AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mo

November 03, 2014 - November 23, 2014



         Incidentally, the family of curves cited above shows that
         out of the box, charged at 13.0 volts, 14.0 volts, and 15.0
         volts, the device dumps a consistent energy value. This speaks
         well of the battery's internal battery management system.
      
         So how would this battery stack up for battery-only operations
         when replacing any one of the devices for which it is sold as
         a drop-in replacement?
      
         These data suggest that if your application calls for a KNOWN
         level of stored energy the ETX is NOT a drop in replacement
         for the products listed . Assuming that this battery, or one of
         its cousins, meets your cranking and stored energy requirements,
         then how does it stack up for a weight reduction goal at $350
         a pop?
      
      
         Bob . . . 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground
At 06:06 2014-11-03, you wrote: > > >I have a gremlin that I don't know how to troubleshoot. I have a >601XL all-metal airplane with an Icom A-200 radio, a RAMI com >antenna mounted on the top skin and connected with RG-400 cable. I >did all the installation myself. I have had this flying for 6 years >now. It transmits just fine in the air, but when I initially >installed it, I would get comments that it was a bit garbled while >transmitting on the ground. It was always good enough though, as I >could still carry on a 2-way conversation, plus I was able to >operate out of tower controlled airports and not get any negative >radio comments. Receiving wise, I have always been able to hear just >fine whether on the ground or in the air. > >Just this summer, I started to get comments from fellow pilots that >I was totally unreadable while transmitting on the ground. It would >become crystal clear as soon as I took off. Does anyone have any >thoughts of why this could be occurring or any place in particular I >should start my troubleshooting?? > >Thanks, What tests have you run? Have you tried a different microphone? Does your system include an intercom or does the mic connect directly to the radio? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2014
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: Stuart Ashley <ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net>
Hi Bob; Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron batteries. You have made a good point that a lithium iron battery may be capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity while running the instruments. One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of a 3 to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem without needing to move the battery to the tail cone and adding long and heavy cables. Cheers! Stu. On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 19:15 2014-11-02, you wrote: > > Yes, I should have included that. Also I should have included "How does Li > compare to Pb with respect to cranking the engine?" > > > There is no reason for any builder to believe that > lithium products are not suited for cranking their > engine -OR- running all desired electro-whizzies > for a duration that meets design goals. > > Further, if you have an AGM battery installed that > already meets your performance goals, then a lithium > replacement for that battery will probably be lighter > and occupy less volume. > > If your missions are day-vfr only and you have > no battery only endurance requirements, then > you're on pretty solid ground to accept the marketer's > "lead acid equivalency" or "drop in replacement" > assertions at face value. Further, your purchase > will be MUCH lighter and smaller. > > I'm presently in possession of one of these > products: > > http://tinyurl.com/jwk9wcu > > Note that the ad says this is a 'drop in' replacement > for the Yuasa YTX20 series batteries (18 ah at a > 10 hour rate), the YTX24 series (21 a.h.) and the > UB12350 (35 a.h.). This statement should raise some > eyebrows. The ETX36 may indeed CRANK like all of these > batteries it purports to replace. > > Here's part of the data I've collected off this sample > thus far: > > [image: Emacs!] > > When loaded to 5Amps, this battery consistently delivers about > 140 watt-hours of stored energy for a 2-hour rate of 11.5 > ampere-hours. We also see that this battery's charge cycle > is pretty well ended at 12 volts, one full volt higher than > end of charge on an SLVA battery. > > Incidentally, the family of curves cited above shows that > out of the box, charged at 13.0 volts, 14.0 volts, and 15.0 > volts, the device dumps a consistent energy value. This speaks > well of the battery's internal battery management system. > > So how would this battery stack up for battery-only operations > when replacing any one of the devices for which it is sold as > a drop-in replacement? > > These data suggest that if your application calls for a KNOWN > level of stored energy the ETX is NOT a drop in replacement > for the products listed . Assuming that this battery, or one of > its cousins, meets your cranking and stored energy requirements, > then how does it stack up for a weight reduction goal at $350 > a pop? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 23:49 2014-11-03, you wrote: Hi Bob; Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron batteries.=C2 You have made a good point that a=C2 lithium iron battery may be capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity=C2 while running the instruments.=C2 A conundrum that arises from the inability/ unwillingness of suppliers to offer DATA to support the customers broader needs. I've often mentioned the early struggles of Bolder Technologies to find market niche for their 1.1 a.h., flashlight-cell sized jelly-roll products that would crank an engine but wouldn't run your panel for 10 minutes. We tested some of those cells at B&C about 15 years ago . . . pretty amazing . . . when they worked . . . but completely inappropriate to our mission. We have a similar situation here. The energetic hawkers of lithium are quick to point out engine cranking abilities in terms of 'equivalencies' but without hard numbers for EVERY feature of lithium's performance. So just as we saw with Bolder products, successful incorporation of the new technology requires that the system integrator (that's YOU) understands the trade offs not only in weight and load dump but capacity, low temperature performance, and requirements for exploiting capacity (system voltage). My early studies have demonstrated that a 4-cell stack of lithium gets De-rated in a 14.4v system to approximately 1/2 of potential capacity. This means that for cell-paks consisting of arrays of 26650 cells, the USEFUL capacity is less than the POTENTIAL capacity. Revisiting the data published by A123 on their 26650 cell offering we see: Emacs! Note that while they speak to a MAX ALLOWABLE charge voltage of 4.2 (pretty much standard across the spectrum of lithium cells) they also speak to STANDARD CHARGE and NOMINAL CAPACITY? with numbers on the same order as demonstrated by my experiments thus far. A123 data speaks directly to this 14v system de-rating phenomenon. One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of a 3 to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem without needing to=C2 move the battery to the tail cone and adding long and heavy cables. Very good. Yes, the lighter weight of a lithium engine cranking battery may indeed offer such an opportunity . . . as long as all other trade-offs do not impact system performance in undesirable ways. I think it improbable that we're going to see really profound weight ratios. Just as the Bolder cells would happily dump 400A when new, it was never demonstrated that they would do that for say 50 times a year for say 4 years in service. We've not yet seen numbers on fielded products with having a 1:6 weight savings or even 1:4 . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make
A Contribution Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Bob, I've been following the LiFePO4 scene for some years and don't quite get your statement that charging a cell to 3.6V instead of 4.2V would leave 50% of full charge unused. Maybe that is true for LiFePO4 compared to other lithium products but not, I believe, for LiFePO4 as such. Maybe that is what you mean? I believe that the following may be true for a LiFePO4 (A123) cell: 1. there is very little capacity between 3.6V and 4.2V (using a 0.1 or 0.05 C cutoff) 2. the 4.2V maximum is intended for specific fast charging methods with a short stay at 4.2V followed by a much lower float voltage 3. 4.2V is not immediately damaging but not good for long life You could test and quantify point 1 above if you like? Regards, Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 06:04 2014-11-05, you wrote: Bob, I've been following the LiFePO4 scene for some years and don't quite get your statement that charging a cell to 3.6V instead of 4.2V would leave 50% of full charge unused. Not 'unused' . . . but not even pumped into the cell during charge for later recovery during discharge . . . Emacs! In the plot above we see the recovered energy plots for the same cell topped off at 3.7 volts and 4.2 volts. When charged at the higher voltage, the cell presents as a 3.7 volt source. When discharged at 5A, the cell tossed in the towel at about 4.4 a.h. When charged at 3.7 volts, it presents as a 3.4 volt source and tosses in the towel at 2.1 a.h. Maybe that is true for LiFePO4 compared to other lithium products but not, I believe, for LiFePO4 as such. Maybe that is what you mean? I have found no literature that speaks to major differences between the lithium couples . . . but in any case, LiFePO4 is the technology of choice. I believe that the following may be true for a LiFePO4 (A123) cell: 1. there is very little capacity between 3.6V and 4.2V (using a 0.1 or 0.05 C cutoff) I excerpted an image earlier from A123's specifications for their LiFePO4, 26650 cell where they made it clear that while 4.2 is the max allowable charge voltage, 3.7 was the nominally adopted charge voltage. 2. the 4.2V maximum is intended for specific fast charging methods with a short stay at 4.2V followed by a much lower float voltage 3. 4.2V is not immediately damaging but not good for long life I've read nothing to date that speaks specifically to such a notion. But anecdotally, the 'big guys' are reported to favor the cycling of lithium in their products between the bounds of 20 and 80 percent of potential charge. Of course, the 'big guys' can PICK their system voltage for the purposes of meeting design goals. We're pretty much stuck with that belt-driven thingy up front set for 14.4 volts, when divided by 4 yields 3.6 volts. Okay, lets jack up the regulator to 14.8, no big deal. The point is that properties of materials (LiFePO4) married to our energy management constraints (14.8 volts) says that ANY lithium product we may choose to install will be operated between approx 50% and some lower level close to 0% 0 - assuming that the BMS or pilot watching the battery-only voltage shuts things down at 2.8 x 4 or 11.2 volts. This idea is re-enforced by the testing I did earlier on an AeroVoltz product which had all the outward appearances of being a 3x4 array of 26650 cells. I suggested before testing that the thing was probably going to test out in the neighborhood of a 7.5 a.h. battery . . . which was confirmed as I recall. I need to dig that data up . .. You could test and quantify point 1 above if you like? I think the data gathered and presented above supports my perceptions and subsequent assertions . . . This also lends some understanding for the wide variations in advertised capacity of the various Li products. One supplier may be speaking in practical terms for long life of their product while others may be capitalizing on the chemistry's potential capacity. When used in something with modern power conditioning electronics (constant current to LED in flashlight, switchmode power supply in a computer, etc.) one can indeed stuff more electrons in for future recovery at the higher design point of 4.2 volts. But our 14 volt airplanes and other vehicles are what they are . . . so dropping lithium into the battery box says we're bounded by the 0-50% box which, by the way, promises much longer service life. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Earlier I wrote: The point is that properties of materials (LiFePO4) married to our energy management constraints (14.8 volts) says that ANY lithium product we may choose to install will be operated between approx 50% and some lower level close to 0% 0 - assuming that the BMS or pilot watching the battery-only voltage shuts things down at 2.8 x 4 or 11.2 volts. This idea needs to be explored further . . . Q: Okay, just how many times over the lifetime of any given battery in an airplane do we EXPECT to discharge down to zero percent in flight? A: CLOSE TO ZERO . . . the risks are very low assuming that we've done due diligence with FMEA/architecture, preventative maintenance and Plan-B. From an operational perspective, all we expect from the battery for 99.9% of all operations is get the engine started. How much energy does that take? Hmmmm . . . 200A x 10 seconds x 12v 24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4 array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take. So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained energy once-per-flight-cycle, 50 times a year. After the engine starts, we have DESIGNED the alternator system to assume all loads and recharge the battery. So what is the projected service-life of the battery when cycled between 50 and 48% of potential charge? I haven't the foggiest . . . nor does A123 I'll bet. Their engineering data gathering will focus on full-range cycling (like between 2.8 and 4.2 volts per manufacturer's data sheet) or perhaps 20 and 80% per the hybrid car engineer's design goals. The aviation design goals are unique and a VERY small fraction of the marketplace . . . hence it's unrealistic to expect A123 or anyone else to offer data that goes to meeting our design goals. On the other hand, somebody like Concorde or True Blue is intently interested in meeting aviation-unique design goals. This is the imperative behind getting our own data set that speaks to meeting OBAM aviation design goals, which may in fact be more expansive than TC design goals. I like to design for battery-only ops for duration of fuel aboard. Beechjet engineers can only dream of such goals. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
On 11/5/2014 9:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > * > 24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4 > array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential > capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells > tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds = > is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take. > > So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is > only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained > energy once-per-flight-cycle * Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what that's worth (my mind works that way, at least...) Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Jay Hyde <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Hey Paul! That was a very elegant way of showing the error, in a way that demonstrates how our minds work... And, I'm loving the arguments presented in the main thread. Thanks to Bob, Matt and all the contributors! Its the most amazing thing to be able to transcend borders, ideology, theocracy and prejudice as we do here; as is happening in all spheres- and it is changing the world (for the better). Johannesburg Jay On 2014-11-05 08:00 PM, Paul Millner wrote: > > On 11/5/2014 9:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> * >> 24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4 >> array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential >> capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells >> tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds = >> is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take. >> >> So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is >> only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained >> energy once-per-flight-cycle * > > Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what that's > worth (my mind works that way, at least...) > > Paul > * > > > * -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HH Enterprises ND Elec Eng, NHD Elec Eng, BTech Elec Eng, GDE Elec Eng General Engineering Service and Manufacturing processes. Aircraft building and repair; specialist in aircraft electrical and avionics systems. Great dinner parties, phenomenal conversation and general good fun. Adventuring, great living, kayaking and exploration. Flight instruction Mobile: +27 (0) 83 300 8675 Blog: www.wordpress/rawhyde.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with dire warnings about exceeding much... By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
> >Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what >that's worth (my mind works that way, at least...) > >Paul Good catch! I was mousing it out on the uSoft Windows calculator . . . which has problematic ergonomics . . . especially for ol' farts. An eye-ball check would have raised the flag . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: > >Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >dire warnings about exceeding much... I suspect the 3.7 figure is the supplier's safe-haven. You can't hurt the cell by limiting to this value as demonstrated by countless examples of 4-cell stacks in vehicular DC power systems. I've got some 'wall-wart' single-cell chargers I'm going to study in detail . . . I note that these chargers are supplied in both 3.7v . . . http://tinyurl.com/nr8m5t8 and 4.2 volt . . . http://tinyurl.com/nu55dth . . . versions but without explanation as to the difference . . . Here's one add that speaks to 3.7/4.2 volts in one breath . . . http://tinyurl.com/opmcjb9 but in the fine print, we see that they claim a 4.2 volt output for cells spec'd in the 3.6 to 4.2 range. I read this to mean that they're going to charge your battery to a 4.2 volt endpoint irrespective of how it was 'rated'. >By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm Interesting link. Thanks! I'll have to study it a bit . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: > >Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >dire warnings about exceeding much... > >By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm Check out this page . . . http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2 and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what he knows. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: lithium facts
Date: Nov 05, 2014
As I understand it from Google and Wikipedia, A-123 was a brand name that went out of business a couple of years ago. However, I believe the chemistry was LiFe PO4. 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, November 4, 2014 9:47 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 23:49 2014-11-03, you wrote: Hi Bob; Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron batteries.=C2 You have made a good point that a=C2 lithium iron battery may be capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity=C2 while running the instruments.=C2 A conundrum that arises from the inability/ unwillingness of suppliers to offer DATA to support the customers broader needs. I've often mentioned the early struggles of Bolder Technologies to find market niche for their 1.1 a.h., flashlight-cell sized jelly-roll products that would crank an engine but wouldn't run your panel for 10 minutes. We tested some of those cells at B&C about 15 years ago . . . pretty amazing . . . when they worked . . . but completely inappropriate to our mission. We have a similar situation here. The energetic hawkers of lithium are quick to point out engine cranking abilities in terms of 'equivalencies' but without hard numbers for EVERY feature of lithium's performance. So just as we saw with Bolder products, successful incorporation of the new technology requires that the system integrator (that's YOU) understands the trade offs not only in weight and load dump but capacity, low temperature performance, and requirements for exploiting capacity (system voltage). My early studies have demonstrated that a 4-cell stack of lithium gets De-rated in a 14.4v system to approximately 1/2 of potential capacity. This means that for cell-paks consisting of arrays of 26650 cells, the USEFUL capacity is less than the POTENTIAL capacity. Revisiting the data published by A123 on their 26650 cell offering we see: Note that while they speak to a MAX ALLOWABLE charge voltage of 4.2 (pretty much standard across the spectrum of lithium cells) they also speak to STANDARD CHARGE and NOMINAL CAPACITY? with numbers on the same order as demonstrated by my experiments thus far. A123 data speaks directly to this 14v system de-rating phenomenon. One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of a 3 to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem without needing to=C2 move the battery to the tail cone and adding long and heavy cables. Very good. Yes, the lighter weight of a lithium engine cranking battery may indeed offer such an opportunity . . . as long as all other trade-offs do not impact system performance in undesirable ways. I think it improbable that we're going to see really profound weight ratios. Just as the Bolder cells would happily dump 400A when new, it was never demonstrated that they would do that for say 50 times a year for say 4 years in service. We've not yet seen numbers on fielded products with having a 1:6 weight savings or even 1:4 . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
Date: Nov 05, 2014
What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9 amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else? Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
Date: Nov 06, 2014
First question is what current is this ammeter reading ?? Alternator output ?? Battery charge current ?? Buss current on some buss ?? Something else ?? Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9 amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else? Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: lithium facts
Date: Nov 06, 2014
Those A123 batteries were pretty hot. Below is a couple of links to the Killacycle that they powered with the batteries. 8.21 seconds in the quarter mile! The second link shows what can happen if you don=92t stay on top of things. Remember that they named the thing =93Killacycle=94 ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHJNG2PngQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o15EALghp0 I don=92t think that Bill Dube was seriously injured. Pride is a different matter. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Kale Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:27 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts As I understand it from Google and Wikipedia, A-123 was a brand name that went out of business a couple of years ago. However, I believe the chemistry was LiFe PO4. 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, November 4, 2014 9:47 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 23:49 2014-11-03, you wrote: Hi Bob; Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron batteries.=C2 You have made a good point that a=C2 lithium iron battery may be capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity=C2 while running the instruments.=C2 A conundrum that arises from the inability/ unwillingness of suppliers to offer DATA to support the customers broader needs. I've often mentioned the early struggles of Bolder Technologies to find market niche for their 1.1 a.h., flashlight-cell sized jelly-roll products that would crank an engine but wouldn't run your panel for 10 minutes. We tested some of those cells at B&C about 15 years ago . . . pretty amazing . . . when they worked . . . but completely inappropriate to our mission. We have a similar situation here. The energetic hawkers of lithium are quick to point out engine cranking abilities in terms of 'equivalencies' but without hard numbers for EVERY feature of lithium's performance. So just as we saw with Bolder products, successful incorporation of the new technology requires that the system integrator (that's YOU) understands the trade offs not only in weight and load dump but capacity, low temperature performance, and requirements for exploiting capacity (system voltage). My early studies have demonstrated that a 4-cell stack of lithium gets De-rated in a 14.4v system to approximately 1/2 of potential capacity. This means that for cell-paks consisting of arrays of 26650 cells, the USEFUL capacity is less than the POTENTIAL capacity. Revisiting the data published by A123 on their 26650 cell offering we see: Emacs! Note that while they speak to a MAX ALLOWABLE charge voltage of 4.2 (pretty much standard across the spectrum of lithium cells) they also speak to STANDARD CHARGE and NOMINAL CAPACITY? with numbers on the same order as demonstrated by my experiments thus far. A123 data speaks directly to this 14v system de-rating phenomenon. One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of a 3 to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem without needing to=C2 move the battery to the tail cone and adding long and heavy cables. Very good. Yes, the lighter weight of a lithium engine cranking battery may indeed offer such an opportunity . . . as long as all other trade-offs do not impact system performance in undesirable ways. I think it improbable that we're going to see really profound weight ratios. Just as the Bolder cells would happily dump 400A when new, it was never demonstrated that they would do that for say 50 times a year for say 4 years in service. We've not yet seen numbers on fielded products with having a 1:6 weight savings or even 1:4 . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben" <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Date: Nov 06, 2014
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
I had a very similar thing happen to me a few years back.... My ammeter did the same thing, slowly and smoothly keep climbing like my charging s ystem was on a load cell with an increasing load put on it... Turned out to be my Optima Red Top battery going bad... Took it back to the dealer ,they tested it and agreed there was a bad batch and he gave me a new o ne.... Been running great every since... Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:56:17 -0500 First question is what current is this ammeter reading ?? Alternator out put ?? Battery charge current ?? Buss current on some buss ?? Something else ?? Bob McC From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroele ctric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:28 AM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9 amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else? Bill www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.com www.mypilotstore.comwww.mrrace.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://fo ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ============== ____________________________________________________________ The #1 Worst Carb Ever? Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat Th is!) http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/545b165ab831b165a1dd4st03duc ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
On 11/5/2014 9:22 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: >> >> >> Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >> I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >> dire warnings about exceeding much... >> >> By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >> http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm > > Check out this page . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2 > > and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is > about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries > exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what > he knows. > > > Bob . . . > Interesting. It remains difficult to know when generic "Li-ion" data applies and when specific data is needed for one of the cathode chemistries: "LCO", "LMO", "LFP", "NMC", "NCA", "LTO" see http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries What I am guessing at the moment: - the aging mechanisms and lifetime statistics are similar but some are more robust than others - the maximum cell voltage (4.2V) applies to all - charging method and charging phases are similar but they have different capacity vs. final charging voltage curves charging LFP beyond 3.6V doesn't add much, charging LCO beyond 3.8V to 4.2V adds most of the charge see http://www.powerstream.com/lithuim-ion-charge-voltage.htm (the average force required to get an ion into a crystal location is different) - they have different (slow) discharge voltage curves (LFP flat at about 3.2V, LCO steadily decreasing from 3.9V) I could be wrong. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net>
Subject: What tool do you use to crimp these?
Date: Nov 06, 2014
What tool do you use to crimp these? DQo DQoNClNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBpUGhvbmU ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: What tool do you use to crimp these?
