? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 10, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Withdraw Question on pwr. dist. diag. Z-19
At 09:32 PM 10/10/2013, you wrote: > >Bob...question withdrawn, as I more carefully review the diagram...Fred Very good sir. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
Hi Bob, I agree. Over-discharging and then recharging at full speed is a reported safety issue. I wondered about the mention of discharge by itself ("starting an APU") as a safety issue. Maybe the increased internal resistance (50 to 100% increase at 15% SOC I saw somewhere) makes it so. On the other hand, the exothermal reaction starts more slowly and is less violent in a discharged cell. Bottom line - I should have kept my peace. Jan de Jong On 10/10/2013 3:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 06:46 AM 10/10/2013, you wrote: >> >> >> I am puzzled by the article of the recent addition, that states that >> a li-ion battery is especially prone to destructive thermal runaway >> when discharged. >> I do not believe this is true, on the contrary. > > Can you elaborate? I've read from several sources that > the Li-Ion technologies are at greatest risk for unhappy > thermal events when they're discharged and then RECHARGED > without regard to their special needs. > > The cell's tendency to dissipate heat internally is highest > when at a low state of charge (a state if higher internal > resistance?) is combined with legacy recharge philosophies > for allowing say a 60A alternator to run essentially full-bore to > bring the battery back up to full charge. > > Hence, the "special chargers" that plug into dedicated > connectors on some products for the purpose of achieving > a fully charged battery after deep discharge. > > I think this is the condition being described in the > article. It's also a condition that seems to be ignored > the literature by some suppliers of Li-Ion products. > It's a fundamental question to be explored about the > suitability of an Li-Ion product as a drop-in, plug-n-play > replacement for a lead-acid battery. > > Boeing seems to have given due diligence to this > phenomenon by stating that a battery allowed to discharge > below some value is considered 'scrap' . . . hence the > multiple replacements of batteries in the field . . . > batteries that were retired much too early. I wonder if > these were 'recycled' in any way . . . perhaps returned > to a battery lab where they were carefully recharged and > perhaps returned to service? > > I think I've read elsewhere that some suppliers of > commercial off the shelf Li-Ion batteries suggest that > a battery not be discharged below 30% of full capacity. > If this is good advice, then one would want to (1) either > select new batteries with 30% more headroom for capacity > in the endurance mode and then monitored for load-shedding > at 30% and/or (2) take extra care in recharging the > battery should you take it down too far . . . don't let > your alternator do it. > > Our friends at Cessna are still sifting the simple-ideas > that drive this technology. I'll be working in the same > building with these folks which may add to my own > understanding along with some simple-ideas that can be > shared. Got to be careful here. Contractors > and employees alike sign non-disclosure agreements. But > no doubt, the simple ideas that drive the physics of > battery performance are not going to be any kind of > 'secret' . . . these are the ingredients that drive > risks and successes in the marketplace and will have > to be well understood by everybody. There is still much to > learn my friends. I'll remain cautious with any advice I > have for dropping this technology into an OBAM aircraft. > Setting airplanes on fire is really bad for business. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Subject: Re: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
Some interesting stuff in there Bob. Two things in particular stood out: 1) Are customers going to have the appetite for the increase in useful load when compared with the risk associated with the new battery technology, when such benign alternatives exist? 2) What is the wisdom of making things so different for ground crew on one Boeing aeroplane? It seems to be tempting fate by making ground operations different. In my line of work the non-functional requirements are often the ones that bite you, and perhaps this is a similar case. James On 10 October 2013 04:03, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> > > I've published a compendium of articles on the B787 > battery story at: > > http://tinyurl.com/ag2e9xk > > but in particular, there's a recent addition that > adds a lot of useful information > > http://tinyurl.com/lyc5845 > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Congratulations, Bob!
Bob,=0A=0AMany people have chimed in about your contract job with Cessna. I want to congratulate you, too.- I think you are a great asset in the OBA M world and will help Cesspool become Cessna again.=0A=0ASuch jobs require a lot of time. I can't help but think that your AE activities will slow dow n, since there's only so many femtoseconds in a day. It's okay. Do a great job at Cessna and- whatever time you have left is good enough for us. Hop efully your home lab activities will be supplanted by Cessna lab activities , which means you will be helping both entities.=0A=0AIf contracting pays o ff big time, perhaps you will find it in your heart to send us all $100 so we can get through the shutdown. :)=0A=0A-=0AHenador Titzoff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: B-787 Li-Ion battery story continues
I think Boeing have got themselves into a difficult place - possibly involving considerable politics. Its clear the original decision was based on saving weight - I don't know what the value per pound would have been but I project I was involved with not too long ago was up to $10,000 per pound saved and was talking of going to $50K - that's development $$ spent to save one pound. A Li battery was probably very attractive and a low cost weight save. But the technology maturity assessment now seems to be inaccurate. It has become clear that the actual in service weight saving is negligible with the extra metal work, the maintenance overhead is large, and the reputational impact for all concerned is is difficult to quantify. The big picture view seems to say fit a NiCad for a quiet life, I'm guessing that most airlines would accept a small weight increase (on a 260,000 lb airframe) - is the weight saving equation now around the other way? But what are the internal Boeing political implications of such a change? We'll probably never know ... Its an interesting saga to watch from the outside and try to guess what is going on! Peter On 11/10/2013 12:35, James Kilford wrote: > Some interesting stuff in there Bob. Two things in particular stood out: > > 1) Are customers going to have the appetite for the increase in useful > load when compared with the risk associated with the new battery > technology, when such benign alternatives exist? > > 2) What is the wisdom of making things so different for ground crew on > one Boeing aeroplane? It seems to be tempting fate by making ground > operations different. In my line of work the non-functional > requirements are often the ones that bite you, and perhaps this is a > similar case. > > James > > > On 10 October 2013 04:03, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > > > > I've published a compendium of articles on the B787 > battery story at: > > http://tinyurl.com/ag2e9xk > > but in particular, there's a recent addition that > adds a lot of useful information > > http://tinyurl.com/lyc5845 > > > Bob . . . > > =================================== > - > ric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > =================================== > MS - > k">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > e - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Congratulations, Bob!
At 07:18 AM 10/11/2013, you wrote: >Bob, > >Many people have chimed in about your contract job with Cessna. I >want to congratulate you, too. I think you are a great asset in the >OBAM world and will help Cesspool become Cessna again. Certainly Cessna, (like EVERY other manufacturer of goods and services) has suffered from the stubbing of technological and marketing toes. But such is the nature of success/failure in the free-market exchange of value. They are, after all, managed by mere mortals. I think the measure of an institution is defined not so much by the nature of their blunders but by what is done repair damage to stature and to prevent them from happening again. My boss has identified some shortcomings in his domain that he has asked me to consider and then apply skills specific to mitigation of those weaknesses. I cannot speak for other bosses throughout the Cessna hierarchy but this one seems to have a solid grip on his mission and design goals. >Such jobs require a lot of time. I can't help but think that your AE >activities will slow down, since there's only so many femtoseconds >in a day. It's okay. Do a great job at Cessna and whatever time you >have left is good enough for us. Hopefully your home lab activities >will be supplanted by Cessna lab activities, which means you will be >helping both entities. Actually, my work there probably won't have much to do with the hammer-n-tongs implementation of their technology. Those folks are WAaaaayy out ahead of anything we did at Beech on the airplanes. Now . . . If I could round up all those guys I used to work with at the Targets Division, I'm confident that they would fit nicely into the herding of bytes and electrons at Cessna. My greatest attention will be on communication. The use of English words in a manner that describes design goals and requirements as accurately and unambiguously as their words in C describe functions in their airplanes. >If contracting pays off big time, perhaps you will find it in your >heart to send us all $100 so we can get through the shutdown. :) Understand. Dr. Dee was bullied from her chairmanship of the psychology department at Bethany College. She has been looking at replacement opportunities for the last 6 months or so. Just yesterday she received a phone call from her 1st choice of opportunities that not only got her a healthy raise but relieved her of much of the $overhead$ associated with the Bethany job. She loved the work with Bethany students and the honorable amongst her colleagues. However, tariffs levied on her finances and the attacks on her integrity made it seem as if she were paying to work there! The AeroElectric-List came into being and grew during my full time tenure at Beech . . . I'm not expecting that pressures on my 'spare' time will be any greater at Cessna. In fact, the efficient conversion of time to cash gives us the opportunity to exercise the principals of Spontaneous Order to allocation of time. I'll be able to hire some maintenance and upgrade work on the house instead of making my own sawdust. You guys should have seen Dr. Dee yesterday. She got up on the roof and cleaned some gutters before patching some leaks at the joints. Scared the @#^#$ out of me, but she was grin'n ear-to-ear when she got down with the job done. I'm hanging new gutters on the other end of the house today. I thank you all for the kind thoughts and wishes. Compared with two months ago we are now more optimistic for the future than ever. I'm running low on R12 books. Need to get the next revision done and printed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
I've made one of these 10-37V input, variable output 5A linear chargers for a customer. I don't like switch mode power supplies where they can be avoided due to the unknowns of RFI/EMI. Better quality switchers CAN be found. I might be persuaded to make a run of these in about a month. -------- 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=410314#410314 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/5a_avr_850.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
At 07:10 AM 10/11/2013, you wrote: > >Add me to the list - I already have the panel spot and fuse slot identified. > >Is there an 'easy' way to determine externally whether a given >cheapo or high price cig plug usb charger is the switcher/linear >regulator type or the type that has some chance of working for >awhile? 'Easy' being defined as with a multi-meter or perhaps even >a quick peek inside. Interesting question. While all the discussion has been centered on I-Pad supplies, the problems are not limited to the I-Pad. If somebody had told me 10 years ago that the whole world will run out of a USB port in the future, I would have scoffed. But here we are. At first the USB port was a serial data specialty connection that just happened to include a 5VDC source that would support a half-amp or so of load by some accessory . . . like a mouse or a keyboard. But the mobile phone industry jumped on that 5v source as a means by which batteries could be charged. This prompted a huge growth in 5v power conditioners from wall-warts, cigar-lighter adapters and a boost in power output ratings of USB ports on appliances. I have a USB hub on my desktop that comes with a 5v, 2A wall wart intended to augment the 5v, 1/2A capability of the port on the computer. Now comes the I-Pad and similar devices with screens that need power. Dr. Dee has a Kindle that charges with a 5v wall-wart . . . or USB port on a computer . . . but charging times are long (6+ hours) and these chargers will not support simultaneous charging and operation of the device. I found a 5v 2A wall wart that will both charge and power her Kindle. The key feature is to identify a power source that offers several times the current carrying ability of the run-of-the-mill adapters that have served us well with mobile phones and MP3 players over the past ten years. My gut feeling is that the contemporary 5v adapters that are failing are simply being taxed beyond their design ratings. JUST BECAUSE the thing plugs into a USB mini or micro port doesn't mean that it was ever intended to supply 5 to 10 watt power demands of the new devices. I've never seen a cigar lighter adapter where the nameplate rating exceeded 600 mA (3 watts). I suspect that most are not rated for even that much. I have ordered some 5v, 3A current limited, voltage regulated step-down converters that will accept up to 33 volts of DC input. I'll test these on the bench and then craft a project that will offer a row of USB connectors (DC power only) and a wide range of DC input voltages with the design goal of grunting the greater demands of contemporary devices for 5v power while paying due diligence to noise issues. Those who are interested in measuring demands and qualifying their adapters could build adapter harnesses that would permit a multimeter view of both current demand and supply voltage under load. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: <rd2(at)dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
Yes Eric, the linear 24->19 V PS you made for me works beautifully. Rumen ---- "Eric M. Jones" wrote: ============ I've made one of these 10-37V input, variable output 5A linear chargers for a customer. I don't like switch mode power supplies where they can be avoided due to the unknowns of RFI/EMI. Better quality switchers CAN be found. I might be persuaded to make a run of these in about a month. -------- 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=410314#410314 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/5a_avr_850.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Congratulations, Bob!
Good luck, sir! I have always found that the English language, in either the Queen's or US dialect, was a remarkably poor tool for such a task. Its a challenge to which we must all pay particular heed as the alternatives are not very attractive. Peter On 11/10/2013 15:03, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > My greatest attention will be on communication. The > use of English words in a manner that describes design > goals and requirements as accurately and unambiguously > as their words in C describe functions in their airplanes. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
Another item to throw into the mix: The iPad cable is more than 'just' a cable. If you slide down the sleeve on the connector that plugs into the mini iPad you will find a circuit board containing a bunch of components. Buying a 'cheap' replacement cord from eBay will probably charge the mini but the new iOS upgrade will pop up a warning message informing you it may not.. The 'wall-mart' 110VAC is not the cause of the warning.. I have tried them from three different suppliers with the same results. Only the original cord mutes the warning. I've read somewhere that the charging rate of the iPad is also controlled by the cord. Buyer beware... ;) Earl >>Now comes the I-Pad and similar devices with screens that need power. Dr. Dee has a Kindle that charges with a 5v wall-wart . . . or USB port on a computer . . . but charging times are long (6+ hours) and these chargers will not support simultaneous charging and operation of the device. My gut feeling is that the contemporary 5v adapters that are failing are simply being taxed beyond their design ratings. JUST BECAUSE the thing plugs into a USB mini or micro port doesn't mean that it was ever intended to supply 5 to 10 watt power demands of the new devices. I've never seen a cigar lighter adapter where the nameplate rating exceeded 600 mA (3 watts). I suspect that most are not rated for even that much. Bob . . . << ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
user9253 wrote: > This is a catch 22 situation. A smart battery charger will not turn on and start charging a battery unless it first sees a battery connected. And the aircraft ground power circuit will not turn on unless it first sees ground power connected. > Even if a battery maintainer was able to energize the aircraft ground power contactor, that contactor might consume all of the maintainer output. The maintainer might not have enough energy left to charge or maintain the aircraft battery. > I do not see a simple solution to this problem. > There is an error in the schematic. The wire coming out of the top of the OV module should connect to the top of contactor coil, not the bottom of the coil. Bad things could happen if wired as drawn. > Joe Joe, thanks for having my back on the OVM wiring. Got that corrected on the schematic. In exploring Charles' idea of a manual switch, intuitively I thought that drawing power from the battery while trying to charge it might mess up the charging side of things. But what about attaching a 12 v wall wart supply to the positive of the GPJ to provide the necessary current to close the contactor and light the indicator lamp? Upon contactor closure, the batt maitainer would sense battery 12.5v (+/-) and supply the necessary V+ to charge the batt. The fly in the ointment that I can see is that the higher voltage of the batt would takeover the current demands of the contactor and lamp and we're back to square one. UNLESS... the charger can provide enough amperage for both contactor demand and battery demand now that the connection to the batt has been accomplished. I think I may be chasing my tail. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410329#410329 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
> >In exploring Charles' idea of a manual switch, intuitively I thought >that drawing power from the battery while trying to charge it might >mess up the charging side of things. Truly 'smart chargers' will tolerate this. For example: http://tinyurl.com/mzzselv Here, a load applied during a sustaining state the charter went to work to grunt the load and stayed in the top-off mode. It returned to the sustaining mode when the load was removed. A still heavier load would have overwhelmed the charger's ability to grunt the load and no doubt the voltage would have sagged. But recovery after removal of load would have been the same. I cannot speak to this capability in other maintainers without tests. > But what about attaching a 12 v wall wart supply to the positive > of the GPJ to provide the necessary current to close the contactor > and light the indicator lamp? Upon contactor closure, the batt > maitainer would sense battery 12.5v (+/-) and supply the necessary > V+ to charge the batt. The fly in the ointment that I can see is > that the higher voltage of the batt would takeover the current > demands of the contactor and lamp and we're back to square one. > UNLESS... the charger can provide enough amperage for both > contactor demand and battery demand now that the connection to the > batt has been accomplished. >I think I may be chasing my tail. Why not simply provide a ground maintenance connector for the battery? Take a 5A fuse from your battery bus to any handy connector situated for easy access in the hangar. Plug your maintainer into this jack while parked. But even before that, what is the perceived value of 'plugging-in'? RG batteries exhibit very low self discharge rates . . . and those rates are temperature dependent. A battery stored in a hangar over the winter would probably start the engine next spring. Plugging- in between flights during the flying season probably doesn't add much to the utility or service life of the battery. But assume you are plugged-in. Assume further that the charger-maintainer is in the same league as the Schumacher 1562 series devices. Hitting the battery with some load for ground ops while the charger is attached will not chase the charger into the weeds; proper charging/maintaining of the battery will resume when the load is removed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Cover of Revision 13
Still looking for suggestions/photos as candidtates for the front cover of Revision 13. Many of you will recall that we had a run-off here on the list to choose from several options on R12. At the moment, there's nothing in the hopper . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
From: James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org>
How about a mosaic made up of lots of small photos of people's installations? Or perhaps specific detail from people's installations, e.g. a fuse, a regulator, an alternator, etc. In fact, given the name of Aeroelectric Connection... how about they're each of a connection used in an installation, e.g, a crimp, a spade, a lug, a contactor bolt, etc. I'll volunteer to assemble them into one mosaic. Cheers, James On 11 October 2013 17:36, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**> > > Still looking for suggestions/photos as candidtates > for the front cover of Revision 13. Many of you will > recall that we had a run-off here on the list to > choose from several options on R12. At the moment, > there's nothing in the hopper . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Words as parts
At 09:37 AM 10/11/2013, you wrote: > > >Good luck, sir! I have always found that the English language, in >either the Queen's or US dialect, was a remarkably poor tool for >such a task. Its a challenge to which we must all pay particular >heed as the alternatives are not very attractive. Yes, it'a a challenge . . . combined with infinite opportunity. Consider a bucket-load of assorted electronics components, nuts, bolts, enclosures and wire. Then consider the dictionary occupying a place of high stature on stands in thousands of libraries . . . 500,000+ words? These two conglomerates have a common opportunity to craft parts/words into an assembly with value to others. Words can be used to inform, entertain, persuade and injure. So it is with that bucket full of parts. Efficient use of words/parts is an acquired skill. Design goals must be tailored to the work-product's end-use. Design goals for technical writing MAY include elements of information, persuasion and entertainment. That's the stuff I like to do in my writing for the OBAM aviation readers. Technical writing for industry needs to be as trim, direct and invariable as the words used to program a computer or to describe the recipe for a fine dish. It's a different kind of writing. Technical writing often speaks to individuals for whom English is not a first language. This job will dictate that I trade the fun-hat for the information-hat. First to craft a sub-set dictionary of words that have singular meaning and chosen to be the preferred term for that meaning within the discipline. Then study and teach ways to craft the elegant sentence. A task no different than crafting the elegant circuit or software routine. Minimize the variety and numbers of parts/words while meeting design goals. The writing goal is to maximize concentricity of images/ideas between a writer and reader. My task would be no different were the root language anything other than English. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Any new switching circuit should be carefully analyzed to be sure that the reverse polarity and over-voltage protection is not defeated. Momentarily connecting a 12 volt wall wart is worth a try, or any 12 volt external battery for that matter, to get the battery maintainer operating. Without knowing the characteristics of the battery maintainer, experimenting is required. Consider charging the aircraft battery with a direct connection instead of using the ground power port. This charger from Walmart comes with a cord that attaches permanently to a battery. On the end of the cord is a plug that connects to another plug on the end of the battery charger cord. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Schumacher-Automotive-SpeedCharge-Battery-Maintainer-and-Charger/13005742 The hard part is finding a place on the aircraft to mount the plug so that the charger can be plugged in without opening the cowl. On my RV-12, I plug my battery maintainer into the always hot cigarette lighter outlet inside of the cockpit. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410341#410341 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
At 11:53 AM 10/11/2013, you wrote: >How about a mosaic made up of lots of small >photos of people's installations? Or perhaps >specific detail from people's installations, >e.g. a fuse, a regulator, an alternator, etc. >In fact, given the name of Aeroelectric >Connection... how about they're each of a >connection used in an installation, e.g, a >crimp, a spade, a lug, a contactor bolt, etc. > >I'll volunteer to assemble them into one mosaic. > >Cheers, > >James Sounds good to me! But you're going to have to sell it to the List. I'll put any and all offerings into a folder on the website. About a month before I have to finalize the content for printing, we'll have a run-off. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
>This charger from Walmart comes with a cord that attaches >permanently to a battery. On the end of the cord is a plug that >connects to another plug on the end of the battery charger cord. >http://www.walmart.com/ip/Schumacher-Automotive-SpeedCharge-Battery-Maintainer-and-Charger/13005742 Geesh . . . the thing is down to $17. That has to be the greatest bang for the buck of any similar product offered. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Eric Would it be a simple matter to hook up a couple of USB ports to such a device to be able to charge two iDevices simultaneously? Sacha On Oct 11, 2013, at 16:29, wrote: > > Yes Eric, > the linear 24->19 V PS you made for me works beautifully. > Rumen > > ---- "Eric M. Jones" wrote: > > ============ > > I've made one of these 10-37V input, variable output 5A linear chargers for a customer. I don't like switch mode power supplies where they can be avoided due to the unknowns of RFI/EMI. Better quality switchers CAN be found. > > I might be persuaded to make a run of these in about a month. > > -------- > 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=410314#410314 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/5a_avr_850.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Relay for Critical Power Feed
From: Thomas E Blejwas <tomblejwas(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Bob, In Z-19, you use a diode bridge for critical power feeds. Can a relay be used instead? For example: connect Power Source #1 to terminal 86 and to the critical component; connect Power Source #2 to terminal 30; and 87a to the critical component. If both switched on, power comes from #1, otherwise power comes from whichever is switched on. Seems that this has the advantage of no need for a heat sink and failure of the relay does not prevent power to the critical component. What am I missing? Thanks. Tom Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry van Dyk" <gerry.vandyk(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Cover of Revision 13
Date: Oct 11, 2013
How about a central image of a nice homebuilt airplane with the images of electrical goodies and installations making a border for it? Gerry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: October 11, 2013 11:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cover of Revision 13 At 11:53 AM 10/11/2013, you wrote: >How about a mosaic made up of lots of small >photos of people's installations? Or perhaps >specific detail from people's installations, >e.g. a fuse, a regulator, an alternator, etc. >In fact, given the name of Aeroelectric >Connection... how about they're each of a >connection used in an installation, e.g, a >crimp, a spade, a lug, a contactor bolt, etc. > >I'll volunteer to assemble them into one mosaic. > >Cheers, > >James Sounds good to me! But you're going to have to sell it to the List. I'll put any and all offerings into a folder on the website. About a month before I have to finalize the content for printing, we'll have a run-off. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
Date: Oct 11, 2013
On Oct 11, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Sacha wrote: > Eric > Would it be a simple matter to hook up a couple of USB ports to such a dev ice to be able to charge two iDevices simultaneously? > Sacha Sadly, no. The proprietary charging scheme adopted by Apple prevents rapid- charging from a USB port that doesn't follow their standard. iDevices look f or signaling voltages on the USB data pins to indicate available charging cu rrent. Absent those signals, they assume they're attached to a standard USB data port and limit themselves to 500mA (2.5W) -- that is, if they don't gi ve you the dreaded, "Charging is not supported with this accessory" message. 2.5W won't even keep up with usage for an iPad with the screen at full bri ghtness. The iPad 4 consumes ~8W in this state; the 2-4W of overhead in App le's 10- and newer 12-watt chargers is left for the battery. Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Relay for Critical Power Feed
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
That's a novel idea, Tom. It would work, if you assume that failure of PS#1 always means instantaneous loss of power output. This would immediately de-energize the relay coil and allow feed from PS#2. If, however, PS#1 suffered a slow ramp-down of output voltage (as with a failed alternator leaving a battery to supply the bus), then bus voltage would likely sag below the minimum for operation of the critical component before the relay de-energized. Relay coils exhibit substantial hysteresis; they require a higher voltage to energize than to de-energize. A 12V-rated relay might energize at 9V rising, but not de-energize until 6V falling. A 12V battery would be effectively dead long before the relay opened. This is why the diode bridge works so well. Whichever main bus has the higher voltage supplies the critical bus, and switchover is seamless, with no dropout during the change. I have a bag of automotive relays on the shelf. I'll try to remember to characterize their behavior when I get home on Monday and report back. Eric On Oct 11, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Thomas E Blejwas wrote: > Bob, > > In Z-19, you use a diode bridge for critical power feeds. Can a relay be used instead? For example: connect Power Source #1 to terminal 86 and to the critical component; connect Power Source #2 to terminal 30; and 87a to the critical component. If both switched on, power comes from #1, otherwise power comes from whichever is switched on. Seems that this has the advantage of no need for a heat sink and failure of the relay does not prevent power to the critical component. What am I missing? Thanks. > > Tom ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
It's certainly a truism that switchers are noisier than linear regs. I have a switch-mode horror show in my car to charge my phone. It makes the AM radio unlistenable when I plug it in! That said, I've learned through my own product development process just what you suggested: that you *can* make a quiet switcher. Board layout is critical to the effort. If the switched node is kept as small as possible -- preferably short and wide -- so as not to create an unintentional antenna, you've won half the battle. A shielded inductor is a given, and judicious use of snubbers to tame ringing and overshoot bring you closer still. Most remaining noise can be blocked with carefully tuned filtering (thanks, Bob!). The main advantage of switchers, of course, is their efficiency: greater than 85% is common. That means less wasted electrons in capacity-limited applications (admittedly not an issue in a vehicle, as long as the alternator is online) and less heat in many cases. Eric On Oct 11, 2013, at 7:18 AM, "Eric M. Jones" wrote: > I've made one of these 10-37V input, variable output 5A linear chargers for a customer. I don't like switch mode power supplies where they can be avoided due to the unknowns of RFI/EMI. Better quality switchers CAN be found. > > I might be persuaded to make a run of these in about a month. > > -------- > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge, MA 01550 > (508) 764-2072 > emjones(at)charter.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Cover of Revision 13
At 01:47 PM 10/11/2013, you wrote: > > >How about a central image of a nice homebuilt airplane with the images of >electrical goodies and installations making a border for it? You're the artist . . . assemble a composite to propose and we'll add it to the mix of options. The front cover is of pretty high resolution and, of course, 8.5 x 11 inches. So the candidate image would probably want to be something on the order of 8500 pixels wide by 1100 tall. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
From: Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
> The front cover is of pretty high resolution and, of course, 8.5 x 11 inches. So the candidate image would probably want to be something on the order of 8500 pixels wide by 1100 tall. Theres a missing zero: 8500 x 11000 is what you meant I think ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