Date: Nov 06, 2014
Those are affectionately referred to as "flag terminals", so if you have a ratcheting crimper with removable jaws, sometimes you can get a set of jaws for flags, otherwise do a quick google for flag terminal crimper and you'll find lots of options. That said, if you are careful (and depending on the brand of flag terminal), sometimes you can use a regular terminal crimper for them with good success. Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey W. Skiba Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:04 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What tool do you use to crimp these? What tool do you use to crimp these? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
Date: Nov 06, 2014
Bob, I am pretty sure that it is reading battery charge current. It is too low to be alternator output or load I think. He had been doing some work on the engine and had run the battery down considerably trying to start it. On the next flight the amps jumped up to 8 on start then gradually reduced to about 4 by the end of the flight. The next flight the amps jumped up to 4 on start then came down to about 2.5 by the end of the flight. Somewhere in here his mechanic told him he needed a new battery so he replaced the battery. The next flight with the new battery the amps jumped up to about 4 on start, then dropped to about 2 amps for about 10 minutes then started the gradual climb to 9 amps over the next 40 minutes. The next flight the amps jumped to about 3 on start then dropped to about 2 for 10 minutes then slowly climbed to over 4 amps for the next 40 minutes or so. This now seems to be the standard. Any ideas would be welcomed. Bill _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob McCallum Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 11:56 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire First question is what current is this ammeter reading ?? Alternator output ?? Battery charge current ?? Buss current on some buss ?? Something else ?? Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9 amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else? Bill www.buildersbooks.com www.mypilotstore.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
At 16:05 2014-11-06, you wrote: Bob, I am pretty sure that it is reading battery charge current. It is too low to be alternator output or load I think. He had been doing some work on the engine and had run the battery down considerably trying to start it. On the next flight the amps jumped up to 8 on start then gradually reduced to about 4 by the end of the flight. The next flight the amps jumped up to 4 on start then came down to about 2.5 by the end of the flight. Somewhere in here his mechanic told him he needed a new battery so he replaced the battery. The next flight with the new battery the amps jumped up to about 4 on start, then dropped to about 2 amps for about 10 minutes then started the gradual climb to 9 amps over the next 40 minutes. The next flight the amps jumped to about 3 on start then dropped to about 2 for 10 minutes then slowly climbed to over 4 amps for the next 40 minutes or so. This now seems to be the standard. Any ideas would be welcomed. Bill Those readings don't make any sense to me. If it's a battery ammeter, then the current right after start . . . ESPECIALLY with a badly depleted battery, would peak at some rather large number . . . perhaps 20A or more immediately after the alternator comes on line and tapers to zero over time. These numbers are too low to be real . . . First, we need to identify just what the ammeter is reading. Does it have a zero centered needle with minus readings to the left and plus readings to the right? If so, sit in the cockpit with engine off and turn EVERYTHING in the airplane ON and tell us what the ammeter reads. If the ammeter has zero at the left and full scale at the right, then it's not a battery ammeter. Again, with the engine not running and EVERYTHING in the airplane turned ON, what does the ammeter read? Finally, with the engine running and everything in the airplane OFF except the alternator, what does the ammeter read? Then turn everything ON and take a reading (you need to do this at about 2000 rpm). Finally, if you turn the alternator OFF while everything else in the airplane is ON, what does the ammeter read. In all three series of tests above, take voltmeter readings at the bus also. Unitl we first determin exactly what this ammeter is attempting to tell us -AND- get some numbers based on behavior, there's not enough data to craft any sort of diagnosis. By the way, what engine, alternator and battery sizes are we talking about? Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution too! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94551-0347 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: lithium facts
Date: Nov 08, 2014
I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and where I can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery engineer. Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to power large radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use batteries similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC models I fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are discharged at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in about 10 minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge at about 20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and increases their life substantially. I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC model (normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally built from wood or plastic) goes down in flames. All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with each cell in the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special charger normally called a balancing charger. That means if you have 4 cells, there are 5 wires coming from a balancing charger that independently charges and monitors each cell while it is charging. I believe that some of the high end lithium batteries in use today have some balancing technology built into each cell and these special batteries may be charged form a common source like an alternator, with a single total charge voltage, sort of like the lead acid battery charging we are all familiar with . Inside each cell or these special lithium batteries, the automatic circuitry keeps each individual cell at a controlled charge current and the proper float voltage when the cell is topped off at the proper voltage for the chemistry being used. All of this automatic control inside each cell, just means there are many potential failure points. If any individual cell, or its automatic charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild manor (just quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures may be dangerous, or just very expensive. The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you should have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at best, or very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet Boeing spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that caught fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always possible no matter how much you spend for hardware. I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron that flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military forces used Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs about 8 times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours of service and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the NICADs costs, and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them till they don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you maintain your car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those NICADs had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get much better than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. Jim Kale -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jan de Jong Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 5:28 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts --> On 11/5/2014 9:22 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: >> >> >> Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >> I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >> dire warnings about exceeding much... >> >> By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >> http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm > > Check out this page . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2 > > and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is > about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries > exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what > he knows. > > > Bob . . . > Interesting. It remains difficult to know when generic "Li-ion" data applies and when specific data is needed for one of the cathode chemistries: "LCO", "LMO", "LFP", "NMC", "NCA", "LTO" see http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries What I am guessing at the moment: - the aging mechanisms and lifetime statistics are similar but some are more robust than others - the maximum cell voltage (4.2V) applies to all - charging method and charging phases are similar but they have different capacity vs. final charging voltage curves charging LFP beyond 3.6V doesn't add much, charging LCO beyond 3.8V to 4.2V adds most of the charge see http://www.powerstream.com/lithuim-ion-charge-voltage.htm (the average force required to get an ion into a crystal location is different) - they have different (slow) discharge voltage curves (LFP flat at about 3.2V, LCO steadily decreasing from 3.9V) I could be wrong. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Jim, You sound like a man of real world experience with the batteries mentioned below. I'm guessing the following: * Much of your RC model airplane experience with lithium batteries is based on what you've been doing in the military world * You and your military friends have been exposed to more information about lithium battery testing than us civilians have, especially as applied to aviation. * This is probably why your military friends have not converted to lithium; instead, they went SVLA. * The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. I could be wrong about all this, but it's my hunch. Henador Titzoff >________________________________ > From: Jim Kale <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:16 AM >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > >I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and where I >can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery engineer. >Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to power large >radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use batteries >similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC models I >fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are discharged >at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in about 10 >minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge at about >20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and increases >their life substantially. > >I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC model >(normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally built from >wood or plastic) goes down in flames. > >All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with each cell in >the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special charger >normally called a balancing charger. That means if you have 4 cells, there >are 5 wires coming from a balancing charger that independently charges and >monitors each cell while it is charging. I believe that some of the high >end lithium batteries in use today have some balancing technology built into >each cell and these special batteries may be charged form a common source >like an alternator, with a single total charge voltage, sort of like the >lead acid battery charging we are all familiar with . Inside each cell or >these special lithium batteries, the automatic circuitry keeps each >individual cell at a controlled charge current and the proper float voltage >when the cell is topped off at the proper voltage for the chemistry being >used. All of this automatic control inside each cell, just means there are >many potential failure points. If any individual cell, or its automatic >charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild manor (just >quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). > >All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures may be >dangerous, or just very expensive. > >The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you should >have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just >buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at best, or >very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet Boeing >spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that caught >fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always possible no >matter how much you spend for hardware. > >I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron that >flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military forces used >Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs about 8 >times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours of service >and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid >batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the NICADs costs, >and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them till they >don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you maintain your >car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better >reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those NICADs >had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get much better >than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid >batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. > >Jim Kale > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jan de >Jong >Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 5:28 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > >--> > >On 11/5/2014 9:22 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >>> I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >>> dire warnings about exceeding much... >>> >>> By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >>> http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm >> >> Check out this page . . . >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2 >> >> and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is >> about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries >> exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what >> he knows. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >Interesting. > >It remains difficult to know when generic "Li-ion" data applies and when >specific data is needed for one of the cathode chemistries: "LCO", "LMO", >"LFP", "NMC", "NCA", "LTO" >see >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries > >What I am guessing at the moment: > >- the aging mechanisms and lifetime statistics are similar > but some are more robust than others > >- the maximum cell voltage (4.2V) applies to all > >- charging method and charging phases are similar > but they have different capacity vs. final charging voltage curves > charging LFP beyond 3.6V doesn't add much, charging LCO beyond 3.8V to >4.2V adds most of the charge > see http://www.powerstream.com/lithuim-ion-charge-voltage.htm >(the average force required to get an ion into a crystal location is >different) > >- they have different (slow) discharge voltage curves (LFP flat at about >3.2V, LCO steadily decreasing from 3.9V) > >I could be wrong. > >Jan de Jong > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 07:31 2014-11-08, you wrote: The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. I doubt it. Given the ease with which I have acquired more knowledge demonstrates that the data is not the the least bit 'secret'. Simple-ideas I've discovered for myself are alluded if not specifically addressed in Isador Buccmann's missives cited earlier. I think it a certainty that any supplier who fails to included 'my' discoveries in their promotional/disclosure literature are either ignorant of such information, don't see why their customer would have an interest in such esoteric knowledge or they're not eager to reveal information that is counter-productive to a marketing effort. I'm reluctant to believe that anything is being deliberately withheld for dishonorable reasons . . . there's more tort lawyers per capita in the US than in any other nation. Perfectly honorable suppliers are already at considerable risk from this source of cultural misery . . . deliberate obfuscation of hazards by any suppler puts them at 1000x the risk. I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. I think the Boeing story is exceedingly complicated and yes, fraught with some unhappy trade-offs. The testing was extensive but went mostly toward the notion of assessing risk based on failure rates which in turn were based on things not known to be poor assumptions. This is why my teachers encouraged me to assume the worst - assume a failure rate of 1 per flight hour then mitigate the risks of that failure. This is the approach ultimately adopted by Boeing and friends. It's the approach adopted by True Blue and has become the regulatory modus operandi as well. The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples common to what now must be billions of examples ranging from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells produced in the millions per week. I'll respond to Jim's generous sharing of experience and insights in depth . . . but right now, there are two car-loads of children and grand-children on their way to M.L. help grandma and grandpa take down a dying tree . . . and trim up some others. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the AE list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If you are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? Henador Titzoff >________________________________ > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:25 AM >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > >At 07:31 2014-11-08, you wrote: >The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been >generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. > > > I doubt it. Given the ease with which I have acquired > more knowledge demonstrates that the data is not the > the least bit 'secret'. Simple-ideas I've discovered > for myself are alluded if not specifically addressed > in Isador Buccmann's missives cited earlier. > > I think it a certainty that any supplier who fails to included > 'my' discoveries in their promotional/disclosure literature > are either ignorant of such information, don't see > why their customer would have an interest in such > esoteric knowledge or they're not eager to reveal > information that is counter-productive to a marketing > effort. > > I'm reluctant to believe that anything is being deliberately > withheld for dishonorable reasons . . . there's more > tort lawyers per capita in the US than in any other > nation. Perfectly honorable suppliers are already at > considerable risk from this source of cultural misery . . . > deliberate obfuscation of hazards by any suppler > puts them at 1000x the risk. > >I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium >batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough >testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who >wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test >data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were >probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All >speculation, mind you. > > I think the Boeing story is exceedingly complicated and > yes, fraught with some unhappy trade-offs. The testing > was extensive but went mostly toward the notion of > assessing risk based on failure rates which in turn > were based on things not known to be poor assumptions. > > This is why my teachers encouraged me to assume the > worst - assume a failure rate of 1 per flight hour > then mitigate the risks of that failure. This is > the approach ultimately adopted by Boeing and friends. > It's the approach adopted by True Blue and has become > the regulatory modus operandi as well. > > The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and > the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The > products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples > common to what now must be billions of examples ranging > from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to > the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of > AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue > is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells > produced in the millions per week. > > I'll respond to Jim's generous sharing of experience > and insights in depth . . . but right now, there are > two car-loads of children and grand-children on their > way to M.L. help grandma and grandpa take down a > dying tree . . . and trim up some others. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net>
Subject: lithium facts
I have been looking at lithium battery packs and find there is a wide variation in the per-cell voltage. Some are as low as 1.2V and up to 1.8V and 3.7V. The discussion here indicates that 3.7V is the standard for lithium cells. Were there or are there lithium cells of lower voltage? -- Lyle Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
On 11/8/2014 8:31 AM, Henador Titzoff wrote: > Jim, > > You sound like a man of real world experience with the batteries > mentioned below. I'm guessing the following: > > * Much of your RC model airplane experience with lithium batteries > is based on what you've been doing in the military world > I would guess not. Rather that the RC model community is, and has been, deep into lithium battery technology for some time. Perhaps leaders in the field, at least from an OBAM standpoint. My brother has been in RC competitively for decades. As many other have, he has converted 100% to lithium (probably LiPo) battery power for his competition aircraft. They buy them, use them, abuse them, measure them and fail them. I'm sure there's a wealth of real world experience AND DATA there, but I have no idea whether it would be useful in our environment. > > * You and your military friends have been exposed to more > information about lithium battery testing than us civilians have, > especially as applied to aviation. > * This is probably why your military friends have not converted to > lithium; instead, they went SVLA. > * The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already > been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. > > I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium > batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, > or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut > weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and > there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry > to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. > > I could be wrong about all this, but it's my hunch. > > Henador Titzoff > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jim Kale > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:16 AM > *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > > > I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and > where I > can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery > engineer. > Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to > power large > radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use > batteries > similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC > models I > fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are > discharged > at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in > about 10 > minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge > at about > 20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and > increases > their life substantially. > > I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC > model > (normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally > built from > wood or plastic) goes down in flames. > > All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with > each cell in > the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special > charger > normally called a balancing charger. That means if you have 4 > cells, there > are 5 wires coming from a balancing charger that independently > charges and > monitors each cell while it is charging. I believe that some of > the high > end lithium batteries in use today have some balancing technology > built into > each cell and these special batteries may be charged form a common > source > like an alternator, with a single total charge voltage, sort of > like the > lead acid battery charging we are all familiar with . Inside each > cell or > these special lithium batteries, the automatic circuitry keeps each > individual cell at a controlled charge current and the proper > float voltage > when the cell is topped off at the proper voltage for the > chemistry being > used. All of this automatic control inside each cell, just means > there are > many potential failure points. If any individual cell, or its > automatic > charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild > manor (just > quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). > > All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures > may be > dangerous, or just very expensive. > > The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you > should > have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just > buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at > best, or > very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet > Boeing > spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that > caught > fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always > possible no > matter how much you spend for hardware. > > I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron > that > flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military > forces used > Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs > about 8 > times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours > of service > and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid > batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the > NICADs costs, > and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them > till they > don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you > maintain your > car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better > reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those > NICADs > had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get > much better > than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid > batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. > > Jim Kale > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 11:03 2014-11-08, you wrote: >This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the >AE list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If >you are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but >you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off >your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? > >Henador Titzoff I have no ability nor inclination to 'filter' anyone. I've had to ask several individuals to quit the list over the years but I've not advocated for any form of 'firewall' against anyone. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries > > The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and > the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The > products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples > common to what now must be billions of examples ranging > from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to > the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of > AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue > is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells > produced in the millions per week. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 14:48 2014-11-08, you wrote: > >Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries here is one of several articles I see that prompted my assertion . . . http://tinyurl.com/pqo59cr Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: John Deer PM Alternator
Date: Nov 09, 2014
Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. Part numbers: SE501843 2500A 2500B APM0005 AM877557 10939 and many more Seems it may be a good lightweight alternator for primary or backup use. Justin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
When I was following the Corvair aircraft engine building lists they were using the JD item on the builds. You may find some info there also. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) On 11/09/2014 06:52 AM, Justin Jones wrote: > > Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. > > Part numbers: > > SE501843 > 2500A > 2500B > APM0005 > AM877557 > 10939 > > and many more > > Seems it may be a good lightweight alternator for primary or backup use. > > Justin > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: Cherie&Ken <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
I've got 600 hours on one of those running one side of a Z-14 setup with the matching J-Deere regulator. I did convert it to a multi-v belt pulley which was a bit of a challenge. It Turns 8 to 10,000 rpm on my setup. I replaced one of the ball bearings that seemed dry when I happened to have the unit off at around 500 hours. I believe they are popular with the Corvair and VW converters as well. Ken On 09/11/2014 8:22 AM, rayj wrote: > > When I was following the Corvair aircraft engine building lists they > were using the JD item on the builds. You may find some info there also. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, > honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in > our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, > acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of > success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the > produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate > (1902-1968) > > On 11/09/2014 06:52 AM, Justin Jones wrote: >> >> >> Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I >> have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It >> weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. >> >> Part numbers: >> >> SE501843 >> 2500A >> 2500B >> APM0005 >> AM877557 >> 10939 >> >> and many more >> >> Seems it may be a good lightweight alternator for primary or backup use. >> >> Justin >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Nov 09, 2014
Ken, Are you running it on the front of a lycoming? I would like to find a way to drive it from the rear vacuum pad. The b&c alternators are pricey in comparison. > On Nov 9, 2014, at 16:47, Cherie&Ken wrote: > > > I've got 600 hours on one of those running one side of a Z-14 setup with the matching J-Deere regulator. I did convert it to a multi-v belt pulley which was a bit of a challenge. It Turns 8 to 10,000 rpm on my setup. I replaced one of the ball bearings that seemed dry when I happened to have the unit off at around 500 hours. I believe they are popular with the Corvair and VW converters as well. > Ken > >> On 09/11/2014 8:22 AM, rayj wrote: >> >> When I was following the Corvair aircraft engine building lists they were using the JD item on the builds. You may find some info there also. >> >> Raymond Julian >> Kettle River, MN >> >> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) >> >>> On 11/09/2014 06:52 AM, Justin Jones wrote: >>> >>> Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. >>> >>> Part numbers: >>> >>> SE501843 >>> 2500A >>> 2500B >>> APM0005 >>> AM877557 >>> 10939 >>> >>> and many more >>> >>> Seems it may be a good lightweight alternator for primary or backup use. >>> >>> Justin > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
At 07:47 2014-11-09, you wrote: > >I've got 600 hours on one of those running one side of a Z-14 setup >with the matching J-Deere regulator. I did convert it to a multi-v >belt pulley which was a bit of a challenge. It Turns 8 to 10,000 rpm >on my setup. I replaced one of the ball bearings that seemed dry >when I happened to have the unit off at around 500 hours. I believe >they are popular with the Corvair and VW converters as well. Depending on the regulator technology, running a PM alternator at very high speeds elevates risk to the electronics. Unlike the wound-field machines where actual output votlage is limited by the regulator, a PM alternator's output is proportional to driving RPM. So running a PM alternator as much greater speeds than they operate in their other-life on garden tractors MIGHT prove challenging to the PM regulator. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
At 06:52 2014-11-09, you wrote: > > >Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I >have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It >weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. I think they have some 3-phase models that run upwards of 30A. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: lithium facts
At 01:16 2014-11-08, you wrote: I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and where I can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery engineer. Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to power large radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use batteries similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC models I fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are discharged at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in about 10 minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge at about 20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and increases their life substantially. An excellent narrative illustrating a substantial difference in the way the aviation community uses batteries. Unlike ALL motive power applications, the engine-crank/standby applications use about 4% of the battery's capacity during a few seconds per flight cycle . . . recharging is not expected to complete in less than 30 minutes. But most important . . . there are NO conditions under which our batteries are expected/ permitted to experience substantial temperature rise. I suggest that the only 'connection' between the motive power applications (from model airplanes up to plug-n-drive forklifts and cars) and virtually all crank-and-sit applications (most cars, trucks, and airplanes) is the word 'lithium'. I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC model (normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally built from wood or plastic) goes down in flames. I'm pretty sure these were not lithium-iron phosphate cells. However, it is certain that they were HIGHLY stressed compared to aviation expectations/design goals. All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with each cell in the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special charger normally called a balancing charger. If any individual cell, or its automatic charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild manor (just quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures may be dangerous, or just very expensive. To be sure, the battery management systems (BMS) included as part of the qualified True Blue products adds significant cost to the battery. But be aware that "BMS" can mean anything from a simple poly-fuse built into the end-cap of a cell all the way up to a Cray-sized byte thrasher that monitors cell voltage, input-output currents, temperatures, local barometric pressure and phases of the moon. The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you should have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at best, or very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet Boeing spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that caught fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always possible no matter how much you spend for hardware. The Boeing experience has few more parallels to our design and risk reduction goals than motive power applications but they're not terribly germane. We can draw more on the lessons-learned by Cessna and True-Blue than upon anything that happened in a 787 The manner in which we will use lithium will not stress the cells hard at all. We're only going to charge to 50-60% of the chemistry's potential. We only discharge to the tune of 4-5% per flight cycle at most . . . the give 30 minutes to replace that trivial taxation of store energy. Ideally, we NEVER deeply discharge the battery. A totally different world than what is expected of most lithium products in service today. I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron that flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military forces used Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs about 8 times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours of service and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the NICADs costs, and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them till they don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you maintain your car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those NICADs had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get much better than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. Exactly. Your story has been repeated many times over the years. Skip Koss at Concorde can recite a number of instances were Concorde SVLA products have successfully replaced Ni-Cad in military and air-transport applications for much improved cost of ownership benefits. The sealed lead-acid battery took cost of ownership a quantum jump in the right direction. However, my own limited studies into the lithium opportunities suggest that 'going-lithium' just to save weight while giving up performance and risk benefits of SVLA may not be justifiable in every owner-operator's play-book. Watch this space . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
>Interesting. > >It remains difficult to know when generic "Li-ion" data applies and >when specific data is needed for one of the cathode chemistries: >"LCO", "LMO", "LFP", "NMC", "NCA", "LTO" >see >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries I note that in BU-204, the chart cites an LFP charge limit of 3.6 volts . . . which is contrary to the claims and practices of the market place offerings of LFP cells . . . and not in agreement with my tests either. >What I am guessing at the moment: > >- the aging mechanisms and lifetime statistics are similar > but some are more robust than others agreed >- the maximum cell voltage (4.2V) applies to all agreed . . . I've not seen any literature that argues with this with the exception noted above. >- charging method and charging phases are similar > but they have different capacity vs. final charging voltage curves > charging LFP beyond 3.6V doesn't add much How do you arrive at this? The cells that I'm testing demonstrate a doubling of stored energy by extending the charge beyond 3.6 volts. The fact remains that incorporating an array of 4-cell strings into lead-acid optimized power systems will indeed limit charge voltage to something on the order of 3.7 volts . . . and even if we COULD charge the cell to 100%, it seems unlikely we can always exploit that energy due to its elevated delivery voltage. > charging LCO beyond 3.8V to 4.2V adds most of the charge > see http://www.powerstream.com/lithuim-ion-charge-voltage.htm >(the average force required to get an ion into a crystal location is >different) May well be. Don't have any of those cells to test and besides, we really NEED the LPF characteristic that tolerates heave discharge values along with the lower levels of risk. >- they have different (slow) discharge voltage curves (LFP flat at >about 3.2V, LCO steadily decreasing from 3.9V) Not sure that 'flatness' of discharge has any big significance in our applications. The battery-only loads in aircraft are functional from 15 down to 11 volts (which is right at the recommended limit for discharging lithium in a 4-cell string). Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2014
From: Cherie&Ken <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: John Deer PM Alternator
Well no I'm running it with a dedicated 3-V belt on a Subaru slowed to what I consider acceptable. The original single V "pulley" arrangement is quite small. It is not feasible to drive this thing from a vacuum pad IMO. It would entail a lot of machining and very likely put the engine accessory drive at risk from torsional resonances. Ken On 09/11/2014 9:54 AM, Justin Jones wrote: > > Ken, > > Are you running it on the front of a lycoming? I would like to find a way to drive it from the rear vacuum pad. The b&c alternators are pricey in comparison. > > > >> On Nov 9, 2014, at 16:47, Cherie&Ken wrote: >> >> >> I've got 600 hours on one of those running one side of a Z-14 setup with the matching J-Deere regulator. I did convert it to a multi-v belt pulley which was a bit of a challenge. It Turns 8 to 10,000 rpm on my setup. I replaced one of the ball bearings that seemed dry when I happened to have the unit off at around 500 hours. I believe they are popular with the Corvair and VW converters as well. >> Ken >> >>> On 09/11/2014 8:22 AM, rayj wrote: >>> >>> When I was following the Corvair aircraft engine building lists they were using the JD item on the builds. You may find some info there also. >>> >>> Raymond Julian >>> Kettle River, MN >>> >>> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) >>> >>>> On 11/09/2014 06:52 AM, Justin Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> Has anyone used the John deer PM alternator? With some research, I have found that it is 20A and requires an external regulator. It weighs 3.5 lbs and the cost is around $110 usd. >>>> >>>> Part numbers: >>>> >>>> SE501843 >>>> 2500A >>>> 2500B >>>> APM0005 >>>> AM877557 >>>> 10939 >>>> >>>> and many more >>>> >>>> Seems it may be a good lightweight alternator for primary or backup use. >>>> >>>> Justin >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Ammeter going haywire
Date: Nov 09, 2014
He has a Dynon Skyview in his panel and that is about it. The Skyview captures and records some of his flights which can be seen on SavvyAnalysis. I am putting some links to a few of his flights below. The Skyview gives him a lot of info but if he turns if off he gets nothing. :>( The ammeter shunt is connected between the master contactor/alternator fat wire and the main buss. In this position I think it should be reading the load on the main buss. Below are some savvyanalysis data The amps reversed from 8 amps to 3.5 amps with the old batt on 10/21/14. https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/749440/37e6656c-5f2a-45cf-92c2-6231a494 60c Here is a comparison: 10/27/14 (6 days later). Amps start at 4.0 (start of engine) and drop for the rest of the flight to about 2.7 amps. https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/753443/64b3c6d3-b471-492e-b01d-05124820 887c This is the CRAZY ONE 11/03/14. Starts at 4.0 amps. Stays OK for 20 minutes. Then a steady climb to 8.8 amps.??? This is with a new Batt. Maybe something is wrong with the new battery? https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/759392/46b06ce6-9f83-4758-8b43-a247feb1 306f BUT the next day, On 11/04/14 the NEW batt was acting NORMAL. After 40 minutes, Amp usage was only 4.0 amps. Not like the day before on 11/03/14. https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/760125/2265e909-c367-4f30-9df4-26fd424f d7f1 Todays flight (Thursday) 11/06/14. Amps climb from 3 amps to 4.1 amps over an HOUR of flight. https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/760853/ea55436a-65b6-4c60-809e-18240500 a91a -----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: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:41 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire At 16:05 2014-11-06, you wrote: Bob, I am pretty sure that it is reading battery charge current. It is too low to be alternator output or load I think. He had been doing some work on the engine and had run the battery down considerably trying to start it. On the next flight the amps jumped up to 8 on start then gradually reduced to about 4 by the end of the flight. The next flight the amps jumped up to 4 on start then came down to about 2.5 by the end of the flight. Somewhere in here his mechanic told him he needed a new battery so he replaced the battery. The next flight with the new battery the amps jumped up to about 4 on start, then dropped to about 2 amps for about 10 minutes then started the gradual climb to 9 amps over the next 40 minutes. The next flight the amps jumped to about 3 on start then dropped to about 2 for 10 minutes then slowly climbed to over 4 amps for the next 40 minutes or so. This now seems to be the standard. Any ideas would be welcomed. Bill Those readings don't make any sense to me. If it's a battery ammeter, then the current right after start . . . ESPECIALLY with a badly depleted battery, would peak at some rather large number . . . perhaps 20A or more immediately after the alternator comes on line and tapers to zero over time. These numbers are too low to be real . . . First, we need to identify just what the ammeter is reading. Does it have a zero centered needle with minus readings to the left and plus readings to the right? If so, sit in the cockpit with engine off and turn EVERYTHING in the airplane ON and tell us what the ammeter reads. If the ammeter has zero at the left and full scale at the right, then it's not a battery ammeter. Again, with the engine not running and EVERYTHING in the airplane turned ON, what does the ammeter read? Finally, with the engine running and everything in the airplane OFF except the alternator, what does the ammeter read? Then turn everything ON and take a reading (you need to do this at about 2000 rpm). Finally, if you turn the alternator OFF while everything else in the airplane is ON, what does the ammeter read. In all three series of tests above, take voltmeter readings at the bus also. Unitl we first determin exactly what this ammeter is attempting to tell us -AND- get some numbers based on behavior, there's not enough data to craft any sort of diagnosis. By the way, what engine, alternator and battery sizes are we talking about? Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button...