> iDevices look for signaling voltages on the USB data pins to indicate available charging current. Absent those signals, they assume they're attached to a standard USB data port and limit themselves to 500mA (2.5W) Yup. What I was wondering is, suppose you have a 5V supply with the right signaling voltages and plenty of power? Does paralleling two USB ports onto its output work to supply two iPads (or an iPad and fast-charge an iPhone) or does one need some kind of circuit to isolate one from the other? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
From: Bill <wtrooper(at)gmail.com>
Here are some sterling examples of what this list, Aero Electric Connection is about, *and *that give a nod to our list-master Matt Dralle at the same time. See: http://alturl.com/jwgiu By the way Bob - I'd like to see something personal that you pick for the cover too. Bill SF bay area On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Sacha wrote: > > > The front cover is of pretty high resolution and, of course, 8.5 x > 11 inches. So the candidate image would probably want to be something on > the order of 8500 pixels wide by 1100 tall. > > Theres a missing zero: 8500 x 11000 is what you meant I think > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: Verso Electronics <versoelectric(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2013
On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Sacha wrote: > Yup. What I was wondering is, suppose you have a 5V supply with the right signaling voltages and plenty of power? Does paralleling two USB ports onto its output work to supply two iPads (or an iPad and fast-charge an iPhone) or does one need some kind of circuit to isolate one from the other? I can't think of any reason paralleling them wouldn't work, assuming you only want to charge Apple devices. I haven't paralleled the data pins in my design (because I want the ports to be able to charge two different brands of devices simultaneously) but the bulk charging current is shared. Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 11, 2013
Guys...electrical wizards... With full knowledge of my ignorance of all things electric but with only scant knowledge of the challenges which lay ahead, some time ago I purchased an EXP 2 Bus, thinking that having one would simplify many issues and offset some of the novelty inherent with my auto engine conversion, a MPEFIed derivative of a EA81 Subaru built by RAM Performance Aero Engines which is liquid cooled. Aircraft is a Europa XS monowheel which is typically powered w/ a 912S or 914. I've been struggling to layout a circuit diagram which combines the EXP 2 BUS configured for an external solenoid with the dual battery / single alternator diagram Z-19 in the "Connection". I have made a number of decisions which have committed me to the digital world including: - an engine w/ electronic ignition, fuel injection, and an ECU (EC3, Real World Systems) which came w/ the engine, - a digital EMS (EM3, Real World Systems) which "talks" w/ the ECU, - a digital EFIS (Skyview) including moving map, digital terrain, Transponder, COM, and Intercom. By selecting an auto engine conversion, I have committed to: - one alternator, belt driven, - one coolant pump, belt driven, - single spark plug in each cylinder. Additionally, in order to provide redundancy, the engine and control system includes: - dual batteries, presently planned to be Odyssey 680's, - two independent high pressure fuel pumps, each w/ their own filter, - independent back up battery for Skyview, - independent back up battery for stand-alone GPS, Garmin 396, - redundant motherboards (A and B) for the ECU which are toggled from the panel. OK...about the EXP BUS...I've now read many reports (including the VAF threads) which point out its shortcomings...but having spent $550 for it and its companion Indicator Module, and given my inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical, I still believe it has a place in my panel, so I hope any critique of what I'm up to doesn't focus on simply getting rid of it. The main problem I'm having with the EXP BUS is that it simply does not have the two 20 amp circuits my engine guy sez are essential...one for the fuel injectors, and one for the coils. On my circuit diagram, I attempt to address it by running those two circuits off an Endurance bus which avoids the EXP BUS entirely. I do use available circuits in the EXP BUS for the ECU, the EMS, and the fuel pumps; these components are also fed from the Endurance bus. I have space on my panel (just above the EXP BUS, and below the Skyview flat screen) for a row of 6 - CB / switches which are presently planned to be: - rocker or toggle between Fuel Pump #1 and Fuel Pump #2, - Endurance Master Switch / 50 amp CB, - Battery #2 ON / OFF, - 20 amp CB for Fuel Injectors, - 20 amp CB for Coils, - spare Attached are pixs of my instrument panel in its present state, and a proposed circuit diagram. I'd be most appreciative of any comments, and particularly those which point our errors or weakness in the diagram. Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
At 10:03 PM 10/11/2013, you wrote: > > > The front cover is of pretty high resolution and, of course, > 8.5 x 11 inches. So the candidate image would probably want to be > something on the order of 8500 pixels wide by 1100 tall. > >Theres a missing zero: 8500 x 11000 is what you meant I think Correct! Thank you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Cover of Revision 13
At 10:49 PM 10/11/2013, you wrote: >Here are some sterling examples of what this list, Aero Electric >Connection is about, and that give a nod to our list-master Matt >Dralle at the same time. > >See: ><http://alturl.com/jwgiu>http://alturl.com/jwgiu > >By the way Bob - I'd like to see something personal that you pick >for the cover too. > >Bill I'm pleased that you have picked up on the outcome of Matt's work-product. I was going to write and ask him if we could get a dramatic shot of his airplane over the California landscape . . . or some other shot that he likes. His airplane should certainly be among those offered up for consideration. The work we do here on the list is but one cog in the free-market exchange of value driven by the honorable exercise of Spontaneous Organization. Matt's contributions to OBAM aviation and the S0 mechanism is inarguable. I will certainly vote along with the rest of you but I want the cover to be a List Effort. You guys are a critical component of the machinery that makes it all work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
At 12:00 AM 10/12/2013, you wrote: > > >On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Sacha wrote: > > Yup. What I was wondering is, suppose you have a 5V supply with > the right signaling voltages and plenty of power? Does paralleling > two USB ports onto its output work to supply two iPads (or an iPad > and fast-charge an iPhone) or does one need some kind of circuit to > isolate one from the other? > > >I can't think of any reason paralleling them wouldn't work, assuming >you only want to charge Apple devices. I haven't paralleled the >data pins in my design (because I want the ports to be able to >charge two different brands of devices simultaneously) but the bulk >charging current is shared. > >Eric Paralleling the +5 supply does work. That's what happens inside your computer. There may be some provisions for circuit protection. The +5 supply in a computer (the older ones at last) can grunt 30 amps . . . real potential for smoke of the USB cord's stranding . . . typically 26AWG. I've poked around on the pins of a I-GO universal cigar lighter adapter to see if I could deduce why their mini-A connectors always keep my Motorola phone happy, but some, not all, wall warts do not. It appears that one of the USB data lines is tied to either 5v or ground through a resistor. I forget which now. In any case, I don't think ANY of the USB powered appliances are looking for any 'intelligent' connection to their power sources . . . a simple bias network of some kind keeps the appliance from complaining about 'unauthorized' power sources. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Having an avionics master switch is a bad idea. It is a single point of failure. The endurance master switch is another single point of failure. It is more likely to fail than a battery. 50 amps seems too big. The cost of the EXP BUS should not influence the decision to use or not use it. "inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical" is a good reason NOT to use the EXP BUS. Discrete components are easier to troubleshoot and replace. You are better off using one of Bob Nuckolls well proven designs, perhaps Z-19/RB (with E-Bus Relay) modified to meet the unique engine requirements. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410381#410381 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Bob said: "But even before that, what is the perceived value of 'plugging-in'?" OK, I would just feel better l if I could use the mostly dead weight GPJ for something else besides an event that might never occur, i.e. being surprised by a dead battery. But if that happened, it would be convenient to just connect to the GPG with the charger w/o removing the cowling. Maybe in time I will get more relaxed about having everything in top shape, but with this new bird, I'm all over it like a new mother fixing anything that isn't right. And I confess to being oversensitive to my battery settling on 12.4v, without a float charge, after a month long undiagnosed problem of seeing it drop below 12v over a few days because of the battery-bused ANR headset I'd left on ( the power indicator was turned out of sight). So I'm going to cut the cord ;-) and see where the batt settles now and maybe an attitude adjustment will be the solution. I do need to install a 12v outlet(s) in the cabin, so when that's done, I will just use Joe G's idea to plug into it and connect to a charger when necessary. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410384#410384 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
I've been struggling to layout a circuit diagram which combines the EXP 2 BUS configured for an external solenoid with the dual battery / single alternator diagram Z-19 in the "Connection". I understand the conditions that are a basis for your struggles. You've purchased a lot of 'stuff', cut holes in then panel and mounted it . . . and you're only now beginning to sift the bits and pieces in a quest for the elegant solution. It's not clear to me how the List can be a great deal of help . . . many options available to you at the clean-sheet-of-paper stage for your planning are no longer applicable. The EXP-Bus architecture which was already pretty busy is going to get still more complicated . . . not a very pilot or maintenance friendly situation. I have made a number of decisions which have committed me to the digital world including: - an engine w/ electronic ignition, fuel injection, and an ECU (EC3, Real World Systems) which came w/ the engine, Additionally, in order to provide redundancy, the engine and control system includes: - dual batteries, presently planned to be Odyssey 680's, What are the energy demands to run the engine? If you were powering nothing but the engine, how many amps are required to keep the fires lit? What are your design goals for battery only endurance? Will one battery meet those goals or will you be taxing both? - independent back up battery for Skyview, - independent back up battery for stand-alone GPS, Garmin 396, With two fat batteries on board, backing up these items with still more batteries seems excessively 'redundant'. If the ship's batteries are depleted, the value of having the panel lit seems contrary to the purpose of having an 'endurance mode' of flight. The idea is to have a carefully crafted Plan-B that gets wheels on the ground before you (a) run out of fuel and/or (b) run out of electrons. Critical LOADS multiplied by TIME are the driving factor. Do you know what those numbers are? - redundant motherboards (A and B) for the ECU which are toggled from the panel. This architecture is not clear from your drawings. How do TWO motherboards get switched into and out of service? OK...about the EXP BUS...I've now read many reports (including the VAF threads) which point out its shortcomings...but having spent $550 for it and its companion Indicator Module, and given my inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical, I still believe it has a place in my panel, so I hope any critique of what I'm up to doesn't focus on simply getting rid of it. Won't do that . . . but at the same time, be aware that contributions from the List will be adjustments to make do with what already exists as opposed the artfully tailored design. The end result would not be a candidate for a new z-figure . . . in other words, not recommended for new design. The main problem I'm having with the EXP BUS is that it simply does not have the two 20 amp circuits my engine guy sez are essential...one for the fuel injectors, and one for the coils. On my circuit diagram, I attempt to address it by running those two circuits off an Endurance bus which avoids the EXP BUS entirely. That seems reasonable. Z-19 suggests two battery busses with options to run the engine from either bus. I do use available circuits in the EXP BUS for the ECU, the EMS, and the fuel pumps; these components are also fed from the Endurance bus. I suggest you divorce the engine from the EXP-Bus entirely and plan on running the engine from its own battery with an option for running it from the main battery. You show three feeders to coils, injectors and ECU. What is the recommended protection level for each of these feeders? I have space on my panel (just above the EXP BUS, and below the Skyview flat screen) for a row of 6 - CB / switches which are presently planned to be: - rocker or toggle between Fuel Pump #1 and Fuel Pump #2, - Endurance Master Switch / 50 amp CB, - Battery #2 ON / OFF, - 20 amp CB for Fuel Injectors, - 20 amp CB for Coils, - spare That's a LOT of controls with risks for not getting the right combination of switches open/closed when things are not going well under the cowl . . . Attached are pixs of my instrument panel in its present state, and a proposed circuit diagram. I'd be most appreciative of any comments, and particularly those which point our errors or weakness in the diagram. We'll do what we can but your meatloaf is already in then pan and we're only now joining the conversation about ways to make it taste better. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:07 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Having an avionics master switch is a bad idea. It is a single point of failure. > The endurance master switch is another single point of failure. It is more likely to fail than a battery. 50 amps seems too big. > The cost of the EXP BUS should not influence the decision to use or not use it. "inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical" is a good reason NOT to use the EXP BUS. Discrete components are easier to troubleshoot and replace. > You are better off using one of Bob Nuckolls well proven designs, perhaps Z-19/RB (with E-Bus Relay) modified to meet the unique engine requirements. Joe...I thank you for your succinct and prompt assessment...much to ponder...as I wrote, I've struggled in my efforts to integrate the EXP Bus w/ Z-19 and to overcome the limitations of the EXP Bus w/ respect to my "unique engine requirements". As you point out, the 50 amp size of the endurance master switch is too big...after reviewing my notes, I see that the injectors draw 1 to 2 amps each as do the coils...I'd misread a note calling for separate 20 amp circuits for both injectors and coils. As for the EXP Bus, I could bring myself to discard it completely if I can conclude that by doing so, it would solve more problems than it would create. My decision to buy it was based upon seeing it in a friend's CAM 125 powered Europa; a retired RCAF senior test pilot, he admitted electronic ignorance and believed it saved him a lot of time and trouble. Thanks again, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Subject: Re Cover of Revision 13
From: MLE <rv6awingman(at)gmail.com>
How about using one of the Z drawings on the cover, a smaller version of the real deal of course. Marty From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cover of Revision 13 Still looking for suggestions/photos as candidtates for the front cover of Revision 13. Many of you will recall that we had a run-off here on the list to choose from several options on R12. At the moment, there's nothing in the hopper . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 10:07 AM 10/12/2013, you wrote: > >Having an avionics master switch is a bad idea. It is a single >point of failure. Let's ponder the possibility of making the AV master switch the e-bus alternate feed. This would require that the upstream side of the switch be fed from the ship's battery bus . . . and a diode feed be added from main bus to the avionics cum e-bus. >The endurance master switch is another single point of failure. It >is more likely to fail than a battery. 50 amps seems too big. Yeah . . . if we can get all the numbers for running the engine, perhaps we can move toward a Z-19 configuration that eliminates the need for a single switch to manage all engine power feeders. > The cost of the EXP BUS should not influence the decision to use > or not use it. "inexperience and lack of knowledge of things > electrical" is a good reason NOT to use the EXP BUS. Discrete > components are easier to troubleshoot and replace. > You are better off using one of Bob Nuckolls well proven designs, > perhaps Z-19/RB (with E-Bus Relay) modified to meet the unique > engine requirements. It may be possible/practical to get there without taking a chain-saw to the panel. I don't know what the switches are like on the EXP-Bus but they can't be any worse than those used on the C-150 for a decade or so . . . and while a significant maintenance item for the TC world with $50 shop labor rates, many of those switches did just fine for a long time. How can we eliminate single points of failure and leave the EXP-Bus largely intact? Another point I've pondered is the idea of taking the alternator b-lead to the battery or starter contactors through a current limiter and not bringing the feeder into the cockpit. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Re Cover of Revision 13
At 11:03 AM 10/12/2013, you wrote: >How about using one of the Z drawings on the cover, a smaller >version of the real deal of course. >Marty > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cover of Revision 13 > Okay, we'll throw that into the hat for consideration. Do any of you photoshop drivers out there want to play with some assemblage of z-figure excerpts as a front cover? If you have Adobe Acrobat, you can do really nice screen captures off the pdf files. I can also supply pdfs with the light weights adjusted for better 'pop' . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "ronaldcox" <flyboyron(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Has anyone looked into this device? I've tried it on the bench and it seems to power my iPad mini just fine. But then most cheapies do, with the attendant iOS ver. 7 warning about it not being a certified accessory. Plan to use it in my Glasair panel unless someone warns me off. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0082CXEI8/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Looks well made, takes 12v input, and looks nice in panel. Doesn't seem to cause a lot of noise in my handheld radio. Ron Cox Glasair is about to fly! -------- Ron Cox Glasair Super II F/T Under Construction at C77 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410391#410391 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Fred, Z-19 has a battery buss for each of the batteries. If you have an electrically dependent engine, you should run everything that the engine needs to keep operating off of those battery busses. I am talking about the engine controller, fuel pumps, injector power, igniter power, etc.. You should be able to shut off the master and never have a hiccup from your engine. I would not put anything you need to remain in the air thru that EXP BUS. Bill B -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred Klein Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:03 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:07 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Having an avionics master switch is a bad idea. It is a single point of failure. > The endurance master switch is another single point of failure. It is more likely to fail than a battery. 50 amps seems too big. > The cost of the EXP BUS should not influence the decision to use or not use it. "inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical" is a good reason NOT to use the EXP BUS. Discrete components are easier to troubleshoot and replace. > You are better off using one of Bob Nuckolls well proven designs, perhaps Z-19/RB (with E-Bus Relay) modified to meet the unique engine requirements. Joe...I thank you for your succinct and prompt assessment...much to ponder...as I wrote, I've struggled in my efforts to integrate the EXP Bus w/ Z-19 and to overcome the limitations of the EXP Bus w/ respect to my "unique engine requirements". As you point out, the 50 amp size of the endurance master switch is too big...after reviewing my notes, I see that the injectors draw 1 to 2 amps each as do the coils...I'd misread a note calling for separate 20 amp circuits for both injectors and coils. As for the EXP Bus, I could bring myself to discard it completely if I can conclude that by doing so, it would solve more problems than it would create. My decision to buy it was based upon seeing it in a friend's CAM 125 powered Europa; a retired RCAF senior test pilot, he admitted electronic ignorance and believed it saved him a lot of time and trouble. Thanks again, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
> > >As you point out, the 50 amp size of the endurance master switch is >too big...after reviewing my notes, I see that the injectors draw 1 >to 2 amps each as do the coils...I'd misread a note calling for >separate 20 amp circuits for both injectors and coils. Aha! that's good to hear . . . What's the ECU draw? >As for the EXP Bus, I could bring myself to discard it completely if >I can conclude that by doing so, it would solve more problems than >it would create. My decision to buy it was based upon seeing it in a >friend's CAM 125 powered Europa; a retired RCAF senior test pilot, >he admitted electronic ignorance and believed it saved him a lot of >time and trouble. These things DO save a lot of time if you can use them plug-n-play with the architecture around which the panel was designed. The EXP-Bus is tailored to the legacy TC aircraft systems with avionics bus, no battery buss(es), b-lead coming into the cockpit, etc. There are tens of thousands of airplanes carrying happy pilots around with that architecture so there's noting 'wrong' with it. But incorporating alternative design goals into a cookie-cutter product can be a challenge . . . let's see what we can do with it. Fred, is your alternator internally regulated? Are you amenable to modifying it for compatibility with external management of over-voltage events? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charge battery thru Ground Power Jack
> >I do need to install a 12v outlet(s) in the cabin, so when that's >done, I will just use Joe G's idea to plug into it and connect to a >charger when necessary. >John That's a proven recipe for success. Dozens of my readers over the years have installed cigar lighter sockets and/or unique 12vdc power outlets powered through a battery-bus fuse. This access to the battery offers a means by which the charger/maintainer can be connected to the battery . . . with a cord hanging out through a cracked open door or canopy. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > I've been struggling to layout a circuit diagram which combines the EXP 2 BUS configured for an external solenoid with the dual battery / single alternator diagram Z-19 in the "Connection". > > I understand the conditions that are a basis for your struggles. Bob, Thank you for your thoughtful, point by point dissection of my posting...you raise a number of questions which I know I need to have answered...and I appreciate your restraint and good humor. It may take a while to sort out things...you're quite correct in writing that I am on "a quest for the elegant solution" for what goes on behind the panel as well in as all other aspects of my aircraft. Certainly my intention when purchasing an EMS designed to compliment my ECU, an integrated avionics suite like Skyview, and the EXP Bus for that matter, was to eliminate as many "seams" as possible. With utmost respect, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
> I've made one of these 10-37V input, variable output 5A linear chargers for a customer. I don't like switch mode power supplies where they can be avoided due to the unknowns of RFI/EMI. Better quality switchers CAN be found. > > I might be persuaded to make a run of these in about a month. Hah! And I'll deny I ever said it. I will bail out of this project for now. A couple other Eric's might have products that will do the job. I've looked into the design and a unit that will do the job at 1500 mA can be made to sell for $100/socket. Considering that the panel mounted USB socket is $10 and the parts come to $50, that's not so bad. There are cheaper ways to go but they are limited in their recharging power, but still suitable for some devices. -------- 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=410399#410399 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> As you point out, the 50 amp size of the endurance master switch is too big...after reviewing my notes, I see that the injectors draw 1 to 2 amps each as do the coils...I'd misread a note calling for separate 20 amp circuits for both injectors and coils. > > Aha! that's good to hear . . . What's the ECU draw? Bob...ECU draws 1/2 amp...(exclusive of fuel injectors and coils) > >> As for the EXP Bus, I could bring myself to discard it completely if I can conclude that by doing so, it would solve more problems than it would create. My decision to buy it was based upon seeing it in a friend's CAM 125 powered Europa; a retired RCAF senior test pilot, he admitted electronic ignorance and believed it saved him a lot of time and trouble. > > These things DO save a lot of time if you can > use them plug-n-play with the architecture around > which the panel was designed. ...which indeed was my intention...and, I might add, that pulling the EXP from my instrument panel module and replacing it w/ a blank plate is a 15 min. job...no hack saw req'd... > The EXP-Bus is tailored to the legacy TC aircraft systems with > avionics bus, no battery buss(es), b-lead coming > into the cockpit, etc. > > There are tens of thousands of airplanes carrying > happy pilots around with that architecture so there's > noting 'wrong' with it. But incorporating alternative > design goals into a cookie-cutter product can be > a challenge . . . let's see what we can do with it. ...I'm reluctant to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater... > > Fred, is your alternator internally regulated? ...yes... > Are you amenable to modifying it for compatibility with > external management of over-voltage events? ...the very thought of doing so fills me w/ dread, and first I'd like to research and determine to what extent it manages over-voltage events internally... Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Additionally, in order to provide redundancy, the engine and control system includes: > > - redundant motherboards (A and B) for the ECU which are toggled from the panel. > > This architecture is not clear from your drawings. > How do TWO motherboards get switched into and out > of service? Bob...in the center of the ECU control panel are 2 toggle switches...the one at right toggles between "A" and "B"...the "A" is hidden by the switch...using the LCD screen for the EMS, the ECU is programmable from the cockpit...Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2013
Assuming that the EXP 2 Bus is utilized, how about feeding the E-Bus from each end, one end from battery #1 and the other end from battery #2? Then the failure of any one wire or connection will not open power going to the E-Bus. 30 amp fuses could be inserted near the batteries. Diodes prevent starting or fault current from flowing from one battery to the other through the E-Bus. See schematic attached. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410404#410404 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/e_bus_118.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 11:55 AM, user9253 wrote: > Assuming that the EXP 2 Bus is utilized, how about feeding the E-Bus from each end, one end from battery #1 and the other end from battery #2? Thanks Joe...by coincidence, I've just sent off an email to the makers of the EXP asking almost the very same thing...stay tuned, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > - independent back up battery for Skyview, > > - independent back up battery for stand-alone GPS, Garmin 396, > > With two fat batteries on board, backing up these items > with still more batteries seems excessively 'redundant'. > If the ship's batteries are depleted, the value > of having the panel lit seems contrary to the > purpose of having an 'endurance mode' of flight. Bob...my reasoning behind the individual little back up batteries for Skyview EFIS and my back up GPS was not to address an immediate concern for main battery life, but rather to provide continued operation independent of the aircraft electrical system, be it powered by the "main bus" or the "endurance bus". On the other hand, I thought that given the degree of my engine's dependence on electricity, it would be a good thing to lessen the load going thru the endurance bus...I've yet to quantify the implications of this, but conceptually, I thought it was a good move. No question in my mind that I want to incorporate a robust endurance bus...a couple of years ago, a Europa pal, Paul McCallister, was struck by lightning, and continued flying for 90 minutes to your design which he'd followed which included an endurance bus as part of your Rotax 9XX diagram. Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 12, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Fred, I had an Exp Bus 2 in my airplane for several years. The original builder fitted it after a similar thought process to your friend's. Thinking about its good points and not so good. Good things: It has a good instrument light dimmer Not so good things: It is difficult to expand The current sensing lights on the indicator module aren't that accurate (cause more concern than they are worth) It is difficult to add additional services I found I had an intermittent fault that cut power to the avionics momentarily, which took the txpdr off line for long enough that ATC would give me a hard time, but I could not talk back to them as the radio was going through its self test. Never did find out what the problem was. I would use it to power those items that you could fly without. I would route the power to the ECUs well away from it (for that matter, anything to do with the engine/fuel pumps) and would also power the radio, txpdr & Skyview from the Endurance bus only (with 2 batteries you don't really need a skyview battery as well). I would have an individual switch to connect each battery to the endurance bus (one switch is a single point failure), and an individual switch for each fuel pump - perhaps gated to stop inadvertent switching off. If comm, txpdr & Skyview remain powered from Av bus on Exp2 I would not use the avionics master switch on the board (another potential single point failure) - can it be jumpered? If it only powers the GPS (with internal battery) & intercom there is not much point in a jumper, leave it in. Peter On 12/10/2013 07:29, Fred Klein wrote: > Guys...electrical wizards... > > With full knowledge of my ignorance of all things electric but with only scant knowledge of the challenges which lay ahead, some time ago I purchased an EXP 2 Bus, thinking that having one would simplify many issues and offset some of the novelty inherent with my auto engine conversion, a MPEFIed derivative of a EA81 Subaru built by RAM Performance Aero Engines which is liquid cooled. Aircraft is a Europa XS monowheel which is typically powered w/ a 912S or 914. > > I've been struggling to layout a circuit diagram which combines the EXP 2 BUS configured for an external solenoid with the dual battery / single alternator diagram Z-19 in the "Connection". > > I have made a number of decisions which have committed me to the digital world including: > > - an engine w/ electronic ignition, fuel injection, and an ECU (EC3, Real World Systems) which came w/ the engine, > > - a digital EMS (EM3, Real World Systems) which "talks" w/ the ECU, > > - a digital EFIS (Skyview) including moving map, digital terrain, Transponder, COM, and Intercom. > > By selecting an auto engine conversion, I have committed to: > > - one alternator, belt driven, > > - one coolant pump, belt driven, > > - single spark plug in each cylinder. > > Additionally, in order to provide redundancy, the engine and control system includes: > > - dual batteries, presently planned to be Odyssey 680's, > > - two independent high pressure fuel pumps, each w/ their own filter, > > - independent back up battery for Skyview, > > - independent back up battery for stand-alone GPS, Garmin 396, > > - redundant motherboards (A and B) for the ECU which are toggled from the panel. > > OK...about the EXP BUS...I've now read many reports (including the VAF threads) which point out its shortcomings...but having spent $550 for it and its companion Indicator Module, and given my inexperience and lack of knowledge of things electrical, I still believe it has a place in my panel, so I hope any critique of what I'm up to doesn't focus on simply getting rid of it. > > The main problem I'm having with the EXP BUS is that it simply does not have the two 20 amp circuits my engine guy sez are essential...one for the fuel injectors, and one for the coils. On my circuit diagram, I attempt to address it by running those two circuits off an Endurance bus which avoids the EXP BUS entirely. > > I do use available circuits in the EXP BUS for the ECU, the EMS, and the fuel pumps; these components are also fed from the Endurance bus. > > I have space on my panel (just above the EXP BUS, and below the Skyview flat screen) for a row of 6 - CB / switches which are presently planned to be: > > - rocker or toggle between Fuel Pump #1 and Fuel Pump #2, > - Endurance Master Switch / 50 amp CB, > - Battery #2 ON / OFF, > - 20 amp CB for Fuel Injectors, > - 20 amp CB for Coils, > - spare > > Attached are pixs of my instrument panel in its present state, and a proposed circuit diagram. > I'd be most appreciative of any comments, and particularly those which point our errors or weakness in the diagram. > > Fred > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 12, 2013
On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > I had an Exp Bus 2 in my airplane for several years. The original builder fitted it after a similar thought process to your friend's. Thinking about its good points and not so good. > > Good things: > It has a good instrument light dimmer Peter...what a ringing endorsement...!...LOL... Thanks much for your thoughtful suggestions...I am indeed back at the drawing board. Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