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-) I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages, when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Interesting article concerning LiFePO4 and dynamic behaviour: http://epg.eng.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Howey/HEVC_IET_Birkl_Howey.pdf An equivalent circuit was developed for an A123 APR18650 cell with 3 series elements: a series resistance of a few tens of mOhm, a time constant of a few seconds that resolves to a series resistance of few mOhm, a time constant of a few tens of seconds that resolves to a series resistance of a few tens of mOhm (there are extremes at high and low temperatures and high and low SOC) Something to think about when designing a balancing algorithm. A voltage observed a couple of seconds after the application of a shunt cannot be compared directly to that voltage before the shunt application. Estimating the final voltage (from slope and value at two moments ) would take tens of seconds... Something else I would want to hear about from a supplier of batteries with built-in BMS. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2014
From: James Bean <jimbean6(at)optimum.net>
Subject: RS422 - RS232
In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? Jim Bean ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
At 18:09 2014-11-10, you wrote: > >In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a >Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 >speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. >There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? Yeah pretty simple. I used to build them for some applications in Beech's Targets Division. Your best bet is just to buy one. See: http://tinyurl.com/ly5hb9q Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
At 18:09 2014-11-10, you wrote: > >In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a >Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 >speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. >There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? If you want to build on, here's a schematic. [] Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2014
From: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net>
Subject: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead
The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age, corrosion). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough corrosion on the antenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking about replacing the antenna. So, I have the following questions: Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the balun in the antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost and having to spend a short amount of time making the balun ...) Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the antenna lead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I could simply cut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.) I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the existing antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors in the antenna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a significant loss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$ and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run? Radios are 2x KX170B w/additional GS receiver, single 1-in / 3-out splitter divides between them. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead
At 01:15 2014-11-11, you wrote: The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age, corrosion). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough corrosion on the antenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking about replacing the antenna. So, I have the following questions: Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the balun in the antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost and having to spend a short amount of time making the balun ...) I presume that the antenna configuration being considered for replacement has bee functioning satisfactorily. It's a toss up between the two antennas for performance. Baluns are not hard to build but the antenna with the built in matching is fitted with a BNC connector. Much 'cleaner' termination of coax than ring terminals. Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the antenna lead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I could simply cut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.) Not that you can tell from the pilot's seat. It would probably work just fine. I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the existing antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors in the antenna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a significant loss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$ and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run? If you're doing the work yourself, the $risks$ are low. Carry out the experiment and tell us what you discover. "Corrosion" on the stock 'whiskers' is cosmetic and easily cleaned off to effect connection to a new balun. You can fabricate the balun on the end of enough coax to make the run into better environments where the RG-58 is in better shape and splice in with BNC-CM/CF pair. It's a $low$, low risk experiment with good odds of working just fine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bew Battery?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Worth seeing. I have no opinions other than the fact that the proof is in the pudding. Design News Daily Update: http://emailactivity1.ecn5.com/engines/publicPreview.aspx?blastID'2652&emailID=61833118 -------- 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=433379#433379 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Subject: alternator / generator
The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator with external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator with built in regulator. It looks like the integrated generator is disconnected from the battery (by relay) when the master is off but the external alternator remains connected. The text indicates the integrated generator will run the battery down if not disconnected, but does not say that for the external alternator. Does this make sense? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
It is my understanding that a mode S transponder must have the EXTENDED SQUITTER feature to be ADS-B compliant in 2020. The data contained in extended squitter transmissions tells the ground station what ADS-B hardware is installed in the aircraft. If the hardware does not meet government regulations, the ground station will not transmit traffic and weather back to the aircraft after 2020. And using hardware that is not certified might be in violation of FARs. An avionics shop like Steinair should be consulted before spending time and money. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433384#433384 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Bob, I finally got back out to the airport with an assistant and my hand-held radio. My all-metal airplane has an Icom A-200 radio going through a PS Engineering PM501 intercom, but I also have aux headset jacks that go directly to the Icom. I transmitted both engine-off and engine-on. We set up a sequence where I used both my Bose X headset and a cheap passive headset. I swapped them between the pilot and co-pilot intercom jacks as well as the aux radio jack. I also varied the engine RPM to see if low voltage was an issue as I have a Jabiru with a dynamo alternator that does not charge at idle. We could not reproduce garbled transmissions with any combination. We did note that the anything transmitting out of the pilot intercom jacks had a slight more static that the other jacks. The next time I go flying with some friends and their aircraft, I will repeat the test again with them listening in on airplane radios. Thanks, -------- David Gallagher Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 280+ hours now Next project under construction: Finish my father's Aircamper Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433393#433393 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
That will convert the logic levels (physical layer) but are the protocols known to be compatible? i.e. does the 432W (I didn't realize there was such a thing) send messages in a format that the transponder can understand, even after converting to RS-232? Henry On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 18:09 2014-11-10, you wrote: > > > In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a Mode-S > transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 speaks RS232 and > the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. There are converters > available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? > > > If you want to build on, here's a schematic. > > [image: []] > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: VOR Antenna / Balun / Lead
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Thanks! I'll try making a baling with the RG400 I have first and report bac k. Chuck On Nov 11, 2014, at 07:46, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectri c.com> wrote: At 01:15 2014-11-11, you wrote: The VOR antenna balun setup on my 1972 Cherokee has come apart (age, corrosi on). Looks like RG-58 for the lead/balun. There's enough corrosion on the a ntenna lead screws and elsewhere that has me thinking about replacing the an tenna. So, I have the following questions: Is there any practical difference between antennas with a built-in balun and a BNC connection (i.e. RAMI AV-525), and a VOR antenna with the balun in th e antenna lead (such as the RAMI AV-12)? (Other than cost and having to spe nd a short amount of time making the balun ...) I presume that the antenna configuration being considered for replacement has bee functioning satisfactorily. It's a toss up between the two antennas for performance. Baluns are not hard to build but the antenna with the built in matching is fitted with a BNC connector. Much 'cleaner' termination of coax than ring terminals. Is there a perceptible difference between RG-58 and RG-400 for the antenna l ead? There's enough slack in the current antenna lead that I could simply c ut off the bad part of the old cable and install a BNC connector... (but I'd still have 40+ year old cable.) Not that you can tell from the pilot's seat. It would probably work just fine. I do have a short (<10ft) length of RG-400 so I could try to replace the bad section of the existing lead, make a new balun and try to rescue the existi ng antenna from the oxidation. This would add two BNC connectors in the ant enna lead run. Properly done, would the connectors provide a significant lo ss of signal? Or would I be better off to spend the $$ and buy enough RG400 to make the whole run? If you're doing the work yourself, the $risks$ are low. Carry out the experiment and tell us what you discover. "Corrosion" on the stock 'whiskers' is cosmetic and easily cleaned off to effect connection to a new balun. You can fabricate the balun on the end of enough coax to make the run into better environments where the RG-58 is in better shape and splice in with BNC-CM/CF pair. It's a $low$, low risk experiment with good odds of working just fine. Bob . . . ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
At 14:45 2014-11-11, you wrote: >That will convert the logic levels (physical layer) but are the >protocols known to be compatible? i.e. does the 432W (I didn't >realize there was such a thing) send messages in a format that the >transponder can understand, even after converting to RS-232? 232/422/etc ARE electrical/handshake standards . . . and do not describe data formats. http://tinyurl.com/buupe http://tinyurl.com/2twp68 Most aviation serial data exchanges are at 9600 bits/sec, 8 bit word, no parity, 1 stop bit. This data framing is independent of the conduit carrying the data. 422 is often used as an "extender" for 232. 232 is not suited for long runs between devices that might have large differences in ground potential (ground loop noises). 422 is twisted pair with much greater noise immunity. We had some equipment at Hawker/Beech where I converted 232 to 422 and back to 232 some 100 feet away. Somewhere in my software cookie jar, I have a routine that looks at the serial data input port and measures the bit rate. You can squirt anything from 600 to 19,600 bits per second at it . . . and it will sync up and go to work. You still have to do the 8,N,1 thingy but bit rate is optional. You'll need to consult the installation manuals for the systems you wish to link . . . odds are they both speak 9600,8,N,1 but it's a good thing to check. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: >The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator with >external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator with built >in regulator. It looks like the integrated generator is disconnected >from the battery (by relay) when the master is off but the external >alternator remains connected. The text indicates the integrated >generator will run the battery down if not disconnected, but does >not say that for the external alternator. Does this make sense? It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem architecture in the back of one of their EFIS installation manuals. Never a good idea. How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 and YOU decide what makes sense for you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the "integrated generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) must be disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the battery when it is not turning. On the other hand, the external "alternator" (which has a built in regulator) is wired directly to the battery, indicating that it does NOT need to be disconnected to avoid running down the battery. Is this consistent with you knowledgeable folks' understanding of these sorts of generators and alternators? On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: > >> The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator with external >> regulator-rectifier and an external alternator with built in regulator. It >> looks like the integrated generator is disconnected from the battery (by >> relay) when the master is off but the external alternator remains >> connected. The text indicates the integrated generator will run the battery >> down if not disconnected, but does not say that for the external >> alternator. Does this make sense? >> > > It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't > build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar > the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem > architecture in the back of one of their EFIS > installation manuals. Never a good idea. > > How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out > Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along > with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 > and YOU decide what makes sense for you. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published
in December! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: Cherie&Ken <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Yes (probably) If you have the external alternator connect it to a battery and measure the standby current for a definitive answer. Most vehicles leave the alternator connected 24/7 and they usually draw an acceptable couple of mA drain. Sounds like that is the case for your unit although I also have been appalled by the documentation accompanying equipment from "major manufacturers" so I would not put a lot of money on it. For example the 40A IR Nippondenso that I use was only installed on non road equipment and it draws 2 Amps with the motor off so this one indeed needs to be disconnected. Perhaps someone who has a rotax will chime in with specific details for you. Ken On 11/11/2014 11:23 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of > aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the > "integrated generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) > must be disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the battery > when it is not turning. On the other hand, the external "alternator" > (which has a built in regulator) is wired directly to the battery, > indicating that it does NOT need to be disconnected to avoid running > down the battery. Is this consistent with you knowledgeable folks' > understanding of these sorts of generators and alternators? > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > > > > At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: > > The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator > with external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator > with built in regulator. It looks like the integrated > generator is disconnected from the battery (by relay) when the > master is off but the external alternator remains connected. > The text indicates the integrated generator will run the > battery down if not disconnected, but does not say that for > the external alternator. Does this make sense? > > > It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't > build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar > the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem > architecture in the back of one of their EFIS > installation manuals. Never a good idea. > > How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out > Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along > with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 > and YOU decide what makes sense for you. > > > Bob . . . > > =================================== > br> fts!) > r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > =================================== > - > Electric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
On page 110 of the Rotax 914 installation manual (July 1 2008) http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d04273.pdf The wiring diagram has a master battery contactor that disconnects the battery from the aircraft electrical system including both alternators. The rectifier/regulator that controls the integrated dynamo has a terminal "C" that senses system voltage and enables the rectifier/regulator. It could run down the battery over a period of time. The external alternator has a terminal "IG" that powers the field. It would also run down the battery if left on. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433504#433504 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
There is a Rotax list here on the Matronics server that has some very knowledgeable people on it. There might be a thread in the archives. If not, it's likely someone will have an answer to your question. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) On 11/11/2014 10:23 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of > aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the "integrated > generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) must be > disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the battery when it > is not turning. On the other hand, the external "alternator" (which has > a built in regulator) is wired directly to the battery, indicating that > it does NOT need to be disconnected to avoid running down the battery. > Is this consistent with you knowledgeable folks' understanding of these > sorts of generators and alternators? > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > __> > > At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: > > The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator with > external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator with > built in regulator. It looks like the integrated generator is > disconnected from the battery (by relay) when the master is off > but the external alternator remains connected. The text > indicates the integrated generator will run the battery down if > not disconnected, but does not say that for the external > alternator. Does this make sense? > > > It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't > build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar > the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem > architecture in the back of one of their EFIS > installation manuals. Never a good idea. > > How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out > Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along > with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 > and YOU decide what makes sense for you. > > > Bob . . . > > ====__==============================__= > br> fts!) > r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ====__==============================__= > - > Electric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ====__==============================__= > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > ====__==============================__= > > > * > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Thanks Joe and Ken. Joe's answer I believe answers my question. I was thinking that circuit was just for the warning lamp. Didn't know it was the IG wire that would run down the battery. That brings me to another question: What do those warning lamps typically indicate? A negative current? There's one for each of the two charging devices. Also, I have heard that these lamps must be incandescent (not LED). Unfortunately I cannot not find a answers to even these basic questions in the Rotax reference materials. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:06 AM, user9253 wrote: > > On page 110 of the Rotax 914 installation manual (July 1 2008) > http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d04273.pdf > The wiring diagram has a master battery contactor that disconnects the > battery from the aircraft electrical system including both alternators. > The rectifier/regulator that controls the integrated dynamo has a > terminal "C" that senses system voltage and enables the > rectifier/regulator. It could run down the battery over a period of time. > The external alternator has a terminal "IG" that powers the field. It > would also run down the battery if left on. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433504#433504 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Arrrgh! Grand Rapids charged me $200 for an RS-422 to RS-232 adapter. [Embarassed] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433509#433509 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Thanks Raymond. I will attempt to check the Rotax list. I like your Steinbeck quote. It seems familiar. Is it from Cannery Row, when talking about the Model T? On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:02 AM, rayj wrote: > > There is a Rotax list here on the Matronics server that has some very > knowledgeable people on it. There might be a thread in the archives. If > not, it's likely someone will have an answer to your question. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, > understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. > And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, > egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire > the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John > Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) > > On 11/11/2014 10:23 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > >> Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of >> aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the "integrated >> generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) must be >> disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the battery when it >> is not turning. On the other hand, the external "alternator" (which has >> a built in regulator) is wired directly to the battery, indicating that >> it does NOT need to be disconnected to avoid running down the battery. >> Is this consistent with you knowledgeable folks' understanding of these >> sorts of generators and alternators? >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >__> >> >> At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: >> >> The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated generator with >> external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator with >> built in regulator. It looks like the integrated generator is >> disconnected from the battery (by relay) when the master is off >> but the external alternator remains connected. The text >> indicates the integrated generator will run the battery down if >> not disconnected, but does not say that for the external >> alternator. Does this make sense? >> >> >> It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't >> build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar >> the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem >> architecture in the back of one of their EFIS >> installation manuals. Never a good idea. >> >> How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out >> Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along >> with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 >> and YOU decide what makes sense for you. >> >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> ====__==============================__= >> br> fts!) >> r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com >> " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__contribution >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> ====__==============================__= >> - >> Electric-List" >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__Navigator? >> AeroElectric-List >> ====__==============================__= >> FORUMS - >> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> ====__==============================__= >> >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> * >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
The one guy I'm thinking of on the Rotax list has the signature: Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated Rotax Repair Center - Heavy Maint. Rated Home 520-574-1080 TRY HOME FIRST Cell 520-349-7056 The list has been pretty dead lately but I bet if you post, he'll answer. I didn't end up getting a Rotax, but he was helpful to me when I was trying to make up my mind. I have also watched him help many others on the list. As far as the quote, I don't know what it's from. I found it on a word-a-day email list I'm on and thought it deserved wider circulation. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) On 11/12/2014 09:39 AM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Thanks Raymond. I will attempt to check the Rotax list. I like your > Steinbeck quote. It seems familiar. Is it from Cannery Row, when talking > about the Model T? > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:02 AM, rayj > wrote: > > > > > There is a Rotax list here on the Matronics server that has some > very knowledgeable people on it. There might be a thread in the > archives. If not, it's likely someone will have an answer to your > question. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, > honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure > in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, > acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits > of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love > the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate > (1902-1968) > > On 11/11/2014 10:23 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > > Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of > aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the > "integrated > generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) must be > disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the battery > when it > is not turning. On the other hand, the external "alternator" > (which has > a built in regulator) is wired directly to the battery, > indicating that > it does NOT need to be disconnected to avoid running down the > battery. > Is this consistent with you knowledgeable folks' understanding > of these > sorts of generators and alternators? > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > nuckolls.bob@__aeroelectric.com > >> > wrote: > > Nuckolls, III" > > nuckolls.bob@__aeroelectric.com > >__> > > At 09:52 2014-11-11, you wrote: > > The Rotax 914 wiring diagram shows an integrated > generator with > external regulator-rectifier and an external alternator > with > built in regulator. It looks like the integrated > generator is > disconnected from the battery (by relay) when the > master is off > but the external alternator remains connected. The text > indicates the integrated generator will run the battery > down if > not disconnected, but does not say that for the external > alternator. Does this make sense? > > > It makes sense to Rotax . . . but Rotax doesn't > build or fly airplanes. This is a case similar > the one where Garmin recommended an electrical sytem > architecture in the back of one of their EFIS > installation manuals. Never a good idea. > > How do YOU want your airplane to work? Check out > Z-13/8, Z-12, and Z-14 in the 'Connection along > with their companion narratives in Chapter 17 > and YOU decide what makes sense for you. > > > Bob . . . > > ====__========================__======__= > br> fts!) > r> > /www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com>" > target="_blank">www.__aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com> > w.buildersbooks.com <http://w.buildersbooks.com>" > target="_blank">www.__buildersbooks.com > <http://www.buildersbooks.com> > p.com <http://p.com>" target="_blank">www.__homebuilthelp.com > <http://www.homebuilthelp.com> > e.com <http://e.com>" target="_blank">www.__mypilotstore.com > <http://www.mypilotstore.com> > " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com> > target="_blank">http://www.__matronics.com/__contribution > <http://www.matronics.com/__contribution> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ====__========================__======__= > - > Electric-List" > > target="_blank">http://www.__matronics.com/__Navigator?__AeroElectric-List > <http://www.matronics.com/__Navigator?AeroElectric-List> > ====__========================__======__= > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.__matronics.com > <http://forums.matronics.com> > ====__========================__======__= > > > * > > > * > > > ====__==============================__= > br> fts!) > r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ====__==============================__= > - > Electric-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/__Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ====__==============================__= > FORUMS - > _blank">http://forums.matronics.com > ====__==============================__= > > > * > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 22:23 2014-11-11, you wrote: >Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of >aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the >"integrated generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) >must be disconnected from the battery to avoid discharging the >battery when it is not turning. On the other hand, the external >"alternator" (which has a built in regulator) is wired directly to >the battery, indicating that it does NOT need to be disconnected to >avoid running down the battery. Is this consistent with you >knowledgeable folks' understanding of these sorts of generators and >alternators? Short answer: Yes, this is consistent with the way these two critters work. BOTH devices are alternators. The word "dynamo" has been often used to describe the built-in, permanent magnet devices common to all Rotax engines, Jabiru, et als. The one built into the 912 engine is a single- phase device that requires a special rectifier/regulator to convert the wild-frequency, wild-voltage output from the alternator into stable DC. Here's one of several conversations that have transpired here on the list about PM alternators and their rectifier/ regulators . . . http://tinyurl.com/mpxxech If ROTAX is still using the Ducati rectifier/regulator I'm familiar with, this device DOES draw milliamps of current back-fed into the output wires when then engine is stopped. But if you configure your P/M alternator to drive the electrical system DOWNSTREAM of the battery master relay, then the alternator is powered down when the master switch is opened and the powered-down draw is eliminated. The other device is legacy wound-field technology wherein the regulator is small enough to be included inside the alternator . . . as on most cars. The b-lead terminal of the wound-field alternator is the (+) output terminal from an array of diodes that prevent any back-flow during power down. Hence the b-lead CAN be left connected to the battery at all times . . . cars do it. But it's not been done in T/C aircraft that I know of. Suggest you consider a Z-13/8 architecture . . . http://tinyurl.com/kgg8nva . . . . which describes a recommended architecture for your pair of alternators (the wound-field alternator shows an external regulator . . . your internally regulated alternator works there too). The two alternators and their regulators are described in the AeroElectric Connection which is available for about $20 from a variety of sources . . . or you can download here http://tinyurl.com/pt97pha What airplane are you building? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