> >Bob...my reasoning behind the individual little back up batteries >for Skyview EFIS and my back up GPS was not to address an immediate >concern for main battery life, but rather to provide continued >operation independent of the aircraft electrical system, be it >powered by the "main bus" or the "endurance bus". Yes, that's what backup batteries do . . . >On the other hand, I thought that given the degree of my engine's >dependence on electricity, it would be a good thing to lessen the >load going thru the endurance bus...I've yet to quantify >the implications of this, but conceptually, I thought it was a good move. In a two-battery system, the engine never sees the endurance bus; in a one-battery system, ditto. The engine should run from a battery bus, preferably one dedicated to the task. >No question in my mind that I want to incorporate a robust endurance >bus...a couple of years ago, a Europa pal, Paul McCallister, was >struck by lightning, and continued flying for 90 minutes to your >design which he'd followed which included an endurance bus as part >of your Rotax 9XX diagram. 90 minutes . . . that's the first NUMBER that has popped up in this discussion. Last week we had some conversation here on the List with a fellow who was going through much of the same questions you are now . . . but with no answers based on analysis and preventative maintenance as opposed to "good moves". The point being that the elegant system design starts with energy budgets . . . we had some discussion here on the List about the Dreaded Downwind Turn and I promised to finish an article on the topic. That problem also yields to an analysis that identifies, quantifies and then distributes a finite amount of energy to a series of activities that produce the desired end goal. The outcome of that analysis promises to dispel useless if not dangerous myths and gives us opportunity to be better pilots based on the numbers. I used to occupy a booth at OSH right across the isle from the guy selling EXP-Bus . . . or something similar . . . I don't recall now. That was 20 years ago. But I could hear his 'pitch'. Even at that stage of advancement in my career, I had to cringe at some of the superlatives he used first to hook then reel in a prospective customer. The word "emergency" was used with some frequency along with claims for automation, labor reduction, cost reduction, etc. etc. . . . all GOOD things. But not once did he speak to sizing batteries, alternators and particularly ARCHITECTURE to a task, then knowing what the limits were for expecting that task to terminate comfortably. After all, he didn't sell alternators or batteries (we were doing that across the isle). He was selling architecture . . . and if he had any notion of how is cookie-cutter architecture would tie the hands of his customer's design process . . . that was not part of the 'pitch.' When we learn to fly, we're encourage to know, use and respect numbers for Vx, Vy, Best Glide, Vne, Stall Clean, Stall Dirty, Flap and gear extension speeds, C.G., weight, mixture, manifold pressures, increased drag in a turn, . . . all those numbers spread out across the panel. But my instructor never mentioned the value of KNOWING just how long I could fly battery only and MAINTAINING that capability through design and preventative maintenance. For my instructor, the BEST notion for detecting alternator failure was to pick up on the ammeter reading . . . yeah, we all scan that thing, right? For him, first notice that the alternator was dead triggered an emergency situation . . . because he wasn't sure how long it had been dead and he had not the foggiest notion of how many minutes of battery-only endurance was available. The best he could hope for is to extend an unknown number by turning off switches and pulling breakers . . . in-flight systems analysis when the pilot SHOULD be flying and navigating. It's the stuff from which really good dark-n-stormy-night stories are made. I'll suggest that the EXP-Bus offers at most a challenge for working around some relatively minor architecture issues. But like the guy who sits down to design a new airplane, we're wrestling with the same quest for setting design goals and then meeting them based on the numbers. The first number that would be of interest to me in your airplane is how long can I run this engine on a battery that who's service life is 25% used up? The next number is to deduce the time you can run a minimalist list of electro- whizzies that will get you to a comfortable arrival . . . if not at your original destination at least some place with convenient maintenance services . . . not at Dead Cow International 50 miles from everywhere else. The guy who sold you the engine should KNOW how much energy it takes to run his product. Not recommended wire or breaker size but WATTS of total power consumption at full throttle . . . and if draw is RPM dependent, then current demands at throttle settings for maximum endurance as well. Knowing those numbers at both normal (14.6v) and end of battery life (10.5v) would be required if I were designing a TC aircraft . . . but no less important in the OBAM aircraft. These are the functional equivalents of "Vx, Vy and Best Glide" numbers for your engine . . . numbers a flight instructor would never be expected to know but of intense interest to somebody in your position. A backup battery is a band-aid for not KNOWING the capabilities of and demands on the main battery. This is a kind of confession for saying that while we can FLY the airplane with due diligence to Vx, Vy and Best Glide . . . but ignorant of battery-only endurance for the engine or other accessories. Features necessary us to demonstrate our skills as pilots. My suggestion is to see how we can do a minimalist effort to incorporate the EXP-Bus into something like Z-19. Those are things we can discuss here on the List because they deal with the architecture. But whether or not you can toss out the notion of 'backup batteries' depends on your acquiring good numbers and then folding those numbers into your POH with as much confidence as you have for putting the wheels down when and where you wanted them every time. QUESTION: Is there any value in having separate, independent controls for ECU, Pumps and/or Ignition in planning the partition between normal flight and Plan-B? In other words, could Plan-A and Plan-B configurations be controlled by a single switch? In other words, let us consider switches. Under what conditions would you want to turn any one thing ON or OFF independently of other switches . . . or can we combine functionality much like that which happens when you turn the key in your car? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 13, 2013
Google: " How to make your own iPad 2 USB charger ". Looks straightforward, but common to many chargers is the current limit which leads to fairly slow battery charge. Still, it's pretty easy to do. Rox Cox's post of http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0082CXEI8/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Seems pretty good and carries good reviews. Beware if you are years away from flying. USB-3 will be common soon (looks like USB-2 with a blue insert tongue. -------- 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=410425#410425 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
>90 minutes . . . that's the first NUMBER that >has popped up in this discussion. Last week we had >some conversation here on the List with a fellow >who was going through much of the same questions >you are now . . . but with no answers based on >analysis and preventative maintenance as opposed >to "good moves". Some bullet points to touch on in the quest for an elegant solution: (1) See if the present avionics bus and it's associated master switch can be re-configured for the master switch to become an e-bus alternate feed switch by taking the upstream-end of that switch to a fuse on the main battery bus. Then jeep some flying leads onto the EXP-Bus assembly to add a diode feed from the Main bus to the new E-Bus. (2) Explore the value of an Engine Bus Option A and an Engine Bus Option B . . . an organization of normal and standby engine loads that can be controlled by a switch dedicated to each option. (a) Determine whether or not it is unhealthy or dangerous for both busses to be powered at the same time. (b) If so, what kind of mechanism would allowing either option to be selected OFF or ON indiviudally but never simultaneously. (c) Conduct a failure modes effects analysis to deduce the single point failure items for engine operation. (3) Get real life numbers on the power required to power either of these options. (4) Consider bringing the alternator B-Lead to a stud on a fire wall mounted contactor. Answer to (2) will drive further suggestions for eliminating a number of switches and improving on the probability for smooth conversion of a failure event to be no-big-deal. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
At 12:46 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: > >Google: " How to make your own iPad 2 USB charger ". Looks >straightforward, but common to many chargers is the current limit >which leads to fairly slow battery charge. Still, it's pretty easy to do. > >Rox Cox's post of >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0082CXEI8/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 > There is a link to a Wikipedia article in the comments for this device. See: http://tinyurl.com/l3krbv7 The article clears up some of the questions about why some devices balk at being conneted to just any ol' USB charger and others do not seem to care. There's further discussion about a device having a conversation with the USB host to see if and when a high power mode of charging can be negotiated. Interesting stuff. I've archived the article for further study. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2013
Bob...thank you so much for your continued assistance in sorting out my ship's electrical issues...I have some unrelated things to do today, but will continue this conversation tomorrow after I've been able to quantify at least some of the considerations you've raised...and if it makes sense to throw the EXP Bus under the bus, I'm certainly willing to do so. Cheers, Fred >> 90 minutes . . . that's the first NUMBER that >> has popped up in this discussion. Last week we had >> some conversation here on the List with a fellow >> who was going through much of the same questions >> you are now . . . but with no answers based on >> analysis and preventative maintenance as opposed >> to "good moves". > > Some bullet points to touch on in the quest > for an elegant solution: > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 13, 2013
On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > The engine should run from a battery bus, preferably > one dedicated to the task. Bob...I accept this without reservation...and I regret that in my attempts to work out a scheme which put my EPS Bus to good use and honored the concepts embedded in your Z-19 resulted in a circuit diagram which led me so far astray from this concept. As I study Z-19, I'm noting the multiple busses fed from the two battery contactors and the nominal sizing of the wires (12 AWG, w/ the caveat that they be no longer than 6 inches) to the 2 battery busses. I will determine the connected load on each of 2 battery busses which would be devoted to keeping the engine running...(fuel pumps, ECU, fuel injectors, coils) and the required size of their feeders. Feeding these multiple busses w/ my 2 batteries in the tailcone seems problematic if the contactors are adjacent to the batteries. I'd queried you a while back about the implications of mounting the contactors on the fire wall w/ the batteries in the rear...about 10 feet away...you mentioned this is not common practice and (I believe you said that) it poses unwanted risks. Can those risks be mitigated by some kind of fusible links back at the batteries?...or is it just plainly a dumb idea to separate bat from contactor? Would not the feeders to the (hot) battery busses carry the same risks? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 01:53 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: > >Bob...thank you so much for your continued assistance in sorting out >my ship's electrical issues...I have some unrelated things to do >today, but will continue this conversation tomorrow after I've been >able to quantify at least some of the considerations you've >raised...and if it makes sense to throw the EXP Bus under the bus, >I'm certainly willing to do so. Let's not get too carried away . . . as far as I know, the EXP-Bus performs as advertised. Many of its features could not be qualified onto TC aircraft. Other features are just plain awkward from a cost of ownership perspective. However, unlike other 'flashes in the pan' of OBAM aviation history, the EXP-Bus is still with us . . . and to my knowledge, it's not set anyone's airplane on fire or played the staring character in a dark-n-stormy night story. The exercise for sifting of FMEA bits and adding up all the numbers is 90% common to any other suite of hardware. So before we abandon the $time$ you already have invested, let's consider ways to round off the rough edges without pushing your fly-date out unnecessarily. By the way, does anyone on the List have an EXP-Bus 2 that is un-installed that they could photograph from all perspectives to share with the List? Don't need pictures of the remote boxes . . . just the power distribution and switching assembly. Fred, your lighting and image quality was excellent but this view . . . Emacs! is a bit cluttered in the foreground. I'd liked to see how this puppy is assembled and wired . . . If anyone is taking new pictures, avoid flash and/or direct lighting, sky-light shaded from direct sun provides excellent, shadow and high-light free illumination for illustrating the deeper secrets. No hurry, we don't have a dragon to slay. I need to spend some time on Carlos' V-Power system integration questions. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 02:26 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: The engine should run from a battery bus, preferably one dedicated to the task. Bob...I accept this without reservation...and I regret that in my attempts to work out a scheme which put my EPS Bus to good use and honored the concepts embedded in your Z-19 resulted in a circuit diagram which led me so far astray from this concept. Lets turn this into an inconvenience as opposed to a $time$ disaster . . . As I study Z-19, I'm noting the multiple busses fed from the two battery contactors and the nominal sizing of the wires (12 AWG, w/ the caveat that they be no longer than 6 inches) to the 2 battery busses. I will determine the connected load on each of 2 battery busses which would be devoted to keeping the engine running...(fuel pumps, ECU, fuel injectors, coils) and the required size of their feeders. Feeding these multiple busses w/ my 2 batteries in the tailcone seems problematic if the contactors are adjacent to the batteries. I'd queried you a while back about the implications of mounting the contactors on the fire wall w/ the batteries in the rear...about 10 feet away...you mentioned this is not common practice and (I believe you said that) it poses unwanted risks. Can those risks be mitigated by some kind of fusible links back at the batteries?...or is it just plainly a dumb idea to separate bat from contactor? Would not the feeders to the (hot) battery busses carry the same risks? Let's get the numbers and all the players identified first. I'm not so sure that you're rear-mounted batteries pose much of a design problem. How many pumps? Dual fuel injectors? Seems unlikely. You said you have one plug per cylinder . . . but if you have a distributor-less system, then you have coil-paks that do not lend themselves neatly to combining dual ignition through high voltage diodes like the Corvair guys do. So draw a box with a propeller on it and identify each device that consumes power in order to keep the engine running. Differentiate which items are use in 'normal mode', which are used in 'backup mode' and which are used in both modes. This part of the task is like assembling an arithmetic logic unit from a handful of gates . . . I need to have a handle on the logic before we start stringing wire and punching holes for switches. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Yeah - I can do that tomorrow - its a little butchered from the removal process, but I think it will provide the information you require. Peter On 13/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > By the way, does anyone on the List have an > EXP-Bus 2 that is un-installed that they > could photograph from all perspectives to > share with the List? Don't need pictures > of the remote boxes . . . just the power > distribution and switching assembly. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 13, 2013
On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > By the way, does anyone on the List have an > EXP-Bus 2 that is un-installed that they > could photograph from all perspectives to > share with the List? Bob...I can have mine out in a jif...Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 05:19 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: > > >Yeah - I can do that tomorrow - its a little butchered from the >removal process, but I think it will provide the information you require. > >Peter Super! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 13, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 05:20 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: >On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >>By the way, does anyone on the List have an >> EXP-Bus 2 that is un-installed that they >> could photograph from all perspectives to >> share with the List? > >Bob...I can have mine out in a jif...Fred Okay! Lets have your pix too. Top, bottom, angles . . . Does the mfgr provide anything in the way of a printed schematic? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 13, 2013
Bob...will these photos serve?...have I missed anything? The smaller item w/ the ribbon is the companion Indicator Module...Peter sez it has an excellent dimmer... Yes...a printed schematic is available: http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf Fred DSCN7164.JPG DSCN7166.JPG DSCN7168.JPG DSCN7169.JPG DSCN7170.JPG DSCN7171.JPG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 13, 2013
Bob...I wrote, Yes...a printed schematic is available: http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf I've been referring to the diagram labeled "Typical Installation; External Solenoid" Also, there is a diagram depicting a Subaru installation w/ 2 circuits set up for a back up battery connection; however, I've given scant attention to it because I have no reason to believe that it addresses is:sues related to fuel injection: http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/expsub.PDF ...hope this is useful to your anlysis... Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
At 06:06 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: >Bob...I wrote, > > Yes...a printed schematic is available: > ><http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf>http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf > >I've been referring to the diagram labeled "Typical Installation; >External Solenoid" > >Also, there is a diagram depicting a Subaru installation w/ 2 >circuits set up for a back up battery connection; however, I've >given scant attention to it because I have no reason to believe that >it addresses is:sues related to fuel injection: > ><http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/expsub.PDF>http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/expsub.PDF > >...hope this is useful to your anlysis... Yeah, I think I have everything I need, Your pictures and Peter's will round out my manufacturer's data base on this product. All I need now is your summation of electrical loads needed to keep the engine running and their hierarchy. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 14, 2013
On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Yeah, I think I have everything I need, > Your pictures and Peter's will round out > my manufacturer's data base on this product. Bob...if your curiosity is piqued about this EXP puppy, I'd be happy to pop it in UPS w/ a check for return shipment if you'd like to put it on your bench...?... > > All I need now is your summation of electrical > loads needed to keep the engine running and > their hierarchy I'm workin on it, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2013
Bob...see my indents below...I can't begin to express my appreciation for your willingness to attempt to lead me out of my rabbit hole...Fred > As I study Z-19, I'm noting the multiple busses fed from the two battery contactors and the nominal sizing of the wires (12 AWG, w/ the caveat that they be no longer than 6 inches) to the 2 battery busses. > > I will determine the connected load on each of 2 battery busses which would be devoted to keeping the engine running...(fuel pumps, ECU, fuel injectors, coils) and the required size of their feeders. > > Feeding these multiple busses w/ my 2 batteries in the tailcone seems problematic if the contactors are adjacent to the batteries. I'd queried you a while back about the implications of mounting the contactors on the fire wall w/ the batteries in the rear...about 10 feet away...you mentioned this is not common practice and (I believe you said that) it poses unwanted risks. > > Can those risks be mitigated by some kind of fusible links back at the batteries?...or is it just plainly a dumb idea to separate bat from contactor? > > Would not the feeders to the (hot) battery busses carry the same risks? > > (Bob writes).... Let's get the numbers and all the players identified > first. I'm not so sure that you're rear-mounted batteries > pose much of a design problem. That's good to hear... > > How many pumps? My engine is designed to run on one pump; I have a back up pump as well; each pump has it's own filter; the back up is intended to handle failure or clogging of the first pump. The hi pressure pumps draw 5.7 amps each. Both pumps should be able to be energized by either battery...and...it seems to me that I should want to toggle switch from one pump to the other. > Dual fuel injectors? Seems unlikely. My engine is MPEFI; it has 4 fuel injectors...each one draws between 1 and 2 amps. Would a photo or two of my engine be useful? > You said you have one plug per cylinder . . . but > if you have a distributor-less system, then you have > coil-paks that do not lend themselves neatly to > combining dual ignition through high voltage diodes > like the Corvair guys do. Though I drove one years ago, (a '65 convertible), I have no idea how the conversion guys are setting it up. My engine has 4 coils...all together they draw 8 amps. My engine has dual electronic ignition thanks to (I believe) dual Hall effect sensors...I don't know what, if any, their current draw is. My engine alternator is rated at 55 amps. > > So draw a box with a propeller on it and identify > each device that consumes power in order to keep > the engine running. Differentiate which items are > use in 'normal mode', which are used in 'backup mode' > and which are used in both modes. Will do...here's how I see it...to keep the prop spinning, I need: 1. The ECU (normal)...it has 3 power feeds...one for the "box" drawing 0.5 amps...one for the fuel injectors drawing 4 to 8 amps...and one for the coils drawing 8 amps (continuous...but engine guy sez during start up, draw could spike momentarily to 20 amps). Total continuous load: 16.5 amps. ECU (back up): It contains a duplicate motherboard accessed via a toggle switch on the control panel...no change in electrical load. 2. One serviceable fuel pump w/ an unclogged filter. Fuel pump draws 5.7 amps. Fuel pump (back up): I have a second pump (same rating as first) w/ separate filter. I BELIEVE that's all I need to keep the engine running...total load: 22.2 amps. (Round it up to say 25 amps?...what have I missed?) If this electrical load for the engine is routed thru a (always hot?) battery bus, would we then want to tally up additional loads on an endurance bus as a back up to everything deemed essential which would be normally drawing from the EXP Bus in the event that the EXP fizzles? And how do we provide the juice if the alternator fizzles as well? Note: regarding batteries: the Odyssey PC680 capacity is 16 ah, providing 24 "reserve minutes @ 25 amps"...see: http://www.odysseybatteries.com/mainpages/batteries.htm Assuming dual batteries and both battery states of 75%, I figure 24 ah available which would give 36 "reserve minutes" @ 25 amp draw. Does that sound right to you?...or am I getting way ahead of myself? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2013
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
You are in the ballpark Fred but it's probably safe to round down to 20 amps for a no alternator battery life calculation. Different system but 15 amps will run my 4 cylinder OEM EFI soob in cruise. 4 amps or less total for injectors in cruise. Any EFI system should be smart enough to limit ignition coil currents to saturation values so again unlikely to draw more than about 4 amps there either. 5 is about right for my high pressure fuel pump. And one more for the computer. Definitely size the feeders and fuses as recommended but think you will find your cruise requirements are a bit more modest than some of the numbers would indicate. Probably a good thing since our batteries are seldom in perfect condition. While usually easy to achieve, it is also nice if you can maintain altitude with one dead cylinder when you only have one ignition coil and one injector per cylinder. Ken On 14/10/2013 1:49 PM, Fred Klein wrote: > > Bob...see my indents below...I can't begin to express my appreciation for your willingness to attempt to lead me out of my rabbit hole...Fred > >> As I study Z-19, I'm noting the multiple busses fed from the two battery contactors and the nominal sizing of the wires (12 AWG, w/ the caveat that they be no longer than 6 inches) to the 2 battery busses. >> >> I will determine the connected load on each of 2 battery busses which would be devoted to keeping the engine running...(fuel pumps, ECU, fuel injectors, coils) and the required size of their feeders. >> >> Feeding these multiple busses w/ my 2 batteries in the tailcone seems problematic if the contactors are adjacent to the batteries. I'd queried you a while back about the implications of mounting the contactors on the fire wall w/ the batteries in the rear...about 10 feet away...you mentioned this is not common practice and (I believe you said that) it poses unwanted risks. >> >> Can those risks be mitigated by some kind of fusible links back at the batteries?...or is it just plainly a dumb idea to separate bat from contactor? >> >> Would not the feeders to the (hot) battery busses carry the same risks? >> >> (Bob writes).... Let's get the numbers and all the players identified >> first. I'm not so sure that you're rear-mounted batteries >> pose much of a design problem. > > That's good to hear... >> >> How many pumps? > > My engine is designed to run on one pump; I have a back up pump as well; each pump has it's own filter; the back up is intended to handle failure or clogging of the first pump. The hi pressure pumps draw 5.7 amps each. Both pumps should be able to be energized by either battery...and...it seems to me that I should want to toggle switch from one pump to the other. > >> Dual fuel injectors? Seems unlikely. > > My engine is MPEFI; it has 4 fuel injectors...each one draws between 1 and 2 amps. > > Would a photo or two of my engine be useful? > >> You said you have one plug per cylinder . . . but >> if you have a distributor-less system, then you have >> coil-paks that do not lend themselves neatly to >> combining dual ignition through high voltage diodes >> like the Corvair guys do. > > Though I drove one years ago, (a '65 convertible), I have no idea how the conversion guys are setting it up. My engine has 4 coils...all together they draw 8 amps. > > My engine has dual electronic ignition thanks to (I believe) dual Hall effect sensors...I don't know what, if any, their current draw is. > > My engine alternator is rated at 55 amps. >> >> So draw a box with a propeller on it and identify >> each device that consumes power in order to keep >> the engine running. Differentiate which items are >> use in 'normal mode', which are used in 'backup mode' >> and which are used in both modes. > > Will do...here's how I see it...to keep the prop spinning, I need: > > 1. The ECU (normal)...it has 3 power feeds...one for the "box" drawing 0.5 amps...one for the fuel injectors drawing 4 to 8 amps...and one for the coils drawing 8 amps (continuous...but engine guy sez during start up, draw could spike momentarily to 20 amps). Total continuous load: 16.5 amps. > > ECU (back up): It contains a duplicate motherboard accessed via a toggle switch on the control panel...no change in electrical load. > > 2. One serviceable fuel pump w/ an unclogged filter. Fuel pump draws 5.7 amps. > > Fuel pump (back up): I have a second pump (same rating as first) w/ separate filter. > > I BELIEVE that's all I need to keep the engine running...total load: 22.2 amps. (Round it up to say 25 amps?...what have I missed?) > > If this electrical load for the engine is routed thru a (always hot?) battery bus, > would we then want to tally up additional loads on an endurance bus as a back up to everything deemed essential which would be normally drawing from the EXP Bus in the event that the EXP fizzles? > > And how do we provide the juice if the alternator fizzles as well? > > Note: regarding batteries: the Odyssey PC680 capacity is 16 ah, providing 24 "reserve minutes @ 25 amps"...see: > http://www.odysseybatteries.com/mainpages/batteries.htm > Assuming dual batteries and both battery states of 75%, I figure 24 ah available which would give 36 "reserve minutes" @ 25 amp draw. > > Does that sound right to you?...or am I getting way ahead of myself? > > Fred > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2013
Attached is an electrical drawing with an ENGINE BUS. It is designed to be used with engines that rely on aircraft electrical power. It is not for my airplane (which is already flying) or for anyone in particular. Feel free to criticize, comment, or make suggestions or improvements. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410542#410542 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/engine_bus_604.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2013
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Pictures uploaded here <http://www.glosterairparts.co.uk/AeroElectric/> This has been in my aeroplane for 12 years - so is a little the worse for wear! Peter On 14/10/2013 15:37, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 06:06 PM 10/13/2013, you wrote: >> Bob...I wrote, >> >> Yes...a printed schematic is available: >> >> http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf >> <http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/EXP2-C.pdf> >> >> I've been referring to the diagram labeled "Typical Installation; >> External Solenoid" >> >> Also, there is a diagram depicting a Subaru installation w/ 2 >> circuits set up for a back up battery connection; however, I've given >> scant attention to it because I have no reason to believe that it >> addresses is:sues related to fuel injection: >> >> http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/expsub.PDF >> <http://support.anywheremap.net/pdfs/expsub.PDF> >> >> ...hope this is useful to your anlysis... > > Yeah, I think I have everything I need, > Your pictures and Peter's will round out > my manufacturer's data base on this product. > > All I need now is your summation of electrical > loads needed to keep the engine running and > their hierarchy. > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 14, 2013
On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ken wrote: > You are in the ballpark Fred but it's probably safe to round down to 20 amps for a no alternator battery life calculation. Ken...thank you for your "3rd party validation"...at this stage of the game, I'd rather be conservative, and I'm looking forward to Bob's assessment. Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2013
Joe...(even) I see many attributes in your diagram...thank you. Am I write in surmising that my EXP Bus could serve as the Main Power Distribution Bus? If I understand correctly, the only items on the Endurance Bus would be be desirable things like intercom, some overhead lighting, xpndr, maybe COM, as long as the load does not exceed 3-4 amps. How would you feel about your diagram if the 2 battery contactors were mounted on the engine side of the firewall? Fred On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:56 PM, user9253 wrote: > > Attached is an electrical drawing with an ENGINE BUS. It is designed to be used with engines that rely on aircraft electrical power. It is not for my airplane (which is already flying) or for anyone in particular. Feel free to criticize, comment, or make suggestions or improvements. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410542#410542 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/engine_bus_604.pdf > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2013
> Am I right in surmising that my EXP Bus could serve as the Main Power Distribution Bus? Yes, but the EXP Bus should not shut off battery contactors that supply power to the engine bus. And it is safer to have the master relay located close to the power source rather than inside of the EXP Bus. Try to keep smoke on the other side of the firewall away from you. > If I understand correctly, the only items on the Endurance Bus would be be desirable things like intercom, some overhead lighting, xpndr, maybe COM, as long as the load does not exceed 3-4 amps. You have the right idea. Whatever devices are important to you can be connected to the E-Bus. The total E-Bus load is a matter of personal preference as long as the circuit is designed to carry the load. I think that up to 10 amps is reasonable. A relay can be used to handle heavier loads. > How would you feel about your diagram if the 2 battery contactors were mounted on the engine side of the firewall? It is much safer to disconnect the power as close to the source as possible in the event of an electrical fire or imminent forced landing. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410565#410565 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "R. curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
Date: Oct 14, 2013
>> Am I right in surmising that my EXP Bus could serve as the Main Power >> Distribution Bus? > > Yes, but the EXP Bus should not shut off battery contactors that supply > power to the engine bus. And it is safer to have the master relay located > close to the power source rather than inside of the EXP Bus. Try to keep > smoke on the other side of the firewall away from you. Battery power for the engine ignition and fuel pumps should not go through a contactor. This power should come directly from the battery bus, which is hard wired directly to the battery. This will give you fewer components in the line and less chance of failure. Roger -- Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Subject: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
Date: Oct 15, 2013
> Attached is an electrical drawing with an ENGINE BUS. Joe, I know this has been addressed on the list before, but can you remind me what software you use to produce such drawings? Regards, Sacha ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
Date: Oct 14, 2013
On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:08 PM, R. curtis wrote: > Battery power for the engine ignition and fuel pumps should not go through a contactor. This power should come directly from the battery bus, which is hard wired directly to the battery. This will give you fewer components in the line and less chance of failure. Roger...as I read Joe's hypothetical "dual battery - single alternator" circuit diagram, the two power feeds from the dual batteries both go thru the contactors...I gather that whatever chance of failure this presents is mitigated by having the dual feeds. Good point. As I read Z-19, the two battery busses are both fed directly from the batteries rather than allowing the power to be dependent upon functioning contactors. thanks, Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Relay for Critical Power Feed
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Following up on automotive relays. I tested six 12V coil, 40A, SPDT automotive relays (Hsin Da 961A-1C-12DM) to determine "make" and "break" coil voltages. I connected each one to a vari able power supply, and clipped multimeter leads directly at the relay's coil contacts. Make voltage was determined by slowly increasing voltage until t he relay closed, break voltage by slowly decreasing until it opened. Coil resistance ranged from 91.5 to 92.7 ohms. Relay 1: Make 6.81V Break 3.85V Relay 2: Make 5.80V Break 3.85V Relay 3: Make 5.87V Break 2.03V Relay 4: Make 6.69V Break 3.51V Relay 5: Make 6.42V Break 3.15V Relay 6: Make 6.46V Break 3.79V Average: Make 6.34V Break 3.36V Relays sat stationary on the bench during tests. Vibration in real-world us e would almost certainly alter these results just bit. Next I did a very unscientific check of holding force. I crimped PIDG fast- on connectors to two wires and connected them to the normally open relay con tacts. I fed 5V from a power supply, through a 100k resistor, through these wires, with an oscilloscope probe attached across the resistor. I set the r elay coil voltage from another power supply at 14.0V, so that the relay clos ed and the scope displayed a constant 5V DC. I set the scope to trigger on a falling slope at 4.7V. I then slapped the relay against the bench top in e very direction except pins-down, until the contacts bounced. A typical boun ce waveform is attached. I have no idea how many g it took to bounce the co ntacts, but it was a pretty solid smack. Certainly much more severe than an y turbulence I care to encounter! Eric On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Eric Page wrote: > That's a novel idea, Tom. It would work, if you assume that failure of PS #1 always means instantaneous loss of power output. This would immediately d e-energize the relay coil and allow feed from PS#2. > > If, however, PS#1 suffered a slow ramp-down of output voltage (as with a f ailed alternator leaving a battery to supply the bus), then bus voltage woul d likely sag below the minimum for operation of the critical component befor e the relay de-energized. > > Relay coils exhibit substantial hysteresis; they require a higher voltage t o energize than to de-energize. A 12V-rated relay might energize at 9V risi ng, but not de-energize until 6V falling. A 12V battery would be effectivel y dead long before the relay opened. > > This is why the diode bridge works so well. Whichever main bus has the hi gher voltage supplies the critical bus, and switchover is seamless, with no d ropout during the change. > > I have a bag of automotive relays on the shelf. I'll try to remember to c haracterize their behavior when I get home on Monday and report back. > > Eric > > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Thomas E Blejwas wrot e: >> Bob, >> >> In Z-19, you use a diode bridge for critical power feeds. Can a relay be used instead? For example: connect Power Source #1 to terminal 86 and to t he critical component; connect Power Source #2 to terminal 30; and 87a to th e critical component. If both switched on, power comes from #1, otherwise p ower comes from whichever is switched on. Seems that this has the advantage of no need for a heat sink and failure of the relay does not prevent power t o the critical component. What am I missing? Thanks. >> >> Tom

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
> can you remind me what software you use to produce such drawings? I use TurboCAD Professional 16.2 Full Edition. Aircraft electrical system drawings and symbols are available for free download from Bob Nuckolls website: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ Thanks Bob. Older versions of TurboCAD are for sale on Amazon for $10 to $30 (sort by price). I am not familiar with the different versions of TurboCAD, but would get a deluxe version. Files can be saved in many different formats. For sharing drawings with others, I save them as pdf because they can be zoomed in without blurring. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410596#410596 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
Date: Oct 15, 2013