I'm responding to a couple different bits of this thread here. On 11/08/2014 05:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: >> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries >> > > here is one of several articles I see that prompted my > assertion . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/pqo59cr Tesla uses Panasonic NCR18650A 3100mAh cells which are Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA). The Tesla Roadster used Lithium Cobalt Oxide. > I've been working on a series of articles for Kitplanes > on the use of lithium batteries in airplanes. Energetic > concerns for making the switch are centered on the extra- > ordinary ability of lithium batteries to catch fire . . . > and set other things on fire too. My guess is that most of the RC and laptops that have melted down had Lithium Cobalt Oxide batteries. They have a thermal run-away temperature of only 150C. They also tend to get hot in use which exacerbates the problem. LiFePo4 can go to 270C before they meltdown and they don't generate anywhere near as much heat in operation. But they have less energy density which isn't really that much of an issue in the case of an aircraft or automobile 12v battery. The Boeing 787 batteries that burned up were Lithium Cobalt Oxide. They should have taken the small weight penalty and used LiFePo4, IMO. > A 3-cell lithium battery gets fully stuffed at 12.6 volts, > a 4-cell array would like to see 16.8 volts. Hmmmm . . . > what's the elegant design goal? We've read in the journals > that the hybrid car guys design their charge-discharge > profiles to operate state-of-charge over a range of 20-80% > to maximize the battery's service life. What happens if > we charge a 4-cell array at 14.4/4 or only 3.6 volts per > cell? While most of the lithium chemistries are nominally 3.6-3.7 volts, LiFoPo4 is only 3.2 volts. Most of my dealings with these cells are in electric cars. Motive is a different use than a starting battery but we've still learned a lot. 8 years ago the LiFoPo4 manufacturers were saying to charge their cells to 4.2 volts and people were having a lot of failures. They've since modified that to an upper limit of around 3.6 volts which works well when using 4 cells to build a starting battery. Unlike your testing, in my testing of the larger format cells from CALB I found little energy could be pushed into the cells above 3.6 volts. The charge curve is very flat but when it hits 3.6 the voltage rises to 4 very quickly. And when I discharge the cells from 3.6 down to where the voltage starts to fall dramatically (under 3 volts) I get pretty much the full rated amp-hours out of them. Specs and factory graphs of the cells I've tested are here: http://evwest.com/support/CALB-CA100Ah.pdf You said you were testing LiFePo4 cells and that 3.6 volts was only half their capacity. It makes me wonder what the recipe of those cells is because that behavior fits more with other lithium chemistries, but not with LiFePo4. It is hard to get consistent data on lithium cells because the manufacturers are always experimenting with the makeup of the cells and it can sometimes have dramatic performance differences. Other considerations for people thinking of making the switch to lithium is that LiFePo4 doesn't like to be charged below freezing. I don't particularly like to fly below freezing either, but I have done it. You can discharge the cells down to -20C so starting the plane might not be an issue but it would suck to get to your destination and discover that the battery got fried being charged back up in the air. I have not tested this--I put heated battery boxes in my electric vehicle. The good thing--in addition to less weight--is almost no self-discharge. I had 38 cells sitting in my basement for 6 months and the voltage was the same within 2 hundredths of a volt on every cell but one. And I got that one replaced because self-discharge is a good indicator of an internal soft short (a piece of metal dust or other contaminate that's conducting power between anode and cathode). I have 2 electric vehicles and in one of them I had replaced a full-size lead-acid battery with a garden tractor battery because I didn't need the starting amps and wanted to save some weight. I just replaced that one with a tiny little lithium battery from Deltran (aka Battery Tender). It pretty much just needs to keep the radio channels set, some instrumentation alive and provide enough urge to close the contactors when I turn the key. It's been in two days and I'm definitely curious to see how it stands this winter. They sell them for "motorsport" uses like motorcycles and ATVs. Most people put their bikes away in the winter here in New England but people do use ATVs year-round. I don't know how those people would like these batteries but for $70 I was willing to experiment. --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 09:27 2014-11-12, you wrote: >Thanks Joe and Ken. Joe's answer I believe >answers my question. I was thinking that circuit >was just for the warning lamp. Didn't know it >was the IG wire that would run down the battery.=C2 > >That brings me to another question: What do >those warning lamps typically indicate? A >negative current? There's one for each of the >two charging devices. Also, I have heard that >these lamps must be incandescent (not LED). >Unfortunately I cannot not find a answers to >even these basic questions in the Rotax reference materials. The warning output from these simple regulators is generally limited to showing that the alternator is not turning (broken belt) or output failed (broken wire). Emacs! The exemplar schematic for the PM alternator warning light (2) shows that the light is dark any time the alternator is rotating and delivering some voltage . . . even when that voltage is too low to charge a battery or run your accessories. The preferred methodology for detecting alternator insufficiency is LOW VOLTAGE WARN set to light a lamp any time the bus is less than about 13.0 volts. A lead-acid battery system cannot rise above 13.0 unless the alternator pushes it up there. So voltage monitoring is the one-light-tells-all-tales approach to annunciating system health. This is why none of the Z-figures utilize the lamp output lead on any of the PM rectifier/regulators depicted. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Thanks Bob. I do have the book. I am building a Just Aircraft SuperSTOL. A previous lister said that the IG wire from the external alternator needs to be disconnected to avoid drawing down the battery, which it is on the Rotax diagram (via the master switch). Are you saying that you disagree with this and that the IG wired does not need to be disconnected to avoid drawing down the battery? On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 22:23 2014-11-11, you wrote: > >> Sheesh. Let me try again: The Rotax (major, major manufacturer of >> aircraft engines) wiring diagram seems to indicate that the "integrated >> generator" (which has an external regulator-rectifier) must be disconnected >> from the battery to avoid discharging the battery when it is not turning. >> On the other hand, the external "alternator" (which has a built in >> regulator) is wired directly to the battery, indicating that it does NOT >> need to be disconnected to avoid running down the battery. Is this >> consistent with you knowledgeable folks' understanding of these sorts of >> generators and alternators? >> > > > Short answer: Yes, this is consistent with the > way these two critters work. > > > BOTH devices are alternators. The word "dynamo" > has been often used to describe the built-in, permanent > magnet devices common to all Rotax engines, Jabiru, > et als. The one built into the 912 engine is a single- > phase device that requires a special rectifier/regulator > to convert the wild-frequency, wild-voltage output > from the alternator into stable DC. > > Here's one of several conversations that have transpired > here on the list about PM alternators and their rectifier/ > regulators . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/mpxxech > > > If ROTAX is still using the Ducati rectifier/regulator > I'm familiar with, this device DOES draw milliamps > of current back-fed into the output wires when > then engine is stopped. But if you configure your > P/M alternator to drive the electrical system > DOWNSTREAM of the battery master relay, then the > alternator is powered down when the master switch > is opened and the powered-down draw is eliminated. > > The other device is legacy wound-field technology > wherein the regulator is small enough to be included > inside the alternator . . . as on most cars. > > The b-lead terminal of the wound-field alternator > is the (+) output terminal from an array of diodes > that prevent any back-flow during power down. Hence > the b-lead CAN be left connected to the battery > at all times . . . cars do it. But it's not been > done in T/C aircraft that I know of. > > Suggest you consider a Z-13/8 architecture . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/kgg8nva > > > . . . . which describes a recommended architecture > for your pair of alternators (the wound-field alternator > shows an external regulator . . . your internally > regulated alternator works there too). > > The two alternators and their regulators are described > in the AeroElectric Connection which is available > for about $20 from a variety of sources . . . or > you can download here > > http://tinyurl.com/pt97pha > > What airplane are you building? > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 07:23 2014-11-12, you wrote: > >Yes (probably) >If you have the external alternator connect it to a battery and >measure the standby current for a definitive answer. >Most vehicles leave the alternator connected 24/7 and they usually >draw an acceptable couple of mA drain. Sounds like that is the case >for your unit although I also have been appalled by the >documentation accompanying equipment from "major manufacturers" so I >would not put a lot of money on it. >For example the 40A IR Nippondenso that I use was only installed on >non road equipment and it draws 2 Amps with the motor off so this >one indeed needs to be disconnected. Your observation illustrates the fact that not all alternators are the same. Back in the day, externally regulated alternators got their field current from the switched bus in an automobile. One-wire alternators will get their power from the b-terminal which means that full field current will be drawn into the b-terminal when the alternator is not running . . . but still connected to the battery. The condition becomes moot when you adopt the legacy philosophy for minimizing hot-wires when the master switch is off. This philosophy bypasses all the risks for powered-down, parasitic currents that might deplete the battery in a parked airplane . . . it also goes toward achieving 'max-cold' wiring for reducing risks of after crash fire. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 07:23 2014-11-12, you wrote: > >Yes (probably) >If you have the external alternator connect it to a battery and >measure the standby current for a definitive answer. >Most vehicles leave the alternator connected 24/7 and they usually >draw an acceptable couple of mA drain. Sounds like that is the case >for your unit although I also have been appalled by the >documentation accompanying equipment from "major manufacturers" so I >would not put a lot of money on it. >For example the 40A IR Nippondenso that I use was only installed on >non road equipment and it draws 2 Amps with the motor off so this >one indeed needs to be disconnected. Your observation illustrates the fact that not all alternators are the same. Back in the day, externally regulated alternators got their field current from the switched bus in an automobile. One-wire alternators will get their power from the b-terminal which means that full field current will be drawn into the b-terminal when the alternator is not running . . . but still connected to the battery. The condition becomes moot when you adopt the legacy philosophy for minimizing hot-wires when the master switch is off. This philosophy bypasses all the risks for powered-down, parasitic currents that might deplete the battery in a parked airplane . . . it also goes toward achieving 'max-cold' wiring for reducing risks of after crash fire. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Yes, Roger Lee is the Rotax expert and likes to answer Rotax questions. I have no experience with the Rotax external alternator. I posted above that leaving the IG terminal connected to the battery would drain it. That is because that terminal is described as "Field Circuit" on page 123 of the Rotax installation manual. Sometimes the actual meaning gets lost in translation from German. Even if the field is not actually powered by the IG terminal, (but by the B lead) I would not leave it connected to the battery with the engine off. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433530#433530 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
At 11:01 2014-11-12, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. I do have the book. I am building a Just Aircraft >SuperSTOL. A previous lister said that the IG wire from the external >alternator needs to be disconnected to avoid drawing down the >battery, which it is on the Rotax diagram (via the master switch). >Are you saying that you disagree with this and that the IG wired >does not need to be disconnected to avoid drawing down the battery? Ooops . . . sorry 'bout that. We're talking about the wound-field alternator . . . not the PM machine. That light doesn't work with much more intelligence than that annunciator on the PM rectifier/regulator. It's definitely dark when the alternator is working but may not light when the alternator is inadequate to system needs. I don't use those outputs either. If you're planning on ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTS then you can simply leave the light off the panel and leave the terminal disconnected. But you're correct, when wired per the Rotax drawing, IG gets disconnected when the big-alternator switch is OFF . . . so if you plan to use the light, wired as shown eliminates the concern. An interesting feature of their wiring gives you no control over the little alternator . . . it is automatically switched ON via relay (58) with an unnecessary, 1A fuse in the coil lead. This relay closes as soon as you turn on the master switch and will stay closed as long as the engine is running even if battery relay (38) is opened. Bringing engine rpm down will slowly drop voltage on the bus . . . and might cause the little-alternator relay to drop but this raises all kinds of questions about the behaviors of the ship's accessories. The relay will certainly drop after the engine is shut down. Another interesting feature uses the little-alternator output to power up one of two fuel pumps whether or not the master switch is ON. The 80A breaker is, in US TC aircraft philosophy, not necessary or useful. Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Thanks Joe. Although I have been studying the diagram for a long time, to me it is like trying to read a foreign language. I now realize that the IG is indeed disconnected from the battery when the master is off, because when the master is off the battery relay is open, and that disconnects everything except the starter. Your point about the German translation is well taken. It amazes me that a company that makes as many engines as Rotax (according to December 2014 Kitplanes it's 215,000 per year) doesn't think it's important to hire a competent German-English translator. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Yes, Roger Lee is the Rotax expert and likes to answer Rotax questions. I > have no experience with the Rotax external alternator. I posted above that > leaving the IG terminal connected to the battery would drain it. That is > because that terminal is described as "Field Circuit" on page 123 of the > Rotax installation manual. Sometimes the actual meaning gets lost in > translation from German. Even if the field is not actually powered by the > IG terminal, (but by the B lead) I would not leave it connected to the > battery with the engine off. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433530#433530 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: alternator / generator
Thanks Bob, I was wondering about that 80 amp fuse. It seems better to connect the bus directly to the battery. With regards to the 1 amp fuse that you say is unnecessary, why do you say that? Isn't it there to protect the wire that runs from the battery to relay 58? I think the reasoning behind wiring one fuel pump to the generator, is because the 914 relies on an electric fuel pump, and they are trying to provide two independent power sources for each pump. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 11:01 2014-11-12, you wrote: > > Thanks Bob. I do have the book. I am building a Just Aircraft SuperSTOL. A > previous lister said that the IG wire from the external alternator needs to > be disconnected to avoid drawing down the battery, which it is on the Rotax > diagram (via the master switch). Are you saying that you disagree with this > and that the IG wired does not need to be disconnected to avoid drawing > down the battery? > > > Ooops . . . sorry 'bout that. We're talking about the wound-field > alternator . . . not the PM machine. That light doesn't work with much > more > intelligence than that annunciator on the PM rectifier/regulator. > It's definitely dark when the alternator is working but may > not light when the alternator is inadequate to system > needs. I don't use those outputs either. > > If you're planning on ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTS then > you can simply leave the light off the panel and leave the > terminal disconnected. > > But you're correct, when wired per the Rotax drawing, IG gets > disconnected when the big-alternator switch is OFF . . . so if > you plan to use the light, wired as shown eliminates the > concern. > > An interesting feature of their wiring gives you no control > over the little alternator . . . it is automatically switched > ON via relay (58) with an unnecessary, 1A fuse in the coil > lead. This relay closes as soon as you turn on the master > switch and will stay closed as long as the engine is running > even if battery relay (38) is opened. Bringing engine > rpm down will slowly drop voltage on the bus . . . and > might cause the little-alternator relay to drop but > this raises all kinds of questions about the behaviors > of the ship's accessories. > > The relay will certainly drop after the engine is shut > down. > > Another interesting feature uses the little-alternator > output to power up one of two fuel pumps whether or not > the master switch is ON. > > The 80A breaker is, in US TC aircraft philosophy, not > necessary or useful. > > > [image: Emacs!] > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Excellent value in test equipment . . .
For fellow electron herders on the List: Just received this item ordered for a client. http://tinyurl.com/qd2thap It's capabilities stack up favorably with readings taken with my Tektronix/Fluke stuff. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Re: lithium facts
My head is buzzing from all the lithium that we are talking about, although I am now less bipolar. Lessee---- If I am an aircraft with standard 12(14)V electrical system and standard charging system, what will I see and what difference will I see if I have a starved electrolyte battery vs a liFEPO4 battery. As an aircraft, I, as a dumb airplane, cannot really, nor do I want to, understand, the cell structure, charging techniques, ideal voltage etc. All I really want to know is will it start my engine and if my charging system goes TU how much time will I have available to energize my electrical system (radios, EFI, electronic ignition system, ie. just those elements on my essential buss. I am aware, even with my airplane brain, I think that it is located somewhere in my elevator, that either battery chemistry can start my propeller propellering. and if that were the only thing I needed, I would certainly opt for the lightest battery possible. My concern is that in the case of loss of the alternator (generator if so equipped), how long will my vitals stay vital. Other than that, I really don't give a rat's tail-cone. So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that system. An additional comparison should be made LI to LI using their cell balancers and without. An additional test should be done with the charging system set for the "Ideal LiFEPOs charging voltage). Once that figure is derived, it would be a simple matter to determine what weight (size) of the LI type would be equivalent to that of the PB variety for my selfish needs. This is not to say that the longevity of each type of battery with the similar charging voltage is trivial. Of course it is very easy to suggest the research, not being able nor inclined to do it myself. I think that one or two of the Major aircraft battery manufacturers are now offering Li batteries (probably with an attached STC. My guess is that they have already done the above recommended testing. I'm still trying to decide what kind of chemistry I will be carrying in my battery area but my builder won't have to make that decision for a while. Respectfully submitted Aerocanard 948RG (Rich) In a message dated 11/12/2014 10:59:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, richard.beebe(at)yale.edu writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Beebe I'm responding to a couple different bits of this thread here. On 11/08/2014 05:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: >> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries >> > > here is one of several articles I see that prompted my > assertion . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/pqo59cr Tesla uses Panasonic NCR18650A 3100mAh cells which are Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA). The Tesla Roadster used Lithium Cobalt Oxide. > I've been working on a series of articles for Kitplanes > on the use of lithium batteries in airplanes. Energetic > concerns for making the switch are centered on the extra- > ordinary ability of lithium batteries to catch fire . . . > and set other things on fire too. My guess is that most of the RC and laptops that have melted down had Lithium Cobalt Oxide batteries. They have a thermal run-away temperature of only 150C. They also tend to get hot in use which exacerbates the problem. LiFePo4 can go to 270C before they meltdown and they don't generate anywhere near as much heat in operation. But they have less energy density which isn't really that much of an issue in the case of an aircraft or automobile 12v battery. The Boeing 787 batteries that burned up were Lithium Cobalt Oxide. They should have taken the small weight penalty and used LiFePo4, IMO. > A 3-cell lithium battery gets fully stuffed at 12.6 volts, > a 4-cell array would like to see 16.8 volts. Hmmmm . . . > what's the elegant design goal? We've read in the journals > that the hybrid car guys design their charge-discharge > profiles to operate state-of-charge over a range of 20-80% > to maximize the battery's service life. What happens if > we charge a 4-cell array at 14.4/4 or only 3.6 volts per > cell? While most of the lithium chemistries are nominally 3.6-3.7 volts, LiFoPo4 is only 3.2 volts. Most of my dealings with these cells are in electric cars. Motive is a different use than a starting battery but we've still learned a lot. 8 years ago the LiFoPo4 manufacturers were saying to charge their cells to 4.2 volts and people were having a lot of failures. They've since modified that to an upper limit of around 3.6 volts which works well when using 4 cells to build a starting battery. Unlike your testing, in my testing of the larger format cells from CALB I found little energy could be pushed into the cells above 3.6 volts. The charge curve is very flat but when it hits 3.6 the voltage rises to 4 very quickly. And when I discharge the cells from 3.6 down to where the voltage starts to fall dramatically (under 3 volts) I get pretty much the full rated amp-hours out of them. Specs and factory graphs of the cells I've tested are here: http://evwest.com/support/CALB-CA100Ah.pdf You said you were testing LiFePo4 cells and that 3.6 volts was only half their capacity. It makes me wonder what the recipe of those cells is because that behavior fits more with other lithium chemistries, but not with LiFePo4. It is hard to get consistent data on lithium cells because the manufacturers are always experimenting with the makeup of the cells and it can sometimes have dramatic performance differences. Other considerations for people thinking of making the switch to lithium is that LiFePo4 doesn't like to be charged below freezing. I don't particularly like to fly below freezing either, but I have done it. You can discharge the cells down to -20C so starting the plane might not be an issue but it would suck to get to your destination and discover that the battery got fried being charged back up in the air. I have not tested this--I put heated battery boxes in my electric vehicle. The good thing--in addition to less weight--is almost no self-discharge. I had 38 cells sitting in my basement for 6 months and the voltage was the same within 2 hundredths of a volt on every cell but one. And I got that one replaced because self-discharge is a good indicator of an internal soft short (a piece of metal dust or other contaminate that's conducting power between anode and cathode). I have 2 electric vehicles and in one of them I had replaced a full-size lead-acid battery with a garden tractor battery because I didn't need the starting amps and wanted to save some weight. I just replaced that one with a tiny little lithium battery from Deltran (aka Battery Tender). It pretty much just needs to keep the radio channels set, some instrumentation alive and provide enough urge to close the contactors when I turn the key. It's been in two days and I'm definitely curious to see how it stands this winter. They sell them for "motorsport" uses like motorcycles and ATVs. Most people put their bikes away in the winter here in New England but people do use ATVs year-round. I don't know how those people would like these batteries but for $70 I was willing to experiment. --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ryan <ryansoutham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Aerobatic wiring schematic
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Hi all=2C This is more directed at Bob but anyone else feel free to comment . I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few things on my Pitts Special and he suggested that Bob would be best to speak with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website=2C it was ma de mention that Bob originally drew it up. Drawing number 420-506 http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf I had a couple of questions. Looking at the mag switch portion of the diagram. Should it not be drawn th at the impulse magneto is the OFF-START/ON? If the OFF-START/ON switch (Right Mag) is used and the start button engaged the starter would not power unless the Left Mag were also on. Am I missing something here? Might I also ask what the function of the momentary side of the mag switch is for - (ON)-OFF-ON? I am running an SD-8 dynamo and my intention is to have no master solenoid (as shown in the schematic) and also not use a starter solenoid=2C I am usi ng the Skytec NL starter and they have an option of wiring the starter usin g the internal solenoid of the starter. Does anyone foresee any problems he re? My biggest concern was having the starter engage and not be able to shut it off. I see the B&C starter has an Emergency Starter Off how does this disa ble their system as the way I see it=2C if the solenoid contacts welded the mselves closed=2C the starter is still feed power. I contacted Skytec and they said=2C due to the way their starter is made th is can't happen so a starter 'kill' isn't required. If power is removed fro m the start solenoid the starter 'will' disengage=2C I guess the only real danger in this situation is a stuck start switch but turning off the master would solve that I guess if I fitted a starter warning engaged warning lig ht. Cheers=2C Ryan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that > system. Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in a much more spritely manner. There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge (SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity of the battery. --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2014
From: James Bean <jimbean6(at)optimum.net>
Subject: RS422 - RS232
This seems to have generated some interest so I will expand. I presently have a Becker atc4401 Mode A/C thansponder and a Garmin 430W gps/com/nav. Don't know where 432W came from, sorry for the confusion. The Becker bxp6401 Mode S ia a slide in replacement with an extra connector for the Mode S connection. It is not in a rack so "slide in" means the same pin-outs on the main connector. There is also a dongle that is programmed to provide the Mode S address. It definitely has extended squitter. It also does Mode A and C. Accord in to Garmin the 430W will operate with any capable Mode S transponder. So this seems to be a viable solution, particularly if one already has the Becker Mode A/C. Jim Bean On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:09 PM, James Bean wrote: In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? Jim Bean ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or batteries) of EQUAL weight. Okay, consider the PC680 which claims to offer 45 minutes endurance when loaded to 15.6 amps for an energy delivery value of 130 Watt-hours. Emacs! Okay, let's do a back-of-the-envelope . . . (actually, restaurant napkins are my favorite these days - don't carry much mail around with me. Best yet, I've discovered a ball-point pen that writes on grade Z napkins without tearing them. I hand them out to my cohorts in brainstorming at lunch!) . . . back of the napkin sanity check on a DIY replacement for a PC-680: Referring to the specs for an A123, 25560 cell, * lifepo4 CHEMISTRY * Nominal voltage: 3.3V * Nominal capacity: 2.3Ah * Core cell weight: 70 grams * 65mm tall, 26mm diameter (same diameter as a C battery) * Internal impedance: (1kHz AC) 8 m typical * Typical fast charge current: 10A to 3.6V CCCV * 70A continuous discharge * 120A, 10 sec pulse discharge * Cycle life at 10C discharge, 100% DOD: over 1,000 cycles . . . they will allow very high discharge currents with a relatively flat discharge curve so we can calculate each cell to contain about 7.5 watt-hours of energy. To approximate the energy content of the PC680, we would need 130/7.5 or 17 cells. We are obliged to configure these cells in series strings of four so a 4 x 4 array of 16 cells gets us 120 watt-hours. Okay, right in the ballpark. Further, the 70A continuous discharge rating says the 4 parallel strings would grunt a 280A cranking current without breathing hard. Higher momentary loads are obviously not out of the question. Okay, the 4 x 4 x 26650 array would weigh in at about 1200gm plus another 400 for a case, which gives us 1600gm (3.5 pounds with no battery management system). Okay, I just put the EarthX ETX36 . . . Model: ETX36D Nominal Operational Voltage . . 13.3 V Ah (Lead-acid equivalent) . . . 36 Ah (actual) . . . . . . . . . . 12 (.5C rate) . . . Reserve Capacity . . . . . . . 27 min. Pulse Crank Amps (PCA) . . . . 680A (3 sec @ 25 =B0C, voltage >9V) Cold Crank Amps (CCA) . . . . . 405A (modified SAE, 3 sec@ 0=B0F, voltage >7.2V) Continuous Discharge Amps . . . 100A Standard Charge Voltage . . . . 13.9 - 14.6 V Maximum Charge Voltage . . . . 15 V Recommended Charge Amps . . . . 1 - 15A Max Charge Amps . . . . . . . . 60A (from vehicle charging system) Life (Charge cycles, 80% deep of discharge) 4000 cycles @ 1C discharge rate, 25=B0C 2000 cycles @10C discharge rate, 25=B0C Life (Years) . . . . . . . . . 8 Years Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 lb. (1.8Kg) Dimensions ETX36D . . . . . . . 6.9 x 3.4 x 6.1 inches Environmental Ratings Resistance to water intrusion . IP 66 (Hi Pressure wash) Operating Temperature . . . . 30 =B0C to +60 =B0C Storage Temperature . . . . . .-40 =B0C to +70 =B0C . . . on a 15A discharge with a data acquisition system attached . . . let's see what we get. Emacs! This product has a built-in BMS that disconnects the output if the terminal voltage drops below a safe value for the battery . . . in this case, 10.6 volts. There was a 10x multiplier in the load current so the readings across the bottom should be multiplied by 10. This particular test cycle terminated at 142 watt-hours . . . right in the same ball-park as PC-680 published data and our back-of-the-napkin DIY analysis for a 4 x 4 array of 26650 cells. = So from the perspective of evaluating available energy, it appears that the ETX-36 series batteries are a drop-in replacement for the PC-680. Both batteries demonstrate performance in the 12AH class with a 15A load. You get a weight differential of 14.8 - 3.9 = 10.9 pounds and a price differential of 350 - 110 = $240. In the TC aircraft world, most manufacturer's would be delighted to pay $24/lb for empty weight reduction. In the OBAM aircraft world, that 10 pounds is not so 'valuable' . . . how many flights have you re-configured because you were 10# "over gross". Now, if the lithium battery could demonstrate a service life of say 3x that of the SVLA, then cost per operating hour is a wash and the weight savings are 'free'. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Greetings Rick, and all,=0A=0AMy builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, and I too am to laz y to do the math.=0A=0AIn terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the different types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with that,also. My understandi ng of electronics (gleaned through reading stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is that it takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm stil l trying to figure out watts that all about.=0A=0AI do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored p ower in a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my g izmos willl stop gizzing and give my owner either a big "X " across the screen or false readings, or worse yet, my he art will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt var ious liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at which that would occur.=0A=0AI remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid Devi ces 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This dev ice was actually quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and attempt to correct that with ailero n input. fortunately I discovered this on the ground in init ial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted time) dete rmined that to be the problem. In the air, with alternators alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternat ed state, I would probably still be up there flying in inc reasingly tighter circles.=0A=0AI believe his new plane will ope rate properly until much lower voltage (assuming enough amps).=0A =0AIf we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to this, we can get some so rt of data that would indicate a more meaningful comparison between the two chemistries.=0A=0AThe reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous post was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 batteri es could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs.=0A=0AThe flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I may not know watt I am talking about.=0A=0A=0A =0ABravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and pe rhaps great-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batter ies certainly had advantages, specifically with respect to the weight.=0A=0AYour battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than aircraft usage as you, as you know, sta rt out with a relatively fully charged battery group (at lea st at the start of the day) and in effect deep cycle the pack routinely.=0A=0AIn aircraft, because in most cases the b attery, after recovering from the start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing.=0A=0AI f I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dua l alternators now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I would like to know if my EFI, Ele cronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no engine driven pump) a nd a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function for a while (and how long that while might be).=0A=0Athanks for your reply=0A=0AAerocanard 948RG=0A=0Arich=0A=0A =0A=0A-----Original Mes sage-----=0AFrom: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>=0ATo: aeroelectric -list =0ASent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3: 31 pm=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts=0A=0A=0A--> Ae roElectric-List message posted by: Rick Beebe =0A=0AOn 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote:=0A> So le ts take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compa re a=0A> lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or=0A> batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I la st with each before the=0A> energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just=0A> buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals=0A> I a m going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic=0A> settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that=0A> system.=0AEqual weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. =0AHere's an ane cdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was =0Aconve rted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They =0Aweighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles.=0A=0AI replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only =0Aweighing 347 pounds. The truck w ill go about 50 miles and it does it in =0Aa much more spritely manner.=0A=0AThere are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that =0Avoltage of lead-acid batteries decre ases linearly with state of charge =0A(SOC). From roughly 12.6 5 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely =0Aempty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start =0Ato behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you =0Adon't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts.=0A=0ALiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together =0Awill be at roughly 13.2 volt s full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly =0Adropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that =0A drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery wil l look full =0Afor the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity =0Aof the battery.=0A=0A--Rick=0A=0A =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================0A=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Hi Guys Who is now getting bored with this thread John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > > Greetings Rick, and all, > > My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, and I too am to lazy to do the math. > > In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the diff erent types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with that,also. My understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is that it takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying to figure out watts that all about. > > I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored power i n a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl stop gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false readings, or w orse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt variou s liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at which that would occur. > > I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid Device s 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was actually q uite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and attempt to c orrect that with aileron input. fortunately I discovered this on the ground i n initial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted time) determined t hat to be the problem. In the air, with alternators alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighter circles. > > I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage (as suming enough amps). > > If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to thi s, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful compar ison between the two chemistries. > > The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous pos t was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 batter ies could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs. > > The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but onl y if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I may n ot know watt I am talking about. > > > > Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps great-grand children thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certainly had advantages, specifically with respect to the weight. > > Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than a ircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in effect deep cycle t he pack routinely. > > In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from the s tart, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the important t hing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This is a one ti me semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. > > If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternators now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I wou ld like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no engin e driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function for a w hile (and how long that while might be). > > thanks for your reply > > Aerocanard 948RG > > rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > u> > > On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a > > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or > > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the > > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just > > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals > > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic > > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that > > system. > Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. > Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was > converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They > weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. > > I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only > weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in > a much more spritely manner. > > There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that > voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge > (SOC). =46rom roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely > empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start > to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you > don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. > > LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together > will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly > dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that > drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full > for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity = ========================== (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) > lectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www. buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ========================= ==roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator? AeroElec======================= ====; http://forums.================ ========================== > > > > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 13, 2014
John, with all due respect, If you are bored, don't read i t. Just perhaps the conversation may awaken other thoughts fro m others, not as bored.=0A=0AYou may go back to sleep now.=0A =0ARich=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: J ohn Tipton =0ATo: aeroelectric-list =0ASent: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 12:05 pm=0ASubject : Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts=0A=0A=0A=0AHi Guys=0A=0A=0AWho is now getting bored with this thread=0A=0A=0AJohn=0A=0ASent from my iPad=0A=0A=0A ----x--O--x----=0A=0A=0AOn 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote:=0A=0A=0A=0AGreetings Rick, and all,=0A=0AMy builder is familiar with the concepts and sugges tions in your post, and I too am to lazy to do the mat h.=0A=0AIn terms of the voltage drop during discharge being di fferent for the different types of batteries, my owner is al so quite famaliar with that,also. My understanding of electronic s (gleaned through reading stuff--very difficult without my land ing light lenses attached, is that it takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying to f igure out watts that all about.=0A=0AI do know that at a c ertain time in the deminishment of the stored power in a b attery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl s top gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false readings, or worse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt various liquids ina ppropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at which that would occur.=0A=0AI remember in a sibling tha t my builder also built, he had a Navaid Devices 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was actua lly quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and attempt to correct that with aileron input. fortu nately I discovered this on the ground in initial testing an d after extensive testing (and wasted time) determined that to be the problem. In the air, with alternators alternating, n o problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighte r circles.=0A=0AI believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage (assuming enough amps).=0A=0AIf we defi ne a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to this, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful comparison between the t wo chemistries.=0A=0AThe reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous post was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 batteries could b e "equivalent" for my electrical needs.=0A=0AThe flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircr aft I may not know watt I am talking about.=0A=0A=0A=0ABravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps gre at-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certa inly had advantages, specifically with respect to the weight.=0A =0AYour battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite d ifferent than aircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully charged battery group (at least at t he start of the day) and in effect deep cycle the pack r outinely.=0A=0AIn aircraft, because in most cases the battery, a fter recovering from the start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This is a one t ime semi emergency problem, not a routine thing.=0A=0AIf I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternato rs now which would really change my battery specs to primari ly starting) I would like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ign ition, electric fuel pumps (no engine driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function for a while (and how long that while might be).=0A=0Athanks for your reply =0A=0AAerocanard 948RG=0A=0Arich=0A=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0A From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list <aer oelectric-list(at)matronics.com>=0ASent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm=0ASu bject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts=0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-L ist message posted by: Rick Beebe =0A=0AOn 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote:=0A> So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a=0A> le ad acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or=0A > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the=0A> energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just=0A> buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals=0A> I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic=0A> s ettings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max w ith that=0A> system.=0AEqual weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. =0AHere's an anecdotal ans wer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was =0Aconverted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They =0A weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles .=0A=0AI replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only =0Aweighing 347 pounds. The truck will go abo ut 50 miles and it does it in =0Aa much more spritely ma nner.=0A=0AThere are some interesting considerations for your test . One is that =0Avoltage of lead-acid batteries decreases line arly with state of charge =0A(SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely =0Aempty. At what poin t in that slope, though, will your electronics start =0Ato b ehave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you =0Adon't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12 .24 volts.=0A=0ALiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together =0Awill be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly =0Adropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that =0Adrop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will loo k full =0Afor the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity ================ =========== (And Get S ome AWESOME FREE Gifts!)=0Alectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbook s.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin.=0A======== ===================roElectric-List" targ et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec======== ===================; http://forums.== =========================== ===============0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =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 -- Please Support Your Lists This Month 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=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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2014
From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Hi, I, for one, am most certainly not getting bored with this thread. It just takes some time to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Lyle Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop On 11/13/2014 12:09 PM, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > John, with all due respect, If you are bored, don't read it. Just > perhaps the conversation may awaken other thoughts from others, not as > bored. > > You may go back to sleep now. > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > Hi Guys > > Who is now getting bored with this thread > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com > wrote: > >> Greetings Rick, and all, >> >> My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your >> post, and I too am to lazy to do the math. >> >> In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the >> different types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with >> that,also. My understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading >> stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is >> that it takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm >> still trying to figure out watts that all about. >> >> I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored >> power in a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos >> willl stop gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the >> screen or false readings, or worse yet, my heart will beat >> incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt various liquids >> inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at >> which that would occur. >> >> I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid >> Devices 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device >> was actually quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a >> turn and attempt to correct that with aileron input. fortunately I >> discovered this on the ground in initial testing and after extensive >> testing (and wasted time) determined that to be the problem. In the >> air, with alternators alternating, no problem, however if they went >> into an alternated state, I would probably still be up there flying >> in increasingly tighter circles. >> >> I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower >> voltage (assuming enough amps). >> >> If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know >> what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each >> sample to this, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a >> more meaningful comparison between the two chemistries. >> >> The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my >> previous post was to equal the field from which the appropriate >> weight of LiFePo4 batteries could be "equivalent" for my electrical >> needs. >> >> The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, >> but only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an >> aircraft I may not know watt I am talking about. >> >> >> >> Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps >> great-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries >> certainly had advantages, specifically with respect to the weight. >> >> Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different >> than aircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively >> fully charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in >> effect deep cycle the pack routinely. >> >> In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from >> the start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and >> the important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator >> quits. This is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. >> >> If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual >> alternators now which would really change my battery specs to >> primarily starting) I would like to know if my EFI, Elecronic >> ignition, electric fuel pumps (no engine driven pump) and a com and >> possibly a nav radio, all could function for a while (and how long >> that while might be). >> >> thanks for your reply >> >> Aerocanard 948RG >> >> rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu <mailto:richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>> >> To: aeroelectric-list > > >> Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts >> >> >> On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM,ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: >> > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a >> > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or >> > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the >> > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just >> > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals >> > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic >> > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that >> > system. >> Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. >> Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was >> converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They >> weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. >> >> I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only >> weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in >> a much more spritely manner. >> >> There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that >> voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge >> (SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely >> empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start >> to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you >> don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. >> >> LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together >> will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly >> dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that >> drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full >> for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity =========================== (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) >> lectricwww.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> ===========================roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec===========================; http://forums.========================================== >> >> >> >> <http://forums.matronics.com> >> <http://forums.matronics.com> >> <http://forums.matronics.com> >> <http://forums.matronics.com> >> * >> >> >> * <http://forums.matronics.com> > <http://forums.matronics.com> > **www.aeroelec D================================================33D================================================================================================= > > ** > ** > ** > * > * > > > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2014
It's just that my finger is getting sore, with all the deleting Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 13 Nov 2014, at 06:09 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > > John, with all due respect, If you are bored, don't read it. Just perhaps t he conversation may awaken other thoughts from others, not as bored. > > You may go back to sleep now. > > Rich > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > Hi Guys > > Who is now getting bored with this thread > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > >> Greetings Rick, and all, >> >> My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, an d I too am to lazy to do the math. >> >> In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the dif ferent types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with that,also. M y understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading stuff--very difficul t without my landing light lenses attached, is that it takes a combination o f voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying to figure out watts tha t all about. >> >> I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored power i n a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl stop gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false readings, or w orse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt variou s liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at which that would occur. >> >> I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid Devic es 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was actually q uite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and attempt to c orrect that with aileron input. fortunately I discovered this on the ground i n initial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted time) determined t hat to be the problem. In the air, with alternators alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighter circles. >> >> I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage (a ssuming enough amps). >> >> If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to thi s, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful compar ison between the two chemistries. >> >> The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous po st was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 batte ries could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs. >> >> The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but on ly if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I may n ot know watt I am talking about. >> >> >> >> Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps great-gran dchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certainly had advantages , specifically with respect to the weight. >> >> Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than a ircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in effect deep cycle t he pack routinely. >> >> In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from the start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the importan t thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. >> >> If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternator s now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I wo uld like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no engi ne driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function for a while (and how long that while might be). >> >> thanks for your reply >> >> Aerocanard 948RG >> >> rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> >> To: aeroelectric-list >> Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts >> du> >> >> On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: >> > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a >> > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or >> > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the >> > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just >> > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals >> > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic >> > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that >> > system. >> Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. >> Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was >> converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They >> weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. >> >> I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only >> weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in >> a much more spritely manner. >> >> There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that >> voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge >> (SOC). =46rom roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely >> empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start >> to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you >> don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. >> >> LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together >> will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly >> dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that >> drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full >> for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity = ========================== (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) >> lectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www .buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> ========================= ==roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator? AeroElec======================= ====; http://forums.================ ========================== >> >> >> > www.aeroelec D=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=33D=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=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: Nov 13, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 10:54 2014-11-13, you wrote: >So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare >a lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or >batteries) of EQUAL weight. I see I blew the original premise . . . EQUAL weight. Okay, stack 4 ETX-36 batteries in for approximately the same weight as a PC-680. At 4x the stored energy of the PC-680 at the 15A load rate you can fly for 3+ hours while supporting the 180W load. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: sore finger
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Set your email client to automatically delete emails containing "lithium fa cts" or just "lithium" in the subject and you never have to see them again. Deems Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts From: jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com Date: Thu=2C 13 Nov 2014 18:32:47 +0000 It's just that my finger is getting sore=2C with all the deleting Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Continue lithium discussions. Very interesting. On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:32 AM, John Tipton wrote: > It's just that my finger is getting sore, with all the deleting > > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 13 Nov 2014, at 06:09 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > > John, with all due respect, If you are bored, don't read it. Just perhaps > the conversation may awaken other thoughts from others, not as bored. > > You may go back to sleep now. > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > Hi Guys > > Who is now getting bored with this thread > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > > Greetings Rick, and all, > > My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, an d > I too am to lazy to do the math. > > In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the > different types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with > that,also. My understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading > stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is that i t > takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying > to figure out watts that all about. > > I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored power > in a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl stop > gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false > readings, or worse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I > may squirt various liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do n ot > know the level at which that would occur. > > I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid > Devices 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was > actually quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn an d > attempt to correct that with aileron input. fortunately I discovered this > on the ground in initial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted > time) determined that to be the problem. In the air, with alternators > alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I > would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighter circles. > > I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage > (assuming enough amps). > > If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I > am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to > this, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful > comparison between the two chemistries. > > The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous > post was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 > batteries could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs. > > The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but > only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I > may not know watt I am talking about. > > > Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps > great-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certainly h ad > advantages, specifically with respect to the weight. > > Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than > aircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully > charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in effect de ep > cycle the pack routinely. > > In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from the > start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the > important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. Th is > is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. > > If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternator s > now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I > would like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no > engine driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could functio n > for a while (and how long that while might be). > > thanks for your reply > > Aerocanard 948RG > > rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > edu> > > On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a > > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or > > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the > > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just > > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals > > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic > > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that > > system. > Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. > Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was > converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They > weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. > > I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only > weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in > a much more spritely manner. > > There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that > voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge > (SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely > empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start > to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you > don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. > > LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together > will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly > dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that > drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full > for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity == (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) > lectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www .buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ======================== ===roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga tor?AeroElec===================== ======; <http://www.aeroelectric.com>http://forums.=== ============== > > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > <http://forums.matronics.com> > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > <http://forums.matronics.com>*www.aeroelec 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 =3D=3D=33D=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=3 D=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=3 D=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=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=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=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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: lithium facts
Date: Nov 13, 2014
NOT BORING. Please continue, Lithium may be the future for our battery systems. You may be witnessing discovery, understanding, application, implementation right before your eyes! Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Tipton Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:58 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Hi Guys Who is now getting bored with this thread John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: Greetings Rick, and all, My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, and I too am to lazy to do the math. In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the different types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with that,also. My understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is that it takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying to figure out watts that all about. I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored power in a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl stop gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false readings, or worse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I may squirt various liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not know the level at which that would occur. I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid Devices 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was actually quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and attempt to correct that with aileron input. fortunately I discovered this on the ground in initial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted time) determined that to be the problem. In the air, with alternators alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighter circles. I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage (assuming enough amps). If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to this, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful comparison between the two chemistries. The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous post was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 batteries could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs. The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I may not know watt I am talking about. Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps great-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certainly had advantages, specifically with respect to the weight. Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than aircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in effect deep cycle the pack routinely. In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from the start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternators now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I would like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no engine driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function for a while (and how long that while might be). thanks for your reply Aerocanard 948RG rich -----Original Message----- From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that > system. Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in a much more spritely manner. There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge (SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity =========================== (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) lectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank" <http://www.aeroelectric.com> >www.buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ===========================roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec================ ==========; http://forums.========================================== <http://forums.matronics.com> <http://forums.matronics.com> <http://forums.matronics.com> <http://forums.matronics.com> <http://forums.matronics.com> D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Subject: lithium facts
From: "j. davis" <jwd3ca(at)gmail.com>