On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:29 PM, user9253 wrote: >> Am I right in surmising that my EXP Bus could serve as the Main Power Distribution Bus? > > Yes, but the EXP Bus should not shut off battery contactors that supply power to the engine bus. And it is safer to have the master relay located close to the power source rather than inside of the EXP Bus. Try to keep smoke on the other side of the firewall away from you. Joe...I need to look into this a bit further...the EXP Bus instructions recommend that when battery is more than 3 feet away from Bus that an external solenoid be used in place of the internal master relay...the narrative adjacent to Fig. 8 in the EXP Bus installation instructions makes this clear...and the mfg'r provides a jumper to replace the relay...(I've done that)...HOWEVER, it's also clear that the mfg'r's diagram for the External Solenoid installation did NOT remove the "box" entitled "Master Relay". At least, that's what I surmise at the moment and I'll be trying to confirm that today. So...if I continue to use the EXP Bus, rest assured that the EXP master switch activates the (external) contactor #1 as shown on my now quite obsolete circuit diagram. >> How would you feel about your diagram if the 2 battery contactors were mounted on the engine side of the firewall? > > It is much safer to disconnect the power as close to the source as possible in the event of an electrical fire or imminent forced landing. ...OK...I get it...and...in my fiberglass airframe, can I bring a SINGLE 4AWG ground directly to the engine? And, can I (should I?) use a brass strap to connect the (-) sides of the contactors? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna
From: "p32gxy" <p32gxy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Hello all, I am installing a Jim Weir style copper tape antenna in the wing of my composite aircraft. I have the choice of 3/8 or 1/2 inch wide copper tape... will going with one or the other make any real difference for a VOR antenna? Thx, M Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410610#410610 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: diodes
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
On Oct 14, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Joe wrote: > Yes, diodes are required across contactor coils to prevent voltage spikes. Voltage spikes, if not suppressed, can damage the switches that supply power to the contactor coils. With or without the diodes, there is no danger to avionics. Thanks for the clarification Joe. I've done some research on the contactors I bought at Acft Spru; P/N 11-03161, a contactor manufactured by White - Rogers w/ their product number of 70 111226 6. I've asked whether or not the relay IS or IS NOT "protected by a diode to reduce the voltage spike seen when the contactor is turned on. After contacting the mfg'r and its parent company and getting some initial runaround about internal circuitry being proprietary, I have been told that this contactor does NOT have such a diode....caveat emptor. I'll be replacing mine w/ the B & C contactors. Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
> ...in my fiberglass airframe, can I bring a SINGLE 4AWG ground directly to the engine? The size of the wire depends on the starter current and also the distance between the battery and the starter. The negative wire is just as important as the positive wire. If you use a singe wire, be 100 percent sure that the connections at each end will not loosen or corrode. The same can be said for the positive wire (if only one is used). > can I (should I?) use a brass strap to connect the (-) sides of the contactors? Contactors do not have a negative side unless you are talking about the coil. If you use 2 battery contactors, then the negative side of each coil is connected to a separate switch. A brass strap could be used to connect the negative terminals of 2 batteries together. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410614#410614 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2013
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
It is good to have two ground straps on an electric dependant engine. There are a few cases of failed single ground straps causing sudden quiet. I noticed one of mine was not as tight as it should have been on an annual inspection. Ken On 15/10/2013 11:33 AM, user9253 wrote: > > > >> ...in my fiberglass airframe, can I bring a SINGLE 4AWG ground >> directly to the engine? > > The size of the wire depends on the starter current and also the > distance between the battery and the starter. The negative wire is > just as important as the positive wire. If you use a singe wire, be > 100 percent sure that the connections at each end will not loosen or > corrode. The same can be said for the positive wire (if only one is > used). > >> can I (should I?) use a brass strap to connect the (-) sides of the >> contactors? > > Contactors do not have a negative side unless you are talking about > the coil. If you use 2 battery contactors, then the negative side of > each coil is connected to a separate switch. A brass strap could be > used to connect the negative terminals of 2 batteries together. Joe > > -------- Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410614#410614 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
> How many pumps? My engine is designed to run on one pump; I have a back up pump as well; each pump has it's own filter; the back up is intended to handle failure or clogging of the first pump. The hi pressure pumps draw 5.7 amps each. Both pumps should be able to be energized by either battery...and...it seems to me that I should want to toggle switch from one pump to the other. Why all this layered 'redundancy'. Under what conceivable condition can you imagine that you'll be siting in the cockpit with a stumbling engine flipping switches to see what combination of positions gets the engine back? There are folks who make good money sifting BIG spreadsheets of numbers that speak to failure rates of individual parts i.e., "This resistor, when used within these limits, has a CALCULATED failure rate of 3.8 x 10 to the minus 10. Meaning that if you really operated a large sample of such resistors until 99% of them are failed, you would get a bell shape curve of failures starting with some very tiny number failing in say 100 hours, and an equally tiny number failing in about 2X the calculated rate with a peak in the numbers at the calculated number. Now, take a constellation of such parts and build an electro-whizzy. Add all the effects of failures for the assembly and you get an Mean Time Between Failures number for the product. People who sit behind desks and write rules like to hang their hats on MTBF. . . and think they're doing a good and useful thing. In my experience, all this failure rate stuff is 99% smoke and mirrors. ALL machines flying electro-whizzies with MTBF numbers have things break every day. That's what keeps the mechanics employed. If a particular electro-whizzy shows a proclivity for failure at some number of hours much lower than predicted MTBF, do the folks behind the desks issue an AD and ground the fleet? No, those events go relatively un-charted assuming that (1) FMEA demonstrates that the failures do not put the airframe at risk and/or (2) the cost of added maintenance is insufficient to get the fleet operator's bean counters in a tizzy. So how does all this feathers and flooby-dust in the BIG airplanes guide our thinking for little airplanes? Easy. Easy, we do FMEA and then see how much cash is in your wallet. Let us assume that the gizmos you put in your airplane have a demonstrated MTBF of 500 hours. Terrible. That thing would never be allowed in the door at Boeing. But what's the significance of such dismal failure numbers? 500 hours of operation in the average light airplane is 10 years of service life. The 500 hour number suggests that about half of all such devices will have failed in 10 years. If that device is needed for continued flight, then what is the prudent prophylactic against bad-day-in-the- cockpit syndrome? Easy, install two of them. Hmmm . . . now what are the chances that BOTH devices would fail at the same time? Each device SHOULD be pre-flight tested. The maximum duration of the flight is on the order of 4 hours. So what is the likelihood of dual failure in that 4-hour window? What is the likelihood that failure of one pump will be teamed up with failure of a battery or the wiring and controls associated with that pump in that same 4-hour window? The pump is probably a vane style device driven by a brushed motor. The vulnerable components of this device are brushes, vanes and bearings. If all flights are normally conduced with the same pump, then wear-rate that attacks serviceability of the second pump is zero. This begs the question, "What value is added by multiple feed paths from multiple power sources to each pump?" That pump probably has a real MTBF on the order of 500 hours . . . yet there are many of them in service on airplanes. Dual fuel injectors? Seems unlikely. My engine is MPEFI; it has 4 fuel injectors...each one draws between 1 and 2 amps. Can you get us a resistance measurement of an injector coil? A fuel injector is opened for milliseconds once every other revolution of the crankshaft. So there are TWO values of significance to our deliberations. (1) PEAK current set by the coil resistance which drives wire sizing and noise issues and (2) AVERAGE current under most demanding engine operations. The second number is seldom articulated by engine suppliers in the OBAM aircraft industry. But this is the critical number for deducing ENERGY necessary to keep the engine running. Though I drove one years ago, (a '65 convertible), I have no idea how the conversion guys are setting it up. My engine has 4 coils...all together they draw 8 amps. My engine has dual electronic ignition thanks to (I believe) dual Hall effect sensors...I don't know what, if any, their current draw is. The same line of reasoning applies to ignition coils too. 2A per coil paints a picture of 24 watts being dissipated in each coil . . . a coil that is called upon to deliver millijoules (milliwatt-seconds) of energy to a plug every other revolution. Not a very efficient system. Klaus Savier's electronic ignition for a 6 cylinder engine draws 25 watts for ALL SIX plugs at max RPM. There's a disconnect here Will do...here's how I see it...to keep the prop spinning, I need: 1. The ECU (normal)...it has 3 power feeds...one for the "box" drawing 0.5 amps...one for the fuel injectors drawing 4 to 8 amps...and one for the coils drawing 8 amps (continuous...but engine guy sez during start up, draw could spike momentarily to 20 amps). Total continuous load: 16.5 amps. I am suspicious of those numbers for reasons cited. This engine guy would do well by his customers and himself to get some real instrumented numbers off of his product's electro-whizzies. If I were putting his engine on a TC aircraft, those numbers would be necessary. This isn't a whimsical demand unique to the certified aircraft market, it's fundamental to knowing how it works in any airplane. ECU (back up): It contains a duplicate motherboard accessed via a toggle switch on the control panel...no change in electrical load. 2. One serviceable fuel pump w/ an unclogged filter. Fuel pump draws 5.7 amps. Fuel pump (back up): I have a second pump (same rating as first) w/ separate filter. I BELIEVE that's all I need to keep the engine running...total load: 22.2 amps. (Round it up to say 25 amps?...what have I missed?) REAL numbers that I believe will prove to be much smaller. 250 Watts demand by an engine that's fitted with only 550 Watts of alternator seems out of whack. Are these engines flying now? What's the change that the supplier of this engine could be persuaded to get some real numbers off of a customer's airplane . . . or perhaps his own? If this electrical load for the engine is routed thru a (always hot?) battery bus, would we then want to tally up additional loads on an endurance bus as a back up to everything deemed essential which would be normally drawing from the EXP Bus in the event that the EXP fizzles? You're talking dual failure in the span of time needed to use all fuel aboard. The only reason you need to run the engine battery-only is if the alternator quits. If this were a Part 23 aircraft, we don't consider dual failures as part of the cert process. If the guys behind the desks don't worry about it . . . well . . . they're paid to worry. We get to do our own FMEA based mitigation of risk. And how do we provide the juice if the alternator fizzles as well? Note: regarding batteries: the Odyssey PC680 capacity is 16 ah, providing 24 "reserve minutes @ 25 amps"...see: http://www.odysseybatteries.com/mainpages/batteries.htm Assuming dual batteries and both battery states of 75%, I figure 24 ah available which would give 36 "reserve minutes" @ 25 amp draw. Does that sound right to you?...or am I getting way ahead of myself? Just a little . . . and if the numbers you've been offered are real, then alternator failure on your airplane would be an emergency situation. 30 minutes of battery-only endurance comes with severe pucker-factor. Are you really sure you want to fly this engine under that kind of risk? A rhetorical question at this stage of the design . . . I can't imagine an automotive manufacturer willing to toss off that kind of energy budget just to keep the engine running. I'll bet that engine in a car would run for hours on a good battery if all other loads were eliminated. Let's talk with your engine guy. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2013
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: diodes
On 10/15/2013 9:55 AM, Fred Klein wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Joe wrote: > >> Yes, diodes are required across contactor coils to prevent voltage >> spikes. Voltage spikes, if not suppressed, can damage the switches >> that supply power to the contactor coils. With or without the >> diodes, there is no danger to avionics. > > Thanks for the clarification Joe. > > I've done some research on the contactors I bought at Acft Spru; > P/N 11-03161, a contactor manufactured by White - Rogers w/ their > product number of 70 111226 6. > > I've asked whether or not the relay IS or IS NOT "protected by a diode > to reduce the voltage spike seen when the contactor is turned on. > > After contacting the mfg'r and its parent company and getting some > initial runaround about internal circuitry being proprietary, I have > been told that this contactor does NOT have such a diode....caveat emptor. > > I'll be replacing mine w/ the B & C contactors. > > Fred > I missed the original post, so I might not have all info needed for a reply, but here goes: not having a diode across a relay's coil (as purchased) is more the norm than the exception. Diodes for the job described are dirt cheap (pennies, last time I checked) & available anywhere you can buy electronic components. If the contactor does what you need it to do, just add the diode. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: diodes
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Fred, It would be easier and cheaper to add the diode externally to your existing c ontactor. They're available at your local Radio Shack for $3.49 for 25. If you don't have a RS close by, Digi-Key has them for $0.11 ea. (less in quan tity) and their shipping via 1st Class Mail is very reasonable. Digi-Key: http://tinyurl.com/m9ywoxc Radio Shack: http://tinyurl.com/ksswgfp Eric On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Fred Klein wrote: > On Oct 14, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Joe wrote: > >> Yes, diodes are required across contactor coils to prevent voltage spikes . Voltage spikes, if not suppressed, can damage the switches that supply po wer to the contactor coils. With or without the diodes, there is no danger t o avionics. > > Thanks for the clarification Joe. > > I've done some research on the contactors I bought at Acft Spru; P/N 11-03 161, a contactor manufactured by White - Rogers w/ their product number of 7 0 111226 6. > > I've asked whether or not the relay IS or IS NOT "protected by a diode to r educe the voltage spike seen when the contactor is turned on. > > After contacting the mfg'r and its parent company and getting some initial runaround about internal circuitry being proprietary, I have been told that this contactor does NOT have such a diode....caveat emptor. > > I'll be replacing mine w/ the B & C contactors. > > Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGIN E BUS
Date: Oct 15, 2013
For working with DXF files I would use the free program DraftSight http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight/download-draftsight/ Jan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253 Sent: 15 October 2013 12:45 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS > can you remind me what software you use to produce such drawings? I use TurboCAD Professional 16.2 Full Edition. Aircraft electrical system drawings and symbols are available for free download from Bob Nuckolls website: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ Thanks Bob. Older versions of TurboCAD are for sale on Amazon for $10 to $30 (sort by price). I am not familiar with the different versions of TurboCAD, but would get a deluxe version. Files can be saved in many different formats. For sharing drawings with others, I save them as pdf because they can be zoomed in without blurring. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410596#410596 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE BUS
Date: Oct 15, 2013
A brass strap should NOT be used to connect the two battery negative termin als together. The only thing connected to any battery terminal should be so ft flexible welding cable to reduce the risk of vibration failure of the te rminals themselves. A rigid brass strap will transmit vibration from one ba ttery to the other with the possibility of breaking off the terminal on one or the other. Bob McC > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE B US > From: fransew(at)gmail.com > Date: Tue=2C 15 Oct 2013 08:33:45 -0700 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > > > > ...in my fiberglass airframe=2C can I bring a SINGLE 4AWG ground direct ly to the engine? > > The size of the wire depends on the starter current and also the distance between the battery and the starter. The negative wire is just as importa nt as the positive wire. If you use a singe wire=2C be 100 percent sure th at the connections at each end will not loosen or corrode. The same can be said for the positive wire (if only one is used). > > > can I (should I?) use a brass strap to connect the (-) sides of the con tactors? > > Contactors do not have a negative side unless you are talking about the c oil. If you use 2 battery contactors=2C then the negative side of each coi l is connected to a separate switch. A brass strap could be used to connec t the negative terminals of 2 batteries together. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410614#410614 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna
Date: Oct 15, 2013
<< I am installing a Jim Weir style copper tape antenna in the wing of my composite aircraft. I have the choice of 3/8 or 1/2 inch wide copper tape... will going with one or the other make any real difference for a VOR antenna? >> Real difference? No. The wider tape will give you in theory a wider bandwidth antenna but the performance difference is hard to detect. But if I had the wider tape available anyway, I would use it. Besides, the wider tape is marginally more mechanically robust. The foil tapes have a history of breaking when installed in flexing locations such as landing gear. Tom Kuffel ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad charger?