Agree with B Tomm. This is important new technology! Ignore this guy and carry on... On 13 Nov 2014 15:07, "B Tomm" wrote: > NOT BORING. Please continue, Lithium may be the future for our battery > systems. You may be witnessing discovery, understanding, application, > implementation right before your eyes! > > Bevan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Tipton > *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:58 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > Hi Guys > > Who is now getting bored with this thread > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 13 Nov 2014, at 05:04 pm, argoldman(at)aol.com wrote: > > Greetings Rick, and all, > > My builder is familiar with the concepts and suggestions in your post, and > I too am to lazy to do the math. > > In terms of the voltage drop during discharge being different for the > different types of batteries, my owner is also quite famaliar with > that,also. My understanding of electronics (gleaned through reading > stuff--very difficult without my landing light lenses attached, is that it > takes a combination of voltage and amperage to do a job. I'm still trying > to figure out watts that all about. > > I do know that at a certain time in the deminishment of the stored power > in a battery, no matter what the chemistry, that my gizmos willl stop > gizzing and give my owner either a big "X" across the screen or false > readings, or worse yet, my heart will beat incorrectly, if at all, and I > may squirt various liquids inappropriately and at incorrect times. I do not > know the level at which that would occur. > > I remember in a sibling that my builder also built, he had a Navaid > Devices 1 axis autopilot (company now out of business). This device was > actually quite good, however at about 11V the device would show a turn and > attempt to correct that with aileron input. fortunately I discovered this > on the ground in initial testing and after extensive testing (and wasted > time) determined that to be the problem. In the air, with alternators > alternating, no problem, however if they went into an alternated state, I > would probably still be up there flying in increasingly tighter circles. > > I believe his new plane will operate properly until much lower voltage > (assuming enough amps). > > If we define a specific voltage and wattage (of course I don't know what I > am tak\lking about since I am just an airplane) and test each sample to > this, we can get some sort of data that would indicate a more meaningful > comparison between the two chemistries. > > The reason I specified battery packs of the same weight in my previous > post was to equal the field from which the appropriate weight of LiFePo4 > batteries could be "equivalent" for my electrical needs. > > The flat discharge voltage curve of LI-type is an enticing factor, but > only if enough amps are delivered at that voltage. again as an aircraft I > may not know watt I am talking about. > > > Bravo for going electric with your truck. My lungs and perhaps > great-grandchildren thank you. the conversion to LI batteries certainly had > advantages, specifically with respect to the weight. > > Your battery utilization, for the truck, however is quite different than > aircraft usage as you, as you know, start out with a relatively fully > charged battery group (at least at the start of the day) and in effect deep > cycle the pack routinely. > > In aircraft, because in most cases the battery, after recovering from the > start, is at relatively full charge, it never deep cycles, and the > important thing is how much Juce is available if the alternator quits. This > is a one time semi emergency problem, not a routine thing. > > If I am flying along and loose my alternator (considering dual alternators > now which would really change my battery specs to primarily starting) I > would like to know if my EFI, Elecronic ignition, electric fuel pumps (no > engine driven pump) and a com and possibly a nav radio, all could function > for a while (and how long that while might be). > > thanks for your reply > > Aerocanard 948RG > > rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> > To: aeroelectric-list > Sent: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 3:31 pm > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > On 11/12/2014 02:28 PM, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote: > > So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a > > lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or > > batteries) of EQUAL weight.How long would I last with each before the > > energy (since being an aircraft I don't know volts from amps (I just > > buzz around saying OOOOOOM)) is low enough to start effecting my vitals > > I am going to assume that the charging method is the standard basic > > settings of the aircraft with the battery(s) charged to max with that > > system. > Equal weight? No contest although I'm too lazy to do the math right now. > Here's an anecdotal answer though. I have a Ford Ranger that was > converted to electric. 144 volts with 24 215Ah lead-acid batteries. They > weighed 1600 pounds and would drive the truck about 40 miles. > > I replaced them with 38 100ah lithium cells. Still 144 volts but only > weighing 347 pounds. The truck will go about 50 miles and it does it in > a much more spritely manner. > > There are some interesting considerations for your test. One is that > voltage of lead-acid batteries decreases linearly with state of charge > (SOC). From roughly 12.65 volts fully charged to 11.89 volts completely > empty. At what point in that slope, though, will your electronics start > to behave erratically? I don't know. In general, for long life, you > don't want to discharge more than 50% or down to 12.24 volts. > > LiFePo4 cells have a very flat discharge curve. 4 cells tied together > will be at roughly 13.2 volts full and will drop to 12.6 before suddenly > dropping to 0 as the battery reaches empty. You'd like to avoid that > drop but as far as your plane is concerned the battery will look full > for the entire discharge time which could use up almost all the capacity == (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) > lectric www.aeroef="http://www.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.comhttp://ww -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ==roElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec===========================; http://forums.================= > > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > <http://forums.matronics.com> > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > > <http://forums.matronics.com> > > * > > 3D============================================ > href='3D"http://www.aeroelectric.com "'>www.aeroelectric.com > href='3D"http://www.buildersbooks.com "'>www.buildersbooks.com > href='3D"http://www.homebuilthelp.com "'>www.homebuilthelp.com > href='3D"http://www.mypilotstore.com "'>www.mypilotstore.com > href='3D"http://www.mrrace.com "'>www.mrrace.com > href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution "'>http://www.matronics.com/contribution > 3D============================================ > href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List "'>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > 3D============================================ > href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com "'>http://forums.matronics.com > 3D============================================ > > * > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Subject: Re: lithium facts
My Thoughts As Well! We are here to learn. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 11/13/2014 1:11:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes: Continue lithium discussions. Very interesting. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2014
So, bob. Now we are getting somewhere If equal weight gives li batts 4 x the stored energy it follows that you can use 1 li batt for equivalency-- or 2 for redundancy. Canard type aircraft may have more critical w&b battery location situations a nd a batt at 1/4 the weight may be helpful So if you eliminate the possible cost disadvantage and the seemingly now deb unked safety issues what other reasons are there for lithium rejection Rich Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 13, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero electric.com> wrote: > > At 10:54 2014-11-13, you wrote: >> So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a lea d acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or batteries) of EQUAL weight. > > I see I blew the original premise . . . EQUAL weight. > Okay, stack 4 ETX-36 batteries in for approximately > the same weight as a PC-680. At 4x the stored energy > of the PC-680 at the 15A load rate you can fly > for 3+ hours while supporting the 180W load. > > > > Bob . . . > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: lithium facts
Date: Nov 13, 2014
Now, if there was a drop in Li replacement for a 925 that weighted 1/3 the weight I would be all over it. Because of poor decisions I made during construction I am tail heavy and I am always looking for ways to remove weight in the tail. I think my ELT is moving forward on my next condition inspection for that reason. Rene' 801-721-6080 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of A R Goldman Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:15 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts So, bob. Now we are getting somewhere If equal weight gives li batts 4 x the stored energy it follows that you can use 1 li batt for equivalency-- or 2 for redundancy. Canard type aircraft may have more critical w&b battery location situations and a batt at 1/4 the weight may be helpful So if you eliminate the possible cost disadvantage and the seemingly now debunked safety issues what other reasons are there for lithium rejection Rich Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 10:54 2014-11-13, you wrote: So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or batteries) of EQUAL weight. I see I blew the original premise . . . EQUAL weight. Okay, stack 4 ETX-36 batteries in for approximately the same weight as a PC-680. At 4x the stored energy of the PC-680 at the 15A load rate you can fly for 3+ hours while supporting the 180W load. Bob . . . 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= 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=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=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=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Suggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery box to contain a lipo fire. -Jeff On Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:12 PM, Rene wrote: Now, if there was a drop in Li replacement for a 925 that weighted 1/3 the weight I would be all over it. Because of poor decisions I made during construction I am tail heavy and I am always looking for ways to remove weight in the tail. I think my ELT is moving forward on my next condition inspection for that reason. Rene' 801-721-6080 From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of A R Goldman Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:15 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts So, bob. Now we are getting somewhere If equal weight gives li batts 4 x the stored energy it follows that you can use 1 li batt for equivalency-- or 2 for redundancy. Canard type aircraft may have more critical w&b battery location situations and a batt at 1/4 the weight may be helpful So if you eliminate the possible cost disadvantage and the seemingly now debunked safety issues what other reasons are there for lithium rejection Rich Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: At 10:54 2014-11-13, you wrote: > > >So lets take a non-starting, constant load of say--15A and compare a lead acid battery of a given size and a LIFEPo4 battery (Or batteries) of EQUAL weight. > > I see I blew the original premise . . . EQUAL weight. > Okay, stack 4 ETX-36 batteries in for approximately > the same weight as a PC-680. At 4x the stored energy > of the PC-680 at the 15A load rate you can fly > for 3+ hours while supporting the 180W load. > > > > Bob . . . > > > www.aeroelectric.com www.buildersbooks.com www.homebuilthelp.com www.mypilotstore.com www.mrrace.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution too! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
On 11/14/2014 4:27 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > Suggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery > box to contain a lipo fire. > Is this a little pessimistic? Some old LiFePO4 on youtube, for those who have not looked there yet - vandalism committed upon a Headway 38120 10Ah LiFePO4 cell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBapfB0Imo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52h8IK0IdqI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJM8MZkFKU Are the results valid for A123 ANR26650M1-B cells? - on the one hand the Headway cell has a lower maximum discharge rate (10C vs. 30C) - and is slightly (8% or so) heavier per Ah - on the other hand the state of charge ranges from fully charged to very much overcharged It does not appear as if a fire must be expected in the course of reasonable or even unreasonable use. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Jan, I don't think I'm being pessimistic; cautious is a better word. I have witnessed several lipo fires or their aftermath in R/C aircraft. I even remember a Toyota Corolla that burned to the tires because of a Lipo that was being charged in the back seat. In addition, we all know about the Boeing issues. How many dollars did they spend on R&D? I think it would be unwise to ignore the possibility of a Lipo fire. Based on my experience over the past 10 years with Lipos, I would not even consider flying behind one - it is simply not worth it to me to save a few pounds. Having said that - Lipos are great for driving around in your Tesla - if there's problem, you can get out and walk - but I don't want to be at 7500 ft when that happens. -Jeff On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:08 AM, Jan de Jong wrote: On 11/14/2014 4:27 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote: Suggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery box to contain a lipo fire. > > Is this a little pessimistic? Some old LiFePO4 on youtube, for those who have not looked there yet - vandalism committed upon a Headway 38120 10Ah LiFePO4 cell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBapfB0Imo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52h8IK0IdqI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJM8MZkFKU Are the results valid for A123 ANR26650M1-B cells? - on the one hand the Headway cell has a lower maximum discharge rate (10C vs. 30C) - and is slightly (8% or so) heavier per Ah - on the other hand the state of charge ranges from fully charged to very much overcharged It does not appear as if a fire must be expected in the course of reasonable or even unreasonable use. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
Subject: Lithium facts
From: Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com>
I, for one, haven't seen a boring thread here in a loooong time. I'm learning a lot, and I think the activity indicates the same from others. Doesn't have a direct application at the moment, but this is how NW ideas get developed within our community, and I hope no one is intimidated into killing off the discussion. I'd suggest the complainer switch to the Digest, and then he can easily scroll to whatever he is interested in. Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
Subject: Lithium facts
From: Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com>
I, for one, haven't seen a boring thread here in a loooong time. I'm learning a lot, and I think the activity indicates the same from others. Doesn't have a direct application at the moment, but this is how NW ideas get developed within our community, and I hope no one is intimidated into killing off the discussion. I'd suggest the complainer switch to the Digest, and then he can easily scroll to whatever he is interested in. Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
LiFePO4 or LFP, not Lipo (= LiCoO2 or LCO ). There is a big difference in safety: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion Jan de Jong On 11/14/2014 5:41 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > Jan, > > I don't think I'm being pessimistic; cautious is a better word. > > I have witnessed several lipo fires or their aftermath in R/C > aircraft. I even remember a Toyota Corolla that burned to the tires > because of a Lipo that was being charged in the back seat. > > In addition, we all know about the Boeing issues. How many dollars did > they spend on R&D? > > I think it would be unwise to ignore the possibility of a Lipo fire. > > Based on my experience over the past 10 years with Lipos, I would not > even consider flying behind one - it is simply not worth it to me to > save a few pounds. > > Having said that - Lipos are great for driving around in your Tesla - > if there's problem, you can get out and walk - but I don't want to be > at 7500 ft when that happens. > > > -Jeff > > > On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:08 AM, Jan de Jong > wrote: > > > On 11/14/2014 4:27 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote: >> Suggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery >> box to contain a lipo fire. >> > > Is this a little pessimistic? > > Some old LiFePO4 on youtube, for those who have not looked there yet - > vandalism committed upon a Headway 38120 10Ah LiFePO4 cell: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBapfB0Imo > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52h8IK0IdqI > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJM8MZkFKU > > Are the results valid for A123 ANR26650M1-B cells? > > - on the one hand the Headway cell has a lower maximum discharge rate > (10C vs. 30C) > - and is slightly (8% or so) heavier per Ah > > - on the other hand the state of charge ranges from fully charged to > very much overcharged > > It does not appear as if a fire must be expected in the course of > reasonable or even unreasonable use. > > Jan de Jong > * > > > * > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 14, 2014
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Good Afternoon Jeff, And, if we stopped talking about lithium batteries, where would you post your reservations? Personally. I think the more written about them, the better. You will notice that Boeing is still using the units as are most cell phones and other small electronic devices. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 11/14/2014 2:26:19 P.M. Central Standard Time, jluckey(at)pacbell.net writes: Jan, I don't think I'm being pessimistic; cautious is a better word. I have witnessed several lipo fires or their aftermath in R/C aircraft. I even remember a Toyota Corolla that burned to the tires because of a Lipo that was being charged in the back seat. In addition, we all know about the Boeing issues. How many dollars did they spend on R&D? I think it would be unwise to ignore the possibility of a Lipo fire. Based on my experience over the past 10 years with Lipos, I would not even consider flying behind one - it is simply not worth it to me to save a few pounds. Having said that - Lipos are great for driving around in your Tesla - if there's problem, you can get out and walk - but I don't want to be at 7500 ft when that happens. -Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
At 21:27 2014-11-13, you wrote: >Suggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery >box to contain a lipo fire. > >-Jeff Haven't really prayed over the fire issue much. We know that the True Blue enclosure was designed, tested and qualified to contain the worst that a catastrophic energy release can offer. At same time, we know that to test the enclosure, the BMS has to be bypassed and the battery abused with a 42 volt charger and only after some considerable time do cells begin to fail. Then they exude a mixture of flammable gasses . . . which do not 'burn' for lack of oxygen. The mixture is vented harmlessly over-board while surface temperatures on the battery enclosure remain quite modest. In this case, the energetic mayhem going on within the battery box isn't really a fire but simply an array of cells in self-destruction . . . after one or more cells is abused to failure thus triggering a cascade. This kind of testing is the sort of thing the Navy's Battery labs in Crane, IN used to do. I suspect they still do. Assume the worst even if you have to trigger the event yourself . . . then mitigate the outcome. Obviously, many segments of the battery market are embracing lithium products not the least of which is motorcycles. There are many more lithium batteries in service outside OBAM aviation than inside it. The marketplace is a huge laboratory for testing the general robustness of available products. I've seen anecdotal references to 'fires' with lithium batteries on motorcycles. A couple were attributed failure of a "mechanical" voltage regulator to properly charge the battery. Another spoke a wiring issue (it may have be the battery wires burning . . . not the battery). Given the legacy aviation philosophy for watching bus voltage and automatically reacting to overvoltage conditions - combined design limits that automatically 'soft-charge' to 50% of chemical capacity, it seems that the likelihood of an electrically induced battery event is very low. I think it unlikely that flame-proof battery boxes will ever get a warm reception in light aviation . . . at least not until the "market laboratory" raises perceptions of risk to higher levels of apprehension. The really cool thing is that there are few imperatives for making the lead->lithium switch. Our airplanes will continue to fly as they have for over 100 years. There is both time and increasing opportunity to build a well deserved confidence in the new technology. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lithium facts
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 14, 2014
Again, remember that there are several types of Li batteries each with it's own safety record. If we are talking safety of Li batteries and are only consideringt LIFePo4 then it is only appropriate that we refer only to the safety record of this type of battery.=0A=0A Except for Cessna and Boeing, both of which, I believe used the cobalt variety, I am una ware of any type other than LiFePo4 as suggested for our a ircraft. What the auto makers and computer/cell phone makers a re using is probably different.=0A=0ARich=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A -----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>=0AT o: aeroelectric-list =0ASent: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 2:26 pm=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts=0A =0A=0A=0AJan,=0A=0A=0AI don't think I'm being pessimistic; cautious is a better word. =0A=0A=0A=0AI have witnessed several lipo fires or their aftermath in R/C aircraft. I even remember a Toyota Corolla that burned to the tires because of a Lip o that was being charged in the back seat.=0A=0A=0AIn addition , we all know about the Boeing issues. How many dollars di d they spend on R&D?=0A=0A=0AI think it would be unwise to ignore the possibility of a Lipo fire. =0A=0A=0A=0ABased on my experience over the past 10 years with Lipos, I would n ot even consider flying behind one - it is simply not wort h it to me to save a few pounds.=0A=0A=0AHaving said that - Lipos are great for driving around in your Tesla - if there's problem, you can get out and walk - but I don't want to be at 7500 ft when that happens.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A =0A On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:08 AM, Jan de Jong wrote:=0A =0A =0A=0A =0A =0A On 11/14/201 4 4:27 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A =0A =0A =0ASuggest updating the weight calculations to include a steel battery box to cont ain a lipo fire. =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Is thi s a little pessimistic?=0A =0A Some old LiFePO4 on youtube, for those who have not looked there yet -=0A vandalism committed upon a Headway 38120 10Ah LiFe PO4 cell:=0A =0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBapf B0Imo=0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52h8IK0IdqI=0A h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJM8MZkFKU=0A =0A Are t he results valid for A123 ANR26650M1-B cells? =0A =0A - on the one hand the Headway cell has a lower maximum discharge rate (10C vs. 30C)=0A - and is slightly (8% or so) heavier per Ah=0A =0A - on the other hand the state of charge ranges from fully charged to very much overcharged=0A =0A I t does not appear as if a fire must be expected in the course of reasonable or even unreasonable use.=0A =0A Jan de Jong=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================== =========================== =====0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
From: "Bill Reining" <wreining(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2014
Cessna 182J with 60A alternator, mechanical regulator, no overvoltage circuit. Alternator quit charging - shop found brushes totally worn, slip rings out of round, and rear bearing noisy. Slip rings trued, brushes replaced, bearing replaced. Bench and flight tested OK. But on subsequent trip from Calif. to OSH, following problem occured: about an hour into each leg static would appear in VHF and ammeter would flicker rapidly between charge and discharge. Turned off the alternator field with the split master switch, waited a few minutes, then turned it back on. System resumed charging normally. Replaced the regulator at OSH with a solid state unit by Zeftronics. On way back to Calif. had similar problem, only this time the system would simply stop charging, as evidenced by an alert on the JPI engine analyzer that the system voltage had fallen into the 12 volt range. As before, I could turn off the field, wait a few minutes and then restore normal operation (13.9 volts) by turning the field back on. It would seem something is overheating. Diodes in alternator? Bad field switch contact? Bad breaker? Bad capacitor? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433767#433767 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
So the important question is what data format does the Becker require? One aspect is the protocol (in this case RS422), but equally important is what that input data represents. If it requires NMEA sentences you are probably in luck as the 430 almost certainly will output most of the common sentences, such as RMC and RMB (both required for full extended squitter). If some other data format is required it will probably get all too difficult. Look carefully at the 6401 specification as somewhere it will state the required input data format. Peter On 13/11/2014 00:28, James Bean wrote: > > > This seems to have generated some interest so I will expand. > > I presently have a Becker atc4401 Mode A/C thansponder and a Garmin > 430W gps/com/nav. > Don't know where 432W came from, sorry for the confusion. > The Becker bxp6401 Mode S ia a slide in replacement with an extra > connector for the Mode S connection. > It is not in a rack so "slide in" means the same pin-outs on the main > connector. > There is also a dongle that is programmed to provide the Mode S address. > It definitely has extended squitter. It also does Mode A and C. > Accord in to Garmin the 430W will operate with any capable Mode S > transponder. > So this seems to be a viable solution, particularly if one already has > the Becker Mode A/C. > > Jim Bean > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:09 PM, James Bean wrote: > > In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only > would be a Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The > 432 speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks > RS422. There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that > simple? > > Jim Bean > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
I found the installation manual on the web, http://www.becker-avionics.com/download/Manuals%20and%20Specifications/BXP%206400_Family/BXP6401-X-(XX)%20Installation%20and%20Operation%20Issue3-ads-b.pdf <http://www.becker-avionics.com/download/Manuals%20and%20Specifications/BXP%206400_Family/BXP6401-X-%28XX%29%20Installation%20and%20Operation%20Issue3-ads-b.pdf> The way I read it, a 430 hooked up by 232 will be adequate, interesting that a 430 & 530 are listed as non-certified GPS receivers! There is also a reference to the data interface document. Peter On 15/11/2014 11:27, Peter Pengilly wrote: > > > So the important question is what data format does the Becker require? > One aspect is the protocol (in this case RS422), but equally important > is what that input data represents. If it requires NMEA sentences you > are probably in luck as the 430 almost certainly will output most of > the common sentences, such as RMC and RMB (both required for full > extended squitter). If some other data format is required it will > probably get all too difficult. > > Look carefully at the 6401 specification as somewhere it will state > the required input data format. > > Peter > > > On 13/11/2014 00:28, James Bean wrote: >> >> >> This seems to have generated some interest so I will expand. >> >> I presently have a Becker atc4401 Mode A/C thansponder and a Garmin >> 430W gps/com/nav. >> Don't know where 432W came from, sorry for the confusion. >> The Becker bxp6401 Mode S ia a slide in replacement with an extra >> connector for the Mode S connection. >> It is not in a rack so "slide in" means the same pin-outs on the main >> connector. >> There is also a dongle that is programmed to provide the Mode S address. >> It definitely has extended squitter. It also does Mode A and C. >> Accord in to Garmin the 430W will operate with any capable Mode S >> transponder. >> So this seems to be a viable solution, particularly if one already >> has the Becker Mode A/C. >> >> Jim Bean >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:09 PM, James Bean wrote: >> >> In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only >> would be a Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The >> 432 speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks >> RS422. There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that >> simple? >> >> Jim Bean >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2014
The vast majority of electrical problems are due to bad connections, either terminals or switch contacts. Check the alternator half of the master switch. For troubleshooting with the engine off, connect a high wattage lamp to the regulator ground and to the BATTERY terminal of the regulator. The lamp should light up. Measure the voltage across the lamp. It should be close to battery voltage. If the lamp does not light up or the voltage across the lamp is low, then use the voltmeter to find where the voltage is being dropped. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433774#433774 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
At 05:52 2014-11-15, you wrote: > > >I found the installation manual on the web, > >http://www.becker-avionics.com/download/Manuals%20and%20Specifications/BXP%206400_Family/BXP6401-X-(XX)%20Installation%20and%20Operation%20Issue3-ads-b.pdf ><http://www.becker-avionics.com/download/Manuals%20and%20Specifications/BXP%206400_Family/BXP6401-X-%28XX%29%20Installation%20and%20Operation%20Issue3-ads-b.pdf> Peter, thanks for posting the link. I've added this document to the installation data library on aeroelectric.com . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
At 00:21 2014-11-15, you wrote: > >Cessna 182J with 60A alternator, mechanical regulator, no overvoltage circuit. 1966 straight-tail 14V? Really? I wasn't aware that any Cessna S.E. aircraft were not fitted with ov protection in the field relay excitation lead. >Alternator quit charging - shop found brushes totally worn, slip >rings out of round, and rear bearing noisy. Slip rings trued, >brushes replaced, bearing replaced. Bench and flight tested >OK. But on subsequent trip from Calif. to OSH, following problem >occured: about an hour into each leg static would appear in VHF and >ammeter would flicker rapidly between charge and discharge. Turned >off the alternator field with the split master switch, waited a few >minutes, then turned it back on. System resumed charging normally. This kinda smells like a worn-out switch on the alternator-side of your split rocker. Has that switch ever been replaced that you know of? >Replaced the regulator at OSH with a solid state unit by >Zeftronics. On way back to Calif. had similar problem, only this >time the system would simply stop charging, as evidenced by an alert >on the JPI engine analyzer that the system voltage had fallen into >the 12 volt range. As before, I could turn off the field, wait a >few minutes and then restore normal operation (13.9 volts) by >turning the field back on. It would seem something is >overheating. Diodes in alternator? Bad field switch contact? Bad >breaker? Bad capacitor? Assuming the alternator and regulator are golden, then all you have left are the field breaker, master switch, or intermediate wiring. If the split-rocker has never been replace, I'd put a new one in just on principal. Even if this switch has not been stressed hard electrically, A switch that is nearly 50 years old is a high order suspect. Plus, it's an easy replacement given its location in the airplane. I'm curious as to the absence of o.v. protection. I was working at Cessna Pawnee plant the year that airplane was built and we were just starting to understand this new-kid-on-the-block alternator. It was just about that time that we experienced a rash of mechanical regulator failures that created some rather harsh ov conditions. I did a design for the 'fire-cracker' ov protection module that was added to the field control relay on electro-mechanical regulators. These were not 'stock' until about 1970 but I was under the impression that they go added to older models as a service bulletin. I've got a meeting at Textron next week, I'll get with my favorite archivist and research the history of that mod. In any case, I'd bet the odds are better than 50-50 that the split rocker is the problem. If not, then ALL other wiring and joints are not totally innocent until proven . . . field circuit breaker too. Those were the lowest cost device we could lay our hands on . . . and given that the breaker has probalby not tripped even once in 50 years gives rise to visions of corroded contacts. Just for grins, it might be useful to rig a 'heavy load' of a 20' or so of 20AWG wire. Use this length to dead short that field breaker and cause it to trip a half dozen times or so . . . this might 'burn' off corrosion and set things right in the universe. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
Date: Nov 15, 2014
I had a similar alternator problem, however, it was in an RV. . . It would operate fine for a while and then get intermittent or simply quit charging. On cold restart it worked fine. . . When thru many tests and no one could not find the problem. Finally went to another electrical shop an found an older gray haired technician. He too ran the same test as others and could not find the failure. His finally test was to take the alternator apart and visually inspection the rather large gauge wiring of the "stator". He used a magnifying glass and what he found was, where the end of the stator wire was swaged into the case boss, it was cracked. It was a hairline crack that was mostly invisible to the naked eye. It was a manufacturing error during the swaggering step but got thru the system and into an RV chassis. When the alternator got hot from charging and latent engine heat that cracked stator wire would randomly open or stay open while hot. Fix was a new alternator. . . . Dave ______________________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Reining" <wreining(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:21 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot > > > Cessna 182J with 60A alternator, mechanical regulator, no overvoltage > circuit. Alternator quit charging - shop found brushes totally worn, slip > rings out of round, and rear bearing noisy. Slip rings trued, brushes > replaced, bearing replaced. Bench and flight tested OK. But on > subsequent trip from Calif. to OSH, following problem occured: about an > hour into each leg static would appear in VHF and ammeter would flicker > rapidly between charge and discharge. Turned off the alternator field with > the split master switch, waited a few minutes, then turned it back on. > System resumed charging normally. Replaced the regulator at OSH with a > solid state unit by Zeftronics. On way back to Calif. had similar > problem, only this time the system would simply stop charging, as > evidenced by an alert on the JPI engine analyzer that the system voltage > had fallen into the 12 volt range. As before, I could turn off the field, > wait a few minutes and then restore normal operation (13.9 volts! > ) by turning the field back on. It would seem something is overheating. > Diodes in alternator? Bad field switch contact? Bad breaker? Bad > capacitor? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433767#433767 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RS422 - RS232
From: Pete <phudes(at)ix.netcom.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2014
I think that is because you need Waas receivers ( 430W & 530W). Pete On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > > I found the installation manual on the web, > > http://www.becker-avionics.com/download/Manuals%20and%20Specifications/BXP%206400_Family/BXP6401-X-(XX)%20Installation%20and%20Operation%20Issue3-ads-b.pdf > > The way I read it, a 430 hooked up by 232 will be adequate, interesting that a 430 & 530 are listed as non-certified GPS receivers! > > There is also a reference to the data interface document. > > Peter > > On 15/11/2014 11:27, Peter Pengilly wrote: >> >> So the important question is what data format does the Becker require? One aspect is the protocol (in this case RS422), but equally important is what that input data represents. If it requires NMEA sentences you are probably in luck as the 430 almost certainly will output most of the common sentences, such as RMC and RMB (both required for full extended squitter). If some other data format is required it will probably get all too difficult. >> >> Look carefully at the 6401 specification as somewhere it will state the required input data format. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On 13/11/2014 00:28, James Bean wrote: >>> >>> This seems to have generated some interest so I will expand. >>> >>> I presently have a Becker atc4401 Mode A/C thansponder and a Garmin 430W gps/com/nav. >>> Don't know where 432W came from, sorry for the confusion. >>> The Becker bxp6401 Mode S ia a slide in replacement with an extra connector for the Mode S connection. >>> It is not in a rack so "slide in" means the same pin-outs on the main connector. >>> There is also a dongle that is programmed to provide the Mode S address. >>> It definitely has extended squitter. It also does Mode A and C. >>> Accord in to Garmin the 430W will operate with any capable Mode S transponder. >>> So this seems to be a viable solution, particularly if one already has the Becker Mode A/C. >>> >>> Jim Bean >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:09 PM, James Bean wrote: >>> >>> In starting to think about ADS-B one way to get out only would be a Mode-S transponder hooked to the existing Garmin 432W. The 432 speaks RS232 and the transponder slide in replacement speaks RS422. There are converters available for under 20 bucks. Is it that simple? >>> >>> Jim Bean >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
Subject: Re: lithium facts
Bob, In case you are starting to consider EarthX for our airplanes..... I had some interaction with Reg Nicoson, lead product engineer at EarthX, a little over a year ago concerning unwanted buit-in OV cut-off which ended with the following last and second-to-last message: " Tricky - there is voltage level, but there is also risetime. Alternator OV relay is slow at say 15.0 V. Battery OV mosfets are fast at say 16.0 V. A fast step from 14.5 to 18 volts would give a 50 ms dropout or so. Which can possibly be covered with a large capacitor across the bus. It does get somewhat involved though. Jan On 10/1/2013 6:58 AM, Sales wrote: You are correct, a BMS is required for safe and reliable operation. The lithium cell high voltage cutoff has to be below 4volt per cell, or 16V for the battery. Our high voltage cutoff is set to 15.5 volt, which is where the mosfets start to turn off, but they don't completely turn off until 16.5V at the battery terminal (15.8volt at the lithium cells). Is it possible to adjust your aircrafts OV protection setting to 15 - 15.5V? If so I believe it would work. Reg " I wonder if you would want to try and induce EartX to make an aviation version of their batteries that don't have the buit-in OV cutoff, replacing it with a stern warning that an external reliable fast OV switch is mandatory. They could even sell one. Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
Date: Nov 15, 2014
The older legacy Cessna's and maybe others used a single push-pull Master switch instead of the more common split masters. The switch contained two contact circuits on one switch. One controlled the field of the charging system. This switch is normally very robust. However, when problems of non-functioning or intermittent problems with the charging system there is an odd problem with this switch that should always be checked. The exterior terminals are riveted thru to the interior contacts. The rivets and screw terminal use different metals. I have found some of these terminals loose under the rivet. They can be rotated slightly when there is a problem. I do not know if the looseness comes from. . .aging, wiring abuse when electrical service work is done under the panel, or electrolysis from the different metals and moisture. If you are having charging problems and use this type of master swt., be sure to check the "tightness" of this riveted joint. Any looseness is a problem. D ----- Original Message ----- From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 6:19 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot > > The vast majority of electrical problems are due to bad connections, > either terminals or switch contacts. Check the alternator half of the > master switch. For troubleshooting with the engine off, connect a high > wattage lamp to the regulator ground and to the BATTERY terminal of the > regulator. The lamp should light up. Measure the voltage across the > lamp. It should be close to battery voltage. If the lamp does not light > up or the voltage across the lamp is low, then use the voltmeter to find > where the voltage is being dropped. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433774#433774 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
At 14:26 2014-11-15, you wrote: The older legacy Cessna's and maybe others used a single push-pull Master switch instead of the more common split masters. The switch contained two contact circuits on one switch. One controlled the field of the charging system. Yes, but it was the advent of alternators that birthed the split rocker . . . was a long time ago so I don't recall whether or not any early alternator installations went out with the Cole-Hersy push-pull switches. Bill, is your airplane fitted with a split rocker master switch? I do not know if the looseness comes from. . .aging, wiring abuse when electrical service work is done under the panel, or electrolysis from the different metals and moisture. I think the rivets were set down against phenolic insulator close-out. Not the most dimensionally stable material under pressure. If you are having charging problems and use this type of master swt., be sure to check the "tightness" of this riveted joint. Any looseness is a problem. Agreed . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Nov 16, 2014
I can tell you for sure that 1968 & 1969 Cessna 172's were equipped with alternators and a push-pull master switch AND no over-voltage protection. Don't forget that the alternator ground is part of the charging circuit. -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433812#433812 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
At 07:13 2014-11-16, you wrote: > >I can tell you for sure that 1968 & 1969 Cessna 172's were equipped >with alternators and a push-pull master switch AND no over-voltage >protection. Don't forget that the alternator ground is part of the >charging circuit. Good data point. Thanks! I'm going to the Textron Electronics Lab Thanksgiving lunch next week. I'll get into the archives and see what the evolutionary steps were that lead up to the full changeover to alternators, rocker switches and ov protection. Did those aircraft still have fuses? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help troubleshoot
From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Nov 16, 2014
> Did those aircraft still have fuses? My 1969 Cessna 172 has only non-resetable circuit breakers. The only fuses in the electrical system are mounted on the engine side of the firewall which power the clock and another fuse for the optional ground service plug contactor, if one is installed. -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=433814#433814 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's Your Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, You might have wondered at some point, "What's my Contribution used for?" Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables... It provides for the expensive, commercial-grade Internet connection used on the List. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for List services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and the Web Forums. It pays for the over 23 years of on-line archive data always available for instant search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power these List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables all these aspects of Matronics List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport! List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Flyback Diodes
From: Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2014
The following video was just posted by a fellow on YouTube who I follow. It does a very nice job of illustrating the purpose and effect of using flybac k or catch diodes on inductive loads like relay coils. Since the topic has arisen here a number of times, I thought this might be o f interest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6I7Ycbv8B8 Eric ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Charging system problem - please help
Digging through the schematics and parts listing, the over voltage sensor was added at serial number 17259904 which was the second production year of the 172L (1972). I have a 1970 K model which has circuit breakers and the new double rocker master switch. Unfortunately, it looks like to add the over voltage module, I also need to change the regulator, which has the additional connection for the low voltage light, so it becomes an expensive proposition. I also don't know what Transport Canada would require to consider the change legal. So I won't bother. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Charging system problem - please > help troubleshoot > > At 07:13 2014-11-16, you wrote: >> >> I can tell you for sure that 1968 & 1969 Cessna 172's were equipped >> with alternators and a push-pull master switch AND no over-voltage >> protection. Don't forget that the alternator ground is part of the >> charging circuit. > > Good data point. Thanks! I'm going to the > Textron Electronics Lab Thanksgiving lunch > next week. I'll get into the archives and > see what the evolutionary steps were that > lead up to the full changeover to alternators, > rocker switches and ov protection. > > Did those aircraft still have fuses? > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Fire-Sale Phase V
I have two, legacy crowbar overvoltage modules left from inventory. $20 each post-paid to US addresses. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
On 11/17/2014 6:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > I have two, legacy crowbar overvoltage modules > left from inventory. $20 each post-paid to US > addresses. > > > Bob . . . > > _ What does 'legacy' mean? If roughly equivalent in size/function to current B&C production, I'll take both. How do I pay? Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
At 19:28 2014-11-17, you wrote: > > >On 11/17/2014 6:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >>I have two, legacy crowbar overvoltage modules >>left from inventory. $20 each post-paid to US >>addresses. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >>_ >What does 'legacy' mean? If roughly equivalent in size/function to >current B&C production, I'll take both. How do I pay? It's the same device currently in production at B&C. It's a member of the family of crowbar ov modules offered by both B&C and AeroElectric Connection over the past 15+ years. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9003/CbOV-14_Installation_A.pdf I'll invoice you through PayPal if you want them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
On 11/17/2014 7:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 19:28 2014-11-17, you wrote: >> >> >> On 11/17/2014 6:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have two, legacy crowbar overvoltage modules >>> left from inventory. $20 each post-paid to US >>> addresses. >>> >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> _ >> What does 'legacy' mean? If roughly equivalent in size/function to >> current B&C production, I'll take both. How do I pay? > > > It's the same device currently in production at > B&C. It's a member of the family of crowbar ov modules > offered by both B&C and AeroElectric Connection > over the past 15+ years. > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9003/CbOV-14_Installation_A.pdf > > I'll invoice you through PayPal if you want them. > > > Bob . . . Excellent! Please invoice to mcsophie(at)gmail.com (different from my aeroelectric subscription). Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
>Excellent! Please invoice to mcsophie(at)gmail.com (different from my >aeroelectric subscription). > >Thanks, > >Charlie Done. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2014
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
On 11/17/2014 8:37 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> Excellent! Please invoice to mcsophie(at)gmail.com (different from my >> aeroelectric subscription). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charlie > > Done. > > > Bob . . . And done. Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
At 03:41 2014-11-17, you wrote: Hi Bob, I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few things on my Pitts Special and he suggested you would be best to speak with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website, it was made mention that you drew it up. Drawing number 420-506 http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf I had a couple of questions, hopefully you can assist a little. Looking at the mag switch portion of the diagram. Should it not be drawn that the impulse magneto is the OFF-START/ON? If the OFF-START/ON switch (Right Mag) is used and the start button engaged the starter would not power unless the Left Mag were also on. Am I missing something here? Those drawings were sorta copied from my originals but with errors. See http://tinyurl.com/lsqz36k Here you see two options for toggle switch control of magnetos . . . one option uses push button to energize starter, the other uses the left mag switch to energize the starter. BOTH versions lock the starter out if the non-impulse coupled magneto is not OFF. Might I also ask what the function of the momentary side of the mag switch is for - (ON)-OFF-ON? Same as left side. It was selected to be mechanically identical to the left mag switch so that BOTH switches are MAG-ON with the switch in the middle . . . it's a carry over from the arguments I've received from human factors guys . . . NORMAL ON and OFF positions for both mags should look the same. I am running an SD-8 dynamo and my intention is to have no master solenoid (as shown in the schematic) and also not use a starter solenoid, I am using the Skytec NL starter and they have an option of wiring the starter using the internal solenoid of the starter. Do you foresee any problem here? If they use a two-stage solenoid for pinion gear extension . . . http://tinyurl.com/nx6xavk then there are extra-ordinary stresses on the switch that actually controls the starter solenoid. Your choice. I recommend either an external contactor or at least a buffer-relay to control starter solenoid. My biggest concern was having the starter engage and not be able to shut it off. I see the B&C starter has an Emergency Starter Off how does this disable their system as the way I see it, if the solenoid contacts welded themselves closed, the starter is still feed power. Emergency starter off? Don't know what this is other than to simply turn the battery master switch off. I contacted Skytec and they said, due to the way their starter is made this can't happen so a starter 'kill' isn't required. If power is removed from the start solenoid the starter 'will' disengage, I guess the only real danger in this situation is a stuck start switch but turning off the master would solve that I guess. I haven't a clue as to what they're talking about. In every Z-figure and every TC aircraft, the battery master relay is the back-up for a stuck-starter-contactor. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ryan <ryansoutham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
Date: Nov 18, 2014
Thanks Bob. That all makes good sense after reading through it. Much appreciated. Ryan Date: Tue=2C 18 Nov 2014 00:00:09 -0600 From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring schematic question =0A =0A At 03:41 2014-11-17=2C you wrote: =0A Hi Bob=2C =0A I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few=0A things on my Pitts Special and he suggested you would be best to speak=0A with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website=2C it =0A was made mention that you drew it up. =0A Drawing number 420-506 =0A =0A http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf =0A =0A http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf =0A I had a couple of questions=2C hopefully you can assist a=0A little. =0A Looking at the mag switch portion of the diagram. Should it not be drawn=0A that the impulse magneto is the OFF-START/ON? =0A If the OFF-START/ON switch (Right Mag) is used and the start button=0A engaged the starter would not power unless the Left Mag were also=0A on. =0A Am I missing something here? =0A =0A Those drawings were sorta copied from my originals =0A but with errors. See =0A =0A =0A http://tinyurl.com/lsqz36k =0A =0A Here you see two options for toggle switch control =0A of magnetos . . . one option uses push button to=0A energize =0A starter=2C the other uses the left mag switch to energize =0A the starter. BOTH versions lock the starter out if =0A the non-impulse coupled magneto is not OFF. =0A Might I also ask what the function of the momentary side of the mag=0A switch is for - (ON)-OFF-ON? =0A =0A Same as left side. It was selected to be mechanically =0A identical to the left mag switch so that BOTH switches =0A are MAG-ON with the switch in the middle . . . it's a =0A carry over from the arguments I've received from human =0A factors guys . . . NORMAL ON and OFF positions for both =0A mags should look the same. =0A =0A I am running an SD-8 dynamo and my intention is to have no master=0A solenoid (as shown in the schematic) and also not use a starter solenoid=2C =0A I am using the Skytec NL starter and they have an option of wiring the=0A starter using the internal solenoid of the starter. Do you foresee any=0A problem here? =0A =0A If they use a two-stage solenoid for pinion gear =0A extension . . . =0A =0A =0A http://tinyurl.com/nx6xavk =0A =0A then there are extra-ordinary stresses on the =0A switch that actually controls the starter solenoid. =0A Your choice. I recommend either an external contactor =0A or at least a buffer-relay to control starter =0A solenoid. =0A My biggest concern was having the starter engage and not be able to=0A shut it off. I see the B&C starter has an Emergency Starter Off how=0A does this disable their system as the way I see it=2C if the solenoid=0A contacts welded themselves closed=2C the starter is still feed=0A power. =0A =0A Emergency starter off? Don't know what this is =0A other than to simply turn the battery master switch =0A off. =0A I contacted Skytec and they said=2C due to the way their starter is=0A made this can't happen so a starter 'kill' isn't required. If power is=0A removed from the start solenoid the starter 'will' disengage=2C I guess the =0A only real danger in this situation is a stuck start switch but turning=0A off the master would solve that I guess. =0A =0A I haven't a clue as to what they're talking about. =0A In every Z-figure and every TC aircraft=2C the battery =0A master relay is the back-up for a=0A stuck-starter-contactor. =0A =0A Bob . . . =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flyback Diodes
So, the diode we find jumpered between the coil contacts on let's say, our starter relay, prevents a high voltage shooting back thru our starter switch and arcing the contacts when we let go of the starter key/switch? Or does it prevent a power surge from hitting the entire electrical system? Bill "waking up brain cells in disuse since early adolescence" Watson (nice video, thanks!) On 11/17/2014 12:07 PM, Eric Page wrote: > The following video was just posted by a fellow on YouTube who I > follow. It does a very nice job of illustrating the purpose and > effect of using flyback or catch diodes on inductive loads like relay > coils. > > Since the topic has arisen here a number of times, I thought this > might be of interest. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6I7Ycbv8B8 > > Eric > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
From: Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com>
Please invoice rdu.hari(at)gmail.com Thanks Hari On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Charlie England wrote: > ceengland7(at)gmail.com> > > On 11/17/2014 8:37 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >> >> >> Excellent! Please invoice to mcsophie(at)gmail.com (different from my >>> aeroelectric subscription). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Charlie >>> >> >> Done. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > And done. > > Thanks, > > Charlie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
Date: Nov 18, 2014
Bob, I would like one of them if you have any left. Thanks Justin jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com > On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > I have two, legacy crowbar overvoltage modules > left from inventory. $20 each post-paid to US > addresses. > > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fire-Sale Phase V
At 09:33 2014-11-18, you wrote: >Please invoice rdu.hari(at)gmail.com > >Thanks >Hari already sold Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Flyback Diodes
At 08:19 2014-11-18, you wrote: So, the diode we find jumpered between the coil contacts on let's say, our starter relay, prevents a high voltage shooting back thru our starter switch and arcing the contacts when we let go of the starter key/switch? Yes . . . Or does it prevent a power surge from hitting the entire electrical system? Not at all. Contactor/relay coil flyback, catch or suppression diodes have been part-and-parcel of the system designer's toolbox for quite a few years. While I was a tech writer at Cessna (65-69), our chief scientist, Gordon Wood, Phd, purchased this nifty peak-reading voltmeter (Hewlett-Packard I think) and did some battery and starter contactor behavior studies in the labs. "My gawd Mabel . . . did you see the size of that spike?!?!?! Gee whiz . . . over 400 volts . . . that sounds dangerous." This was exactly the time when Aircraft Radio Corporation, recently purchased by Cessna, was producing Cessna branded 300, 500 and ultimately 400 Series radios and autopilots. When the radios began to show up with transistorized audio/modulator and dc/dc converters for vacuum tube high voltage, we began to experience a rash of un-explained failures in the transistors of newly installed radios. We were building 10,000 airplanes a year back then . . . needless to say, even a few percent failure rate in radios was a SIGNIFICANT impact to corporate bottom line. The quest was on . . . if not to understand what was really happening . . . then at least to stop the failures. About that same time, Cessna hired Wichita University to craft a course on "The Industrial use of Transistors," which was well attended by about 20 folks from both Cessna plants and your's truly. The instructor was extremely well versed in the topic being that he was both a college prof and a sought after consultant. Not a great teacher . . . but Jerry Wedel I learned how to 'pick his brain' in useful ways by the questions we asked. We sat on opposite sides of the class and stroked him to our great advantage. Back then, the power transistors of choice were germanium, mostly PNP devices with max operating voltages on the order of 30 volts. Hmmmm . . . Mean while, back at the airplane farm, Gordon was poking around the electrical systems of our airplanes in search of clues. It was quickly discovered that adding the diode across the contactor coil completely eliminated the gawd-awful spike. Whew! Slew that dragon. But that still didn't fix the radio failures. About then, flight test pilots discovered that if the radios were OFF during engine start, the did not suffer the failures. You know what came next. The avionics master switch was born. Simultaneously, a new line of thought was launched into the aviation consciousness . . . and a new phrase was oft repeated on avionics benches across the world, "Damn, I think a spike got it." It took about two decades before anyone really began to sift the simple-ideas for properties of materials and management of energy (it's called engineering) and figure out what was really going on. Turns out that transistor failures in the radios were not suffering the effects of high voltage spikes . . . but second breakdown effects in relatively fragile transistors due to LOW voltage effects, i.e. brownout during cranking. Batteries back then were pretty sorry things by today's standards. Our 'airplane patch' east of the plant would have hundreds of new airplanes parked out there awaiting ferry pilots. The batteries were NEVER attended to in a manner consistent with their physics . . . hence, more that a few airplanes needed to be propped, jumped and/or battery charged . . . but only AFTER the pilot had attempted to start the airplane perhaps with one or more radios turned ON. It was also not well understood that those spectacular contactor coil spikes never went anywhere . . . at least not out onto the ship's electrical system. 99% of energy stored on the contactor's inductance was dissipated in the air-gap of the spreading switch contacts as the battery master was turned OFF or the starter switch was released. The diodes across the coil were a good thing, it saved wear and tear on switches . . . but had no significance on the life span of a radio or any other appliance. In still later years, there was some earnest debate about OTHER effects of adding diodes across relay or contactor coils. Simple measurements demonstrated that adding the diode caused there to be a DELAY in relay/ contactor drop-out . . . the diode cause coil current to be sustained for some milliseconds after the switch opened as energy stored in the coil was dissipated in circuit resistance. Hmmm . . . if the contactior's release is delayed/slowed, does that also translate into a slower contact spreading velocity which in turn aggravates the arcing? Intuitively it seems likely . . . indeed, many articles have been written, some by folks working for big-name companies that thoroughly described the diode induced drop-out DELAY . . . and then extrapolated that good information into an erroneous assumption that influences on drop-out delay were equally applicable to contact spreading velocity . . . without making a single measurement. On page 4 of this document http://tinyurl.com/n296nl6 there are 'scope displays that demonstrate approx 5x increase in dropout delay for having added a plain-vanilla diode across a relay coil. At the same time, the contact spreading times are very similar demonstrating no significant difference in the arc signature. Bill "waking up brain cells in disuse since early adolescence" Watson (nice video, thanks!) The youtube tutorial was nicely done and confirms the value of adding SOME form of coil spike suppression . . . but to extrapolate the demonstration's significance for other features of relay performance is fraught with opportunity for error. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
If you have no master relay or starter relay then the thick wire from the battery to the starter will be hot at all times - there are a few accident scenarios where you could wish you hadn't done that, but its a judgement over risk and reward! I have a similar set up on my One Design, except that I used a starter relay, and also brought out the wire that controls the NL solenoid to a switch on the panel to provide an emergency off should the start relay weld itself together (used the suggestion in the Sky-Tec documentation). Yes that is a few additional ounces, but you already have a starter and a battery so the penalty is not that large. If you are worried about ounces then swap out your mags for P-mags? Peter On 18/11/2014 06:31, Ryan wrote: > Thanks Bob. > > That all makes good sense after reading through it. > > Much appreciated. > > Ryan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:09 -0600 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring schematic question > > At 03:41 2014-11-17, you wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few > things on my Pitts Special and he suggested you would be best to speak > with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website, > it was made mention that you drew it up. > Drawing number 420-506 > > http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf > http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf > > <http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf>I had a couple of > questions, hopefully you can assist a little. > > Looking at the mag switch portion of the diagram. Should it not be > drawn that the impulse magneto is the OFF-START/ON? > If the OFF-START/ON switch (Right Mag) is used and the start button > engaged the starter would not power unless the Left Mag were also on. > Am I missing something here? > > *Those drawings were sorta copied from my originals * > * but with errors. See > > * > *http://tinyurl.com/lsqz36k > > <http://tinyurl.com/lsqz36k> * > * Here you see two options for toggle switch control * > * of magnetos . . . one option uses push button to energize * > * starter, the other uses the left mag switch to energize * > * the starter. BOTH versions lock the starter out if * > * the non-impulse coupled magneto is not OFF. > > * > > Might I also ask what the function of the momentary side of the mag > switch is for - (ON)-OFF-ON? > > * Same as left side. It was selected to be mechanically * > * identical to the left mag switch so that BOTH switches * > * are MAG-ON with the switch in the middle . . . it's a * > * carry over from the arguments I've received from human * > * factors guys . . . NORMAL ON and OFF positions for both * > * mags should look the same. > > > * > > I am running an SD-8 dynamo and my intention is to have no master > solenoid (as shown in the schematic) and also not use a starter > solenoid, I am using the Skytec NL starter and they have an option of > wiring the starter using the internal solenoid of the starter. Do you > foresee any problem here? > > *If they use a two-stage solenoid for pinion gear * > * extension . . . > > * > *http://tinyurl.com/nx6xavk > > <http://tinyurl.com/nx6xavk> * > * then there are extra-ordinary stresses on the * > * switch that actually controls the starter solenoid. * > * Your choice. I recommend either an external contactor * > * or at least a buffer-relay to control starter * > * solenoid. > > * > > My biggest concern was having the starter engage and not be able to > shut it off. I see the B&C starter has an Emergency Starter Off how > does this disable their system as the way I see it, if the solenoid > contacts welded themselves closed, the starter is still feed power. > > * Emergency starter off? Don't know what this is * > * other than to simply turn the battery master switch * > * off. > > * > > I contacted Skytec and they said, due to the way their starter is made > this can't happen so a starter 'kill' isn't required. If power is > removed from the start solenoid the starter 'will' disengage, I guess > the only real danger in this situation is a stuck start switch but > turning off the master would solve that I guess. > > * I haven't a clue as to what they're talking about. * > * In every Z-figure and every TC aircraft, the battery * > * master relay is the back-up for a stuck-starter-contactor. > > * > > Bob . . . > * > > ========== > _blank">www.aeroelectric.com > " target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > ank">www.mrrace.com > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > > * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
At 03:41 2014-11-17, you wrote: Hi Bob, I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few things on my Pitts Special and he suggested you would be best to speak with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website, it was made mention that you drew it up. Drawing number 420-506 http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf I had a couple of questions, hopefully you can assist a little. My apologies, I didn't 'scope out the rest of the diagram. No, that general architecture was not suggested by me but the diagram does have some features borrowed from the z-figures of that era. For one thing, the MOV's as transient suppressors was NOT a good idea. We abandoned that recommendation in the AeroElectic Connection . . . oh . . .I forget. But a long time ago. With an SD-8, one is indeed strapped for 'surplus energy' so elimination of the battery contactor is a useful thing from the energy management perspective. Do you KNOW what your ship's running loads are? How big is your battery? What kind of strobe system . . . and current draw? As long as your battery is in good condition and fully charged at engine start, the probability of a contactor sticking is very low. It's the tentative closures when a soggy battery is trying to grunt the starter that gets you a stuck contactor. At the same time, the modern intermittent duty starter contactors are much more resistant to sticking under all conditions . . . again assuming that you 'drive 'em hard' . . . 20AWG wire to the 5A coil is a good idea. As far as compliance with legacy notions of seeking 'Max Cold' conditions in the wiring with all switches OFF, you COULD use a battery master relay that did not carry starter current while locating the external starter contactor adjacent to the battery too. However, your risks are low using the diagram as published. The only changes I would recommend are using diodes across the contactor coils . . . and the starter contactor that B*C sells already has one installed. Ditch the MOVs. Does this cover 'the rest of the story?' Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Value of the List...
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... :-) Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these Lists? http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Solid State Master Relay
Date: Nov 19, 2014
I purchased the following solid state master relay to use in my project. It is designed to be used as an ambulance master relay. http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/ <http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/> I am wondering what the typical inrush and cranking amperage is to the Skytec starters for the Lycoming IO-360. I am contemplating wiring the starter from the battery, through the relay and to the starter rather than connecting it thru the Battery Master Switch. It would seem that limiting the high amounts of current that the starter draws would prolong the already long life of these solid state devices. The maximum rating for this relay is 500A for one second. Over the years, I have experienced numerous master relay failures, and I am anxious to try this out. The link to the data sheet is below. http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf <http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf> One other option I considered is to wire the starter from the battery, to a manual disconnect (such as one in the links below), then through the starter relay, thence the starter. One could attach a push-pull cable or rod to the armature of this switch, and easily disconnect the battery from the starter while sitting in the cockpit in the unlikely event of the starter contacts getting welded together, or the starter relay fails closed. This switch should probably be located as close to the battery as possible. http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1> http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1> http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1> http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1> http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1> Thoughts are welcome Justin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2014
From: Jerome Sipple <newsgroups(at)taxesplusllc.com>
Subject: Re: Value of the List...