From: "ronaldcox" <flyboyron(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Folks, I hope I haven't led anyone astray on my earlier question about this device. http://www.amazon.com/Brand-Blue-Sea-Charger-Socket/dp/B00FBQX23A/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1381860353&sr=1-6&keywords=blue+sea+usb It works well, seems to provide enough juice to power my iPad mini, and all the other stuff I mentioned is true. But I've decided my characterization of the noise issue isn't so accurate after more testing. It does put out quite a bit of EMI "hash" that breaks the non-adjustable squelch on my VHF radio, so it's probably not going to find a permanent home in my panel. I still like the form factor, physical quality, etc., so if one of you Eric's comes up with a good back end for it, I may just use it for the output ports, and gut the electronic end if one of your devices will do a better (electrically quieter) job. Standing by for either the new one that Eric Page is designing, or a new run of the ones Eric Jones is talking about. Let me know if/when one of you gets something you want to put out there, either for testing (I'm game) or it's available for sale. Thanks, Ron -------- Ron Cox Glasair Super II F/T Under Construction at C77 - About to fly! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410636#410636 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: infow <infow(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Subject: Re: diodes
You can get both contactors and diodes from Van's Aircraft! Reasonable cost and cheap shipping... like most of their parts. Ron >: On Oct 14, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Joe wrote: >: >:>: Yes, diodes are required across contactor coils to prevent voltage spikes. Voltage >:>: spikes, if not suppressed, can damage the switches that supply power to the >:>: contactor coils. With or without the diodes, there is no danger to avionics. >:>: >: >: Thanks for the clarification Joe. >: >: >: I've done some research on the contactors I bought at Acft Spru; P/N 11-03161, a >: contactor manufactured by White - Rogers w/ their product number of 70 111226 6. >: >: >: I've asked whether or not the relay IS or IS NOT "protected by a diode to reduce the >: voltage spike seen when the contactor is turned on. >: >: >: After contacting the mfg'r and its parent company and getting some initial runaround >: about internal circuitry being proprietary, I have been told that this contactor does >: NOT have such a diode....caveat emptor. >: >: >: I'll be replacing mine w/ the B & C contactors. >: >: >: Fred >: http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >: MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - >: http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna
From: "p32gxy" <p32gxy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Ok... got the bandwidth angle... as planned now it would be installed in tension mostly... my other option is to use part of the coax itself as the legs of the V shaped dipole any thoughts? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410640#410640 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna
Date: Oct 15, 2013
<< part of the coax itself as the legs of the V shaped dipole >> This has been done often in composite fuselages. It certainly is more physically robust than the foil tapes. The difference in bandwidth between the thin center conductor and the foil tape versions is measurable with less than lab quality equipment but the difference in performance is still not perceptible. Be sure to seal the end of the cable where the shield and the center conductor split to form the legs of the antenna with something like Performix Liquid Tape (Walmart Auto Section). Also seal the end of the center conductor. If water gets into the coax you will detect lower performance. Tom Kuffel ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna
From: "p32gxy" <p32gxy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Thx... I am actually thinking of using the braid only as the antenna material... as part of making a proper balun one would only use the braid to connect to the antenna elements anyway while the center cnnductor is not connected... this should avoid the problem you are describing... as long as i can successfully slide about a 16" long undisturbed braid-external shielding up on the stripped coax to avoid the large resulting gap. Water will not get into this setup as it will be saturated with epoxy. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410647#410647 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fred Klein <fklein(at)orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 15, 2013
On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > How many pumps? > > My engine is designed to run on one pump; I have a back up pump as well; each pump has it's own filter; the back up is intended to handle failure or clogging of the first pump. The hi pressure pumps draw 5.7 amps each. Both pumps should be able to be energized by either battery...and...it seems to me that I should want to toggle switch from one pump to the other. > > Why all this layered 'redundancy'. Under what conceivable > condition can you imagine that you'll be siting in the > cockpit with a stumbling engine flipping switches to see > what combination of positions gets the engine back? Bob...to answer your question, a clogged fuel filter is eminently conceivable to me...to provide a back up pump with separate filter seems fundemental...to be able to switch from one pump to another seems straightforward enough. I'm simply mystified as to why you imply that "this layered 'redundancy' " would create rather than solve problems or confusion if the engine starts sputtering. What am I missing here? Fred ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2013
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New electrical architecture with ENGINE
BUS At 12:29 PM 10/15/2013, you wrote: >A brass strap should NOT be used to connect the two battery negative >terminals together. The only thing connected to any battery terminal >should be soft flexible welding cable to reduce the risk of >vibration failure of the terminals themselves. A rigid brass strap >will transmit vibration from one battery to the other with the >possibility of breaking off the terminal on one or the other. > >Bob McC Agreed. I really like 4AWG welding cable for ALL battery jumpers irrespective of whether the rest of the fat wires are 4 or 2AWG. This stuff is very flexible and virtually incapable of putting vibration or other motion induced stresses on the lead posts or marginally sized machine screw battery terminals. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: EXP 2 Bus workaround
Date: Oct 15, 2013
Bob, A friend of mine is running a Mazda engine on a test stand and is using a lot of the same controller, injectors, coils, etc that Fred is using. I asked him for some amperage load information and this is what he measured on his running engine: "I went out and measured the current requirements of the various systems on my Renesis test stand which has an EC2 and GM D585 ignition coils. System voltage was 15V with a battery charger attached and the CAS was driven to be equivalent to an engine RPM of 5000. When the EC2 is powered up, there are also a tach, 2 VDO temperature gauges, an O2 gauge, a voltmeter, and an electronic fuel pressure gauge powered as well. The results for the individual systems are: EC2 and gauges: 0.8 A 2 leading coils: 2.4 A 2 trailing coils: 2.4 A 2 primary injectors 0.7 A 2 secondary injectors: 0.7 A 1 Mazda stock RX7 fuel pump: 3.8 A Total in normal running config: 10.8 A The fuel pumps that RWS sold draw very close to the same current that the Mazda one does." This hopefully will shed some light on the load that Fred will be experiencing on his engine. 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: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:22 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EXP 2 Bus workaround > How many pumps? My engine is designed to run on one pump; I have a back up pump as well; each pump has it's own filter; the back up is intended to handle failure or clogging of the first pump. The hi pressure pumps draw 5.7 amps each. Both pumps should be able to be energized by either battery...and...it seems to me that I should want to toggle switch from one pump to the other. Why all this layered 'redundancy'. Under what conceivable condition can you imagine that you'll be siting in the cockpit with a stumbling engine flipping switches to see what combination of positions gets the engine back? There are folks who make good money sifting BIG spreadsheets of numbers that speak to failure rates of individual parts i.e., "This resistor, when used within these limits, has a CALCULATED failure rate of 3.8 x 10 to the minus 10. Meaning that if you really operated a large sample of such resistors until 99% of them are failed, you would get a bell shape curve of failures starting with some very tiny number failing in say 100 hours, and an equally tiny number failing in about 2X the calculated rate with a peak in the numbers at the calculated number. Now, take a constellation of such parts and build an electro-whizzy. Add all the effects of failures for the assembly and you get an Mean Time Between Failures number for the product. People who sit behind desks and write rules like to hang their hats on MTBF. . . and think they're doing a good and useful thing. In my experience, all this failure rate stuff is 99% smoke and mirrors. ALL machines flying electro-whizzies with MTBF numbers have things break every day. That's what keeps the mechanics employed. If a particular electro-whizzy shows a proclivity for failure at some number of hours much lower than predicted MTBF, do the folks behind the desks issue an AD and ground the fleet? No, those events go relatively un-charted assuming that (1) FMEA demonstrates that the failures do not put the airframe at risk and/or (2) the cost of added maintenance is insufficient to get the fleet operator's bean counters in a tizzy. So how does all this feathers and flooby-dust in the BIG airplanes guide our thinking for little airplanes? Easy. Easy, we do FMEA and then see how much cash is in your wallet. Let us assume that the gizmos you put in your airplane have a demonstrated MTBF of 500 hours. Terrible. That thing would never be allowed in the door at Boeing. But what's the significance of such dismal failure numbers? 500 hours of operation in the average light airplane is 10 years of service life. The 500 hour number suggests that about half of all such devices will have failed in 10 years. If that device is needed for continued flight, then what is the prudent prophylactic against bad-day-in-the- cockpit syndrome? Easy, install two of them. Hmmm . . . now what are the chances that BOTH devices would fail at the same time? Each device SHOULD be pre-flight tested. The maximum duration of the flight is on the order of 4 hours. So what is the likelihood of dual failure in that 4-hour window? What is the likelihood that failure of one pump will be teamed up with failure of a battery or the wiring and controls associated with that pump in that same 4-hour window? The pump is probably a vane style device driven by a brushed motor. The vulnerable components of this device are brushes, vanes and bearings. If all flights are normally conduced with the same pump, then wear-rate that attacks serviceability of the second pump is zero. This begs the question, "What value is added by multiple feed paths from multiple power sources to each pump?" That pump probably has a real MTBF on the order of 500 hours . . . yet there are many of them in service on airplanes. Dual fuel injectors? Seems unlikely. My engine is MPEFI; it has 4 fuel injectors...each one draws between 1 and 2 amps. Can you get us a resistance measurement of an injector coil? A fuel injector is opened for milliseconds once every other revolution of the crankshaft. So there are TWO values of significance to our deliberations. (1) PEAK current set by the coil resistance which drives wire sizing and noise issues and (2) AVERAGE current under most demanding engine operations. The second number is seldom articulated by engine suppliers in the OBAM aircraft industry. But this is the critical number for deducing ENERGY necessary to keep the engine running. Though I drove one years ago, (a '65 convertible), I have no idea how the conversion guys are setting it up. My engine has 4 coils...all together they draw 8 amps. My engine has dual electronic ignition thanks to (I believe) dual Hall effect sensors...I don't know what, if any, their current draw is. The same line of reasoning applies to ignition coils too. 2A per coil paints a picture of 24 watts being dissipated in each coil . . . a coil that is called upon to deliver millijoules (milliwatt-seconds) of energy to a plug every other revolution. Not a very efficient system. Klaus Savier's electronic ignition for a 6 cylinder engine draws 25 watts for ALL SIX plugs at max RPM. There's a disconnect here Will do...here's how I see it...to keep the prop spinning, I need: 1. The ECU (normal)...it has 3 power feeds...one for the "box" drawing 0.5 amps...one for the fuel injectors drawing 4 to 8 amps...and one for the coils drawing 8 amps (continuous...but engine guy sez during start up, draw could spike momentarily to 20 amps). Total continuous load: 16.5 amps. I am suspicious of those numbers for reasons cited. This engine guy would do well by his customers and himself to get some real instrumented numbers off of his product's electro-whizzies. If I were putting his engine on a TC aircraft, those numbers would be necessary. This isn't a whimsical demand unique to the certified aircraft market, it's fundamental to knowing


October 04, 2013 - October 15, 2013

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ly