Matt, I have already made a contribution for this years drive, and although it ended up being a manual process due to something I messed up on my end the automated emails asking for contributions DID stop for a while. However they are now showing up again. Would it be possible have them stopped for the balance of this years drive? If it's a hassle to do so, it's no big deal. I just thought I would ask! Jerome Sipple jds(at)taxesplusllc.com or newsgroups(at)taxesplusllc.com On 11/19/2014 3:06 AM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... :-) > > Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these Lists? > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: > > Matt Dralle / Matronics > 581 Jeannie Way > Livermore CA 94550 > USA > > I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! > > Thank you for your support! > > Matt Dralle > Email List Admin. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
From: "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 19, 2014
peter(at)sportingaero.com wrote: > If you have no master relay or starter relay then the thick wire from the battery to the starter will be hot at all times - there are a few accident scenarios where you could wish you hadn't done that, but its a judgement over risk and reward! > > I have a similar set up on my One Design, except that I used a starter relay, and also brought out the wire that controls the NL solenoid to a switch on the panel to provide an emergency off should the start relay weld itself together (used the suggestion in the Sky-Tec documentation). Yes that is a few additional ounces, but you already have a starter and a battery so the penalty is not that large. > > If you are worried about ounces then swap out your mags for P-mags? > > Peter > > > [/b] [b][/quote] Peter, I have the LS starter not the NL, and I am assuming you have rewired your NL internally to be like the LS model with the external "S" terminal available to control the starter's internal solenoid. I thought the wire to the the "S" terminal was used to engage the internal solenoid. How do you use it to dis-engage the internal solenoid in an emergency? I would like to add such an emergency off switch to my LS. Like your NL, my LS is wired with a firewall mounted external starter contactor directly off of the battery and not through a master contactor. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434141#434141 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2014
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
Justin, I'm curious about the decision process that lead to selecting the solid-state relay. I see some down side: 1. Cost - that relay is 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent mechanical device 2. Power dissipation - That's a pretty hefty heat-sink. How much power does it need to dissipate 3. I wonder if it is heavier that a mechanical - I didn't see a weight spec. 4. "Proven technology" - How much track record is there for this device? (I compare this against the standard Master relays with a 50+ year history.) This is the Master Relay I'm using (I like it because it's lightweight, small, low coil current, & reasonable cost): http://tinyurl.com/nb72gal Re wiring starter directly: That's what I'm doing in my RV-7. Battery to start-assist solenoid to starter. BobN just made a post in the last couple of days re this topic and I concur w/ his thoughts. Basically a hung start-assist solenoid is such a rare event that I don't worry about it. A couple of questions: 1. Which airplane are you building? 2. Tell us about your master relay failures. What aircraft? which relay/contactor? Please understand that my intent is not to be critical but rather to understand how you reached your conclusions. (I might learn something.) -Jeff On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:16 PM, Justin Jones wrote: I purchased the following solid state master relay to use in my project. It is designed to be used as an ambulance master relay. http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/ I am wondering what the typical inrush and cranking amperage is to the Skytec starters for the Lycoming IO-360. I am contemplating wiring the starter from the battery, through the relay and to the starter rather than connecting it thru the Battery Master Switch. It would seem that limiting the high amounts of current that the starter draws would prolong the already long life of these solid state devices. The maximum rating for this relay is 500A for one second. Over the years, I have experienced numerous master relay failures, and I am anxious to try this out. The link to the data sheet is below. http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf One other option I considered is to wire the starter from the battery, to a manual disconnect (such as one in the links below), then through the starter relay, thence the starter. One could attach a push-pull cable or rod to the armature of this switch, and easily disconnect the battery from the starter while sitting in the cockpit in the unlikely event of the starter contacts getting welded together, or the starter relay fails closed. This switch should probably be located as close to the battery as possible. http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1 Thoughts are welcome Justin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
At 10:20 2014-11-19, you wrote: I purchased the following solid state master relay to use in my project. It is designed to be used as an ambulance master relay. http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/ I am wondering what the typical inrush and cranking amperage is to the Skytec starters for the Lycoming IO-360. It has more to do with wiring and the state of your battery than on the engine/starter combination. I am contemplating wiring the starter from the battery, through the relay and to the starter rather than connecting it thru the Battery Master Switch. It would seem that limiting the high amounts of current that the starter draws would prolong the already long life of these solid state devices. The maximum rating for this relay is 500A for one second. Over the years, I have experienced numerous master relay failures, and I am anxious to try this out. The link to the data sheet is below. http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf I notice an IN/OUT nomenclature on the device. Are you SURE this is a bi-directional device capable of carrying both DISCHARGE and CHARGE current? What kinds of battery master relays? In 30+ years, 850 hrs of flying, I've never experienced a master relay failure. While operating a fleet of rental airplanes on an airport for 6 months, I experienced one battery relay failure . . . on a relay that was over 20 years old. As a spares item compared against the numbers of airplanes in service, even the least expensive battery relays are a low-volume commodity. To have experienced 'numerous' failures gives rise to the question as to what kind of relays were involved. One other option I considered is to wire the starter from the battery, to a manual disconnect (such as one in the links below), then through the starter relay, thence the starter. One could attach a push-pull cable or rod to the armature of this switch, and easily disconnect the battery from the starter while sitting in the cockpit in the unlikely event of the starter contacts getting welded together, or the starter relay fails closed. This switch should probably be located as close to the battery as possible. http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1 http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1 There are as many ways to wire an airplane as there are creative installers of wires. What you describe is, perhaps, unnecessarily complicated; motivated by reasons that are not clear to me. The solid state switch will be an interesting experiment but I'm more interested in understanding your displeasure with the legacy parts and architectures. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 20, 2014
The specs for the solid state relay state, > Internal diode protection for inductive load > switching I am curious as to how this protection works. Any inductive induced current will flow in the SAME direction as normal current. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434167#434167 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
At 08:24 2014-11-20, you wrote: > >The specs for the solid state relay state, > > > Internal diode protection for inductive load > > switching > >I am curious as to how this protection works. Any inductive induced >current will flow in the SAME direction as normal current. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Relay-Contactor_Performance/Cole-Hersee_without_Diode.gif They're talking about limiting any potential effects for having SWITCHED an inductive load to an OFF state. Here they're speaking to protection of the contactor as a switch and assuming that unlike legacy practice for protecting battery master and starter contactor switches, the installer would use the device to manage an inductive load that is not also surrounded with coil suppression. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
Date: Nov 20, 2014
Apologies for not responding sooner. I am currently deployed. The relay failures that I have experienced were on Cessna aircraft and both were the factory installed part numbers. One was a rental aircraft (172) and one was my own aircraft (182). The 182 relay failed after 500 hours of use. The failures can and do happen, although they are rare. I have over 3,300 hours of flight time in everything from small aircraft to C-130s. I have had numerous electrical emergencies on certified aircraft and 3 of them were due to failed relays (not master relays). The C-130 has a set of =9CK=9D relays that switch the AC busses and they are notorious for giving crews issues. There has been some talk of testing zero switching SSRs to see if some of the failure rates can be reduced. The cost is higher, but SSRs have rated cycles of 100,000 to 500,000 cycles. This outlasts legacy mechanical relays by far. They haven=99 t been proven for 50+ years, but if we don=99t start testing them, they will never be proven. I don=99t expect to put 100,000 cycles on my system, but if it works as advertised, I should never have to replace the relay. The relay heat sink has to be able to dissipate the heat that 300A of continuous usage would generate. I can=99t think of a situation where the battery would last long enough for heat to be an issue with this relay. If it is, the aluminum heat sink should be able to handle it. Living and operating the aircraft in Alaska will help with this as well. I can weigh it when I get home, but I do remember thinking that this is much lighter that I initially thought. I believe it is on par with other 12V master relays. I am building a Bushcaddy L164 for off airport operations in Alaska. One reason I would like to use the SSR master relay is to experiment with it and test it. I am interested to see if it is a viable option to replace the legacy relays. If so, failed relays may become a thing of the past. The reason for the installation of the remotely operated battery disconnect switch would be to stop a running battery in the unlikely event that the relay sticks and starter contacts weld together. Skytec has a webpage about this and has explained it. The gentleman in the article installed a starter run-on light modification that simply lights an LED when the starter is receiving power. This will tell you if the starter relay has stuck closed. The gentleman in the article has installed an Eaton starter relay. It should be noted that he has a 28V system. http://www.skytecair.com/Cessna_Solenoids.htm <http://www.skytecair.com/Cessna_Solenoids.htm> Justin > On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > > Justin, > > I'm curious about the decision process that lead to selecting the solid-state relay. I see some down side: > > 1. Cost - that relay is 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent mechanical device > 2. Power dissipation - That's a pretty hefty heat-sink. How much power does it need to dissipate > 3. I wonder if it is heavier that a mechanical - I didn't see a weight spec. > 4. "Proven technology" - How much track record is there for this device? (I compare this against the standard Master relays with a 50+ year history.) > > This is the Master Relay I'm using (I like it because it's lightweight, small, low coil current, & reasonable cost): > http://tinyurl.com/nb72gal > > Re wiring starter directly: > That's what I'm doing in my RV-7. Battery to start-assist solenoid to starter. BobN just made a post in the last couple of days re this topic and I concur w/ his thoughts. Basically a hung start-assist solenoid is such a rare event that I don't worry about it. > > A couple of questions: > 1. Which airplane are you building? > 2. Tell us about your master relay failures. What aircraft? which relay/contactor? > > > Please understand that my intent is not to be critical but rather to understand how you reached your conclusions. (I might learn something.) > > > -Jeff > > > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:16 PM, Justin Jones wrote: > > > I purchased the following solid state master relay to use in my project. It is designed to be used as an ambulance master relay. > > http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/ <http://www.waytekwire.com/item/44407/300-AMP-SOLID-STATE-BATTERY/> > > I am wondering what the typical inrush and cranking amperage is to the Skytec starters for the Lycoming IO-360. I am contemplating wiring the starter from the battery, through the relay and to the starter rather than connecting it thru the Battery Master Switch. It would seem that limiting the high amounts of current that the starter draws would prolong the already long life of these solid state devices. The maximum rating for this relay is 500A for one second. Over the years, I have experienced numerous master relay failures, and I am anxious to try this out. The link to the data sheet is below. > > http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf <http://www.waytekwire.com/datasheet/44407.pdf> > > > One other option I considered is to wire the starter from the battery, to a manual disconnect (such as one in the links below), then through the starter relay, thence the starter. One could attach a push-pull cable or rod to the armature of this switch, and easily disconnect the battery from the starter while sitting in the cockpit in the unlikely event of the starter contacts getting welded together, or the starter relay fails closed. This switch should probably be located as close to the battery as possible. > > http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1006/10002/-1> > http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-1/10002/-1> > http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74105/10002/-1> > http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070030/10002/-1> > http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1 <http://www.jegs.com/i/Unisteer/668/8070040/10002/-1> > > > > Thoughts are welcome > > Justin > > > > > > > <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> <http://www.buildersbooks.com/> <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> <http://www.mypilotstore.com/> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Solid State Master Relay
At 18:33 2014-11-20, you wrote: Apologies for not responding sooner. I am currently deployed. The relay failures that I have experienced were on Cessna aircraft and both were the factory installed part numbers. One was a rental aircraft (172) and one was my own aircraft (182). The 182 relay failed after 500 hours of use. The failures can and do happen, although they are rare. I have over 3,300 hours of flight time in everything from small aircraft to C-130s. I have had numerous electrical emergencies on certified aircraft and 3 of them were due to failed relays (not master relays). The C-130 has a set of =9CK=9D relays that switch the AC busses and they are notorious for giving crews issues. There has been some talk of testing zero switching SSRs to see if some of the failure rates can be reduced. Certainly, alternative parts with higher degrees of robustness can improve the MTBF numbers in any system. But quite often, it's less expensive, simpler and lighter to design for failure tolerance. For example, all of the Z-figures featuring and Endurance Bus combined with well maintained batteries can make the loss of the battery relay no more than a maintenance event. The cost is higher, but SSRs have rated cycles of 100,000 to 500,000 cycles. This outlasts legacy mechanical relays by far. They haven=99t been proven for 50+ years, but if we don=99t start testing them, they will never be proven. I don=99t expect to put 100,000 cycles on my system, but if it works as advertised, I should never have to replace the relay. If that is the design goal, by all means. Suggest you verify that it's not just a battery isolation relay but truly capable of bidirectional conduction (charge and discharge). The relay heat sink has to be able to dissipate the heat that 300A of continuous usage would generate. I can=99t think of a situation where the battery would last long enough for heat to be an issue with this relay. If it is, the aluminum heat sink should be able to handle it. Living and operating the aircraft in Alaska will help with this as well. I can weigh it when I get home, but I do remember thinking that this is much lighter that I initially thought. I believe it is on par with other 12V master relays. Good . . . I am building a Bushcaddy L164 for off airport operations in Alaska. Wheeled or floats? One reason I would like to use the SSR master relay is to experiment with it and test it. I am interested to see if it is a viable option to replace the legacy relays. If so, failed relays may become a thing of the past. It may well be. Suggest you use it in conjunction with an architecture that includes a Plan-B that tolerates loss of battery contactor . . . contactors can fail to close for reasons other than failure of contactor itself. The reason for the installation of the remotely operated battery disconnect switch would be to stop a running battery in the unlikely event that the relay sticks and starter contacts weld together. Skytec has a webpage about this and has explained it. The gentleman in the article installed a starter run-on light modification that simply lights an LED when the starter is receiving power. This will tell you if the starter relay has stuck closed. The gentleman in the article has installed an Eaton starter relay. It should be noted that he has a 28V system. http://www.skytecair.com/Cessna_Solenoids.htm Quoting from the article: Why pick on Cessna? Can't this happen to any similarly configured aircraft? This absolutely could (and occasionally does) happen to any/all brands of aircraft. However, we see this occur far more often with Cessna aircraft because of the type (architecture) of relay Cessna specified for use as a starter contactor in production of their aircraft. The RBM/Stancore/Cole-Hersee 'beer barrel' contactors have often been cited for an elevated failure rate. But one mechanic I talked with some years ago admitted that numbers of Cessnas running through his shop were about as great as all the other brands combined. He wasn't sure that Cessna was experiencing a FAILURE RATE significantly higher than other brands. A data point he offered was the fact that poorly maintained batteries were the greatest threat to the health of any contactor . . . with the 'beer barrel' style being the most vulnerable. Tentative and or chattering closures when a soggy battery is loaded by the starter places all contactors a higher risk for sticking. Wrong Part - By Design? Observing the parts manual for most Cessna aircraft, you will note the same part number used to describe both the starter contactor as well as the master switch relay (master contactor). Really? I'll have to check on that tomorrow. I've got some work to do in the EMC lab at Cessna in the morning I'll get into a computer and dig through some service manuals. I recall writing about the DIFFERENCES between intermittent duty and continuous duty contactors for service as battery and starter control . . . but don't recall the specific models. I'll check the drawings. For instance, one of our customers, Willie Zeiger who flies a beautiful Cessna 185 out of Anchorage Alaska, notes in a letter to the factory, "Both relays are rated for continuous duty and are good for both the master relay and starter relay." However, the duty of each of these functions (starter contactor vs. master relay) are quite different and, as such, should (and in other makes of aircraft DO) require different types of relays. I cannot dispute anyone's observations for having found a battery contactor installed in place of a starter contactor but I'm skeptical that the parts catalog calls it out. The difference between them is well understood. Further, they're the same price to the OEM. Any notion that such a condition exists by design is suspect. I'll check. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2014
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
Since the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't want. Yahoo, Google and that elk are not "free". The user must constantly endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb to that. That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, air conditioning, maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc. I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year during the month of November where I simply send out a short email every other day asking the members to make a small contribution to support the operation. That being said, that contribution is completely voluntary and non-compulsory. Many members choose not to contribute and that's fine. However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way. Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these Lists? http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Right Side Stick Grip (1)
Date: Nov 21, 2014
11/21/2014 Hello Fellow Builders, I have decided that the right hand control stick in my KIS TR-1 EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) airplane is too short. One must almost reach down between one=99s legs in order to grip the stick handle. (I had previously extended the left side control stick to overcome this problem.) Since I am going to extend the stick I thought that I might as well put a better control stick handle on the top of the extension. This is where you come in -- I am seeking your advice on a good choice for a replacement control stick handle. Here are some of my thoughts / criteria: 1) Will be used only by the right hand so grip may be either right hand only shaped or generically shaped. 2) Will need radio transmit keying switch. 3) Will need pitch trim switch(es). 4) Desire aileron trim switch(es). 5) Do not need or want a whole bunch of other switches. This is not a HOTS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) only controlled airplane. 6) Grip material not significant. 7) If I turn out to really like this grip I may eventually also replace the left hand stick grip. 8) Cost is not a primary driver on selection. Thanks for your help. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Right Side Stick Grip (1)
Have a look at Tosten grips, made by CH products who make computer gamers products so very robust. This may meet your spec, http://tostenmanufacturing.com/product/cs-6-aircraft-grip/ I agree that stick tops with many switches are not that useful in recreational aircraft. Peter On 21/11/2014 20:17, Owen Baker wrote: > 11/21/2014 > Hello Fellow Builders, I have decided that the right hand control > stick in my KIS TR-1 EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) airplane is too > short. One must almost reach down between ones legs in order to grip > the stick handle. (I had previously extended the left side control > stick to overcome this problem.) > Since I am going to extend the stick I thought that I might as well > put a better control stick handle on the top of the extension. > This is where you come in -- I am seeking your advice on a good choice > for a replacement control stick handle. Here are some of my thoughts / > criteria: > 1) Will be used only by the right hand so grip may be either right > hand only shaped or generically shaped. > 2) Will need radio transmit keying switch. > 3) Will need pitch trim switch(es). > 4) Desire aileron trim switch(es). > 5) Do not need or want a whole bunch of other switches. This is not a > HOTS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) only controlled airplane. > 6) Grip material not significant. > 7) If I turn out to really like this grip I may eventually also > replace the left hand stick grip. > 8) Cost is not a primary driver on selection. > Thanks for your help. > OC > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2014
Subject: Re: Right Side Stick Grip (1)
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
This is an example of the sticks I use. http://www.customaircraftgrips.com / On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > Have a look at Tosten grips, made by CH products who make computer gamer s > products so very robust. > > This may meet your spec, > http://tostenmanufacturing.com/product/cs-6-aircraft-grip/ > > I agree that stick tops with many switches are not that useful in > recreational aircraft. > > Peter > > > On 21/11/2014 20:17, Owen Baker wrote: > > 11/21/2014 > > Hello Fellow Builders, I have decided that the right hand control stick i n > my KIS TR-1 EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) airplane is too short. One > must almost reach down between one=99s legs in order to grip the st ick > handle. (I had previously extended the left side control stick to overcom e > this problem.) > > Since I am going to extend the stick I thought that I might as well put a > better control stick handle on the top of the extension. > > This is where you come in -- I am seeking your advice on a good choice fo r > a replacement control stick handle. Here are some of my thoughts / criter ia: > > 1) Will be used only by the right hand so grip may be either right hand > only shaped or generically shaped. > > 2) Will need radio transmit keying switch. > > 3) Will need pitch trim switch(es). > > 4) Desire aileron trim switch(es). > > 5) Do not need or want a whole bunch of other switches. This is not a HOT S > (Hands On Throttle and Stick) only controlled airplane. > > 6) Grip material not significant. > > 7) If I turn out to really like this grip I may eventually also replace > the left hand stick grip. > > 8) Cost is not a primary driver on selection. > > Thanks for your help. > > OC > > > * > =========== m> ldersbooks.com> .com> com> om/contribution> =========== www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> =========== =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2014
Subject: compass interference...
From: Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com>
Greetings, Thought I would report some compass interference that wasn't expected but probably shouldn't have surprised me too much... I've just put in RAM brand mounts for both my cell phone and tablet (both running android) in my LongEz. My wet compass is mounted to my right on the longeron (pretty typical for a LongEz. While taking a quick flight today (bounded by impending sunset) I noticed my wet compass spinning! I was flying straight and level but my compass clearly disagreed. Turning off the tablet and phone stopped the spinning... Anyone seen this before? It's one thing to have the heading be offset but to be get the compass spinning was a new one for me. Dang. Steve Stearns LongEz N45FC Boulder/Longmont CO. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Right Side Stick Grip (1)
From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Nov 22, 2014
Let me apologize before I state my personal opinion as I am an ol' fart stick-in-the-mud. If you are going to put all of that junk into the control stick, make sure beforehand that you can control the airplane in a runaway trim condition - able to overpower and land the aircraft with trim set to full travel in each mode. Also make sure that the trim motors will not cause structural damage if left energized. Dinky miniature switches and flexing / rubbing wires have a nasty habit of doing the unexpected. The most likely failure mode is simply removal of power leaving you at your last trim setting, but runaway trim is certainly not unheard of. -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434340#434340 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2014
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps
I got a rare chance to get into the EMC lab yesterday for some 'government work' . . . I've had a couple of HID lamps laying around, one type that I used in my car for a time with mixed results. Got some nice data plots on the community of gremlins offered by these automotive after-market products. They were not as wicked as I might have guessed. Spending the day in Wichita yesterday poked a big hole in my to-do list . . . so follow up on this experiment is a few days out . . . but preliminary perceptions suggest that the OBAM builder wanting lots of light on a 3-4 amp power budget would not be doing himself a disservice by adding HID lamps into the list of options. Are there any List members flying HID out there now? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps
On 11/22/2014 10:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > I got a rare chance to get into the EMC lab yesterday > for some 'government work' . . . > > I've had a couple of HID lamps laying around, one type that > I used in my car for a time with mixed results. Got some > nice data plots on the community of gremlins offered > by these automotive after-market products. They were not > as wicked as I might have guessed. > > Spending the day in Wichita yesterday poked a big hole > in my to-do list . . . so follow up on this experiment > is a few days out . . . but preliminary perceptions > suggest that the OBAM builder wanting lots of light > on a 3-4 amp power budget would not be doing himself > a disservice by adding HID lamps into the list of > options. > > Are there any List members flying HID out there now? > Yes, I installed kits from Duckworks <http://www.duckworksav.com/lelightkits.html> in my RV10 wings. I bought them around 2007 and started using them in 2011. Each unit has a 55watts HID bulb but Duckworks has had upgrades of several kinds available for some time. I just installed them, liked the results over previous incandescents in a Maule, and forgot about them. They only used occasionally. They get bounced around a lot flying out of a rough field. No problems, good performance. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps
Date: Nov 22, 2014
We installed the very first Duckworks HID light kit sold for a Sportsman. We had to modify the kit and make our own lens since Duckworks had never sold a kit for a Sportsman so we were told. We installed the largest bulbs available, I think 75w. We've turned them on several times, but since we are still not flying don't know how they will work for takeoff and landing. They are really, really bright. However, since we have a super-loaded 3-screen panel with all sorts of other electrical goodies for our electrically dependent Subaru engine, we are thinking we should have waited much longer to install landing light and chosen LED so the current draw woud be much lower. One of my partners is worried that the Duckworks HIDs will give super light for take-off and landing, but maybe not for taxiing. We'll see. DeWitt Whittington dee.whittington(at)gmail.com (804) 358-4333 804-677-4849 C Richmond, VA USA On Nov 22, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > On 11/22/2014 10:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> I got a rare chance to get into the EMC lab yesterday >> for some 'government work' . . . >> >> I've had a couple of HID lamps laying around, one type that >> I used in my car for a time with mixed results. Got some >> nice data plots on the community of gremlins offered >> by these automotive after-market products. They were not >> as wicked as I might have guessed. >> >> Spending the day in Wichita yesterday poked a big hole >> in my to-do list . . . so follow up on this experiment >> is a few days out . . . but preliminary perceptions >> suggest that the OBAM builder wanting lots of light >> on a 3-4 amp power budget would not be doing himself >> a disservice by adding HID lamps into the list of >> options. >> >> Are there any List members flying HID out there now? >> > Yes, I installed kits from Duckworks in my RV10 wings. I bought them around 2007 and started using them in 2011. Each unit has a 55watts HID bulb but Duckworks has had upgrades of several kinds available for some time. I just installed them, liked the results over previous incandescents in a Maule, and forgot about them. They only used occasionally. They get bounced around a lot flying out of a rough field. No problems, good performance. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2014
From: "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Right Side Stick Grip (1)
Agreed. I have used these for over 5 years (~460 hours) in my RV-7A and I am very happy with them. On the right side, I only have the trigger for the copilot push to talk (CS2), so they can't get into too much trouble. Enjoy. Paul A. Fisher RV-7A N18PF On 11/21/2014 5:08 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote: > Have a look at Tosten grips, made by CH products who make computer > gamers products so very robust. > > This may meet your spec, > http://tostenmanufacturing.com/product/cs-6-aircraft-grip/ > ...snip... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ryan <ryansoutham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
Date: Nov 23, 2014
Thanks Bob=2C The whole system is reasonably low load although I do have an EFIS and engi ne sensors (approx. 600mA total)=2C Trig radio (approx. 3.2A) and transpond er (approx. 1.5A)=2C these are the only things running continuously. Also h ave starter and smoke pump (approx. 3-4A for 8-10min max)=2C no electric fu el pump (wobble only)=2C no lights. Battery is a Shorai LFX18A1-BS12 LiFe (18Ah Pb 270CCA equiv. supposedly). "As far as compliance with legacy notions of seeking 'Max Cold' conditions in the wiring with all switches OFF=2C you COULD use a battery master relay that did not carry starter current while locating the external starter con tactor adjacent to the battery too." This is how I was likely to do the wiring=2C I could just go for a reasonab ly low current relay as a master contactor in this situation given my relat ively low overall requirement. No MOV's then but will use starter contactor with diode close to battery? Cheers=2C Ryan Date: Tue=2C 18 Nov 2014 14:31:58 -0600 From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring schematic question =0A =0A At 03:41 2014-11-17=2C you wrote: =0A Hi Bob=2C =0A I have been in email discussion with Greg Jones at B&C about a few=0A things on my Pitts Special and he suggested you would be best to speak=0A with about the Aerobatic Aircraft wiring schematic on their website=2C it =0A was made mention that you drew it up. =0A Drawing number 420-506 =0A =0A http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_Indexed_Diagram_with_BOM.pdf =0A =0A http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/420-506_REVB.pdf =0A I had a couple of questions=2C hopefully you can assist a little. =0A =0A =0A My apologies=2C I didn't 'scope out the rest of the diagram.=0A No=2C that general architecture was not suggested by me but=0A the diagram does have some features borrowed from the z-figures=0A of that era. For one thing=2C the MOV's as transient suppressors=0A was NOT a good idea. We abandoned that recommendation in=0A the AeroElectic Connection . . . oh . . .I forget. But a long=0A time ago. =0A =0A =0A With an SD-8=2C one is indeed strapped for 'surplus energy'=0A so elimination of the battery contactor is a useful thing=0A from the energy management perspective. Do you KNOW what=0A your ship's running loads are? How big is your battery?=0A What kind of strobe system . . . and current draw? =0A =0A =0A As long as your battery is in good condition and fully=0A charged at engine start=2C the probability of a contactor=0A sticking is very low. It's the tentative closures when=0A a soggy battery is trying to grunt the starter that=0A gets you a stuck contactor. At the same time=2C the=0A modern intermittent duty starter contactors are much=0A more resistant to sticking under all conditions . . . again=0A assuming that you 'drive 'em hard' . . . 20AWG wire=0A to the 5A coil is a good idea. =0A =0A As far as compliance with legacy notions of seeking=0A 'Max Cold' conditions in the wiring with all switches=0A OFF=2C you COULD use a battery master relay that did not=0A carry starter current while locating the external=0A starter contactor adjacent to the battery too. =0A =0A =0A However=2C your risks are low using the diagram as published.=0A The only changes I would recommend are using diodes=0A across the contactor coils . . . and the starter=0A contactor that B*C sells already has one installed.=0A Ditch the MOVs. Does this cover 'the rest of the=0A story?'=0A =0A Bob . . . =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2014
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring schematic question
Why is a master contactor required - just use a switch? The only load that will be switch by the master switch is the engine monitor - that is


November 03, 2014 - November 23, 2014

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mo